ÿWPC% ôãJÏ7šþy%Öÿ¤Ã?«zÖ`pª¯n_ƒôy'â%h»ôsb°£U­ Í4Rl …”ªâô÷єԗošÊ5Q]»ÿtÎ õfFf¦£"6Ki7Î B ÒðU,—tSçÞÐàü4}ÖÏjÎò>Ï®Ân¨³wêÃ?¬?€8ñB ÷˜(3[«×øÞB¡º+Qwd /WXc1…KÍâ…›v ]ºàÛ¨>í7 ùFüÕðœûðÄ­‰y*:TJ€¨VŽzóÇî'ˆ†U†þyÄ1]i_æ€ø@Që=ë?“ç`æß?àü# EÈ áò–‘¡gsiÆ"iâŽ|=Ò4¼$÷píë0n(‚’ßì™Ö5%9Ù¥Œ(ß…3•®FG¦½XMñW2ïÿ§“t:œ€.ŽÒ%DcÔt VãMZýÛ”g«ø¹±Fy µþ:R¼­Á V€‰¬Øl×¥M‹IqˆX)IŸT<ž cÒÕ:n–}ÀkÁ®Þk– 4í”PÛ¸ÿù¾oŨްy £Ò Â}ÇE’u”9€œ_ š¨ÿK?_åj287|*ÜÊé 4{÷ßÑtb¶-'ÙD¼}“?ôfKJb® *&9Æ@9£¡W”Pdb %\^ b 0ˆnUZNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U7N™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0 DÿNC<EEE(ƒä««tÎïÑÑ™ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀTYYYZ­­­b                                    0 ë    Bú ú 0¤! D5»! D-ð! 0K"" ASh"Æ»" 0¤# 0D%$ A«i$»%Š/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢×+003|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˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó HynemanpendenteDemersShick P.J. W.S. Kats PSLs Regs COAEatherlyAnnessChapdelainet]hisobligorO]bligorunrefuted Ý ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFather€claimed€that€he€spent€about€$33,000€in€printing€advertisements€for€the€auction,€and€he€paid€theÐ ° Ðauctioneer€$35,000€for€his€efforts.€€ ÚÝ ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFather€admitted€to€publishing€a€ð ðgoing€out€of€businessðð€advertisement€in€September€2000,€when€in€fact€DemersÐ ° ÐInc.€was€not€planning€to€go€out€of€business€at€that€time.€€Another€advertisement€was€purchased€calling€the€businessÐ tÄ ÐDemers€International,€when€that,€in€fact,€was€not€the€name€of€the€company.€€€ jÝ ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThat€amount€was€being€held€by€the€court€in€the€Western€€Printing€lawsuit€in€South€Dakota€pending€the€outcomeÐ ° Ðof€the€case.€€When€that€lawsuit€concluded€in€favor€of€Demers€Inc.,€the€court€released€the€money€to€Father.€ ÄÝ ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€applicable€regulation€provides:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à[A]€significant€variance€shall€be€at€least€15%€if€the€current€support€is€one€hundred€dollars€($100.00)Ð 8ˆ Ðor€greater€per€month€.€.€.€.€€Such€variance€would€justify€the€modification€of€a€child€support€order€.€.€.Ð üL Ð.€€Upon€a€petition€for€adjustment€by€either€party,€the€court€shall€increase€or€decrease€the€award€amountÐ À Ðas€appropriate€in€accordance€with€these€guidelines.€.€.€.ðð€€Ð„ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3). åÝ ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔActually,€Demers€Parts€paid€Father€only€$21,000,€and€still€owed€him€about€$10,000€at€the€time€of€trial. Ý ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBecause€Fatherððs€income€was€dependent€on€the€success€of€the€business,€his€annual€income€varied€from€yearÐ ° Ðto€year.€€The€trial€court€below€did€not€permit€the€parties€to€submit€evidence€regarding€how€Fatherððs€annual€income€wasÐ tÄ Ðdetermined€to€be€$250,000€for€purposes€of€setting€child€support€in€the€divorce€action.€€Nevertheless,€it€is€generallyÐ 8ˆ Ðaccepted€by€both€parties€that€Fatherððs€support€obligations€in€the€divorce€decree€were€based€on€that€amount€of€income.€ JÝ ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFather€initially€claims€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€Father€lead€anÐ ° Ðextravagant€lifestyle,€because€the€majority€of€his€previously€owned€luxury€items€were€liquidated€to€pay€child€support€andÐ tÄ Ðattorneyððs€fees€in€connection€with€the€Western€Printing€lawsuit.€€In€light€of€our€conclusion€herein,€it€is€not€necessary€forÐ 8ˆ Ðus€to€address€this€argument.€€€€€€ PÝ ƒR§×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€was,€however,€authorized€to€consider€Fatherððs€assets€and€resources€for€purposes€of€imputingÐ ° Ðincome€to€him.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.04(1)(f).- ù-(|G2§×$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§mò»»Ô d(|3b$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3b$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼=»»»ÔÑ8€CqXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îl=ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼=»îîl#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€5,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÌò òÔ#†¼=»XXCq#ÔKEVIN€STANLEY€DEMERS€Ð úJ Ðv.€Ð  ^ ÐKAREN€ANNETTE€WALLACE€DEMERSÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ôó óÐ " r ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Robertson€CountyÐ " r Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8683€€€€€€Ross€H.€Hicks,€JudgeÐ ^  ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<å` AßÐ æ6  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„01970„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€10,€2003ó óÔ#†¼=»XXCq§#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ôò òÐ á1  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¸` AßÐ ¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€involves€a€post„divorce€petition€to€reduce€child€support.€€The€mother€and€father€were€divorcedÐ ´ Ðin€1998,€and€the€mother€was€awarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€three€children.€€The€father€was€orderedÐ  ð Ðto€pay€child€support€plus€private€school€tuition,€based€on€substantial€annual€earnings€from€self„Ð ŒÜ Ðemployment.€€In€December€2000,€the€father€filed€a€petition€to€have€his€child€support€paymentsÐ xÈ Ðreduced€based€on€a€decline€in€his€business.€€The€father€later€liquidated€the€assets€of€his€business€andÐ d´ Ðquit€work.€€He€subsequently€amended€his€petition,€asserting€that€he€had€earned€no€income€since€theÐ P  Ðliquidation€of€his€business.€€After€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€rejected€the€fatherððs€petition€for€a€Ð <Œ Ðreduction€in€child€support,€finding€that€the€father€was€willfully€underemployed.€€The€father€nowÐ (x Ðappeals.€€We€affirm,€finding€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ d Ðdetermination€that€the€father€was€willfully€underemployed.