ÿWPC£ :# <UNG %• 0G›U:âBw@^4ž² 1mÁ 0c. 0—‘ 0D(Ll¸ÀU:È B 0J 0Ti 0^½ 0h 0rƒ 0|õ AQq Æ 0Dˆ 0@Ì 0D 0†P D/Ö 0 B• D3² 1uå 0dZU>¾U*üB)&DCO AM’ßlæv~RvÓИHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ÙDÚDÛÜDÝÞEßàDáÓ€í  ƒ‰#Ç3|xí #+e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3º$´´Ô2+eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(G(2Çb$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€XÝùXXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT¿"Arial RegularüÿP Pd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô'÷ÿ dxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d'''''ÿÿdxd$& ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd "4Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ýÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€2XÔÌÌò òDecember€10,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€2ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ôÔW.€Walton€Garrett€in€òòTennessee€Divorce,€Alimony€and€Child€Custodyóó€provides€that€€ð ð[w]hen€aÏforeign€or€interstate€decree€has€been€registered€in€a€Tennessee€court€having€jurisdiction,€the€court€whereÏthe€decree€is€registered€has€jurisdiction€to€modify€.€.€€[t]hus,€such€a€decree€becomes€domesticated.ðð€ÏGarrett,€òòTenn.€Divorce,€Alimony€&€Child€Custody€óó€(1996€ed.),€ðð€20„2.Ô€2XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÔ€2ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€üÀXXdðXXdð7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÙ€ ÙœßR€564A1-j|¤a` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌSUZANNE€W.€GIBSON,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPetitioner/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Chancery€No.€103880„1€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9701„CH„00006Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJAMES€E.€PROKELL,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óRespondent/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òKEITH€V.€MOOREó óÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌò òDANTON€ASHER€BERUBEó óÌò òEVERETT€B.€GIBSON€LAW€FIRMó óÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óà àœÌÓÓà àJames›€E.€Prokell€(ð ðProkellðð)€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€ProkellððsÏmotion€Ñ7€vFXXdðXXdð7Ñto€dismiss,€denying€his€motion€to€set€aside€and€rescind€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏsetting€child€support,€and€denying€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Prokell€also€appeals€theÏtrial€courtððs€order€of€contempt€for€his€failure€to€pay€the€ordered€child€support.€€ForÏreasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓ  Óà àœò òFACTSó ó›ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€parties€to€this€appeal€were€divorced€by€a€Pennsylvania€decree€inÏSeptember,€1993,€wherein,€the€court€awarded€custody€and€child€support€to€SuzanneÏW.€Gibson€(ð ðGibsonðð).€€There€is€one€child€of€the€marriage,€Maxfield€Prokell,€born€MarchÏ31,€1987.€€On€March€31,€1995,€Gibson€filed€a€petition€for€registration€and€modificationÏof€the€child€support€order€granted€by€the€Court€of€Common€Pleas€of€Allegheny€County,ÏPennsylvania.€€That€same€day,€the€summons€and€petition€were€personally€servedÏupon€Prokell€in€Shelby€County,€Tennessee€by€Gibsonððs€counsel.€€Thereafter,€onÍAugust€7,€1995,€Prokell€filed€a€response€wherein€he€admitted€that€Gibson€was€entitledÏto€registration€of€the€of€the€Pennsylvania€child€support€order€pursuant€to€T.C.A€ðð€36„5„229.€€Additionally,€Prokell€failed€to€raise€any€objections€to€the€trial€courtððs€jurisdictionÏover€his€person.€€ÌÌà àOn€April€17,€1995,€Gibson€filed€a€request€for€production€of€documents€in€order€toÏdetermine€the€correct€œamount›€of€child€support€owed€by€Prokell;€thereafter,€the€trialÏcourt€entered€an€order€compelling€discovery.