ÿWPC * b %l^ r 0 ˆ~UNwT4Xl z{ÒõÇ mÉ#ÁàÆ¡ Æg Æ- Æó 0D¹ Ný 0Jÿ EI K 0TS 0^§ UN 0hS 0r» 0|- 0†© 0/ 1u¿ 0d4U>˜U*ÖþÑþœÏ²kb‹%v~°vÓ. 0ë& Bì& 0@ ' D3I' D-|' 0K©' ASô'ÆG( 0¤ ) 0D±) A«õ)»Ll:+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularòK+ô–£3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô 2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular26 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< Œ 9p`(Times ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€record€indicates€that€exhibits€were€admitted€at€trial€regarding€the€payments€of€child€support€by€Mr.ÏDavis,€and€mortgage€payments€by€Mr.€Davis.€€However,€those€exhibits€were€not€included€in€the€technical€record,€orÏotherwise€properly€made€a€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€Instead,€it€appears€that€the€original€exhibits€from€the€trialÏwere€attached€to€a€Statement€of€the€Evidence€prepared€by€Ms.€Davis,€which€was€not€adopted€by€the€Trial€Court,€andÏtherefore€not€a€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€The€documents€attached€to€Ms.€Davisððs€Statement€of€the€Evidence€haveÏexhibit€stickers€placed€on€them€in€a€manner€consistent€with€that€which€a€court€reporter€normally€does€to€exhibitsÏbefore€they€are€entered€€into€evidence€at€trial.€Neither€party€specifically€argues€the€fact€that€these€exhibits€should€haveÏbeen€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€Furthermore,€the€appropriate€time€to€have€raised€such€an€issue€was€before€oralÏargument€on€this€case.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provide€for€the€method€by€which€one€wouldÏhave€trial€exhibits€included€in€the€record€when€they€have€been€inadvertently€omitted.€€Attaching€them€to€a€StatementÏof€the€Evidence€is€not€one€of€those€methods.€€Therefore,€this€Court€is€not€able€to€consider€those€exhibits.Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€While€the€attorney€of€record€for€Ms.€Davis€did€not€personally€appear€at€the€hearing€below€on€this€matter,€ÏMs.€Davis€was€represented€by€an€attorney€from€the€law€firm€of€her€attorney€of€record.€Ì ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€previously€mentioned,€it€appears€from€the€record€that€exhibits€were€introduced€at€trial€but€are€not€partÏof€the€record€before€this€court.Ì ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€previously€stated,€the€exhibits€introduced€at€trial€were€not€made€a€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€As€aÏconsequence,€this€Court€cannot€consider€those€exhibits.Ì- ù- Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ms.€Davis€argues€that€Mr.€Davis€owes€her€$4,333.99€at€some€places€in€her€brief€and€$4,381.00€at€otherÏplaces€in€her€brief.€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2Ô<$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôeò»»Ô d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3…û$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€))¼d#ÑÑ#€))¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ8€|LXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ àÔ€(îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€(¼ÔÌÓ  ÓMarch€27,€2001€SessionÌÔ€(XÔÌò òÔ€(¼ÔDEBORAH€STINNETT€DAVIS€v.€JERRY€CLINT€DAVISÔ€(XÔó óÌÌà@ àò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÌà@ àNo.€91„DR„1047,€Samuel€H.€Payne,€Judge€ÌÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€25,€2001Ìà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÌÌNo.€E1999„02737„COA„R3„CVÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÌó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€from€the€Hamilton€County€Circuit€Court€questions€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÏfailing€to€approve€Ms.€Davisððs€Statement€of€the€Evidence,€in€retroactively€modifying€child€support,Ïin€determining€the€amount€of€Mr.€Davisððs€mortgage€obligation€to€Ms.€Davis,€and€in€determining€theÏamount€of€attorneyððs€fees€Mr.€Davis€was€ordered€to€pay€Ms.€Davis.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏTrial€Court€as€modified€and€remand€with€directions.