Ô#†¼=»XXCq\#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÐ P ÐÌÓîÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmedó óòòÐ Ø( ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼=»àXCq #ÔÔ‡XCqX.¼=ÔHolly€M.€Kirby,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ ° Ðand€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œ ì ÐÌTroy€Lee€Brooks,€Mount€Juliet,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Kevin€Stanley€Demers.€€Ð t"Ä! ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Karen€Annette€Wallace€Demers.Ð L$œ# ÐÓD ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼=»XXCqs #ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÐ $&t!% ÐÌÔ#†¼=»XXCqb #ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óà  àPetitioner/Appellant€Kevin€Stanley€Demers€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Respondent/Appellee€KarenÐ ü'L#' ÐAnnette€Wallace€Demers€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€married€in€ò òó ó1986€and€had€three€children€during€theirÐ è(8$( Ðmarriage.€€Soon€after€Father€and€Mother€married,€they€formed€Demers,€Inc.€(ð ðDemers€Inc.ðð),€whichÐ Ô)$%) Ðbought€and€sold€printing€presses.€€Father€had€worked€in€the€printing€press€industry€since€he€graduatedÐ À*&* Ðfrom€high€school,€and€he€never€attended€college.€€Father€controlled€the€companyððs€operations,€andÐ ¬+ü&+ Ðâ âMother€worked€in€the€accounting€aspect€of€the€business.€€The€company€was€quite€successful.€€ThereÐ ˜,è',ý ÐÔ_Ôwere€only€approximately€five€printing€press€companies€in€the€country€of€a€size€and€scope€similar€toÐ ° ÐDemers€Inc.,€although€there€were€hundreds€of€similar€businesses€that€were€considerably€smaller.€Ð œì Ðâ âà  àThe€parties€divorced€in€May€1998.€€Not€surprisingly,€prior€to€that,€Mother€had€ceasedÐ tÄ Ðworking€with€Demers€Inc.€€Although€Fatherððs€income€from€Demers€Inc.€varied€from€year€to€year,Ð `° Ðfor€purposes€of€setting€child€support,€his€annual€income€was€determined€to€be€$250,000.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€theÐ L œ Ðmartial€dissolution€agreement€signed€by€the€parties,€Father€retained€the€business€and€paid€MotherÐ 8 ˆ Ða€total€of€$1.8€million€as€a€property€settlement.€€Father€sold€some€of€his€assets€and€took€out€a€$1.3Ð $ t Ðmillion€loan€against€the€company€in€order€to€pay€Mother€the€$1.8€million€within€the€required€timeÐ  ` Ðlimitations.€€In€the€divorce€decree,€Mother€was€awarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children€(agesÐ ü L  Ðfourteen,€twelve,€and€nine€at€the€time€of€trial),€and€Father€was€ordered€to€pay€monthly€child€supportÐ è 8  Ðof€$4,100€under€the€guidelines,€plus€$1,250€per€month€for€the€childrenððs€private€school€education.€Ð Ô$  ÐFather€was€also€required€to€provide€medical€insurance€and€maintain€life€insurance.€Ð À  Ðà  àIn€1999€and€2000,€the€business€declined€substantially.€€On€December€12,€2000,€Father€filed€Ð ˜è  Ða€petition€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)Ô#†¼=»XXCqº #ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ô€to€reduce€his€monthly€childÐ „Ô  Ðsupport€payments.€€In€his€petition,€he€alleged€that€a€reduction€in€support€was€necessary€because€ofÐ pÀ Ða€ð ðreduction€in€business€due€to€market€circumstances€beyond€his€control.ðð€€In€June€2001,€Father€heldÐ \¬ Ðan€auction€and€sold€most€of€the€companyððs€assets€at€discounted€prices.€€After€the€auction,€FatherÐ H˜ Ðceased€working.€€On€February€20,€2002,€Father€filed€an€amended€petition€stating€that€he€had€earnedÐ 4„ Ðno€income€since€the€June€2001€auction,€and€that€his€living€expenses€were€funded€by€a€line€of€creditÐ  p Ðfrom€Regionððs€Bank.€€Father€sought€to€reduce€his€monthly€support€payments€from€$5,350€($4,100Ð  \ Ðplus€$1,250€tuition)€to€a€total€of€$1,272,€consistent€with€an€earning€capacity€of€$50,000€per€year.€Ð øH ÐFather€alleged€that€his€earning€capacity€was€severely€diminished€by€the€necessary€auction€of€theÐ ä4 Ðassets€of€Demers€Inc.€€In€May€2001,€pending€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€his€petition,€FatherÐ Ð  Ðunilaterally€reduced€the€child€support€payments€to€his€proposed€amount.€Ð ¼  Ðà  àOn€February€26,€2002,€a€bench€trial€was€held€on€Fatherððs€petition.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€FatherÐ ”ä Ðwas€forty„three€years€old.€€Father€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€Father€said€that,€by€December€2000,Ð €Ð ÐDemers€Inc.€was€heavily€in€debt€due€to€the€loans€he€took€out€against€the€company€to€pay€Mother€herÐ l¼ Ð$1.8€million€settlement.€€Ô#†¼=»XXCq´#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔIn€addition,€he€claimed€that€Ô#†¼=»XXCqJ#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ôthe€advent€of€the€internet€negatively€impactedÐ X ¨ Ðhis€business€because€prospective€clients€could€find€available€printing€equipment,€particularly€in€otherÐ D!” Ðcountries,€simply€by€using€an€internet€search,€obviating€the€need€for€an€American€printing€pressÐ 0"€  Ðbroker€such€as€Demers€Inc.€€Ô#†¼=»XXCq©#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔBecause€of€the€decline€in€business€and€the€interest€he€had€to€pay€on€theÐ #l! Ðloan,€Father€ð ðwas€not€making€the€money,ðð€and€he€said€that€he€ð ðwas€actually€paying€more€childÐ $X" Ðsupport€than€[he]€was€paying€[himself].ðð€€On€top€of€this,€in€approximately€January€2001,€Father€wasÐ ô$D # Ðsued€by€Western€Printing€Company€(ð ðWestern€Printingðð)€in€South€Dakota.€€€€Ô#†¼=»XXCq;#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ô€Ô#†¼=»XXCq!#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àFather€testified€that,€in€June€2001,€he€held€the€auction€to€liquidate€the€companyððs€assets,€inÐ ° Ðorder€to€pay€off€the€companyððs€debts€with€the€proceeds.€€About€an€hour€before€the€June€2001€auction,Ð œì ÐFather€was€served€with€an€injunction€from€the€Western€Printing€lawsuit,€requiring€him€to€pay€all€theÐ ˆØ Ðproceeds€of€the€auction€into€the€local€chancery€court,€to€be€held€pending€the€outcome€of€the€lawsuit.