€€Because€Prokell€complied€with€theÏrequest€for€production€of€documents€only€to€the€extent€that€such€documents€were€in€hisÏactual€possession,€Prokellððs€responses€to€Gibsonððs€request€for€production€ofÏdocuments€were€considered€to€be€inadequate€by€the€trial€court.€€On€September€29,Ï1995,€the€trial€court€ordered€Prokell€to€turn€over€all€documents€requested€within€hisÏpossession,€custody,€or€control€no€later€than€October€27,€1995.€€Further,€the€trial€courtÏordered€Prokell€to€file€a€written€response€to€the€court€declaring€that€all€documentsÏresponsive€to€each€request€for€production€of€documents€within€Prokellððs€possession,Ïcustody,€or€control€had€been€provided€to€Gibson.€€The€trial€court€defined€ð ðcontrolðð€asÏincluding,€but€not€limited€to€the€legal€right€to€obtain€the€documents€requested€onÏdemand,€notwithstanding€a€fee€or€cost€incidental€thereto.€€Additionally,€if€Prokell€wereÏunable€to€obtain€certain€documents,€the€trial€courtððs€order€mandated€that€Prokell€notifyÏGibson€by€October€27,€1995,€of€his€inability€to€obtain€certain€documents,€the€identity€ofÏthe€documents,€the€custodian€of€€the€documents,€the€reason€for€his€delay€in€producingÏthe€documents,€and€the€expected€date€of€providing€said€documents.€ÌÌà àOn€October€27,€1995,€counsel€for€Prokell€withdrew€from€this€cause€because€ofÏProkellððs€failure€and€refusal€to€cooperate€with€her€on€several€occasions.€€€ProkellÏsecured€new€representation.€€That€same€day,€Gibson€filed€a€motion€for€sanctions€forÏProkellððs€refusal€to€comply€with€the€September€29,€1995,€order€compelling€discovery.€ÏThe€trial€court€awarded€said€sanctions€on€December€22,€1995,€requiring€Prokell€to€fileÏa€formal€response€to€the€request€for€production€of€documents€no€later€than€January€17,Ï1996.€€Further,€the€trial€court,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229€(URESA),€€registered€theÏJanuary€4,€1994,€order€of€the€Court€of€Common€Pleas€of€Allegheny€County,ÏPennsylvania,€and€accepted€jurisdiction€over€matters€of€child€support.€€The€trial€courtÏentered€an€interim€child€support€modification€increasing€Prokellððs€child€supportÏpayment€from€$250€per€month€to€$500€per€month€and€ordered€Prokell€to€pay€GibsonððsÏattorney€$2,000.€€€ÌÌà àProkell,€in€non„compliance€with€the€December€22,€1995,€order,€filed€his€formalÏresponse€on€February€15,€1996.€€This€formal€written€response€was€consideredÏinadequate€in€that€it€did€not€state€that€Prokell€had€provided€Gibson€with€all€requestedÏdocuments€in€his€possession,€custody€or€control€as€required€by€the€September€29,Ï1995,€and€the€December€22,€1995,€orders.€€Gibsonððs€counsel€drafted€and€provided€aÏformal€written€response€for€Prokellððs€counsel€to€file,€but€Prokellððs€counsel€did€not€file€it.€ÌÌà àOn€February€1,€1996,€Gibson€filed€a€motion€for€sanctions€for€refusal€to€complyÏwith€the€December€22,€1995,€order€awarding€sanctions€and€for€failure€to€comply€withÏthe€September€29,€1995,€order€compelling€discovery,€granting€an€interim€increase€inÍchild€support€pending€a€full€hearing,€and€accepting€jurisdiction€over€child€supportÏissues.€€The€trial€court€awarded€such€sanctions€on€February€23,€1996,€òòinter€aliaóó,€for€ÏProkellððs€failure€to€timely€pay€the€$500€child€support€ordered€for€January€and€FebruaryÏof€1996.€ÌÌà àOn€February€28,€1996,€Gibson€filed€her€first€set€of€interrogatories,€her€secondÏrequest€for€production€of€documents€and€her€first€request€for€admissions€propoundedÏto€Prokell€requiring€that€each€be€accompanied€by€a€formal€written€response€with€30Ïdays€of€service.€€Prokell€formally€responded€to€Gibsonððs€request€for€admissions€withinÏthe€30€day€period,€but€failed€to€respond€to€her€interrogatories€or€her€request€forÏproduction€of€documents€within€this€time€period.€Ìà àÌà àThereafter,€on€April€10,€1996,€Gibson€filed€a€notice€to€take€Prokellððs€deposition.€ÏProkell€refused€to€attend€the€deposition€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,€and€requested€thatÏthe€deposition€be€taken€via€telephone.