WPC  oـN=bG~_ ^h0A+𰹧HʎBJi (3Yn`[wyX3o斓7eV47b"ia39SP;_!,~ .$ŔԎBI;~V d<5,_gZMȘQڥ8q9GUY لNLDBE=(kf rB3#/~z@>ؑs7-+CFPM~dؠD^3i?R=:^AUNI % 0(w@4(U:0LjL U:-L)yU:)U:            AQ?  0DV 0D 0D D/" BQ Bn D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ Ӏ n~<$3|x,  AZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT"Arial Regular ##iXd#  !"  XdXXXqXXd   Ad FILEDXdXq   November20,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXdAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XdXXXqXXd   Ad FILEDXdXq   November18,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXdAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T XdXXX  |r(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ rr(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$ rt(>.*jx*>` `@E` ttx$*  tߛ@m m  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@hh%ATJACKSONJANPAIGE(PHILLIPS)CAGLE,  ) `    `     h   )   ` Plaintiff/Respondent/  )HardinChanceryNo.5678(5436R1) 8     ` Appellee,   h   ) $ t    `     h   )VS.   `     h   )AppealNo.02A019710CH00265  L     `     h   )STEVEWHITLOWCAGLE, h   ) $     `     h   )   ` Defendant/Petitioner  )      ` Appellant.   h   )    @nnAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFHARDINCOUNTY@ATSAVANNAH,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEWALTONWEST,CHANCELLOR RONE.HARMON  L Savannah,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellant W.LEELACKEY  "! Savannah,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee AFFIRMED +'+     `     h      p   ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 3h.3 CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,J.HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J. h  x:5; |7 XXdXXd7  |#iXd#    RespondentSteveWhitlowCagle(hereinafterreferredtoas Father)appealsthe d;6< |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  |7 XXdXXd7  trialcourtsorderrequiringhimtopayhissonscollegeexpensespursuanttotheMDA  enteredintowithPlaintiffJanPaige(Phillips)Cagle(hereinafterreferredtoas Mother)atthetimeoftheirdivorce.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@  I.FactualandProceduralHistory         FatherandMotherweredivorcedonNovember9,1993andtheMotherwas P  awardedcustodyofthepartiesminorchild,CoreyCagle,age16.Thepartiesenteredintoamaritaldissolutionagreement( MDA)withwhichthepartieswereorderedtocomplywithintheDecreeofDivorce.̛  TheMDAprovidesinpertinentpart;̜` ` Furtherwithregardtotheminorchild,CoreyStevenCagle,theFathersinterestsanddesiresshallbeconsideredintheposthighschooleducationreceivedbytheminorchildandFatherherebyagreestoberesponsibleforthepaymentofhissonscollegeexpensesprovidedthesonisattendingschoolandexertingreasonableeffort.ItistheFathersdesirethathissoncompletehiscollegeeducationandheherebyexpresslyagreestoexerthiseffortandlendallnecessaryfinancialsupporttoachievethatend.ThisisexpresslyconditioneduponthechildscooperationinattendingschoolandwillinnowayobligatetheFatherifthesonrefusestoexertreasonableeffortstowardhiseducation.̛` `   Coreywasintenthgradeatthetimeofthedivorce.Mothertakesthepositionthatindiscussionsaboutcollege,CoreymentionedgoingtoFreedHardeman.Fathercontendsthatheanticipatedthathissonwouldattendapublicuniversitybecause stateschoolwasallthatwasevermentionedasapossibility.Noprivateschool.