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€asÏModified;€Cause€Remandedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,óóÏand€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,€JJ.óó,€joined.ÌÌLeslie€D.€McWilliams,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Deborah€Stinnett€Davis.ÌÌSherry€B.€Paty,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Jerry€Clint€Davis.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThis€appeal€arises€from€a€Petition€for€Contempt€and€Modification€filed€by€Deborah€StinnettÏDavis,€the€Appellant,€on€December€16,€1998.€€Ms.€Davis€appeals€the€decision€of€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Circuit€Court€and€presents€for€our€review€four€issues€which€we€restate:ÌÌà8 àI.€€€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€approve€Ms.€Davisððs€Statement€ofÏthe€Evidence.ÌÌà8 àII.€€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€retroactively€modifying€Mr.€Davisððs€childÏsupport€obligation€thereby€denying€Ms.€Davisððs€request€for€a€judgment€of€childÏsupport€arrearage.ÌÌà8 àIII.€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€the€amount€of€Mr.€Davisððs€unpaidÏbalance€on€his€mortgage€obligation€to€Ms.€Davis.ÌÌà8 àIV.€€€Whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€the€amount€of€attorneyððs€feesÏMr.€Davis€was€ordered€to€pay€Ms.€Davis.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€as€modified€and€remand€for€further€proceedings,Ïconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àMr.€and€Ms.€Davis€were€married€July€12,€1975.€€There€were€two€children€born€of€thatÏmarriage,€Whitney€L.€Davis€and€Jennifer€R.€Davis.€€Both€children€were€minors€at€the€time€theÏdivorce€complaint€was€filed€but€have€since€reached€eighteen€years€of€age.€€Ms.€Davis€filed€forÏdivorce€on€April€15,€1991.€€A€final€decree€was€entered€on€August€26,€1991.€€The€Trial€CourtÏordered€Mr.€Davis€to€pay€one€half€of€the€mortgage€payment€ð ðuntil€such€time€as€the€residence€isÏsold.ðð€Additionally,€Ms.€Davis€was€awarded€custody€of€the€minor€children€and€Mr.€Davis€wasÏordered€to€pay€child€support€in€the€amount€of€$200€per€week.ÌÌà àOn€May€27,€1992,€Mr.€Davis€filed€a€Complaint€for€Modification€attempting€to€reduce€hisÏchild€support€obligation.€€According€to€the€record,€an€answer€and€counter€complaint€were€filed€onÏJuly€27,€1992,€by€Ms.€Davis.€€An€order€dismissing€the€action€was€entered€on€May€21,€1993.ÌÌà àOn€December€16,€1998,€a€Petition€for€Contempt€and€Modification€was€filed€by€Ms.€Davis.€ÏAt€the€hearing€on€this€matter€on€May€3,€1999,€the€Trial€Court€determined€the€following:ÌÌà8 àà8 à1.€€The€child€support€shall€continue€at€the€rate€of€$130.00€per€weekÏuntil€May€31,€1999€at€which€time€said€child€support€obligation€shallÏend.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Plaintiff€is€awarded€a€judgment€against€the€defendant€in€theÏamount€$2,800.00€as€reimbursement€for€the€mortgage€paymentsÏmade€by€her.€€Said€judgment€shall€be€paid€at€the€rate€of€$50.00€perÏweek€directly€to€the€plaintiff€beginning€June,€1999€and€continuingÏeach€week€thereafter€until€paid€in€full.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€There€is€no€child€support€arrearage€in€this€matter€and€theÏdefendantððs€petition€for€contempt€is€dismissed.ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.€€Plaintiffððs€attorney€may€submit€an€itemized€time€statement€for€theÏCourt€to€consider€an€award€of€attorney€fees.ÌÌà8 àà8 à5.€€The€court€cost€of€this€cause€is€adjudged€against€the€defendant,Ïòòò òJerry€Clint€Davisó óóó,€for€which€execution€shall€issue€if€necessary.€€AttyÏfees€of€500.00€to€Deborah€Davis.ÌÌMr.€Davis,€through€his€attorney,€hired€a€court€reporter€for€the€hearing.€€Apparently,€Mr.€Davis€choseÏnot€to€make€the€transcript€available€to€Ms.€Davis€or€to€this€Court.ÌÌà àWe€review€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€of€fact€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedingsÏbelow,€€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€€ð ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.