€€Counsel€for€Gibson€responded€that€given€theÏnumber€of€documents€to€be€produced,€it€would€be€unduly€burdensome,€if€notÏimpossible,€to€conduct€the€deposition€over€the€telephone.€€€ÌÌà àOn€May€6,€1996,€Gibson€filed€a€motion€with€the€trial€court€to€set€permanent€childÏsupport,€or€in€the€alternative€to€increase€interim€support.€€Additionally,€Gibson€made€aÏmotion€to€the€court€for€further€sanctions€to€be€imposed€upon€Prokell€for€his€failure€toÏcomply€with€court€orders,€specifically,€the€trial€courtððs€September€29,€1995,€orderÏcompelling€discovery,€the€December€22,€1995,€order€awarding€sanctions€and€theÍFebruary€23,€1996,€order€awarding€sanctions.€€Gibson€contended€that€Prokell€hadÏfailed€to€produce€his€1995€tax€return€or€request€for€extension,€his€1993€and€1994Ïcumulative€ledgers,€his€petty€cash€receipts€for€1996,€and€numerous€other€documentsÏnecessary€to€calculate€child€support€under€the€child€support€guidelines.€€In€particular,ÏGibson€contended€that€Prokell€had€failed€to€provide€complete€discovery€responsesÏwhich,€in€return,€hindered€her€from€determining€the€precise€nature€of€Prokellððs€claimedÏexpenses.€€Thus,€Gibson€was€unable€to€accurately€ascertain€what€items€could€beÏdeducted€from€Prokellððs€gross€income€for€child€support€purposes.€€Prokell,€at€all€times,Ïcontended€that€virtually€all€documents€requested€of€him€were€provided€to€GibsonððsÏcounsel.€€However,€the€trial€court€determined€that€Prokellððs€responses€wereÏinadequate.€ÌÌà àOn€June€6,€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€setting€permanent€childÏsupport€of€$1,591.76€per€month,€retroactive€to€March,€1995,€€based€on€21%€of€theÏgross€income€of€Prokell€less€a€deduction€for€taxes€only.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€courtÏreduced€child€support€arrearages€to€$20,879.77.€€In€making€its€decision,€the€trial€courtÏspecifically€found€that€Prokell€had€willfully€and€deliberately€failed€to€comply€with€theÏcourtððs€orders€compelling€discovery€and€granting€sanctions.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏProkellððs€non„compliance€was€evidenced€by€his€failure€to€file€a€correct€formal€responseÏto€Gibsonððs€first€request€for€production€of€documents,€by€his€failure€to€produceÏnumerous€documents€necessary€to€calculate€child€support,€and€by€his€refusal€toÏappear€at€his€deposition.€ÌÌà àThereafter,€on€July€8,€1996,€Prokell€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€a€motion€to€setÏaside€and€rescind€the€trial€courtððs€order€setting€child€support,€and€a€motion€for€a€newÏtrial.€€On€August€13,€1996,€the€trial€court€denied€Prokellððs€motions€and€found€him€to€beÏin€contempt€for€his€failure€to€pay€child€support€at€the€newly€ordered€rate.€€The€trial€courtÏstated€that€it€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€cause,€via€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229,€andÏpersonal€jurisdiction€based€on€the€fact€that€Prokell€was€personally€served€with€a€copyÏof€the€summons€and€petition€for€registration€and€modification€of€child€support€in€ShelbyÏCounty,€Tennessee€on€March€31,€1995.€€€Prokell€has€appealed€contending€that€theÏtrial€court€had€no€personal€jurisdiction€over€him€and€no€subject€matter€jurisdiction€overÏthe€cause€under€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229.€€€Further,€Prokell€asserts€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€in€making€the€child€support€award€and€in€failing€to€transfer€the€cause€toÏanother€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòœÌÌÌóóLAW›€œAND›€œDISCUSSIONó ó›ÌÌÓ  Óò òPersonal€Jurisdictionó óÌà àTennessee€courts€recognize€that€parties€who€fail€to€raise€the€issue€of€lack€ofÏpersonal€jurisdiction€in€their€original€pleading€or€motion€to€dismiss€are€deemed€to€haveÏwaived€the€defense€and€to€have€submitted€themselves€to€the€courtððs€jurisdiction.