̛  Upongraduationfromhighschool,CoreyreceivedascholarshipfromMiddleTennesseeStateUniversity(MTSU).Thescholarshipwascontingentuponthemaintenanceofaminimumgradepointaverage.InhissecondyearatMTSU,Coreysgradepointaveragedroppedbelowa2.9andheforfeitedhisscholarship.Coreyhadagradepointaverageof2.76attheendofhisfourthsemester. 8(4: Л  Coreyaccumulated50credithourstowardadegreeatMTSU.Aminimumof132creditsisrequiredforcompletionofabachelorsdegree.ForCoreytograduatewithinfouryears,hewouldhaveneededtocomplete64credithoursbythecompletionofhissecondyear.Thus,ifCoreyanticipatedgraduatingcollegeinfouryears,Coreywas14credithours,orapproximatelyonesemester,behindbytheendofhissecondyearatMTSU.̛  CoreywasunhappyatMTSUduetotheatmosphereandthepeopleso,aftertwoyearsatMTSU,CoreytransferredtoFreedHardeman.FatherwasnotifiedthatCoreywastransferringtoFreedHardeman,buthewasnotconsultedpriortoCoreysdecision.FatherrefusedtopayforanyexpensesatFreedHardeman.TheexpensesatFreedHardemanwereapproximatelyElevenThousandTwoHundredEightyFourDollars($11,284.00)peryear.  WhileCoreywasattendingMTSU,Fatherfurnishedhimwithacar,insurance,acreditcard,andanallowanceof$100.00perweek.FatheralsopaidforallofCoreysexpensesatMTSU,includingthebalanceduefortuition,room,andboardafterthecreditfromthescholarship.Fatherestimatedthathepaid$10,000.00ormoreeachyearforCoreystotalexpenses.FatheragreedthathiscostswouldbenearlythesameforCoreytogotoFreedHardemanifFathernolongerprovidedhimwithalltheextraexpenses,includingthecar.̛  FathercontendsthatCoreyfailedtoexertreasonableeffortsasrequiredintheMDAandthus,heshouldbelegallyrelievedofhisobligationtopaycollegeexpenses.FatherindicateshoweverthatitisstillhisdesiretohelpCoreyobtainacollegeeducation.Onthisissue,thetrialcourtfoundthatCoreysgradesweresatisfactory,hiscredithoursweresufficient,andhewasexertingreasonableefforts. 0948 Л  FatherassertsthatheshouldnotberequiredtopaythecollegeexpensesforprivateschoolastherewasanunderstandingbetweenthepartiesthatCoreywouldattendapublicuniversity.TherewassomedisputeastowhetherprivateschoolwasevercontemplatedandtheprovisionintheMDAdoesnotlimitthecollegechoicetoapublicschool.Thetrialcourtheldthatitwasnotgoingtoconstruetheterminology collegeexpensestoincludeonlypublicschools.  Fatherfurtherassertsthatbecausehisinterestsanddesireswerenotconsidered,heshouldnotbelegallyrequiredtopayCoreyscollegeexpensesatFreedHardeman.ThetrialcourtorderedFathertopaythetuition,room,board,feesandbooksascollegeexpensesatFreedHardemanundertheMDAwithcreditgiventoFatherforanynonrepayablescholarshipsorgrantsreceivedbyCorey.Thetrialcourtreservedtheissueofwhatotherexpensesmightbeincludedintheterm collegeexpenses.ThisappealbyϜFatherfollowed. @ II.ChildSonsExertionofReasonableEfforts      Rule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurestatesasfollows: $" М7 ӛ` ` Unlessotherwiserequiredbystatute,reviewoffindingsoffactbythetrialcourtincivilactionsshallbedenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.` ` ̜FatherurgesustofindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingonϜthesonsexertionofreasonableefforts.Attrial,testimonyandexhibitswereofferedtoshowthatsonsgradepointaveragewas2.76attheendoftwoyearsatMTSU.AlthoughϜhewas14creditsbehindwhereheshouldbetograduatewithinafouryearperiod,testimonywasofferedthatthesonconsistentlycarriedatleast12credits,whichqualifieshimasa fulltimestudent.