ðð€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòsee€also€Hass€v.€Knightonóó,€676€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€1984).€ÏThere€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€of€law,€and€thoseÏconclusions€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó.€€òòJahn€v.€Jahnóó,€932€S.W.2d€939€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).ÌÌÓ  Óà àI.ÌÓ  Óà àMs.€Davisððs€first€issue€on€appeal€questions€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€approving€Mr.ÏDavisððs€Statement€of€the€Evidence.€€Ms.€Davis€argues€that€because€the€Trial€Court€failed€to€approveÏa€statement€of€€evidence€within€30€days€after€the€expiration€of€the€15€day€period€to€file€objections,Íthe€appellate€rules€require€that€the€Appellantððs€Statement€of€the€Evidence€and€exhibits× ƒ* ××  ×€from€the€trialÏbe€approved€and€considered€by€this€Court.€ÌÌà àMr.€Davis€argues€that€counsel€for€Ms.€Davis€did€not€participate€in€the€hearing€below€on€thisÏmatter€and€therefore€cannot€accurately€represent€the€evidence€of€the€hearing€to€this€Court.× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÏAdditionally,€Mr.€Davis€refutes€Ms.€Davisððs€argument€that€there€was€a€problem€with€the€time€periodÏin€which€the€Trial€Court€approved€a€Statement€of€the€Evidence.ÌÌà àWe€disagree€with€Ms.€Davis€and€believe€she€is€misinterpreting€the€order€of€events€regardingÏthis€matter.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€Notice€of€Appeal€was€filed€by€Ms.€Davis€on€December€13,Ï1999.€€Ms.€Davis€filed€her€Statement€of€the€Evidence€on€May€9,€2000.€€Ms.€Davis€argues€that€Mr.ÏDavis€did€not€submit€his€objections€in€a€timely€manner,€however,€the€record€reflects€that€Mr.€DavisÏfiled€his€objections€to€Ms.€Davisððs€Statement€of€the€Evidence€on€May€22,€2000,€which€is€within€theÏ15€day€period€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€On€June€23,€2000,€Ms.ÏDavis€filed€a€second€Statement€of€the€Evidence€and€on€July€11,€2000,€Mr.€Davis€filed€a€Statement€ofÏthe€Evidence.€€The€Trial€Court€approved€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence€submitted€by€Mr.€Davis€onÏJanuary€23,€2001.€€Rule€24(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€in€pertinentÏpart:Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà8 àà8 àIf€no€stenographic€report,€substantially€verbatim€recital€or€transcriptÏof€the€evidence€or€proceedings€is€available,€the€appellant€shall€prepareÏa€statement€of€the€evidence€or€proceedings€from€the€best€availableÏmeans,€including€the€appellantððs€recollection.€€The€statement€shouldÏconvey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€withÏrespect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.€€The€statement,Ïcertified€by€the€appellant€or€the€appellantððs€counsel€as€an€accurateÏaccount€of€the€proceedings,€shall€be€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€trialÏcourt€within€90€days€after€filing€the€notice€of€appeal.€€.€.€.€If€theÏappellee€has€objections€to€the€statement€as€filed,€the€appellee€shall€fileÏobjections€thereto€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€within€fifteen€daysÏafter€service€of€the€declaration€and€notice€of€the€filing€of€theÏstatement.€€Any€differences€regarding€the€statement€shall€be€settledÏas€set€forth€in€subdivision€(e)€of€this€rule.ÌÌRule€24(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€states€in€pertinent€part:€ÌÌà8 àà8 àIf€any€matter€properly€includable€is€omitted€from€the€record,€isÏimproperly€included,€or€is€misstated€therein,€the€record€may€beÏcorrected€or€modified€to€conform€to€the€truth.€€Any€differencesÏregarding€whether€the€record€accurately€discloses€what€occurred€inÏthe€trial€court€shall€be€submitted€to€and€settled€by€the€trial€courtÏregardless€of€whether€the€record€has€been€transmitted€to€the€appellateÏcourt.€€Absent€extraordinary€circumstances,€the€determination€of€theÏtrial€court€is€conclusive.