€ÏòòBiogen€Distributors,€Inc.€v.€Tanneróó,€842€S.W.2d€253,€256„57€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);ÍòòWright€v.€Universal€Tire,€Inc.óó,€577€S.W.2d€194,€195„96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).€€In€theÏcase€at€bar,€it€is€undisputed€that€Prokell€was€personally€served€with€the€summons€andÏpetition€to€register€and€modify€the€child€support€order.€€Moreover,€on€August€7,€1995,ÏProkell€filed€his€first€response€without€raising€the€issue€of€lack€of€personal€jurisdictionÏor,€in€the€alternative,€without€filing€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction.€ÏAs€a€result,€Prokell€waived€his€defense€of€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction€and€submittedÏhimself€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððsÏexercise€of€personal€jurisdiction€over€Prokell€was€proper.ÌòòÌò òóóSubject€Matter€Jurisdiction€under€T.C.A.€ðððð€36„5„201„229ó óÌà àProkell€argues€that€ð ðnothing€under€URESA€gives€Tennessee€the€right€to€transferÏa€Pennsylvania€decree€to€Tennessee€for€retrial€of€the€issues€of€whether€theÏPennsylvania€Court€should€have€ordered€life€insurance,€school€tuition€or€additionalÏsupport.ðð€€We€disagree.€€This€Court€in€òòMann€v.€Grist€óóheld€œthat€under›€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229Ïœa›€trial€court€in€Tennessee€is€empowered€to€modify€a€sister€stateððs€child€support€order€ifÏthat€order€is€properly€registered€in€a€Tennessee€court€and€the€court€has€jurisdictionÏover€the€person.€€òòMann€v.€Gristóó,€1990€WL€120723,€at€1,€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€ÌÌà àThe€material€facts€of€òòMannóó€are€very€similar€to€the€case€at€bar.€€In€òòMannóó,€theÏparties€were€divorced€in€Mississippi€in€1984,€and€child€support€was€set€by€a€maritalÏdissolution€agreement.€€òòMann€v.€Gristóó,€Shelby€Law€No.€28,€at€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€€AugustÏ22,€1990).€€Said€agreement€set€child€support€at€$150€per€month.€€Subsequent€to€theÏœdivorce,€Mann›€and€her€daughter€moved€to€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€On€November€29,Í1988,€wife€filed€a€petition€to€register€the€foreign€decree€of€divorce,€property€settlementÏand€custody€agreement€(including€child€support)€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229.€€An€order€enrolling€the€foreign€judgment€was€entered€on€February€15,€1989.€€OnÏFebruary€22,€1989,€wife€filed€a€petition€to€modify€the€final€decree€of€divorce€and€toÏincrease€child€support€on€the€grounds€that€there€had€been€a€permanent€andÏunforeseeable€change€of€circumstances€subsequent€to€the€entry€of€theÏaforementioned€divorce€decree.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€cause€for€lack€of€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction€to€modify€the€foreign€decree.€€This€Court€reversed€and€remanded€forÏa€hearing€on€the€merits€stating€that€a€court€of€this€state€can€modify€a€child€supportÏdecree€of€a€sister€state€if€that€decree€is€registered€in€a€Tennessee€court€with€personalÏjurisdiction.€ÌÌà àExcept€for€the€òòMannóó€decision,€we€do€not€have€the€benefit€of€other€casesÏdiscussing€the€issue€of€modification€under€the€parameters€of€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229.€€We€Ïacknowledged€in€òòMannóó€that€there€are€other€cases€such€as€òòHoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746ÏS.W.2d€665€(Tenn.€1988)€discussing€the€issue€of€modification€under€URESA.€€€ÏHowever,€òòHoyleóó€and€the€cases€cited€therein€discuss€a€separate€type€of€URESAÏremedy€and€make€no€mention€of€the€remedies€provided€for€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229.€ÏòòMannóó,€SHELBY€LAW€NO.€28,€at€3.€€€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229€explicitly€provides€for€ð ðadditionalÏremedies.