€Ð tÄ Ðò òó óFather€claimed€that€he€was€presented€with€the€injunction€in€the€presence€of€some€very€well„financedÐ `° Ðbidders,€and€that€this€had€a€chilling€effect€on€the€auction,€causing€it€to€be€significantly€less€successfulÐ L œ Ðthan€he€had€anticipated.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Despite€this,€after€the€auction,€Father€was€able€to€fully€pay€the€debts€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐDemers€Inc.€€After€paying€these€debts,€Father€owned,€free€and€clear,€the€$600,000€manufacturingÐ $ t Ðfacility€out€of€which€Demers€Inc.€had€done€business.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Father€was€actively€tryingÐ  ` Ðto€sell€the€facility.Ð ü L  Ðà  àFather€testified€that,€since€the€June€2001€auction,€he€has€not€had€any€income.€€FatherÐ Ô$  Ðexplained€that€after€the€auction,€he€spent€the€great€majority€of€his€time€dealing€with€the€South€DakotaÐ À  ÐWestern€Printing€lawsuit,€which€was€finally€resolved€in€his€favor€in€February€2002,€just€prior€to€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€on€his€child€support€petition.€€Ô#†¼=»XXCqb!#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔHe€claimed€that€his€living€expenses,€including€attorneyððs€fees€andÐ ˜è  Ðchild€support,€were€being€paid€by€the€line€of€credit€against€his€house€that€he€obtained€from€RegionsÐ „Ô  ÐBank.€€In€addition,€Father€said,€he€sold€some€assets€to€meet€his€financial€obligations.€€Father€sold€hisÐ pÀ Ðlarger€BMW€vehicle€for€$35,000€and€bought€an€older€model€for€$12,500.€€He€also€sold€a€Regal€boatÐ \¬ Ðfor€$16,400.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Father€had€a€Ferrari€worth€$55,000€that€he€was€attempting€to€sell,Ð H˜ Ðbut€he€also€owned€a€sailboat€worth€$90,000€that€he€wanted€to€keep.€€Father€acknowledged€that€heÐ 4„ Ðhad€other€assets,€including€an€antique€printing€press€collection€worth€$50,000;€a€retirement€accountÐ  p Ðworth€$70,000;€an€investment€account€worth€$28,000;€a€race€car€worth€$6,000;€and€$15,000€in€aÐ  \ Ðbank€account€in€England.Ð øH Ðà  àWhen€asked€about€his€plans€for€future€employment,€Father€testified€that€he€had€made€aÐ Ð  Ðcommitment€to€start€a€parts€manufacturing€business,€but€said€that€it€would€take€two€to€three€yearsÐ ¼  Ðto€develop.€€He€said€that€no€other€company€in€the€area€would€hire€him€because€he€was€overqualifiedÐ ¨ø Ðand€he€might€learn€their€business€and€compete.€€Father€stated€that€he€was€willing€to€work,€but€thatÐ ”ä Ðhe€did€not€know€of€any€other€position€that€would€earn€him€the€$250,000€annual€income€on€whichÐ €Ð Ðthe€original€child€support€award€was€based.€€He€maintained€that€he€did€not€liquidate€Demers€Inc.€inÐ l¼ Ðorder€to€avoid€paying€child€support.€Ð X ¨ Ѐ€à  àOn€cross„examination,€Father€acknowledged€that€his€sister,€who€lives€in€Florida,€began€aÐ 0"€  Ðbusiness€called€Demers€Parts,€which€was€engaged€in€buying€and€selling€printing€press€parts.€€DemersÐ #l! ÐParts€had€operated€out€of€Fatherððs€building€since€early€2001,€and€paid€no€rent€to€Father€for€the€useÐ $X" Ðof€the€space.€€Father€testified€that€his€sister€was€not€actually€involved€in€the€operation€of€DemersÐ ô$D # ÐParts,€but€that€his€brother€was€quite€involved€in€the€company.€€Prior€to€his€work€€with€Demers€Parts,Ð à%0!$ ÐFatherððs€brother€had€no€experience€in€the€printing€press€business.€€Father€also€acknowledged€that,Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âat€the€June€2001€auction,€he€sold€equipment€with€a€street€value€of€$150,000,€to€Demers€Parts€forÐ ¸'#& Ð$31,000.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€also€admitted€that,€a€few€months€after€the€auction,€he€sold€a€machine€for€$178,000,Ð ° Ðâ âthe€proceeds€of€which€went€into€Demers€Parts.€€Father€admitted€to€helping€Demers€Parts€sellÐ œì Ðmachines€and€parts,€but€he€denied€having€been€paid€any€money€by€the€company€for€his€services.€Ð ˆØ ÐFather€said€that€his€brother€lives€with€him,€paying€no€rent.€€Father€also€admitted€that€he€sold€aÐ tÄ Ðcompany€van€belonging€to€Demers€Inc.€for€$8,500€and,€using€that€money,€bought€his€brother€aÐ `° Ð$10,000€Mustang.€€Further,€Father€admitted€to€using€the€Demers€Inc.€charge€card€and€checkingÐ L œ Ðaccount€frequently€for€personal€use,€such€as€in€payment€for€football€season€tickets,€travel€expenses,Ð 8 ˆ Ðrestaurant€expenses,€gasoline,€and€other€expenses.€€In€fact,€between€October€2000€and€March€2001,Ð $ t ÐFather€spent€$33,126€of€Demers€Inc.€funds€on€travel€and€entertainment,€including€a€trip€to€Italy.€Ð  ` ÐFather€insisted€that€all€of€the€trips€were€business€related.Ð ü L  Ðà  àFatherððs€accountant,€George€Shick€(ð ðShickðð),€also€testified€at€trial.€€Shick€said€that€FatherÐ Ô$  Ðhired€him€to€assist€in€gathering€the€funds€to€pay€Mother€the€$1.8€million€settlement€in€the€MDA.€Ð À  ÐShick€said€that€this€took€about€a€year.€€To€accomplish€that€goal,€Shick€noted,€Father€sold€his€homeÐ ¬ü  Ðand€purchased€a€much€less€expensive€one,€and€took€out€the€$1.3€million€loan€against€Demers€Inc.€Ð ˜è  ÐShick€estimated€that€Fatherððs€post„settlement€net€worth€was€approximately€$1.3€to€$1.4€million,Ð „Ô  Ðthough€he€had€a€significant€amount€of€debt€and€not€much€liquidity.Ð pÀ Ðà  àBy€December€1999,€Shick€stated,€Demers€Inc.€had€maxed€out€its€$1.3€million€line€of€credit,Ð H˜ Ðand€the€business€declined.€€In€the€fall€of€2000,€when€it€appeared€that€Fatherððs€business€was€inÐ 4„ Ðviolation€of€loan€covenants€to€the€banks€that€had€extended€him€lines€of€credit,€Shick€recommendedÐ  p Ðto€Father€that€he€close€down€his€business.€€Shick€testified€that€he€was€present€at€the€June€2001Ð  \ Ðauction€of€the€assets€of€Demers€Inc.€€Shick€said€that€when€Father€was€presented€with€the€injunctionÐ øH Ðfrom€the€South€Dakota€Western€Printing€lawsuit,€on€the€morning€of€the€auction,€Father€was€visiblyÐ ä4 Ðupset.€€He€stated€that€after€bidders€witnessed€the€injunction€being€served€on€Father,€only€six€or€sevenÐ Ð  Ðbidders€out€of€the€thirty„two€bidders€that€were€present€actively€bid€on€the€machines.€€Shick€believedÐ ¼  Ðthat€this€was€unusual,€in€light€of€the€fact€that€the€bidders€had€traveled€to€the€auction€from€€places€suchÐ ¨ø Ðas€Columbia,€Mexico,€New€York,€California,€and€Colorado,€and€he€surmised€that€their€reluctanceÐ ”ä Ðto€bid€was€because€of€the€injunction.