€€If€necessary,€the€appellate€or€trial€court€mayÏdirect€that€a€supplemental€record€be€certified€and€transmitted.ÌÌAccording€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c),€ð ðany€differences€regarding€the€statement€shall€be€settled€asÏset€forth€in€subdivision€(e)€of€this€rule.ðð€€Further,€subdivision€(e)€states,€ð ðthe€determination€of€theÏtrial€court€is€conclusive.ðð€€Mr.€Davis€filed€his€objections€in€a€timely€manner.€€While€the€Trial€CourtÏmay€not€have€complied€with€the€time€limitations€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(f),€it€did€approveÏthe€Statement€of€the€Evidence€submitted€by€Mr.€Davis.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(f)€states:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€trial€judge€shall€approve€the€transcript€or€statement€of€theÏevidence€and€shall€authenticate€the€exhibits€as€soon€as€practicableÏafter€the€filing€thereof€or€after€the€expiration€of€the€15„day€period€forÏobjections€by€appellee,€as€the€case€may€be,€but€in€all€events€within€30Ïdays€after€the€expiration€of€said€period€for€filing€objections.€ÏOtherwise€the€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€and€the€exhibitsÏshall€be€deemed€to€have€been€approved€and€shall€be€so€considered€byÏthe€appellate€court,€except€in€cases€where€such€approval€did€not€occurÏby€reason€of€the€death€or€inability€to€act€of€the€trial€judge.€€In€theÏevent€of€such€death€or€inability€to€act,€a€successor€or€replacementÏjudge€of€the€court€in€which€the€case€was€tried€shall€perform€theÏduties€of€the€trial€judge,€including€approval€of€the€record€or€theÏgranting€of€any€other€appropriate€relief,€or€the€ordering€of€a€new€trial.€ÏAuthentication€of€a€deposition€authenticates€all€exhibits€to€theÏdeposition.€€The€trial€court€clerk€shall€send€the€trial€judge€transcriptsÏof€evidence€and€statements€of€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€purpose€of€the€record€on€appeal€is€ð ðto€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€ofÏwhat€transpired€with€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a).€ÏThe€Rules€provide€a€procedural€process€by€which€either€party€may€rectify€an€inadequacy.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€24(a).€€Additionally,€Rule€1€provides€that€the€purpose€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure€is€ð ðto€secure€the€just,€speedy,€and€inexpensive€determination€of€every€proceeding€on€itsÏmerits.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€1.€€In€order€to€achieve€the€aforementioned,€the€rules€expressly€provideÏthat€an€appellate€court,€in€its€discretion,€may€suspend€the€requirements€or€provisions€of€any€of€theÏrules,€except€those€governing€the€time€for€taking€an€appeal€as€of€right,€applying€for€permission€toÏappeal€from€an€intermediate€appellate€court€to€the€Supreme€Court,€and€for€petitioning€for€review€inÏcases€in€which€the€Court€of€Appeals€directly€review€orders€of€an€administrative€agency.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€2.€ÌÌà àBecause€the€Trial€Judge€did€approve€one€of€the€statements€submitted,€and€because€the€TrialÏJudge€is€in€the€best€position€to€determine€which€Statement€of€the€Evidence€most€accurately€reflects€Ïwhat€transpired€at€the€Trial€Court€level,€we€suspend€the€time€limit€placed€on€the€Trial€Court€asÍrequired€by€Rule€24(f)€resulting€in€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€becoming€conclusiveÏregarding€which€Statement€of€the€Evidence€it€deems€most€accurate.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àMs.€Davisððs€second€issue€on€appeal€questions€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€retroactivelyÏmodifying€Mr.€Davisððs€child€support€obligation€thereby€denying€her€request€for€a€judgment€ofÏchild€support€arrearage.€€Ms.€Davis€argues€that€Mr.€Davis€unilaterally€reduced€his€child€supportÏobligation€from€$200.00€per€week€to€$130.00€per€week€in€November€1992,€and€that€he€has€anÏarrearage€of€$23,633.99€plus€interest.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Davis€contends€that€he€did€not€unilaterally€reduce€his€child€support.