ðð€€€€ÌÌà àLike€the€husband€in€òòMannóó,€Prokell€relies€on€the€òòHoyle€óócase€in€discussing€theÏissue€of€modification€under€URESA.òò€óó€We€believe€Prokellððs€reliance€on€òòHoyle€óóis€in€error.€ÍUnlike€the€instant€case,€òòHoyle€óódid€not€involve€the€issue€of€whether€a€Tennessee€trialÏcourt€was€empowered€to€modify€a€foreign€support€order€because€the€parties€wereÏdivorced€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County,€Tennessee.€€òòHoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746ÏS.W.2d€665,666€(Tenn.€1988).€€€As€stated€above,€the€òòHoyleóó€court€did€not€address€aÏforeign€decree€nor€did€it€discuss€or€apply€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229.€€Therefore,€it€isÏinapplicable€to€the€case€at€bar.ÌÌà àWhen€construing€a€statute,€we€must€give€effect€to€the€legislative€intent.€€òòMann,ÏóóShelby€Law€No.€28òò,€óóat€3;òò€óó(quoting€òòTidwell€v.€Collinsóó,€522€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€1975)).€€InÏascertaining€this€intent,€we€look€to€the€general€purpose€accomplished€by€theÏlegislature.€€òòId.€óó€This€Court,€in€òòScales€v.€Winstonóó,€760€S.W.2d€952,€953€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1988),€stated€by€way€of€dicta€that€URESA€was€ð ðdesigned€for€the€purpose€of€enforcingÏorders€of€foreign€courts€relating€to€the€support€of€dependent€children€and€for€theÏmodification€of€support€orders€rendered€in€a€court€of€a€foreign€state.ðð€€We€observe€andÏemphasize€the€language€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229€which€provides€that€a€registered€foreignÏdecree€ð ðshall€have€the€same€effect€and€may€be€enforced€as€if€originally€entered€in€theÏcourt€of€this€state.ðð€€As€this€Court€stated€in€òòMannóó,€ð ðwe€cannot€ignore€that€our€GeneralÏAssembly€included€the€language€ððshall€have€the€same€effect€and€may€be€enforced€as€ifÏoriginally€entered€in€the€court€of€this€state.ðððð€€Without€question,€if€the€support€order€hadÏbeen€entered€in€a€court€of€this€state,€it€could€be€modified€by€that€court€upon€sufficientÏshowing€of€changed€circumstances.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€3.€€Ìà àÌà àUndoubtedly,€this€is€true€in€the€instant€case.€€The€Pennsylvania€trial€court€issuedÍthe€divorce,€custody€and€support€decree.€€Under€the€clear€direction€of€òòMann€óóand€theÏlanguage€of€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229,€once€the€Pennsylvania€child€support€decree€wasÏregistered€in€Tennessee,€this€state€could€treat€the€Pennsylvania€decree€as€if€it€wereÏoriginally€entered€in€Tennessee€and€modify€accordingly.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Therefore,€when€the€trialÏcourt€registered€the€Pennsylvania€decree€on€December€22,€1995,€it€could€modify€theÏdecree€as€long€as€it€obtained€personal€jurisdiction€over€Prokell.€€As€mentioned€above,Ïthe€trial€court€obtained€personal€jurisdiction€on€two€grounds.€€First,€Prokell€was€servedÏwith€process€within€the€state€of€Tennessee,€and€second,€he€failed€to€raise€a€timelyÏobjection€to€the€trial€courtððs€jurisdiction€over€him€in€his€first€responsive€pleading.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€our€decision€in€òòMannóó€and€the€legislative€intent€as€evidenced€in€theÏpertinent€language€mentioned€above€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„229,€we€find€that€under€T.C.A.€ððÏ36„5„229€the€trial€court€possessed€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€modify€the€childÏsupport€order€of€the€Court€of€Common€Pleas€of€Allegheny€County,€Pennsylvania,€onceÏthat€support€order€was€registered€in€a€Tennessee€court€with€proper€jurisdiction€overÏthe€parties€involved.€ÌÌà àAdditionally,€Prokell€contends€that€the€trial€court,€being€a€chancery€court,€doesÏnot€have€jurisdiction€under€URESA.€€He€argues€that€the€chancery€court€isÏconspicuously€absent€from€the€definition€of€ð ðcourtðð€in€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„202(2)(A)(B)(C)(D).