̛  Thetrialcourtattachedlittlesignificancetothefactthatthesonlosthisscholarship 0948 afterhissecondyearatMTSU.Theagreementtofinancethesonscollegeexpensewasenteredintowhenhewasintenthgrade.Atthetimeoftheagreement,thepartiesdidnotnecessarilyknowifthesonwouldinfactreceiveanyscholarships.̛  Whiletherewassomeevidencethatthesonhadskippedclassesandalsodroppedsomeclassesfromhisschedule,thefindingofthetrialcourtisentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectness.Theevidenceinthiscasedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfinding.Applyingtheforegoingstandard,weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatthesonexertedreasonableeffortstowardhiscollegeeducation.Fathershallnotberelievedofhiscontractualdutytopaythesonscollegeexpensesonthatbasis. @WWIII.Publicv.PrivateUniversity  P   Generally,amaritaldissolutionagreementbetweenhusbandandwifedealingwithlegaldutyofchildsupport,oralimonyoverwhichthecourthascontinuingstatutorypowertomodify,losesitscontractualnaturewhenmergedintoadecreeofdivorce.Penlandv.   Penland,521S.W.2d222(Tenn.1975).However,anagreementwhichimposesupona "  partytopayallfutureeducationalexpensesofchildrenbeyondhighschoollevel,andwhichnecessarilyenvisionsanobligationbeyondtheageofmajority,constitutes acontractualobligationoutsidethescopeofthelegaldutyofsupportduringminorityandretainsitscontractualnature,althoughincorporatedinafinaldecreeofdivorce.Penland 0*%( at22425.̛  ThetrialcourtsinterpretationoftheprovisionoftheMDAatissue,beingcontractualinnature,isnotentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectnessunderTenn.R.App.P.13(d)sincecontractinterpretationinvolveslegalratherthanfactualinquiry.HillsboroPlazaEnterprises 3.2 v.Moon,860S.W.2d45,47(Tenn.App.1993).Ourtaskistoreviewthecontractanew p504 andmakeourownindependentdeterminationoftheagreementsmeaning.Id.at47. P726 However,thisCourtisnotatlibertytomakeanewcontractforpartieswhohavespoken 0948 forthemselvesnorareweatlibertytorelievepartiesfromtheircontractualobligationssimplybecausetheseobligationslaterprovetobeburdensomeorunwise.Id.  Л  Contractuallanguageshouldbegivenitsusual,natural,andordinarymeaning,andthecourtsshouldavoidstrainedconstructionsthatcreateambiguitieswherenoneactuallyexist.Id.at4748.ThelanguageoftheMDAprovidesthatFathershallbe responsiblefor `  thepaymentofhissonscollegeexpenses...Theagreementdoesnotbyitstermslimit collegetomeanonly publiccollege.IfFatherhadwantedtoberesponsibleforhissonscollegeexpensesonlyuponthesonattendingapublicuniversity,theMDAprovisioncouldhavebeendraftedtoincludesuchlimitinglanguage.̛  FatherrequeststhatthisCourtinterpretthemaritaldissolutionagreementtorequirehimtopayonlythereasonablecostsofhissonseducation.ThisCourtrecognizesthatFatherscontractualobligationissubjecttoanimpliedconditionofreasonableness.Moore ` v.Moore,603S.W.2d736,739(Tenn.App.1980).However,whileFatheratonepointin @ trialtookthepositionthatmoneywastheissue,Fathertookthepositionseveralothertimesattrialthatmoneyisnottherealissueinhisobjectiontotheprivateuniversity.Infact,FatheragreedthathiscostswouldbenearlythesameforhissontogotoFreedHardemanifFathernolongerprovidedhimwithalltheextraexpenses,includingthecar.  