€€He€said€that€Father€received€only€$8,500€cash€from€the€auction,Ð €Ð Ðand€the€rest€of€the€proceeds€went€directly€to€the€bank€to€satisfy€the€debt€of€the€company.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ShickÐ l¼ Ðopined€that€Father€could€not€continue€to€earn€$250,000€annual€income€from€ð ðthe€present€businessÐ X ¨ Ðmodel€of€Demers,€Inc.,ðð€because€he€could€no€longer€obtain€the€necessary€financial€resources€toÐ D!” Ðmaintain€inventory.€€€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àShick€said€that€he€recommended€to€Father€that€he€file€a€petition€to€reduce€his€child€supportÐ $X" Ðpayments.€€Shick€said€that€Father€had€not,€to€his€knowledge,€received€any€compensation€fromÐ ô$D # ÐDemers€Parts.€€Shick€was€unaware€that€Father€had€been€using€the€Demers€Inc.€credit€card€to€chargeÐ à%0!$ Ðpersonal€expenses.€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àMother€also€testified€at€trial.€€She€said€that€Father€had€great€potential€to€continue€his€business.€Ð ° ЀShe€noted€that€she€and€Father€had€closed€down€the€business€for€a€period€of€time€in€1994,€but€that,Ð œì Ðwhen€the€business€resumed,€it€was€stronger€than€before.€€She€asserted€that€Father€is€a€ð ðvery€brightÐ ˆØ Ðindividualðð€who€ð ðhas€the€capacity€to€earn€income.ðð€€Mother€also€submitted€the€testimony€of€aÐ tÄ ÐDemers€Inc.€former€employee,€Decker€Davis€(ð ðDavisðð).€€Davis€stated€that,€in€January€2001,€FatherÐ `° Ðð ðsaid€he€had€too€many€lawsuits,€and€his€ex„wife€was€suing€him€for,€I€guess,€for€child€support,€andÐ L œ Ðhe€was€closing€the€business€down.ðð€€Mother€argued€that€Father€closed€Demers€Inc.€in€order€to€avoidÐ 8 ˆ Ðpaying€child€support.Ð $ t ÐÓ Ó€à  àOn€March€28,€2002,€the€trial€court€made€oral€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðtrial€court€determined€that,€while€Fatherððs€income€had€declined€by€a€significant€amount,€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðwillfully€underemployed€and,€therefore,€was€not€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€child€support.€€The€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€specifically€held€that€Father€was€ð ðcapable€of€maintaining€his€Court„ordered€level€of€support.ðð€Ð À  ÐIn€determining€that€Father€was€willfully€underemployed,€the€trial€court€found€the€following€factorsÐ ¬ü  Ðto€be€significant:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€closed€his€business€in€2001€because€the€business€had€too€much€debt;Ð pÀ Ðthrough€the€liquidation,€Father€paid€off€the€debts€and€owned€a€$600,000Ð \¬ Ðmanufacturing€building€clear€of€debt.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†¼=»XXCq!(#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€claimed€no€income€after€the€auction€in€June€2001,€yet€there€was€noÐ  p Ðdecline€in€his€lifestyle.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€After€June€2001,€Father€purchased€season€tickets€to€the€Nashville€Kats,Ð ä4 Ðmaintained€his€PSLs€with€the€Titans,€and€has€enjoyed€trips€abroad,€which€wereÐ Ð  Ðcharged€through€his€business€account.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Fatherððs€claim€that€he€had€no€income€since€June€2001€was€not€credible,Ð ”ä Ðbecause€he€was€not€earning€income€on€his€$600,000€building.€€Demers€PartsÐ €Ð Ðoccupied€the€building,€but€Father€collected€no€rent€from€his€sister.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Demers€Parts€was€essentially€the€same€business€Father€was€in,€yet€neitherÐ D!” ÐFatherððs€sister€nor€his€brother€had€expertise€in€the€business.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€was€at€Demers€Parts€on€a€daily€basis;€it€is€incredulous€that€FatherÐ $X" Ðwould€work€there€but€receive€no€income€for€his€participation€in€the€business,€rentalÐ ô$D # Ðor€otherwise.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Though€Father€is€not€college€educated,€he€has€expertise,€experience,Ð ¸'#& Ðtraining,€background,€and€a€history€of€business€success.€€Based€on€his€technicalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbackground€and€his€experience,€as€well€as€his€entrepreneurship,€he€has€an€abilityÐ )à$( Ðwhich€he€is€not€currently€utilizing.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€has€deliberately€chosen€not€to€pursue€jobs€that€utilize€his€abilities.аРР ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€stated€to€Decker€Davis,€a€former€employee,€that€his€decision€to€goÐ ˆØ Ðout€of€business€was€due,€at€least€in€part,€to€his€child€support€obligation.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€used€false€advertising€regarding€his€business€and€fictitious€businessÐ L œ Ðnames,€which€made€his€business€relationship€with€his€sister€and€brother€even€moreÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuspect.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Fatherððs€brother€lives€with€him,€yet€pays€no€rent.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€denies€any€knowledge€regarding€the€capitalization€his€sister€put€intoÐ Ô$  Ðher€business,€yet€sheððs€conducting€business€out€of€the€same€business€which€heÐ À  Ðoperates,€and€she€is€apparently€not€involved€in€her€business€on€a€daily€basis.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€traded€a€business€van€to€obtain€a€vehicle€for€his€brother,€and€none€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€proceeds€were€used€for€child€support.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€sold€parts€from€his€business€to€his€sisterððs€new€business€at€aÐ H˜ Ðfavorable€price€and€took€a€note€for€a€portion€of€the€purchase€price.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€gave€a€financial€statement€to€Regions€Bank€reporting€a€401(k)€planÐ  \ Ðof€$70,000€and€showing€a€salary€of€$125,000,€both€of€which€he€testified€were€notÐ øH Ðquite€correct.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€used€the€business€charge€card€for€considerable€personal€expense€onÐ ¼  Ðextravagances,€including€a€trip€to€Italy€and€a€cruise.