€ÍTrue,€the€chancery€court€is€not€mentioned€in€the€definition€of€ð ðcourtðð€within€T.C.A.€ðð€36„5„202;€however,€we€find€that€T.C.A€ðð€16„11„102€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€chancery€court€hasÏconcurrent€jurisdiction,€with€the€circuit€court,€of€all€civil€causes€of€action,€triable€in€theÏcircuit€court,€.€.€.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòBarrow€v.ÏBarrowóó,€419€S.W.2d€164,€165€(Tenn.€1967)€that€both€circuit€and€chancery€court€haveÏconcurrent€jurisdiction€in€the€field€of€domestic€relations.€€Clearly,€child€support€registryÏand€modification€fall€within€the€gambit€of€domestic€relations.€€Following€the€expressÏlanguage€and€legislative€intent€of€T.C.A.€ðð€16„11„102€and€the€judicial€precedent€setÏforth€in€òòBarrow,€óówe€find€that€chancery€courts€possess€proper€subject€matter€jurisdictionÏover€causes€concerning€the€registration€and€modification€of€foreign€child€supportÏdecrees€under€URESA.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€had€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€hearÏthis€cause.ÌÌò òAbuse€of€Discretion€in€Assessment€of€Child€Support€and€Other€Sanctionsòòó óÌà àóóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€37.02€provides€that€if€a€party€fails€to€obey€an€order€to€provide€orÏpermit€discovery,€the€court€in€which€the€action€is€pending€may€make€such€orders€inÏregard€to€the€failure€as€are€just,€and€among€others€are€the€following:ÌÓÓœà8 à(A)›€An€order€that€the€matters€regarding€which€the€order€was€made€or€anyÏother€designated€facts€shall€be€taken€to€be€established€for€the€purposesÏof€the€action€in€accordance€with€the€claim€of€the€party€obtaining€the€order;ÌÌœà8 à(B)›€An€order€refusing€to€allow€the€disobedient€party€to€support€or€opposeÏdesignated€claims€or€defenses,€or€prohibiting€that€party€from€introducingÏdesignated€matters€in€evidence;ÌÌœà8 à(C)›€An€order€striking€out€pleadings€or€parts€thereof,€or€staying€furtherÏproceedings€until€the€order€is€obeyed,€or€dismissing€the€action€orÏproceeding€or€any€part€thereof,€or€rendering€a€judgment€by€defaultÍagainst€the€disobedient€party;ÌÌœà8 à(D)›€In€lieu€of€any€of€the€foregoing€orders€or€in€addition€thereto,€an€orderÏtreating€as€a€contempt€of€court€the€failure€to€obey€any€orders€except€anÏorder€to€submit€to€a€physical€or€mental€examination.ÌÌà0 àÌÓÓà àIn€the€instant€case,€Prokell€was€given€considerable€opportunity€to€comply€withÏthe€trial€courtððs€orders.€€Yet,€we€find€nothing€in€the€record€showing€any€reason€for€hisÏfailure€to€respond€timely€and€completely€to€the€orders€of€the€trial€court.€€WeÏacknowledge€that€Prokell€contends€that€he€has€turned€over€virtually€everything€in€hisÏpossession,€custody€or€control.€€However,€the€trial€court,€in€its€discretion,€chose€toÏbelieve€counsel€for€Gibson€that€he€had€not€received€certain€documents€from€ProkellÏover€Prokellððs€sworn€statements€to€the€contrary.€€It€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€theÏtrier€of€fact€may€believe€all€or€part€or€none€of€the€testimony€of€any€witness€and,€even€ifÏthe€testimony€is€uncontradicted,€the€trial€court€in€its€discretion€may€disbelieve€it.€ÏòòBlackmon€v.€Estate€of€Wilsonóó,€709€S.W.2d€596,€603€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€Clearly,€theÏtrial€court€was€justified€in€its€disbelief€of€Prokell,€considering€his€extensive€history€ofÏnon„compliance€with€the€trial€courtððs€orders€as€manifested€in€the€record.€€ÌÌà àOn€September€29,€1995,€the€trial€court€sanctioned€Prokell€for€his€failure€toÏcooperate€in€discovery€by€an€order€compelling€discovery.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏProkellððs€objections€to€producing€documents€and€ordered€that€all€documents€in€hisÏpossession,€custody,€or€control€be€produced€by€October€27,€1997.€€Moreover,€the€trialÏcourt€ordered€Prokell€to€file€a€formal€written€response€to€œGibsonððs›€request€forÏproduction€of€documents.