€€He€argues€that€heÏfiled€a€complaint€for€the€modification€of€his€child€support€on€May€27,€1992,€and€that€Ms.€DavisÏfiled€an€answer€and€counter„complaint.€€He€further€argues€that€Ms.€Davis€agreed€to€a€reduction€inÏchild€support€at€that€time.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Davis€argues€that€he€paid€$130.00€per€week€in€childÏsupport€consistently€from€November,€1992,€through€May,€1999,€when€his€youngest€daughterÏreached€the€age€of€majority€and€that€for€a€period€of€approximately€two€years€he€continued€to€payÏchild€support€at€$130.00€per€week€even€though€his€oldest€daughter€had€reached€the€age€of€majority.€ÏTherefore,€he€argues€he€has€actually€paid€more€child€support€than€what€was€owed.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€record€before€this€Court,€Mr.€Davis€filed€a€Complaint€for€Modification€onÏMay€27,€1992,€seeking€a€reduction€in€child€support.€€Ms.€Davis€filed€an€Answer€and€CounterÏComplaint€on€July€27,€1992.€€On€May€21,€1993,€an€Order€Dismissing€Complaint€for€ModificationÏwas€filed€which€states€the€following:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€foregoing€case€came€on€to€be€heard€before€the€Court€onÏDecember€7,€1992€on€a€Complaint€for€Modification,€when€theÏattorneys€announced€to€the€Court€that€an€agreed€order€would€beÏsubmitted,€but€never€submitted€an€order,€and€taking€intoÏconsideration€these€facts,€it€is,€therefore€ORDERED€by€the€CourtÏthat€said€Complaint€for€Modification€is€hereby€dismissed,€withoutÏprejudice,€with€costs€taxed€against€the€petitioner€for€which€executionÏmay€issue.€ÌÌIt€appears€from€this€Order€that€an€agreement€was€reached€by€the€parties€on€the€day€of€the€hearingÏand€that€the€agreement€was€to€be€reduced€to€writing€and€submitted€to€the€Court€in€the€form€of€anÏagreed€order.€€Unfortunately€for€Mr.€Davis,€that€never€occurred,€and€he€is€therefore€left€without€aÏcourt€order€modifying€child€support.€€It€also€appears€from€the€record€that€Mr.€Davis€paid€childÏsupport€to€Ms.€Davis€from€December€1992€until€the€youngest€child€turned€18€years€old€in€theÏamount€of€$130€per€week,€and€that€Ms.€Davis€accepted€that€payment€until€December€16,€1998,Ïwhen€Ms.€Davis€filed€a€Petition€for€Contempt€and€Modification.€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence€submitted€to€this€Court,€Ms.€Davis€testified€atÏthe€hearing€on€this€matter€on€July€11,€2000,€that€in€November,€1992,€Mr.€and€Ms.€Davis€had€aÏconversation€in€which€both€parties€agreed€to€reduce€Mr.€Davisððs€child€support€obligation€fromÏ$200€per€week€to€$130€per€week€as€Mr.€Davis€was€unemployed€at€that€time.€€Ms.€Davis€alsoÏtestified€that€Mr.€Davis€sought€the€reduction€in€child€support€through€the€judicial€process,€but€thatÏshe€asked€him€not€to€pursue€his€Complaint€for€Modification€as€she€could€not€afford€an€attorney,Ïand€that€she€would€agree€that€his€child€support€obligation€would€be€reduced€to€$130€per€week.€€Mr.ÏDavis€testified€to€the€same€set€of€facts€regarding€the€agreed€reduction€in€his€child€supportÏobligation,€according€to€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence.ÌÌà àIt€is€obvious€to€this€Court€that€both€parties€believed€an€agreement€was€reached€as€to€aÏreduction€in€child€support.€€However,€because€neither€party€submitted€the€agreed€order€to€the€TrialÏCourt€that€agreement€is€ineffective.€€Parties€cannot€alter€or€amend€a€child€support€order€by€privateÏagreement€once€it€has€been€entered.€€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.€Goodeóó,€968€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1998),òò€Rasnic€v.€Wynnóó,€625€S.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€Mr.€Davis€did€much€more€thanÏsimply€obtain€a€private€agreement€from€Ms.€Davis.€€Unfortunately,€the€fact€that€the€agreement€wasÏnever€reduced€to€an€order€from€the€Trial€Court€renders€it€ineffective€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€36„5„101(a)(5),€which€states€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 àà8 àAny€order€for€child€support€shall€be€a€judgment€entitled€to€beÏenforced€as€any€other€judgment€of€a€court€of€this€state€and€shall€beÏentitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€in€this€state€and€in€any€other€state.