ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð AM3U*€äªv~ŽvÓ  Bß D3ü 0@/ AOoƾ 0D„ D/È B÷˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ggvdEDÓ€(DÒ ((3|x(2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌSeptember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÑ7€ueXXdìdÈ7Ñà@ àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌFRANCES€PEARL€BELL,€€€€€à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,€ò òà àà àà à)à àó óHumphreys€Equity€No.€19„492€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDANNY€RAY€BELL,€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9511„CH„00493ò òÌÙ€€ÙßL€!;+'h|Vo` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àò òà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OFÏHUMPHREYS€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€WAVERLY,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ALLEN€W.€WALLACE,€CHANCELLORÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌTerry€J.€Leonard€à àà àà àà àP.€Edward€SchellÌCamden,€Tennessee€à àà àà àà àFranklin,€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ueXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó ó›Ìà àThis€case€involves€a€petition€for€modification€of€a€child€support€order.€€Danny€Ray€BellÏ(Husband)€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€to€receive€credit€against€child€supportÏarrearages€owed€to€Frances€Pearl€Bell€(Wife)€for€support€payments€made€after€his€eldest€childÏreached€the€age€of€majority.€€We€affirm.Ìà àœThe€parties›€were€granted€a€divorce€decree€on€March€30,€1988.€€The€decree€ordered€theÏHusband€to€pay€$400€per€month€as€child€support€for€the€coupleððs€three€minor€children.€€OnÏDecember€5,€1990,€the€coupleððs€œoldest›€child,€Danny€Gene€Bell,€attained€the€age€of€majority.€ÏHusband€continued€to€make€support€payments€of€$400€per€œmonth.›€€On€November€14,€1994,ÏHusband€filed€a€petition€œrequesting›€that€he€œreceive€credit›€against€any€existing€child€supportÏarrearages€for€payments€made€after€his€œoldest›€child€reached€the€age€of€majority.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Husband€was€$4,482€in€arrears€but€denied€Husbandððs€petition€forÏcredit.€€The€trial€court€agreed€that,€had€Husband€overpaid€child€support,€he€would€be€entitled€toÏreceived€a€credit€against€his€arrearages;€however,€the€trial€œcourt›€determined€that€there€were€noÏoverpayments.€€The€trial€court€considered€Husbandððs€average€income€from€1991„94€and€foundÏthat,€according€to€the€Child€Support€Guidelines,€Husband€should€have€been€making€child€supportÏpayments€in€the€amount€of€$453€per€month€for€the€two€remaining€minor€children.€€Treating€theÏcase€as€if€Wife€had€filed€a€petition€to€increase€the€child€support€order€at€the€time€her€oldest€childÏattained€the€age€of€majority,€the€trial€court€reasoned€that€there€were€no€overpayments€to€creditÏagainst€Husbandððs€œarrearages.€€The€trial€court€did€not€retroactively€modify€the€child€supportÏobligations€and›€denied€Husbandððs€petition.Ìà àHusband€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€to€credit€a€portion€of€the€childÏsupport€payments€against€his€arrearages.€€This€Courtððs€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€isÏò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ìà àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€prorate€the€child€support€and€toÏcredit€the€amounts€allegedly€overpaid€against€his€arrearages.€€He€œasserts›€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.Í36„5„101(a)(1)€authorized€the€automatic€proration€of€child€support€payments€when€one€childÏreaches€the€age€of€majority.€€Thus,€Husband€argues€that€the€Chancellor€should€have€prorated€theÏoriginal€support€order€at€$133€per€month€per€child,€so€that€when€œthe€oldest›€child€attained€majorityÏhis€total€child€support€obligation€automatically€became€$266€per€month.€€As€a€result,€HusbandÏcontends€that€he€overpaid€$133€per€month€after€his€oldest€child€reached€eighteen,€and€that€thisÏoverpayment€should€have€been€applied€against€his€œarrearages.›€€Ìà àHusband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€treating€the€case€as€if€Wife€had€filed€a€petition€toÏincrease€child€œsupport,›€when€she€filed€no€such€petition.€€He€contends€that€the€ChancellorððsÏdetermination€that€the€support€payments€under€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€should€have€beenÏ$453€instead€of€œ$400,€and€the€refusal€to€prorate€the€$400,›€amounted€to€an€impermissible€retroactiveÏmodification€of€a€child€support€order€in€contravention€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€36„5„101(a).Ìà àHusband€œmaintains›€that€ò òòòShupe€v.€Shupeó óóó,€No.€118,€1991€WL€16249€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.Ï12,€1991),€is€controlling.€€In€ò òòòShupeó óóó,€this€Court€addressed€whether€a€parentððs€obligation€to€payÏchild€support€ended€once€the€child€reached€the€age€of€majority€when€the€parent€filed€to€obtain€aÏcourt€order€to€modify€the€original€support€œorder.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€*1.›€€At€the€time€of€the€partiesðð€divorce,€anÏorder€was€entered€providing€for€child€support€œpayments›€of€œ€ð ð$200.00›€per€child,ðð€totaling€$400.00Ïper€month€for€the€partiesðð€two€œchildren.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óThe›€father€unilaterally€reduced€the€child€supportÏpayments€from€$400€per€month€to€$200€per€month€when€one€of€his€two€daughters€reached€the€ageÏof€eighteen,€and€the€trial€court€found€that€the€father€was€therefore€in€œarrears.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óOn›€appeal,€thisÏCourt€noted€that€a€parentððs€legal€duty€to€support€a€child€ends€when€the€child€reaches€œmajority.€€ò òòòId.€Ïóóó óThe›€trial€judge€had€originally€ruled€that€the€younger€child€was€œentitled›€œto€only›€$200€per€œmonth,›€andÏthere€was€no€finding€that€the€needs€of€the€younger€child€required€support€above€$200€per€œmonth.€Ïò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*2.€€Therefore,›€the€father€was€œobligated›€to€pay€œonly€$200›€per€month€per€œchild›€and€was€not€inÏœarrears.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó›€Ìà àIn€this€case,€unlike€ò òòòShupeó óóó,€there€was€no€determination€that€each€child€was€entitled€to€aÏgiven€amount€per€month;€rather,€the€total€support€for€the€three€children€was€$400€per€œmonth.›€€As€inÍò òòòClinard€v.€Clinardó óóó,€No.€œ01„S„01„9502„CV00021,›€1995€WL€563858€(Tenn.€œSept.€25,›€1995),Ïhad€the€trial€court€applied€proration€in€this€œcase,›€it€would€not€be€deemed€a€œprohibited€retroactive›Ïmodification€of€the€child€support€obligation.€€However,€as€established€in€ò òòòRutledge€v.€Barrettó óóó,Ï802€S.W.2d€604€(Tenn.€1991),€the€trial€court€is€not€ò òòòobligatedó óóó€to€apply€proration€whereÏcircumstances€justify€the€original€total€amount€of€support€for€the€remaining€minor€children.Ìà àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€looked€at€Husbandððs€income€during€the€time€period€in€questionÏand€then€consulted€the€Child€Support€Guidelines.€€It€noted€that,€had€Wife€petitioned€the€Court€atÏthe€time,€Husband€likely€would€have€been€required€to€pay€child€support€in€excess€of€$400€perÏmonth€for€the€remaining€minor€children.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€trial€court€declined€toÏapply€proration€to€the€child€support€payments€made.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision.Ìà àAffirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÏnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïò òóóà àà àà àà àà àà àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óà à