€€After€an€exhaustive€examination€of€the€record€in€this€cause,Íwe€find€no€evidence€that€Prokell€complied€with€the€courtððs€order€by€producing€allÏdocuments€within€his€possession,€custody,€or€control€no€later€than€October€27,€1995,Ïnor€do€we€find€any€evidence€that€Prokell€filed€a€formal€written€response€œin€the€trial›Ïcourt€concerning€what€items€he€had€turned€over€to€Gibson€until€his€untimely€FebruaryÏ15,€œ1996›€filing.€ÌÌà àBecause€of€his€failure€to€comply€with€the€September€29,€1995,€order,€ProkellÏwas€sanctioned€a€second€time€by€the€trial€court€on€December€22,€1995.€€Once€again,Ïwe€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€Prokell€produced€all€the€documents€in€hisÏpossession,€custody,€or€control€by€October€27,€1995,€as€required€by€the€trial€courtððsÏorder€compelling€discovery.€€Additionally,€no€formal€written€response€denoting€whatÏdocuments€had€and€had€not€been€produced€was€filed€with€the€trial€court€as€ofÏDecember€22,€1995.€ÌÌà àOn€February€23,€1996,€the€trial€court€sanctioned€Prokell€in€the€courtððs€secondÏorder€awarding€sanctions€for€his€willful€and€deliberate€refusal€to€comply€with€the€firstÏorder€awarding€sanctions.€€Prokell€failed€to€pay€his€January€and€February€childÏsupport€on€the€first€of€each€month€as€required€by€the€courtððs€order.€€€Also,€he€failed€toÏreimburse€Gibsonððs€attorney€for€court€reporter€fees.€€We€fail€to€find€anything€in€theÏrecord€that€indicates€Prokellððs€compliance€with€the€trial€courtððs€December€22,€1995,Ïorder.Ìà àÌà àOn€May€6,€1996,€Gibson€filed€a€motion€with€the€trial€court€to€set€permanent€childÍsupport€and€reduce€arrearages€to€judgment.€€Thereafter,€on€June€6,€1996,€the€trialÏcourt€entered€an€order€setting€permanent€child€support€at€$1,591.76€per€month€andÏreduced€arrearages€to€$20,879.77€based€on€Prokellððs€gross€income€minus€taxes€paid.€ÏIn€ordering€the€award€of€permanent€child€support€and€in€reducing€the€arrearages€toÏjudgment,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€Court€finds€that€Respondent€has€willfully€and€deliberately€failed€toÏcomply€with€the€Courtððs€Order€Compelling€Discovery€and€the€CourtððsÏsubsequent€orders€sanctioning€Respondent€for€failing€to€comply€with€theÏCourtððs€Order€Compelling€Discovery€by€failing€to€file€a€correct€formalÏresponse€to€Petitionerððs€First€Request€for€€Production€of€Documents€filedÏApril€17,€1995;€by€failing€to€produce,€òòinter€aliaóó,€his€business€bankÏstatements€and€cancelled€checks€since€November€1995,€his€personalÏbank€statements€and€cancelled€checks€since€December€1995,€certain€taxÏfilings€such€as€1099's€and€quarterly€estimated€tax€payments,€his€1994Ïcumulative€ledger€and€loan€documents€for€loans€upon€which€he€claims€aÏsubstantial€amount€of€interest€deductions;€by€refusing€to€attend€hisÏdeposition;€and€by€failing€to€provide€good€faith€responses€to€PetitionerððsÏFirst€Request€for€Admissions€and€First€Set€of€Interrogatories€PropoundedÏto€Respondent€and€Second€Request€for€Production€of€Documents,€whichÏresponses€violate€Rules€11,€33,€34,€36,€and€37€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure.Ìà àÌÓÓWe€believe€that€the€court€was€justified€in€awarding€child€support€based€on€ProkellððsÏgross€income€minus€taxes€paid.€€Without€complete€information,€the€trial€court€would€beÏforced€to€piece€together€the€puzzle€of€child€support€using€fragments€of€information.ÏMost€assuredly,€this€would€not€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child.€€ÌÌà àIn€considering€the€entirety€of€the€sanctions€imposed€against€Prokell,€includingÏthe€permanent€award€of€child€support€and€reducing€arrearages€to€judgment,€we€areÏreminded€of€the€language€adopted€by€this€court€in€òòHolt€v.