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€did€not€tell€his€accountant€about€the€use€of€the€business€charge€cardÐ €Ð Ðfor€personal€expenses.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€used€the€line€of€credit€he€obtained€from€Regions€Bank€to€pay€offÐ D!” Ðshareholder€debt€to€himself.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àð!ð€Father€exhibited€a€general€lack€of€candor€regarding€his€business€affairs.ÓóÓÐ$X"Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†¼=»XXCqçI#ÔÓ…ZÓÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÓ ÓConsidering€those€circumstances,€the€trial€court€discredited€Fatherððs€testimony€€and€determined€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€was€willfully€underemployed€and,€therefore,€not€entitled€to€a€reduction€in€support.€€On€April€3,Ð Ì&"% Ð2002,€the€trial€court€entered€a€written€order€consistent€with€its€oral€ruling.€€In€that€order,€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourt€awarded€Mother€$35,738€for€past€due€child€support,€which€was€the€amount€Father€owed€fromÐ ° Ðhis€unilateral€reduction€in€payments€beginning€in€May€2001.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€awardedÐ œì ÐMother€$11,908.15€in€fees€and€litigation€costs,€making€a€total€damage€award€of€$47,646.15.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†¼=»XXCqóZ#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ôà  àOn€May€2,€2002,€Father€filed€a€timely€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€On€June€23,Ð `° Ð2002,€the€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€motion.€€At€the€close€of€that€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðdeclined€to€modify€its€previous€ruling€and€reiterated€that€Fatherððs€decline€in€income€was€ð ðbothÐ 8 ˆ Ðoverstated€and€exaggerated€and,€more€importantly,€that€[Father]€had€the€ability€to€have€maintainedÐ $ t Ðthe€income,€and€that€he€was€deliberately,€by€choice,€underemployed.ðð€€The€trial€court€again€indicatedÐ  ` Ðthat€it€did€not€find€Father€ð ðto€be€particularly€credible€in€a€number€of€issues.ðð€On€August€7,€2002,€theÐ ü L  Ðtrial€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€From€that€order,€Father€nowÐ è 8  Ðappeals.€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€petition€to€reduce€his€childÐ ¬ü  Ðsupport€payments.€€First,€Father€asserts€that€the€trial€court€was€required€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ ˜è  ÐAnnotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€to€reduce€his€child€support€payments,€because€the€trial€court€is€obligedÐ „Ô  Ðto€decrease€payments€when€a€significant€variance€is€shown.€€ò òó óNext,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ pÀ Ðfinding€that€Father€was€underemployed€constituted€reversible€error,€because€the€court€impermissiblyÐ \¬ Ðimputed€income€to€him€based€on€his€ð ðopulentðð€lifestyle€and€on€the€capital€gains€from€the€sale€of€Ð H˜ Ðmarital€assets.€€Finally,€Father€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ 4„ Ðconclusion€that€he€was€willfully€underemployed.€Ð  p ÐÔ#†¼=»XXCq^#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔà  àWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€òòde€novo€óóon€the€record,€presuming€those€findingsÐ øH Ðto€be€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòò òHuntley€v.€Huntleyó óóó,€€61€S.W.3d€329,€334Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)Ô#†XCqXX XCq‹e#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔ.€€We€review€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€suchÐ Ð  Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€Ô#†XCqXX XCqìf#ÔÔ#†¼=»XXCqle#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÐ ¼  Ðà  àÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔThe€standard€for€determining€whether€an€existing€child€support€order€should€be€modified€isÐ ”ä Ðthe€ð ðsignificant€variance€test,ðð€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1),€whichÐ €Ð Ðprovides:€Ð l¼ ÐÓ Óà8  à.€.€.€In€cases€involving€child€support,€upon€application€of€either€party,€the€court€shallÐ D!” Ðdecree€an€increase€or€decrease€of€such€allowance€when€there€is€found€to€be€aÐ 0"€  Ðsignificant€variance,€as€defined€in€the€child€support€guidelines€established€byÐ #l! Ðsubsection€(e),€between€the€guidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currently€orderedÐ $X" Ðunless€the€variance€has€resulted€from€a€previously€court-ordered€deviation€from€theÐ ô$D # Ðguidelines€and€the€circumstances€which€caused€the€deviation€have€not€changed.€Ó²4ÓÐà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÓ¼kÓÓ ÓTenn.€Code€€Ann.€ðð€36-5-101(a)(1)€(Supp.€2003);€ò òòòsee€Turner€v.€Turneróóó ó,€919€S.W.2d€340,€344Ð ¸'#& Ðâ â(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Thus,€in€order€to€obtain€a€decrease€in€child€support,€the€obligor€parent€mustÐ ¤(ô#' Ðshow€a€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð,€or€a€difference€of€15%,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XCqXX XCq#h#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqãg#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ô€between€the€guidelines€and€the€amount€ofÐ ° Ðâ âsupport€currently€ordered.€€òòò òId.óóó ó;€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(3);€ò òòòsee€Coates€v.€Coatesóóó ó,Ð œì ÐNo.€M2001„01928„COA„R3„CV,€2002€WL€31528512,€at€*2€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€15,€2002).€€AsÐ ˆØ Ðnoted€by€Father,€the€statute€provides€that,€where€a€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€exists,€the€trial€court€òòshallóóÐ tÄ Ðincrease€or€decrease€the€support€award€accordingly.€€Under€some€circumstances,€however,€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€may€Ô#†XCqXX XCqÎm#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqn#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ôuse€the€obligor€parentððs€òòpotentialóó€income,€or€earning€capacity,€for€purposes€of€determiningÐ L œ Ðwhether€a€significant€variance€exists.