ÿWPC6! …# VUNa %¯ 0˜µU<M w@‰ 4É Ý ì 0Üô 0DÐ 0J 0T^ 0^² 0h 0rx 0|ê 0†f 0ì 1u| 0dñU>UB)“DC¼ AMÿU*LŽv“ B— D3´çv~ 0@~vÓ¾ AO‘Æà 0D¦ D/ê B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(püƒ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman UEUUîÓ€'z!â3|x'(Œ(3qd$¤¤Ý ƒüƒ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ5,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€Mother€testified€that€her€income€is€$1,387.00€per€pay€period,€and€thatÏthere€are€24€pay€periods€in€a€year.€€Ì d))))'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€The€Guidelines€establish€percentages€based€on€the€number€of€children.€ÏChild€support€for€2€children€requires€32%€of€net€income€.€€The€approximateÏamount€of€child€support€was€calculated€by€multiplying€Motherððs€approximateÏnet€income€by€32%.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€51XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òHELEN€BOND€SCOFIELD,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDyer€EquityÏNo.€93„513ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï02A01„9512„CH„00276ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%'$;+'h| ²` à. `€€LßÌò òSTEPHEN€DAVID€SCOFIELD,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellant.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€ATÏDYERSBURGÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOE€G.€RILEY,ÏJR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àL.€L.€Harrell,€Jr.,€Harrell€&€Harrell€ofÏTrentonÌà@ àFor€Plaintiff„AppelleeÌÌà@ àMarianna€Williams,€Ashley,€Ashley€&ÏArnold€of€DyersburgÌà@ àFor€Defendant„AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌÓÓ›€à àThis€case€involves€a€petition€for€increase€of€child€support.€€Petitioner,ÏStephen€David€Scofield€(Father),€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€hisÏpetition€to€modify€the€partiesðð€final€decree€of€divorce€to€increase€child€supportÏpayments€by€Respondent,€Helen€Bond€Scofield€(Mother).Ìà àThe€parties€were€divorced€by€final€decree€entered€April€21,€1994.€€TheyÏentered€into€a€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€(MDA)€which€was€approved€andÍratified€by€the€trial€court€in€the€final€decree€of€divorce.€€The€parties€have€twoÏchildren,€a€boy€age€10,€and€a€girl,€age€7.€€Pursuant€to€the€MDA,€the€trial€courtÏawarded€joint€custody€to€the€parties.€€The€MDA€provided€that€Father€would€beÏthe€custodial€parent,€and€Mother€would€have€visitation€rights.€€The€MDA€alsoÏprovided€that€Mother€would€pay€Father€$250.00€per€month€in€child€support.Ìà àFather€filed€a€petition€to€increase€child€support€on€February€1,€1995.€ÏThe€petition€alleges€that€circumstances€have€materially€changed€becauseÏFatherððs€income€has€been€reduced€by€more€than€15%€and€because€MotherððsÏincome€has€increased€materially.€€Father€also€avers€that€Mother€is€not€providingÏadequate€support€and€that€present€circumstances€do€not€justify€a€deviationÏfrom€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€Father€seeks€to€increase€Motherððs€childÏsupport€payments€to€an€amount€that€is€in€compliance€with€the€Child€SupportÏGuidelines€promulgated€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Human€Services.€ÏTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€tit.€10,€ch.€1240„2„4„.01€òòet€seq.€óó(1989,€revised€1994)Ï(Guidelines).Ìà àIn€her€Answer€and€Counter„Petition,€Mother€avers€that€there€has€notÏbeen€a€material€change€in€circumstances€and€that€Fatherððs€income€was€reducedÏby€his€voluntary€actions.€€She€also€alleges€that,€pursuant€to€the€MDA,€FatherÍowes€her€$10,000.00.€€Mother€later€filed€a€Supplemental€Counter„Petition€thatÏalleges€that€there€has€been€a€material€change€in€circumstances,€and€that€sheÏshould€now€be€designated€as€the€custodial€parent.