ÏSuch€judgment€shall€not€be€subject€to€modification€as€to€any€timeÏperiod€or€any€amounts€due€prior€to€the€date€that€an€action€forÏmodification€is€filed€and€notice€of€the€action€has€been€mailed€to€theÏlast€known€address€of€the€opposing€parties.ÌÌAdditionally,€there€are€no€equitable€defenses€available€to€Mr.€Davis.€€€òòRutledge€v.€Barrettóó,€802ÏS.W.2d€604,€(Tenn.€1991).€€While€denying€Mr.€Davis€the€opportunity€to€raise€equitable€defenses€inÏthis€situation€does€seem€harsh,€it€was€the€intent€of€the€General€Assembly€and€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€to€require€all€obligor€parents€to€comply€fully€with€lawful€child€support€orders,Ïwhich€outweighs€the€seemingly€unfair€results€in€cases€such€as€the€one€before€us.€òòState€of€TennesseeÏv.€Goodeóó,€968€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn€Ct.€App.€1998).ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àTherefore,€we€find€that€the€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€determining€that€no€child€supportÏarrearage€was€owed€by€Mr.€Davis.€€We€remand€to€the€Trial€Court€for€the€taking€of€testimony€byÏboth€parties€on€the€issue€of€child€support€paid€by€Mr.€Davis€and€a€€determination€of€the€arrearageÏowed€and€method€of€payment.€€The€record€before€this€Court€€is€incomplete€with€respect€to€evidenceÏof€payments€of€child€support.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€third€issue€on€appeal€questions€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€the€amountÏof€Mr.€Davisððs€unpaid€balance€on€his€mortgage€obligation€to€Ms.€Davis.€€Ms.€Davis€argues€thatÏMr.€Davis€was€required€to€pay€one€half€of€the€mortgage€payment€until€the€marital€residence€sold.€ÏMs.€Davis€further€argues€that€Mr.€Davis€did€not€comply€fully€with€the€court„ordered€obligation€andÏtherefore€owes€her€$4,333.99€instead€of€the€amount€of€$2,800.00€which€the€Trial€Court€orderedÏhim€to€pay.€€Ms.€Davis€bases€her€argument€on€documentation€presented€at€trial€which€this€CourtÏdoes€not€have€before€it€for€review.ÌÌà àMr.€Davis€argues€that€Ms.€Davisððs€claim€as€to€any€money€owed€for€the€mortgage€is€barredÏby€the€statute€of€limitations€for€contract€actions.€€The€Statement€of€the€Evidence€submitted€to€thisÏCourt€does€not€reflect€that€Mr.€Davis€raised€the€issue€of€statute€of€limitations€at€trial.€Furthermore,ÏMr.€Davis€retained€the€court€reporter€for€the€Trial€and€has€access€to€the€trial€transcript,€but€refusedÏto€have€it€submitted€for€this€appeal.€€Without€an€indication€that€Mr.€Davis€argued€that€recovery€byÏMs.€Davis€as€to€any€mortgage€payments€owed€to€her€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€at€trial,Íwe€cannot€address€that€issue€here.€€An€issue€not€raised€at€trial€cannot€be€raised€for€the€first€time€onÏappeal.€€òòMitts€v.€Mittsóó,€39€S.W.€3d€142€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001);€òòSparks€v.€Metropolitan€Govððt€ofÏNashville€and€Davidson€Countyóó,€771€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).ÌÌà àAs€for€Ms.€Davisððs€argument,€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence€states€that€Ms.€Davis€testifiedÏshe€did€not€receive€any€payments€on€the€mortgage€from€Mr.€Davis€after€January,€1992.€ÏAdditionally,€it€reflects€that€Ms.€Davis€testified€that€the€residence€was€sold€in€November,€1992,€andÏthat€she€introduced€a€payment€history€of€mortgage€payments€Mr.€Davis€had€made€to€her€regardingÏthis€matter× ƒ- ××  ×.€€Finally,€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence€states€that€Ms.€Davis€testified€that€Mr.€DavisÏowes€her€$4,381.00.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€Mr.€Davis,€the€Statement€of€the€Evidence€only€states€that€he€acknowledgedÏmaking€payments€on€his€portion€of€the€mortgage€to€Ms.€Davis€and€that€he€does€not€believe€there€isÏany€arrearage€owed.