€òòò òSee€Brooks€v.€Brooksóóó ó,€992€S.W.2d€403,€407€(Tenn.€1999)Ô#†XCqXX XCqŸp#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqáp#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ô.€€Ô#† ¼=»X XCqGr#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=ÔÔ#†XCqXX XCqr#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÔ#† ¼=»X XCqŒr#ÔÔ#†¼=»» ¼=Îr#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ôà  àÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔThe€first€step€in€determining€whether€a€significant€variance€exists€is€determining€the€obligorððsÐ  ` Ðactual€or€potential€income€to€which€the€child€support€guidelines€formula€will€be€applied.€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÐ ü L  Ðòòò òEatherly€v.€Eatherlyó óóó,€No.€M2002„00886„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€468665,€at€*3€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð è 8  ÐMay€4,€2001)Ô#†XCqXX XCqss#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqHs#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ô.€€Potential€income,€rather€than€actual€income,€can€be€used€in€making€this€determinationÐ Ô$  Ðwhen€the€obligor€ð ðhas€chosen€to€pursue€an€occupation€or€business€venture€which€producesÐ À  Ðsubstantially€less€income€than€the€parent€is€capable€of€earning.ðð€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€*4.€€Under€thoseÐ ¬ü  Ðcircumstances,€the€trial€court€is€authorized€to€impute€income€to€an€obligor€pursuant€to€the€followingÐ ˜è  ÐregulationÔ#†XCqXX XCq0u#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqru#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ô:Ð „Ô  Ðà8  àIf€an€obligor€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€unemployed€or€underemployed,€child€supportÐ \¬ Ðshall€be€calculated€based€on€a€determination€of€potential€income,€as€evidenced€byÐ H˜ Ðeducational€level€and/or€previous€work€experience.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(d).€€Thus,€if€application€of€the€guidelines€to€theÐ  \ Ðpotential€income€of€the€obligor€would€result€in€a€support€award€that€equals,€or€is€within€15%€of,€theÐ øH Ðcurrent€support€award,€then€a€decrease€of€support€is€not€required€under€the€statute.€€ò òòòSee€Anness€v.Ð ä4 ÐChapdelaineóóó ó,€No.€M2000„01792„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€1077959,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€14,Ð Ð  Ð2001).€Ô#†XCqXX XCq’w#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqÔw#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ôòòò ò€€óóó óIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Father€was€willfully€underemployed,€andÐ ¼  Ðthat€he€was€ð ðcapable€of€maintaining€his€Court„ordered€level€of€support.ðð€€Because€the€trial€courtÐ ¨ø Ðfound€that€application€of€the€guidelines€to€Fatherððs€potential€income€would€result€in€the€same€supportÐ ”ä Ðaward€as€that€previously€ordered,€then€there€is€no€ð ðsignificant€variance,ðð€and€a€decrease€in€the€childÐ €Ð Ðsupport€award€was€not€mandated.Ô#†XCqXX XCq>{#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCq€{#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ô€€Ð l¼ Ðà  àThe€real€issue€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€thatÐ D!” ÐFather€was€willfully€underemployed.€€Ô#†XCqXX XCqÚ}#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCq~#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=ÔWhether€an€obligor€is€willfully€unemployed€or€underemployedÐ 0"€  Ðdepends€on€the€factual€background€of€each€case.€€òòò òSee€Annessóóó ó,€2001€WL€1077959,€at€*3.€€Ô#† ¼=»X XCq^#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=ÔÔ#†XCqXX XCq#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔò òòòóóó óSuch€aÐ #l! Ðdetermination€is€a€question€of€fact,€in€which€the€trial€court€has€considerable€discretion.€€òòò òWillis€v.Ð $X" ÐWillisóóó ó,€62€S.W.2d€735,€738€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€The€burden€is€on€the€custodial€parent€to€showÐ ° Ðthat€the€obligor€parent€is€willfully€and€voluntarily€underemployed.€€òòò òEatherly,€ó óóó2001€WL€468665,€atÐ œì Ð*11.Ô#†XCqXX XCq”€#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔ€€The€trial€court€must€consider€the€obligor€parentððs€past€and€present€employment€and€determineÐ ˆØ Ðwhether€the€decision€to€take€the€lower€paying€job€was€made€in€good€faith.€€ò òòòWillisóóó ó,€62€S.W.3d€at€738.€Ð tÄ ÐWhen€a€party€voluntarily€leaves€his€employment€to€accept€a€lower€paying€position,€ð ðcourts€areÐ `° Ðinclined€to€find€willful€and€voluntary€underemployment.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€Ô#† ¼=»X XCqR€#ÔÔ#†¼=»» ¼=~‚#ÔÔ‡ ¼=»»¼=ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ôð ðAs€with€any€other€finding,€a€findingÐ L œ Ðof€underemployment€must€be€supported€by€evidence€in€the€record.ðð€€ò òòòEatherlyóóó ó,€2001€WL€468665,€atÐ 8 ˆ Ð*11.Ð $ t Ðà  àÔ#†XCqXX XCq¢„#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqÁ„#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=ÔFather€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€basing€its€finding€of€willful€underemployment€onÐ ü L  Ðthe€fact€that€Father€lead€an€ð ðopulentðð€lifestyle€and€suffered€no€change€in€lifestyle€since€the€originalÐ è 8  Ðchild€support€order€was€issued.׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Father€cites€òòò òAlexander€v.€Alexanderóóó ó,€34€S.W.3d€456€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Ô$  ÐApp.€2000),€in€which€the€mother€custodial€parent€petitioned€the€court€to€increase€the€child€supportÐ À  Ðpayments€of€the€obligor€father€based€on,€among€other€things,€the€fatherððs€opulent€lifestyle.€€ò òòòSeeÐ ¬ü  ÐAlexanderó óóó,€34€S.W.3d€at€458„59.€€The€father€owned€shares€of€valuable€stock€in€his€grandfatherððsÐ ˜è  Ðcorporation€(which€produces€Little€Debbie€Snack€Cakes),€which€he€sold€from€time€to€time€as€theÐ „Ô  Ðneed€arose.€€Consequently,€the€father€was€able€to€lead€an€opulent€lifestyle,€in€that€he€traveledÐ pÀ Ðextensively€and€owned€a€sailboat,€a€motor€home,€and€stock€worth€over€$420,000.