FatherurgesthisCourttofindthatareasonablecollegetuitionisthatobtainedatapublic,statesupporteduniversity.Hecontendsthattheterm collegeshouldbeinterpretedtomean publiccollegebecausethatwastheintentionofthepartiesatthetimeofcontracting.Toarriveattheintentionofthepartiesitispermissibletoconsiderthecircumstancesofthepartiesatthetimethecontractwasformed,HamblenCountyv.City 1-0 ofMorristown,656S.W.2d331(Tenn.1983),andanunexpressedobligationwillbe 3.2 impliedwhenitisclearitwasintended.Id.at334. p504 Л  Theprobleminthiscaseisthatitisnotclearthatthisunexpressedterm, public 0948 college,wasintended.Fathertestifiedthattherewasanunderstandingbetweenhimandthemotherthattheirsonwouldattendapubliccollege.Hecontendsthatprivateschoolwasneverdiscussedandthereforeitwasneverhisintentiontoobligatehimselftopaythetuitioncostsassociatedwithaprivatecollege.ThesontestifiedthathehadmentionedFreedHardemantohisparentspriortothetimetheyenteredintotheMDA.Motherdidnottestifyonthisissue.Therefore,itisnotcleartothisCourtthattherewasamutualunderstandingbetweenthepartiesatthetimeofcontractingthatthetermcollegeshouldbelimitedto publiccollege.̛  Itappears,therefore,thattheordinarymeaningoftheterm collegeshallcontrol.Acontractmustbeenforcedaccordingtotheordinarymeaningofitswordsunlessbothpartiesunderstandandagreeatthetimeofthecontractthatitsmeaningisotherwise.Moorev.Moore,603S.W.2d736,739(Tenn.App.1980);Hardwickv.AmericanCanCo., 0 113Tenn.657,88S.W.797(1905).Itsordinarymeaningisthatmeaningwhichwouldhavebeenderivedfromitswordsbyreasonablepersonsdealinginthesamesituationasthatofthecontractingparties.Mooreat739.   Л  Havingdecidedthattheordinarymeaningofcollegeshallcontrol,wemustlooktothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminationofwhetherFreedHardemanisencompassedbytheterm college.ThetrialcourtfoundthatFreedHardemanwas areasonablecostofobtaininganeducation.Astheevidencepresenteddoesnotpreponderateagainstthisfinding,itisentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectness.Foralltheforegoingreasons,thisCourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsfindingthattheterm collegeisnotlimitedto publiccollege,andthatFreedHardemanisareasonablecollegechoiceandisencompassedbytheterm collegefoundintheMDA. @ IV.ConsiderationofFathersInterestsandDesires p504    ThemoredifficultquestioninthiscaseistheprovisionintheMDAwhichstates 0948  [t]heFathersinterestsanddesiresshallbeconsideredintheposthighschooleducationreceivedbytheminorchild...ItappearsfromtheevidencebeforethisCourtthatalthoughFatherwasinformedthatthesonwastransferringtoFreedHardeman,nooneconsultedwithFatherabouthisinterestsanddesirespriortomakingsuchdecision.̛  FathertestifiedthatdemandsweremadethathepayforthesontogotoprivateϜschool.FatheralsotookthepositionthatthesonstransfertoFreedHardemanwasoutofvindictivenessforFatherrefusingtopayorcosigna$28,000.00carloanfortheson.ϜOntheotherhand,sontestifiedthathetransferredtoFreedHardemanbecausehewasunhappywiththeatmosphereandpeopleatMTSUandtheatmosphereatFreedHardemanwasmuchbetter.HefurtherstatedthathistransferfromMTSUtoFreedHardemanhadnothingatalltodowithgettingbackathisfather.  