€Websteróó,€638€S.W.2d€391,Ï394€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àBut€here,€as€in€other€areas€of€the€law,€the€most€severe€in€the€spectrum€ofÏsanctions€€provided€by€statute€or€rule€must€be€available€to€the€districtÏcourt€in€appropriate€cases,€not€merely€to€penalize€those€whose€conductÏmay€be€deemed€to€warrant€such€a€sanction,€but€to€deter€those€who€mightÏbe€tempted€to€such€conduct€in€the€absence€of€such€a€deterrent.ÌÌÓÓThat€the€trial€court€is€expressly€authorized€to€impose€sanctions€upon€a€party€failing€toÏcomply€with€discovery€orders€is€without€question.€€When€the€trial€court€exercises€itsÏdiscretion€in€sanctioning€a€party,€the€exercise€of€such€discretion€will€not€be€disturbedÏby€this€Court€in€the€absence€of€an€affirmative€showing€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€orÏher€discretion.€€òòHolt€v.€Websteróó,€638€S.W.2d€391,€394€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)(quotingÏòòHemmer€v.€Tennessee€Electric€Power€Co.óó,€139€S.W.2d€698€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1940).€ÏThe€òòHolt€óócourt€went€on€to€add€that€ð ð[t]he€trial€courts€of€Tennessee€must€and€do€have€theÏdiscretion€to€impose€sanctions€such€as€dismissal€in€order€to€penalize€those€who€fail€toÏcomply€with€the€Rules€and,€further,€to€deter€others€from€flouting€or€disregardingÏdiscovery€orders.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Prokell€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€to€show€affirmatively€thatÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€To€the€contrary,€the€record€is€quite€clear.€€ProkellÏhas€consistently€refused€to€comply€€timely€and€completely€with€the€trial€courtððs€orders.€ÏOrders€of€the€trial€court€cannot€be€taken€lightly€as€evidenced€by€the€full€sanctioningÏpower€bestowed€upon€the€courts€of€this€state.€€This€Court€stated€in€òòKirchner€v.€Pritchettóó,ÏNo.€01„A„01„9503„JV00092,€at€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€€December€6,€1995):ÌÓÓà8 àThe€risk€of€failure€or€inability€to€produce€evidence€of€the€noncustodialÏparentððs€income€and€expenses€should€not€fall€on€the€custodial€parent.€ÏThis€information€is€within€the€noncustodial€parentððs€control.€€Thus,€if€theÏnoncustodial€parent€hasòò€failed€or€refusedóó€to€produce€evidence€of€his€orÏher€income€prior€to€the€hearing,€the€burden€of€producing€satisfactoryÏevidence€of€income€and€expenses€should€be€placed€on€the€noncustodialÏparent„„the€party€most€able€to€provide€it.ÌÌÓÓUndoubtedly,€Prokell€is€the€noncustodial€parent€and€is€in€a€much€better€position€toÍobtain€the€information€requested.€€Therefore,€he€bears€the€risks€of€his€failure€or€refusalÏto€produce€evidence€of€his€income€and€expenses,€and€he€suffers€the€consequencesÏwhen€these€risks€materialize€in€the€form€of€penalties€for€his€non„compliance.€€In€thisÏcause,€that€risk€of€non„compliance€manifested€itself€in€the€form€of€court€orderedÏsanctions,€orders€of€contempt,€and€a€permanent€award€of€child€support€coupled€with€aÏreducing€of€arrearages€to€judgment.€€As€shown€above,€the€trial€court€is€provided€withÏthe€most€severe€spectrum€of€sanctions€to€carry€out€its€discovery€orders.€€Finding€noÏabuse€of€discretion,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€sanctions€imposed€upon€ProkellÏincluding€the€granting€of€permanent€child€support€and€reducing€of€arrearages€toÏjudgment.€€ÌÌò òTransfer€of€Cause€of€Actionó óÌà àIn€light€of€our€total€affirmance€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€the€issue€of€transferÏby€this€Court€is€moot.€€We€acknowledge,€however,€that€this€cause€may€reach€the€trialÏlevel€again€at€some€time€in€the€future.€€Prokell€may€submit€to€the€trial€court€a€properlyÏsupported€motion€for€recusal€at€that€time,€if€necessary.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€denyingÏProkellððs€motion€to€dismiss€and€motion€to€set€aside€and€rescind€order€setting€childÏsupport€and/or€for€a€new€trial.€€Costs€are€adjudged€against€appellant€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.Ìà àÌ€