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€petition€on€May€26,€1995.€€TheÏpertinent€facts€developed€at€this€hearing€and€from€the€technical€record€are€asÏfollows.€€Father€was€employed€as€an€attorney€by€a€law€firm.€€In€1994,€at€theÏtime€of€the€divorce,€his€income€was€$60,030.00€per€year.€€However,€hisÏcompensation€package€with€the€law€firm€changed€and€he€became€dissatisfied.€ÏIn€February€of€1995,€Father€voluntarily€left€the€law€firm€and€now€practices€lawÏin€a€shared€office€with€another€attorney.€€He€made€$5,769.24€in€early€1995Ïbefore€leaving€the€firm.€€At€the€hearing,€Father€testified€that€he€was€onlyÏmaking€approximately€$1,000.00€per€month,€but€that€he€expected€it€to€rise€toÏ$1,300.00€per€month.€€Father€testified€that€the€standard€of€living€of€theÏchildren€has€not€changed€since€he€left€the€law€firm,€and€that€he€adequatelyÏprovides€and€cares€for€them.€€€€€€€Ìà àMother€is€employed€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€In€1994,€at€the€time€ofÏthe€divorce,€her€income€was€$33,262.00€per€year.€€She€received€a€raise€and,€atÏthe€time€of€the€hearing,€was€making€$107.00€more€per€month.€€Mother€testifiedÍthat€she€bought€all€of€the€childrenððs€clothing€with€the€exception€of€some€jeans,Ïthat€she€paid€for€most€of€the€childrenððs€haircuts,€and€that€she€takes€the€childrenÏon€vacations€and€trips.€€In€addition,€she€testified€that€she€regularly€exercises€herÏvisitation€rights.Ìà àThe€parties€reached€an€agreement€concerning€the€$10,000.00€debt€owedÏby€Father€to€Mother,€and€the€trial€court€ruled€that€custody€should€not€change.€ÏThe€only€issue€that€remained€for€the€trial€court€was€the€petition€for€an€increaseÏin€child€support.€€The€trial€court€held€that€child€support€should€not€beÏincreased.€€In€a€Memorandum€Opinion€filed€May€30,€1995,€the€trial€courtÏstated€that€circumstances€had€not€changed€except€for€Fatherððs€voluntary€careerÏmove,€and€that€it€was€not€appropriate€to€increase€Motherððs€child€supportÏobligation€because€of€Fatherððs€voluntary€withdrawal€from€the€law€firm.€€Further,Ïthe€trial€court€found€that€Motherððs€salary€increase€of€approximately€3.7%€wasÏnot€significant€enough€to€justify€an€increase€in€child€support.€€The€trial€courtÏalso€found€that€there€was€more€than€a€15%€variance€between€the€requirementsÏof€the€Guidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currently€ordered.€€However,€theÏtrial€court€stated€that€the€variance€resulted€from€a€previously€ordered€deviationÏfrom€the€Guidelines.€€The€court€found€that€the€parties€agreed€to€the€originalÍdeviation€although€the€final€decree€of€divorce€did€not€expressly€provide€for€it.€€€€€Ìà àFather€perfected€this€appeal€and€presents€only€one€issue€for€our€review:ÌWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€denial€of€his€petition€for€an€increase€inÏchild€support.Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€reviewÏthe€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€Ìà àChild€support€in€Tennessee€is€statutorily€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101Ï(1996).€€Section€36„5„101(e)(1)€provides€that€"[i]n€making€its€determinationÏconcerning€the€amount€of€support€of€any€minor€child€.€.€.€of€the€parties,€theÏcourt€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttable€presumption€the€child€support€guidelines€asÏprovided€in€this€subsection."€€Modification€of€an€existing€child€support€order€isÏcontrolled€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(1996),€which€states,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€cases€involving€child€support,€upon€application€ofÏeither€party,€the€court€shall€decree€an€increase€orÏdecrease€of€such€allowance€when€there€is€found€to€be€aÏòòsignificant€varianceóó,€as€defined€in€the€child€supportÏguidelines€established€by€subsection€(e),€between€theÏguidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currentlyÏordered€unless€the€variance€has€resulted€from€aÏpreviously€court„ordered€deviation€from€the€guidelinesÍand€the€circumstances€which€caused€the€deviationÏhave€not€changed.