Allwordsandphrasesplacedinacontractshallbegiveneffectwheneverpossible.InAssociatedPressv.WGNS,Inc.,348S.W.2d507,512(Tenn.App.1961),thecourt @ spokeoncontractinterpretation:)` ` Itistheuniversalrulethatacontractmustbeviewedfrombeginningtoendandallitstermsmustpassinreview,foroneclausemaymodify,limitorilluminateanother.Asissaidin6R.C.L.page838underthetitle"Contracts,̜"Takingitswordsintheirordinaryandusualmeaning,nosubstantiveclausemustbeallowedtoperishbyconstruction,unlessinsurmountableobstaclesstandinthewayofanyothercourse.Seemingcontradictionsmustbeharmonizedifthatcourseisreasonablypossible.Eachofitsprovisionsmustbeconsideredinconnectionwiththeothers,and,ifpossible,effectmustbegiventoall.Aconstructionwhichentirelyneutralizesoneprovisionshouldnotbeadoptedifthecontractissusceptibleofanotherwhichgiveseffecttoallofitsprovisions.Thecourtswilllooktotheentireinstrument,and,ifpossible,givesuchconstructionthateachclauseshallhavesomeeffect,andperformsomeoffice."̜` D` DlD  Wemustthereforegiveeffecttothephrasewhichstates, Fathersinterestsanddesiresshallbeconsideredifatallpossible.Butwhatexactlydoesthatphrasemean?OneinterpretationcouldbethatFathershallbeabletoexpresshisdesiresastothechoice 0948 ofcollege,orevenmorenarrowly,thechoiceofthecurriculumhissonistofollow.Onabroaderlevel,theinterestsanddesireofFathermaybesolelyFathersdesirethatthesonobtainacollegeeducationatanycollegeandofanycurriculum.̛  Fathertestifiedattrialthatitwasalwayshisunderstandingthathissonwouldattendastatecollege.Whenaskedattrialifhewaswillingtopaytheroom,board,tuitionandcollegefeesforhissonatFreedHardeman,Fatherstated atthispointintime,noandthenthat itsnegotiable.Helaterstatedthathewasstillwillingtohelphissonobtainhiseducationbuthefeelsthatheshouldnotbemadetodothat.Fatheralsotestifiedthatmathematically,itwouldlikelycostthesameamounttosendhissontoFreedHardemanashewaspayingaltogetheratMTSU,ifhenolongerfurnishedthesonwithacarandtheotheradditionalexpenses.̛  Inthesonstestimony,hestatedthatFathertoldhimhedidnotwantthesontogotoFreedHardemanbecauseFatherdidnotliketheChurchofChristandbecauseitwastooexpensive.However,inhisowntestimony,FatherdidnotmentionhisdislikeoftheChurchofChristasareasonforhisrefusaltopayforsontoattendFreedHardeman.Asdiscussedmorefullyabove,Fathertestifiedthatalthoughpubliccollegewasallthatwaseverdiscussedandcontemplated,thecostofattendingtheprivateschoolwouldnotbesubstantiallyhigherthanhiscost,withextras,atMTSU.̛  TheagreementalsodoesnotprovidewhattheeffectshallbeofFathersinterestsanddesires.Aftersuchinterestsanddesiresareconsideredbytheson,itappearsthesonisstillabletomakehisownchoicesastheagreementgivesnovetopowertoFather.Ininterpretingtheprovisionatissue,thetrialcourtfoundthat theFathersinterestsanddesireswillbeconsideredinthathehastestifiedthathewantedhimtoattendcollege,apparentlyinterpretingtheprovisioninitsbroadestterms.̛  WhilethisCourtrecognizesthatFathersinterestsanddesiresastochoiceof 0948 collegewerenotconsideredinthismatter,theCourtisalsomindfulthatFatherhasprovidednosubstantivereasonforhisdisagreementwithsonschoiceofFreedHardeman.Fatherhasnotgivenanylegitimatereasonwhyhewouldhaveobjectedhadhisinterestsanddesiresbeenconsidered.Hisobjectionappearsatechnicalone:thatheshouldnotbemadetopaywhenhisinterestswerenottakenintoaccount.ThisCourtisreluctanttosustainFathersobjectiononthistechnicalgroundwithoutanysubstantivereasonforhisrefusal.Accordingly,weholdthatFathershallnotberelievedofhisobligationtofundhissonscollegeexpenseatFreedHardemanonthegroundthathisinterestsanddesireswerenotconsidered.@44# V.Conclusion p    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedto 0 theFather,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.I   `     h      p   򀀀 "     `     h      p   HIGHERS,J. #! CONCUR:򀀀  +p&) FARMER,J. ,`'* 򀀀 / +. LILLARD,J.