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€466.€€InÐ \¬ Ðarguing€that€the€fatherððs€lifestyle€required€an€increase€in€child€support,€the€mother€relied€on€theÐ H˜ Ðfollowing€regulation:Ð 4„ Ðà8  àValuable€assets€and€resources€(expensive€home€or€automobile€which€seemÐ  \ Ðinappropriate€for€the€income€claimed€by€the€obligor)€of€the€obligor€should€beÐ øH Ðconsidered€for€the€purpose€of€imputing€income€and€increasing€the€support€award€inÐ ä4 Ðany€case€if€the€court€finds€that€equity€requires€it.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.04(1)(f).€€The€appellate€court€rejected€the€motherððsÐ ¨ø Ðargument,€however,€because€the€fatherððs€lifestyle€was€consistent€with€his€income€ð ðwhen€viewed€inÐ ”ä Ðthe€context€of€his€net€worth€and€station€in€life.ðð€€òòò òAlexanderóóó ó,€34€S.W.3d€at€466.€€The€court€explainedÐ €Ð Ðthat€ð ð[t]his€is€not€a€case€where€a€court€is€required€to€impute€income€to€an€obligor.€€There€is€no€secretÐ l¼ Ðwealth€in€this€case.€€Fatherððs€wealth€is€very€evident.€€He€lives€the€way€he€does€because€he€isÐ X ¨ Ðrelatively€wealthy€and€can€afford€to€live€that€way.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó 󀀀РD!” Ðà  àFather€argues€that€this€case€is€factually€similar,€and€that€the€reasoning€of€the€court€inÐ #l! Ðò òòòAlexander€ó óóósupports€his€argument€that€imputing€income€to€him€based€on€his€opulent€lifestyle€wasÐ $X" Ðimpermissible.€€He€points€out€that€there€was€no€finding€of€secret€wealth,€and€his€lifestyle€is€consistentÐ ô$D # Ðwith€his€net€worth€and€station€in€life.€€Father€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€emphasized€that€thereÐ à%0!$ Ðwas€no€decline€in€Fatherððs€lifestyle,€and€that€he€continued€to€purchase€professional€sports€tickets€andÐ Ì&"% Ðenjoy€trips€abroad.€€Because€the€trial€court€was€not€permitted€to€rely€on€this€factor€in€imputingÐ ° Ðincome€to€him,€Father€argues,€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€willful€underemployment€must€be€reversed.Ð œì Ðà  àIn€this€case,€however,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€trial€court€imputed€income€to€Father€basedÐ tÄ Ðon€his€lifestyle.׃+×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€By€pointing€out€that€Father€enjoyed€luxuries€such€as€travel,€sailing,€and€expensiveÐ `° Ðsports€events,€the€trial€court€was€supporting€its€conclusion€that€Fatherððs€claimed€decline€in€incomeÐ L œ Ðwas€not€credible,€and€that€it€ð ðwas€both€overstated€and€exaggerated.ðð€€Such€a€credibility€determinationÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€given€considerable€deference€by€this€court,€ð ðand€we€routinely€decline€to€second-guess€a€trialÐ $ t Ðcourtððs€credibility€determinations€unless€there€is€concrete,€clear,€and€convincing€evidence€to€theÐ  ` Ðcontrary.ðð€€ò òòòScott€v.€Scottóóó ó,€No.€M1999„00322„COA„R3„CV,€2001€WL€266038,€at€*4€€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ü L  ÐMar.€20,€2001);€Ô#†XCqXX XCqç…#ÔÔ#†¼=»XXCq)†#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔò òòòHuntleyóóó ó,€61€S.W.3d€at€337.€€In€explaining€its€ultimate€conclusion€that€Father€ð ðwasÐ è 8  Ðdeliberately,€by€choice,€underemployed,ðð€the€trial€court€stated€that€Father€ð ðhas€expertise,€experience,Ð Ô$  Ðtraining,€background,€and€a€history€of€business€success.€€Itððs€true€that€heððs€not€college„educated.€€ButÐ À  Ðbased€on€his€technical€background€and€his€experience,€as€well€as€his€entrepreneurship,€itððs€apparentÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€he€has€an€ability€which€he€is€not€currently€utilizing.ðð€€Thus,€while€the€trial€court€noted€FatherððsÐ ˜è  Ðlifestyle€in€making€its€decision,€it€did€not€impute€income€to€Father€based€primarily€on€that€factor.Ð „Ô  Ðà  àSimilarly,€Father€argues€that€the€trial€court€impermissibly€based€its€imputation€of€income€onÐ \¬ Ðthe€sale€proceeds€of€marital€assets,€again€relying€on€ò òòòAlexanderóóó ó.€€He€argues€that€he€maintained€someÐ H˜ Ðsemblance€of€his€pre„divorce€lifestyle€only€by€liquidating€much€of€his€property€and€taking€out€loansÐ 4„ Ðand€advances€on€his€credit€cards.€€Such€capital€gains,€Father€argues,€may€not€be€used€for€the€purposeÐ  p Ðof€considering€or€calculating€child€support.Ð  \ Ðà  àGenerally,€capital€gains€are€included€within€the€meaning€of€gross€income€in€the€child€supportÐ ä4 Ðguidelines.€€ò òòòAlexanderóóó ó,€34€S.W.3d€at€462.€€However,€ð ða€capital€gain€resulting€from€a€sale€of€an€assetÐ Ð  Ðto€fund€a€division€of€property€in€a€divorce€should€not€be€considered€in€calculating€child€support.€Ð ¼  ÐSuch€a€rule€prevents€ððdouble„dipping.ðð€ðð€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€464.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€record€does€notÐ ¨ø Ðindicate€Ô#† ¼=»X XCqX—#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=ÔÔ#†XCqXX XCqw—#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔthat€the€trial€court€relied€on€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€marital€assets€used€to€fund€the€partiesððÐ ”ä Ðproperty€division€in€imputing€income€to€Father.€€Rather,€this€decision€was€based€on€the€finding€ofÐ €Ð Ðwillful€underemployment.€€Therefore,€this€argument€is€without€merit.€€Ð l¼ Ðà  àFinally,€Father€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€ultimateÐ D!” Ðconclusion€that€he€was€willfully€underemployed.€€Father€claims€that€the€undisputed€evidence€shows,Ð 0"€  Ðand€the€trial€court€determined€as€a€matter€of€fact,€that€his€business€declined€between€1999€and€2001.€Ð #l! ÐBecause€of€that€decline€and€increased€competition€from€internet€business,€he€argues,€he€was€forcedÐ $X" Ðto€liquidate€the€companyððs€assets;€he€did€not€liquidate€his€business€in€order€to€avoid€making€childÐ ô$D # Ðsupport€payments.€€Furthermore,€Father€argues,€the€fact€that€he€had€to€sell€assets€shows€that€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðlifestyle€had€changed€significantly.