ÌÌà àThe€Trial€Court€ordered€the€following:ÌÌà8 àà8 àPlaintiff€is€awarded€a€judgment€against€the€defendant€in€the€amountÏ$2,800.00€as€reimbursement€for€the€mortgage€payments€made€byÏher.€€Said€judgment€shall€be€paid€at€the€rate€of€$50.00€per€weekÏdirectly€to€the€plaintiff€beginning€June,€1999€and€continuing€eachÏweek€thereafter€until€paid€in€full.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€information€available€to€this€Court,€we€cannot€find€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderate€against€the€finding€of€the€Trial€Court€in€determining€that€Mr.€Davis€owed€Ms.€DavisÏan€amount€of€$2,800.00.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court.ÌÌÓ  ÓIV.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€fourth€issue€on€appeal€questions€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€determining€theÏamount€of€attorneyððs€fees€Mr.€Davis€was€ordered€to€pay€Ms.€Davis.€€Ms.€Davis€argues€thatÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€36„5„103(c)€she€is€entitled€to€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€at€trial€and€that€Mr.€DavisÏshould€pay€the€attorneyððs€fees€incurred€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Davis€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€awarding€Ms.€Davis€$500.00€in€attorneyððsÏfees€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€recover€his€costs€in€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal€from€Ms.€Davis.€ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€this€matter€on€May€3,€1999,€the€Trial€Court€ordered€that€ð ðPlaintiffððsÏattorney€may€submit€an€itemized€time€statement€for€the€Court€to€consider€an€award€of€attorneyÏfees.ðð€€The€order€then€set€forth€an€amount€of€$500.00€awarded€to€Ms.€Davis€in€attorneyððs€fees.€ÏMs.€Davis€is€not€satisfied€with€the€amount€awarded€to€her€at€trial.€€The€issue€of€attorneyððs€fees€isÏaddressed€at€T.C.A.€36„5„103(c),€which€states:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€plaintiff€spouse€may€recover€from€the€defendant€spouse,€and€theÏspouse€or€other€person€to€whom€the€custody€of€the€child,€or€children,Ïis€awarded€may€recover€from€the€other€spouse€reasonable€attorneyÏfees€incurred€in€enforcing€any€decree€for€alimony€and/or€childÏsupport,€or€in€regard€to€any€suit€or€action€concerning€the€adjudicationÏof€the€custody€or€the€change€of€custody€of€any€child,€or€children,€ofÏthe€parties,€both€upon€the€original€divorce€hearing€and€at€anyÏsubsequent€hearing,€which€fees€may€be€fixed€and€allowed€by€theÏcourt,€before€whom€such€action€or€proceeding€is€pending,€in€theÏdiscretion€of€such€court.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àThe€award€of€attorney's€fees€is€a€matter€of€wide€discretion€for€the€trial€court€and€absent€anÏabuse€of€discretion€we€will€not€overturn€that€decision.€€òòMarmino€v.€Marminoóó,€238€S.W.2d€105Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1950)€€We€conclude€the€Trial€Court€acted€within€its€discretion€in€awarding€Ms.ÏDavis€$500.00€in€attorneyððs€fees.ÌÌà àThe€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal€is€discretionary.€T.C.A.€36„5„103(c).€€€In€childÏsupport€cases€where€one€parent€must€litigate€or€appeal€a€case€on€behalf€of€the€minor€children€inÏorder€to€secure€their€financial€well€being€it€is€appropriate.€òòGraham€v.€Grahamóó,€204€S.W.€987Ï(Tenn.€1918);€òòDeas€v.€Deasóó,€774€S.W.2d€167€(Tenn.€1989);€òòRagan€v.€Raganóó,€858€S.W.2d€332Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Based€on€the€facts€presented€to€the€Court€in€this€matter,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€parties€should€pay€their€own€attorneysðð€fees€on€appeal.ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€as€modified€and€theÏcase€remanded€for€proceedings€not€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudgedÏequally€against€the€Appellant,€Deborah€Stinnett€Davis€and€her€surety€and€Appellee,€Jerry€ClintÏDavis.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÔ€(¼Ô