WPC gZc%xhݡ z$ro Qd'=~#fŠj#;5'a8'l!oԹ'##MkRAwN]QtO9azzcҨY:6E..KrZ;5QYP|,\ZkR d*Cp`2|2B脚+{Jd)PsMPiph0vR/߯uFP HX|ɣ6_)ƣ 2Q {rY4frEYsW"5[̲>Bq+Vr}G[Y19ƻ]R~{YV22H{F#@&Utz`c ~,I$H~X8 bybS$s!$ÊGs k`'bwzTc%y 2-Tݲ E%7Ca'8b#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4   m   k 11NEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularUy.+s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptB+M%ZProgra3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2'$ !.8C5dXXd8         0  - d(|3P$ !.8C5dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3P$ !.8C5dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8C5dd8     _  C58 XXdd8  @ @$C5INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#C5@$ #Ԉ &   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSMAY24,2001 L X XC5 #C5XX #PAMELAJEAN_ANNESS_v.MICHAELMARIO_CHAPDELAINE_,SR.X XC5  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.20784;TheHonorableRuss_Heldman_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200001792_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember14,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X XXX ThisappealarisesfromtheAppelleesfilingofaPetitiontoChangeCustodyintheChanceryCourt x  ofWilliamsonCounty.Followingahearing,thetrialcourtenteredanOrdergrantingcustodyofthe d partiesminorchildrentotheAppellee.ThetrialcourtorderedtheAppellanttopaychildsupport P intheamountof$1,480.00permonth.TheAppellantappealstheamountofchildsupportsetby < thetrialcourt.Forthereasonsstatedherein,weaffirminpart,reverseinpart,andremandthetrial (x courtsdecision.#X XXX ?##C5XX #X XC5 d 3 Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart, < ReversedinPartandRemanded  (   #C5X #X X.C5AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly  KirbyLillard,J.,joined.  P.Edward_Schell_,Franklin,TN,forAppellant t JuliaE._Stovall_,Franklin,TN,forAppellee L    OPINION #C5XX 7 #X XC5 $"t! #C5XX  #X XC5  X XXX @I.FactsandProceduralHistory  #L#   TheAppellant,MichaelMario_Chapdelaine_,Sr.( Mr._Chapdelaine_),andtheAppellee, %$!% PamelaJean_Anness_Ԁ( Ms._Anness_)weredivorcedin1993.OnOctober3,1996,Mr._Chapdelaine_ &"& wasawardedcustodyofthepartieschildren,andMs._Anness_Ԁwasawardedvisitationwiththe '"' children.OnMarch14,2000,Ms._Anness_ԀfiledaPetitiontoModifyCustodyofthepartiesthree (#( minorchildrenintheChanceryCourtofWilliamsonCounty. )$)   ThehearingonthePetitionwasheldonApril26,2000.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthathe \+&+ wasemployedasatruckdriverandwastheownerandpublisherofalocalphonedirectory.Mr. H,', _Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthathis1999federalincometaxreturnreflectedthathisincomefrombothjobs 4-(- was$25,385.00.Oncrossexamination,Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthathedidnotearn$900.00per  weektruckdriving.Rather,Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthathistruckdrivingincomevariedbythe  week.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthat oneweekIgotaroundfourhundredandsomethingdollars,  andthentheotheronewasaround$510.00,anotheroneisninehundredandsomethingdollars. t Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthat,thoughhewasemployedasatruckdriver,hewasnotworkingasa ` truckdriverbecausehewasworkingonthephonedirectory.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthatevery L  yearheworkedforthreeorfourmonthsonthephonedirectoryanddidnotworkasatruckdriver. 8    Followingthehearing,thetrialcourtfoundthatasubstantialandmaterialchangeof  ` circumstanceshadoccurredbutdeclinedtoconductacomparativefitnessanalysis.Thetrialcourt  L  appointedaGuardianadLitemtoconductaninvestigationandofferevidencetothetrialcourt.The  8  hearingreconvenedonMay22,2000atwhichtimetheGuardianadLitempresentedherfindings $  tothetrialcourt.Followingthehearing,thetrialcourtorderedthepartiestofilewrittenproposals   forchildsupportofthethreeminorchildren.     BothMs._Anness_ԀandMr._Chapdelaine_ԀsubmittedproposalsforchildsupportintheeventMs.   _Anness_Ԁreceivedcustodyofthechildren.Ms._Anness_ԀproposedthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁpay$1,480.00 p permonthinchildsupport.Ms._Anness_Ԁbasedthisamountonanincomeof$900.00perweektruck \ drivingand$1,107.84permonthforthephonedirectory.Ms._Anness_Ԁclaimedthat,followingthe H hearing,Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁquithistruckdrivingjobsothathewouldnothavetopaychildsupport 4 onthatincome.Ms._Anness_ԀarguedthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁwaswillfullyunemployedsothatthetrial  p courtshouldsetchildsupportbasedonhisabilitytoearnasatruckdriver.Mr._Chapdelaine_  \ proposedthathepay$343.00permonthinchildsupport.