€€Father€points€out€that€he€sold€his€home,€his€boat,€and€his€car€toÐ Ì&"% Ðpay€child€support€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€Father€claims€that€the€trial€court€attributed€undue€significanceÐ ¸'#& Ðto€Decker€Davisððs€testimony€that€Father€sold€the€business€to€avoid€paying€child€support,€becauseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðafter€Davis€left€Demers€Inc.,€he€became€a€direct€competitor.€€Father€also€asserts€that€the€undisputedÐ ° Ðevidence€shows€that€he€was€unable€to€find€other€employment€after€the€auction,€because€he€spent€mostÐ œì Ðof€his€time€until€February€2002€vigorously€defending€himself€in€the€Western€Printing€litigation€inÐ ˆØ ÐSouth€Dakota.€€Furthermore,€Father€asserts,€he€has€only€a€high€school€education,€with€no€otherÐ tÄ Ðformal€training€or€education,€and€his€vocation€is€not€widely€marketable€in€the€industry.€€In€addition,Ð `° ÐFather€claims,€the€evidence€showed€that€he€could€not€start€up€an€equivalent€business,€because€he€noÐ L œ Ðlonger€has€the€financial€resources€to€get€a€significant€line€of€credit.€€Therefore,€because€the€sale€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€business€was€made€in€good€faith,€and€because€he€is€unable€to€find€a€job€paying€him€as€much€asÐ $ t Ðhe€was€earning€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€he€argues€that€he€is€not€willfully€underemployed.€€€€Ð  ` ÐÔ#† ¼=»X XCqôž#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=ÔÔ#†XCqXX XCq6Ÿ#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔà  àAs€noted€above,€determining€whether€an€obligor€parent€is€willfully€underemployed€ð ðis€a€fact„Ð è 8  Ðdriven€inquiry€requiring€careful€consideration€of€all€the€attendant€circumstances.ðð€€ò òòòScottó óóó,€2001€WLÐ Ô$  Ð266038,€at€*3.€€ò òòòóóó óIn€making€such€a€determination,€ð ðthe€Court€is€required€to€consider€the€obligorððsÐ À  Ðeducation€and€prior€work€experience.ðð€€òòò òBrooksóóó ó,€992€S.W.2d€at€407;€ò òòòWillisóóó ó,€62€S.W.3d€at€738.€€InÐ ¬ü  Ðaddition,€the€Court€considers€Ô#†XCqXX XCq†©#ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÔ#† ¼=»X XCqD©#ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ôthe€parent€obligorððs€reason€for€accepting€the€lower€paying€position€toÐ ˜è  Ðdetermine€whether€the€decision€was€made€in€good€faith.€€òòò òEatherlyó óóó,€2001€WL€468665,€at€*11.€Ð „Ô  Ðð ð[O]bligor€parents€should€not€be€permitted€to€avoid€their€child€support€obligations€by€liquidatingÐ pÀ Ðtheir€businesses,€by€quitting€work,€or€by€taking€lower€paying€jobs.€.€.€.€€Accordingly,€the€courts€mustÐ \¬ Ðscrutinize€the€reasons€for€the€obligor€parentððs€career€decision€.€.€.€and€the€reasonableness€of€his€orÐ H˜ Ðher€ultimate€career€choice.ðð€€ò òòòScottóóó ó,€2001€WL€266038,€at€*3€(citations€omitted).€€Ô#†XCqXX XCq¬#ÔÔ#†¼=»XXCqE¬#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÔ‡ XCqXXXCqÔÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†XCqXX XCqv¯#ÔÔ#†¼=»XXCqW¯#ÔÔ‡ ¼=»»¼=ÔÔ‡ XCqX» ¼=Ôà  àIn€this€case,€the€evidence€was€not€strong€that€Fatherððs€decision€to€close€Demers€Inc.€and€sellÐ  \ Ðthe€assets€was€to€avoid€paying€child€support,€despite€the€testimony€of€Decker€Davis.€€FatherððsÐ øH Ðtestimony€about€the€circumstances€leading€to€the€decision,€including€the€South€Dakota€lawsuit,€wereÐ ä4 Ðessentially€unrefuted.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€trial€court€had€ample€evidence€on€which€to€base€itsÐ Ð  Ðfinding€that€Fatherððs€claim€of€no€income€since€the€auction€was€not€credible.€€Father€asserted€that€hisÐ ¼  Ðbrother€and€sister,€with€no€prior€experience€in€the€printing€press€industry,€ran€Demers€Parts€out€ofÐ ¨ø ÐFatherððs€building€at€no€charge,€and€that€Father€was€involved€in€the€business€but€derived€no€incomeÐ ”ä Ðfrom€it.€€Moreover,€Father€claimed€that€he€maintained€essentially€the€same€lifestyle€by€selling€assets,Ð €Ð Ðbut€claimed€he€had€no€income€from€which€to€pay€the€court„ordered€child€support.€€Under€theseÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances,€the€trial€court€was€entitled€to€disbelieve€Fatherððs€assertion€that€he€had€no€incomeÐ X ¨ Ðsince€the€auction€of€the€assets€of€Demers€Inc.Ð D!” Ðà  àMoreover,€Fatherððs€testimony€on€his€efforts€to€find€other€employment€or€business€venturesÐ #l! Ðindicated€that,€until€shortly€before€the€trial€in€this€cause,€Fatherððs€time€was€taken€up€primarily€byÐ $X" Ðdefending€the€Western€Printing€litigation€in€South€Dakota;€there€was€scant€testimony€about€hisÐ ô$D # Ðefforts€to€secure€another€position€or€venture.€€Father€claims€that€he€cannot€find€desirable€employmentÐ à%0!$ Ðbecause€he€has€only€a€high€school€education,€he€is€not€trained€in€any€other€industry,€and€theÐ Ì&"% Ðopportunities€in€his€field€are€very€limited.€€When€asked€about€his€efforts€to€obtain€employment,Ð ¸'#& ÐFather€replied€that€he€planned€to€start€a€parts€manufacturing€business,€but€offered€no€details€aboutÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€prospective€business.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€that€Father€has€taken€any€affirmativeÐ )à$( Ðsteps€to€find€regular€employment.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€cannot€find€that€the€evidenceÐ |*Ì%) Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Father€has€the€skills€and€experience€toÐ h+¸&* Ðenable€him€to€work€in€his€field,€but€that€he€is€not€utilizing€his€abilities.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÐ ° Ðtrial€courtððs€conclusion€that€Father€is€willfully€underemployed.Ð œì Ðà  àMother€asserts€that€Fatherððs€appeal€is€frivolous€and€seeks€fees€and€costs€on€appeal.€€We€doÐ tÄ Ðnot€consider€Fatherððs€appeal€to€have€been€frivolous,€and€the€original€property€division€indicates€thatÐ `° ÐMother€has€sufficient€funds€to€pay€her€attorneyððs€fees.€€Therefore,€this€request€is€denied.Ð L œ Ðà  àWe€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€are€to€be€assessed€to€Appellant€Kevin€StanleyÐ $ t ÐDemers,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€€€Ô#†XCqXX XCqð¯#ÔÔ#†¼=»XXCq°#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=ÔÐ  ` Ðà  àÌÌÌÓ ÓÔ#†¼=»XXCq.½#ÔÔ‡XCqX»¼=Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€M.€KIRBY,€JUDGEÔ#†¼=»XXCq¨½#Ô