€€ÓÓ(emphasis€added).€Ìà àFather€argues€that€there€has€been€a€material€change€of€circumstances€dueÏto€a€decrease€in€his€income.€€This€argument€is€without€merit,€because€theÏð ðsubstantial€and€material€change€of€circumstancesðð€test€is€no€longer€the€properÏstandard€for€determining€whether€an€existing€child€support€order€should€beÏmodified.€€òòò òTurner€v.€Turneró óóó,€919€S.W.2d€340,€343€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€In€1994,Ïthe€General€Assembly€amended€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)(1991)€thereby€replacingÏthe€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€change€of€circumstancesðð€test€with€theÏð ðsignificant€varianceðð€test.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)(1994)€(amending€T.C.A.€ððÏ36„5„101(a)(1)(1991));€see€òòò òTurneró óóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€343€(discussing€theÏamendment).€Ìà àFather€next€argues€that€there€is€a€significant€variance€between€theÏrequirements€of€the€Guidelines€and€the€amount€currently€ordered,€and€thatÏthere€has€been€no€specific€court€ordered€deviation€from€the€Guidelines€and€noÏwritten€findings€justifying€deviation€as€required€by€T.C.A€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).Ìà àCurrently,€in€Tennessee€a€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€is€15%.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Comp.ÏR.€&€Regs.€tit.€10,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3);€ò òòòTurneró óóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€343.€€In€the€caseÍòòsub€judiceóó,€the€record€shows€that€Motherððs€gross€income€is€$2,774.00€per€month.× ƒ( ××  ×€ÏThe€Guidelines€require€that€the€court€order€child€support€based€upon€theÏappropriate€percentage€of€all€òònetóó€income.€€The€record€does€not€clearly€indicateÏthe€amount€of€Motherððs€net€income.€€From€her€pay€stubs,€the€net€pay€appearsÏto€be€approximately€$1,772.00€per€month.€€The€appropriate€percentage€in€thisÏcase€is€32%,€mandating€child€support€in€the€amount€of€approximately€$567.00.× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÏAlthough€we€cannot€compute€the€exact€numbers,€we€believe€that€the€differenceÏbetween€what€Mother€was€ordered€to€pay€and€the€amount€required€by€theÏGuidelines€will€still€exceed€15%€using€her€net€income,€and€therefore,€is€aÏsignificant€variance.€€Ìà àWhen€a€significant€variance€exists,€the€court€must€set€support€inÏaccordance€with€the€Guidelines€unless€application€of€the€Guidelines€would€beÏð ðunjust€or€inappropriateðð€in€the€case.€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€(1996).€€If€theÏtrial€court€finds€that€application€of€the€Guidelines€would€be€unjust€orÍinappropriate€based€upon€the€best€interest€of€the€children€or€the€ð ðequityÏbetween€the€parties,ðð€the€court€must€make€such€a€finding€in€writing€and€suchÏwriting€shall€ð ðstate€the€amount€of€support€that€would€have€been€ordered€underÏthe€child€support€guidelines€and€a€justification€for€the€variance€from€theÏguidelines.ðð€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)€(1996)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€making€its€determination€concerning€the€amountÏof€support€of€any€minor€child€or€children€of€theÏparties,€the€court€shall€apply€as€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€the€child€support€guidelines€as€providedÏin€this€subsection.€€If€the€court€finds€that€evidence€isÏsufficient€to€rebut€this€presumption,€the€court€shallÏmake€a€written€finding€that€the€application€of€theÏchild€support€guidelines€would€be€unjust€orÏinappropriate€in€that€particular€case,€in€order€toÏprovide€for€the€best€interest€of€the€child(ren)€or€theÏequity€between€the€parties.€€Findings€that€theÏapplication€of€the€guidelines€would€be€unjust€orÏinappropriate€shall€state€the€amount€of€support€thatÏwould€have€been€ordered€under€the€child€supportÏguidelines€and€a€justification€for€the€variance€from€theÏguidelines.€€ÓÓÌà àThe€statute€also€allows€for€the€parties€to€reach€an€agreement€concerningÏthe€amount€of€child€support.€€The€statute€does€not€require€that€the€partiesððÏprovisions€for€support€meet€the€Guidelines€in€a€MDA,€as€long€as€adequateÏprovision€is€made€for€the€children.€€Mother€argues€that€the€MDA€is€a€result€of€aÏnegotiated€settlement€between€the€parties€where€Father€agreed€to€accept€aÍlower€amount€of€child€support.€€However,€for€the€agreement€to€be€effective,€theÏparties€must€adhere€to€the€statute.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(h)€(1996)€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àNothing€in€this€section€shall€be€construed€to€preventÏthe€affirmation,€ratification€and€incorporation€in€aÏdecree€of€an€agreement€between€the€parties€as€to€Ïsupport€and€maintenance€of€a€party€or€as€to€childÏsupport.€€In€any€such€agreement,€the€parties€mustÏòòaffirmatively€acknowledgeóó€that€no€action€by€the€partiesÏwill€be€effective€to€reduce€child€support€after€the€dueÏdate€of€each€payment,€and€that€they€understand€thatÏcourt€approval€must€be€obtained€before€child€supportÏcan€be€reduced,€unless€such€payments€areÏautomatically€reduced€or€terminated€under€the€termsÏof€the€agreement.€€(emphasis€added.)ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€instant€case,€neither€the€partiesðð€MDA€nor€the€final€decree€ofÏdivorce€use€the€language€contained€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(h),€as€that€statuteÏrequires.€€Thus,€the€agreement€does€not€effectively€deviate€from€the€GuidelinesÏunder€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(h).€€Therefore,€the€deviation€requires€that€the€trialÏcourt€make€a€written€finding€that€the€application€of€the€Guidelines€wouldÏcreate€an€unjust€or€inappropriate€result.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1);€ò òòòMalone€v.ÏMaloneó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€621,€624„25€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€€No€such€finding€wasÏmade€at€the€time€the€final€decree€of€divorce€was€entered.€€The€trial€court€foundÏthat€neither€the€MDA€nor€the€final€decree€of€divorce€provided€for€the€deviationÏfrom€the€Guidelines,€but€stated€that€it€was€apparent€that€the€parties€agreedÍupon€the€deviation€in€light€of€all€the€facts€and€circumstances.€€However,€theÏGeneral€Assembly€made€express€requirements€for€an€agreement€to€be€valid.€ÏT.C.A.€€ðð€36„5„101€(h)(1996).€€If€there€is€no€agreement,€the€court€is€required€toÏmake€a€written€findings,€and€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€written€findings€thatÏcompliance€with€the€Guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate.€€€Ìà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€reverse€the€order€of€the€trial€court€andÏremand€this€case.€€Upon€remand,€the€trial€court€shall€conduct€an€expedited€Ïhearing€to€determine€Motherððs€net€income€and€to€modify€the€partiesðð€finalÏdecree€of€divorce€to€comply€with€the€Guidelines,€or€make€a€written€explanationÏfor€its€deviation.€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1).€€All€provisions€for€child€supportÏcurrently€in€effect€shall€remain€in€effect€until€the€entry€of€another€supportÏorder.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€Respondent.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óœÔ€Ô