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁbasedthisamounton H hisearningsfromthephonedirectory.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁstatedthathewasnolongertruckdriving 4 andhadnointentionoftruckdrivingunlesshecouldbeguaranteedalocalroute.Mr._Chapdelaine_   claimedthathewasnotwillfullyunemployed.     OnJune19,2000,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderwhichprovidedthatcustodyofthechildren  beawardedtoMs._Anness_ԀandvisitationofthechildrenbeawardedtoMr._Chapdelaine_.Thetrial  courtorderedMr._Chapdelaine_ԀtopayMs._Anness_Ԁ$1,480.00permonthinchildsupportin l accordancewiththeTennesseeChildSupportGuidelines.ThetrialcourtbasedthisamountonMr. X  _Chapdelaine_sabilitytoearn$900.00perweekasatruckdriverandhisearningsfromphonebook D! publishingof$1,107.84permonth.ThetrialcourtacknowledgedtestimonyatthehearingthatMr. 0"  _Chapdelaine_ԀwasnolongerdrivingatruckbutfoundthatMr._Chapdelaine_sabilitytoearnhadnot #l! diminished.ThetrialcourtstatedthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁwaswillfullyandvoluntarily $X" underemployed.Thisappealfollowed. $D # @ II.StandardofReview  &"%   Thestandardofreviewforanon-jurycaseisdenovoupontherecord.SeeWrightv.City (#' ofKnoxville,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thereisapresumptionofcorrectnessastothe )$(  trialcourtsfactualfindings,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.SeeTenn.R. |*%) App.P.13(d).Forissuesoflaw,thestandardofreviewisdenovo,withnopresumptionof  correctness.See_Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).   @00@@00 III.LawandAnalysis  t   Thefollowingtwoissuesarepresentedforourreview:(1)whetherthetrialcourtincorrectly L  determinedtheamountofMr._Chapdelaine_schildsupportobligation;and(2)whetherMs._Anness_ 8  isentitledtoanawardofattorneysfeesonappeal.Wewillexamineeachoftheseissuesinturn. $ t    Thefirstissuepresentedforourreviewiswhetherthetrialcourtincorrectlydeterminedthe  L  amountofMr._Chapdelaine_schildsupportobligation.ThetrialcourtfoundthatMr._Chapdelaine_  8  waswillfullyandvoluntarilyunderemployed.ThetrialcourtorderedMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtopay $  $1,480.00permonthinchildsupportbasedonhisabilitytoearn$900.00perweekasatruckdriver   andhisearningsfromphonebookpublishingof$1,107.84permonth.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁarguesthat   theevidencepresentedatthehearingpreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthathehadthe   abilitytoearn$900.00perweekasatruckdriver.Mr._Chapdelaine_ԀrequeststhisCourttoestablish   childsupportbasedonhisincomeof$25,389.00asreflectedonhis1999federalincometaxreturn. p   Indeterminingchildsupport,courtsmustapplyasa_rebuttable_Ԁpresumptionthechildsupport H guidelinespromulgatedbytheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. 4 365101(e)(1)(1996).Underthechildsupportguidelines,theamountofchildsupportis  p calculatedbasedonapercentageofthe_obligor_snetincome.SeeTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.ch.  \ 124024.03(1994).Incertaincases,however,thecourtmustcomputechildsupportbasedona H percentageofthe_obligor_spotentialincomeratherthannetincome.SeeBrooksv.Brooks,992 4 S.W.2d403,407(Tenn.1999). Ifan_obligor_Ԁiswillfullyandvoluntarilyunemployedor   underemployed,childsupportshallbecalculatedbasedonadeterminationofpotentialincome,as   evidencedbyeducationalleveland/orpreviousworkexperience.Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.ch.  124024.03(d).    Inorderforthetrialcourttocomputechildsupportbasedonthe_obligor_spotentialincome, l thecourtmustmakeathresholdfindingthatthe_obligor_Ԁwaswillfullyandvoluntarilyunemployed X  orunderemployed.SeeMarcusv.Marcus,No.02A019611CV00286,1998WL29645,at*3 D! (Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.28,1998).Theremaybeanimplicitfindingofwillfulandvoluntary 0"  unemploymentorunderemploymentonthebasisofthetrialcourtsultimatedecision.SeeRalston #l! v.Ralston,No.01A019804CV00222,1999WL562719,at*7n.7(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.3,1999) $X" (citing_Hyden_Ԁv._Hyden_,No.02A019611CH00273,1997WL593800,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept. $D # 25,1997)). %0!$   Thedeterminationofwhetheran_obligor_Ԁiswillfullyandvoluntarilyunemployedor '#& underemployedisdependentuponthefactualbackgroundofthecase.Seeid.at*3.Willfuland (#' voluntaryunemploymentorunderemploymentdoesnotoccursolelyincaseswherethe_obligor_ )$( becomesunemployedorunderemployedwiththeintenttoavoidchildsupportobligations.See |*%) _Garfinkel_Ԁv._Garfinkel_,945S.W.2d744,748(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)(citingFordv.Ford,No.02A01 h+&* 9507CH00153,1996WL560258,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.3,1996)).Casesdifferastowhether  an_obligor_Ԁiswillfullyandvoluntarilyunemployedorunderemployed.SeeBrooksv.Brooks,992  S.W.2d403,407(Tenn.1999)(findingthatan_obligor_Ԁwhosoldhissuccessfulbusinessandbegan  acattlebreedingoperationwaswillfullyandvoluntarilyunderemployed);Marcusv.Marcus,No. t 02A019611CV00286,1998WL29645,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.28,1998)(findingthatan ` _obligor_Ԁwhowasterminatedfromhisjobandstartedaninternetbusinesswasnotwillfullyand L  voluntarilyunderemployed);_Garfinkel_,945S.W.2dat748(findingthatan_obligor_Ԁwhoquithisjob 8  inphysicstoliveoffincomefromrentalpropertieswaswillfullyandvoluntarilyunderemployed). $ t   Inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourtmadeaninitialdeterminationthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁwas  L  willfullyandvoluntarilyunderemployed.Weagree.In1999,Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁearned$25,385.00  8  asbothatruckdriverandownerandpublisherofaphonedirectory.TherecordrevealsthatMr. $  _Chapdelaine_ԀquithisjobasatruckdriverfollowingtheApril,2000hearing.Mr._Chapdelaine_ssole   incomecomesfromthephonedirectoryatwhichhemadeapproximately$13,000.00in1999.   AlthoughMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁisdisinclinedtoworkasatruckdriver,weagreewiththetrialcourts   findingthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁpossessestheabilitytoearnanincomeasatruckdriver.Mr.   _Chapdelaine_Ԁshouldnotbeallowedtolessenhischildsupportobligationsimplybecausehechooses p tonolongerworkasatruckdriver.Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatMr. \ _Chapdelaine_Ԁwaswillfullyandvoluntarilyunderemployed. H   BasedonMr._Chapdelaine_sstatusaswillfullyandvoluntarilyunderemployed,thetrialcourt  p setMr._Chapdelaine_schildsupportobligationat$1,480.00permonth.Thetrialcourtbasedthis  \ amountonMr._Chapdelaine_sabilitytoearn$900.00perweekasatruckdriverandhisearnings H fromphonebookpublishingof$1,107.84permonth.Weagreewiththetrialcourtsfindingthat 4 Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁearned$1,107.84permonthfromphonebookpublishing.Wedisagree,however,   withthetrialcourtsfindingthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁhadtheabilitytoearn$900.00perweekasatruck   driver.ThechildsupportsetbythetrialcourtimpliesthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁhadtheabilitytoearn  $46,800.00peryear,or$900.00perweek,asatruckdriver.Wefindnoevidenceofthisinthe  record.Mr._Chapdelaine_s1999federalincometaxreturnreflectedanincomeofapproximately  $12,000.00fromtruckdriving.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthatattimeshehadmade$400.00per l week,$500.00perweek,or$900.00perweek.Mr._Chapdelaine_Ԁtestifiedthathedidnotconsistently X  make$900.00perweekasatruckdriver.WefindthatMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁdoesnothavetheability D! toearn$900.00perweek.Accordingly,wereversethetrialcourtsdeterminationoftheamountof 0"  childsupporttobepaidbyMr._Chapdelaine_Ԁandremandforadeterminationofchildsupportbased #l! onMr._Chapdelaine_snetincome. $X"    ThesecondissuepresentedforourreviewiswhetherMs._Anness_Ԁisentitledtoanawardof %0!$ attorneysfeesonappeal.Ms._Anness_ԀrequeststhisCourttoawardherattorneysfeesnecessitated &"% bythisappeal.Insupportofherrequest,Ms._Anness_Ԁcitessection365103(c)oftheTennessee '#& Code.Section365103(c)permitsapersontowhomcustodyisawardedtorecoverhisorher (#' attorneysfees incurredinenforcinganydecreeforalimonyand/orchildsupport,orinregardto )$( anysuitoractionconcerningtheadjudicationofthecustodyorthechangeofcustodyofanychild, |*%) orchildren,oftheparties,bothupontheoriginaldivorcehearingandatanysubsequenthearing. h+&* Tenn.CodeAnn.365103(c)(Supp.1999).Thedecisiontoawardattorneysfeesiswithinthe  discretionofthecourt.Seeid.WerespectfullydenyMs._Anness_requestforattorneysfeeson  appeal.     ` @SS# IV.Conclusion  `   Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinpartandreversedin 8  part.ThiscaseisremandedforadeterminationofchildsupportbasedonMr._Chapdelaine_snet $ t income.CostsofthisappealaretaxedequallybetweentheAppellant,MichaelMario_Chapdelaine_,  ` Sr.,andtheAppellee,PamelaJean_Anness_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#X XXX ##C5XX m #X XC5  L     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE