WPC># .zVX)~~Jޞ~Қnٔ!,~tS*,< PFұ{2`Q/hyBU+#ɥpžKWF(Bl5o~@Ekxy+"Dwԕ[)IgJ+I= :Lahl2(^'[q'Dep\u5WVZ t  ن?E2b0ֽf0ƥtad3, j [PݿA7z>(Cvtv EBrKή R)܆/Y] 2+ī̷yX9W 'PH8*$wBT"\Suio]97kOuxT(lL\$UE/ 0]mn}%5-"/zPDPf䶾8XeA-\jZLukb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ' 1Nt 0cvUNE')QoU> GI 1u 72rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrb 00 0Y 0N55 0 n  B 0C D3 D- 0KG G AS  0! 0DO" A"HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0t+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularQ+:i+00 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.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R$      2  9   _Inthesehearings,andonsubsequentmattersincludingthisappeal,Mr.Harrisappeared prose . G R$      3  9   _Additionally,wenotethatwehavestatedonseveraloccasionsthatthetrialcourthasdiscretionwhendeciding  whethertohearacasebroughtbyapartywhoremainsincontemptofcourt . Segelke ,584S.W.2dat214; seealsoHoyle t v.Wilson ,746S.W.2d665,67374(Tenn.1988)(statingthatthetrialcourtsrefusaltoaidsomeoneincontemptis :  withinthediscretionaffordedatrialcourt...whichexerciseofdiscretionwillnotbereversedabsentsomeabuse.. P ..); Ballv.Ball ,No.02A019709GS00239,1999WL95977,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.25,1999)( noperm.app.  filed )(statingthat [a]trialcourtmay,initsdiscretion,refusetoconsiderarequestforreliefbyapartyincontempt.);   Stateex.rel.Hallv.Norrod ,No.01A019201JV00008,1992WL312619,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.30,1992)( no P  perm.app.filed )(statingthattrialcourtsarenotforbidden tograntrelieftoapartywhoseconducthasbeen  f contemptuous.).  R$      4  9   _Ms.Harrispaid$4000.00ofthe$8,139.00judgmentin1993.Atthetimeoftrial,Ms.Harrisstillowed  $4,139.00.Thecourtenteredanorderrevivingthejudgment,intheamountof$4139.00,againstMs.HarrisonJanuary t 3,2000.\  `&Times New Roman  R$      5  9   _Section365103(c)oftheTennesseeCodestatesthat [t]heplaintiffspousemayrecoverfromthedefendant  spouse...reasonableattorneyfeesincurredinenforcinganydecreefor...childsupport...inthediscretionofsuch t court.(2000).3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -0.Normal64Hyperlink    (O$(|G2$ !.8V|d XXd8         0  =SDU_17FN;B0055 d  R$      1  9   _Theorderenteredinthecircuitcourtcontainedthefollowinglanguage:  8  ItistheopinionofthisCourtthattheJuvenileCourtofShelbyCounty,Tennesseedoesnothave 8 jurisdictiontohearanddeterminethepetitionoforonbehalfofSandraO.Harrisforchildcustody, L childsupport,childvisitationoranyothermattersthatwerelitigatedintheabovecause,sincethis  Courthasnotrelinquishedjurisdiction.(|3Q^$ !.8V|d XXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Q^$ !.8V|d XXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Jd d8     _  g18 ,XXdd 8  @ y g1INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#g1y #Ԉ &   October15,2001Session L X>Xg1 #g1XX>#SANDRAHARRISv.JOHNW.HARRIS,JR.X>Xg1  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.87987_R.D._ԀKarenR.Williams,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200003058_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember29,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thiscaseinvolvesadisputeoverchildsupport.Afterthemotherandfatherdivorced,thefather x  agreedtopaychildsupport.Subsequenttoseveralhearingsregardingmanydifferentissues,the d mothersuedthefathertocollectchildsupportarrearage.Attrial,thefatherarguedthatthemother P shouldnotbeheardbecauseofanearliercontemptcharge.Thefatheralsoarguedthatanyarrearage < shouldbesetoffbyhisearlierjudgmentagainstthemother.Thetrialcourtfoundthefatherwasin (x arrearsintheamountof$21,753.00andgrantedjudgementtothemother.Thefatherappealsthis d judgment.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionandremandforacalculationofattorneysfees. P Ѐ <  #g1XX>i#X>Xg1Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and ( Remanded     #g1X>R#X>X.g1DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK.  _Lillard_,_J.J._,joined.  JohnW.Harris,Jr., Prose . ` AlanS._Kleiman_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,SandraHarris. 8!    OPINION #g1XX>; #X>Xg1 #`" #g1XX>A #  X>Xg1e  Afterabriefmarriagethatincludedthebirthoftheironlychild,JohnW.HarrisandSandra $8 $ O.HarrisdivorcedinJuly1983.Byagreement,Ms.Harrisretainedprimarycustodyofthechild. %$!% TheagreementprovidedthatMr.Harriswastohavevisitationrightsatleastonceamonth.The &"& agreementfurtherprovidedthatMr.Harriswouldpay$250eachmonthaschildsupport. '"'   Shortlyafterthedivorce,Ms.HarrismovedtoIndiana.Asaresult,Mr.Harrispetitionedthe )$) courtforspecificvisitation.InrulingonMr.Harrissmotion,thecourtstatedthatthechildwould p*%* visitMr.HarrisinMemphisatMs.Harrissexpenseeveryothermonth.Ontheinterveningmonths \+&+  whenthechildwouldnotcometoMemphis,thecourtpermittedMr.Harristovisitthechildin H,', Indiana.Theparties,however,wereunabletocomplywiththisarrangement,andinFebruary1985,  thecourtheldMs.Harrisincontempt.     SometimeafterthecourtheldMs.Harrisincontempt,Ms.HarrisfiledaTitleIVD_URESA_ t petitioninShelbyCountyJuvenileCourt.In1988,thecircuitcourtwhichhadgrantedthedivorce, ` ruledthatthejuvenilecourtlackedjurisdictionoverthematterW  #  1      ׀andwentontostatethat sinceMs. L  HarriswasheldincontemptofcourtonFebruary22,1985,sheshouldcomeintocourtandpurge 8  herselfofcontemptbeforeanyaffirmativeactionshouldberenderedinthiscause. $ t   Thecouplespostmaritalproblemscontinued,andin1989,thecourtawardedMr.Harrisa  L  judgmentintheamountof$8,139.00.ThecourtbasedthisawardonaSpecialMastersreportin  8  1985.Inthereport,theSpecialMasterdeterminedthatMs.HarrisconvertedaportionofMr.Harriss $  personalpropertytoherownuseinviolationofthedivorcedecree.Ms.Harrischallengedtheaward,   assertingthatthecourtdidnothavejurisdiction,butthecourtaffirmeditsjurisdictionandrefused   tosetasidetheaward.     Thefinalactioninthislonglineofmotions,hearings,andorderswasapetitionforcontempt p filedbyMs.HarrisinFebruary1999.Inherpetition,Ms.HarrisassertedthatMr.Harriswas \ $31,125.00behindinchildsupportpayments.Ms.Harrissoughttohavethecourttoenforcethe H paymentofthisarrearageandtoawardMs.Harrisattorneysfees.Mr.Harrisfiledanansweranda 4 motiontodismiss,statingthatMs.Harrisshouldnotbeallowedtoproceedinheractionuntilshe  p purgedherselfoftheearliercontemptcharge.Mr.HarrisalsoarguedthatthejudgmentagainstMs.  \ Harrisshouldbeusedtosetoffanyamountofchildsupporttowhichheisheldinarrears. H   Afterthreehearingsonthematter,thecourtenteredanordergrantingMs.Harrisspetition   forcontemptinpartanddenyingMr.Harrissmotiontodismiss.(  #  2      ׀ThecourtheldMr.Harrisin   arrearsintheamountof$21,753.00.ThearrearageawardedtoMs.Harrisreflectedtheamountowed  byMr.HarrisfromthedateofthedivorceuntilSeptember30,1999.Theamountreflectedcrediton  behalfofMr.HarrisduetomoneypaidbytheSocialSecurityAdministrationtothechildfrom  February1999untilSeptember1999.Additionally,thecourtrefusedtosetoffthearrearagedueto l theearlierjudgmentagainstMs.Harris,statingthatthe childsupportbelongstothechild.Itisnot X  anassetoftheMother,althoughtheMotherhascompletecontrolofthefunds.Finally,thecourt D! awardedMs.Harris$3000.00inattorneysfees. 0"    Mr.Harrisappealstherulingofthetrialcourt.Theissues,asweperceivethem,are: $X" Ї (5h83"3"  8  3p25h  I  .3  0` !!  WhetherthetrialcourterredbyhearingMs.Harrisspetitionforcontempt.3p݌` !` ! Ќ  8   !! "3"  8  325h  II  .3  0` !!  Whetherthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtousetheearlierjudgmentagainst  Ms.Harristosetoffthechildsupportarrearage.3݌t` !` ! Ќ  8  III.0` !!WhetherMr.Harrisreceivedpropercreditforthearrearage.L ` !` ! 8  IV.0` !!WhetherthetrialcourtsorderviolatedtheFourteenthAmendmentofthe $ t UnitedStatesConstitutionbydenyingequalprotectiontoMr.Harris. `` !` !   Totheextenttheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de  8  novo withapresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemaynotreversethetrialcourts $  factualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. Id. Withrespecttothe   courtslegalconclusions,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. Bowdenv.   Ward ,27S.W.3d913,916(Tenn.2000).     Inhisfirstissue,Mr.HarrisarguesthatthetrialcourterredinhearingMs.Harrisspetition p forcontemptbecauseofthecourtstworulingsin1985andin1988.ThecourtheldMs.Harrisin \ contemptinthe1985rulingandstatedinthe1988rulingthatMs.Harris shouldcomeintocourtand H purgeherselfofcontemptbeforeanyaffirmativeactionshouldberenderedinthiscause.Wedonot 4 findMr.Harrissargumenttobepersuasive.  p   Inadditiontothecourts1988order,Mr.Harrisrelieson _Segelke_Ԁv._Segelke_ ,584S.W.2d211, H 214(Tenn.Ct.App.1978)wherewequotedthefollowingfromGibsonsSuitsinChancery: 4 8  HewhoseeksEquitymustdoEquity,andhewhohasdoneinequityshallnothave   Equity.Therefore,itisageneralrulethatapartywhoisincontemptwillnotbeheard  bytheCourt,whenhewishestomakeamotionoraskafavor;....Hisfirstdutyis  topurgehiscontempt,andtheonlystepshecantakearetoapplytotheCourt(1)to  setasidetheproceedingsagainsthimbecausetheyareirregular,and(2)tobe l dischargedonthegroundthathehaspurgedhimselfofhiscontempt,bydoingtheact X  forthenonperformanceofwhichthecontemptwasincurred,andconfessing D! judgmentforthecostsoccasionedbyhiscontumacy.GibsonsSuitsinChancery,5th 0"  ed.,Vol.2,970,p.195.#l!!! eWhilewestandbythisgeneralprincipleoflaw,itisinapplicabletothepresentsituation.In1991, $D # theTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthatequitabledefensescannotbeusedto defeattherightofa %0!$ childtoreceiveparentalsupport. _Rutledge_Ԁv.Barrett ,802S.W.2d604,607(Tenn.1991).In &"%  _Rutledge_ ,the_obligor_Ԁdefendedasuitforchildsupportarrearageassertingthatthe_obligee_Ԁhad '#& uncleanhandsbasedonherfailuretocomplywithcourtorderedvisitation. Id. at605.Thecourt (#' statedthat thecustodialparentsconductcannotextinguishthenoncustodialparentslegal )$(  responsibility. Id. at607.Thecourtfurtherstatedthatchildsupportisforthebenefitofthechild |*%) andconcludedthattheparentwiththeequitabledefensecannotunilaterallysuspendsupport  paymentsandthenseektoavoidthearrearage. Id.      Theprincipalannouncedin _Rutledge_ appliestothepresentcase.Mr.Harrisseekstoavoid t payingthechildsupportthatisinarrearagebecauseofMs.Harrisspreviouscontemptcharge.Mr. ` HarrisarguesthatbecauseMs.Harrishasdonenothingtopurgehercontempt,Ms.Harrisshould L  notbeallowedtousethecourtstocollectthearrearage.Asin _Rutledge_ ,thisequitabledefensewill 8  notdefeatMs.Harrissclaim.  #  3      ׀Ms.Harrisspreviousactsshouldnotaffectthechildsrightto $ t support.Therefore,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinallowingMs.Harristomaintainan  ` actionagainstMr.Harrisforthechildsupportarrearage.  L    WenowturntoMr.Harrisssecondissue.Mr.HarrisassertedinthecourtbelowthatMs. $  Harrisstillowedmoneyonthe1989judgmentfortheconversionofMr.Harrissproperty.  #  4      ׀Thetrial   courtrefusedtoallowMr.Harristosetofftheamountofchildsupportinarrearsbythis1989   judgement.Mr.Harrisarguesthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtosetoffthearrearage.We   disagreeandholdthatthetrialcourtproperlyrefusedtosetoffthearrearagebythe1989judgment   againstMs.Harris. p   WhiletherearenoreportedopinionsinTennesseeaddressingthisquestion,weaddressed H thisissuein Oliverv._Oczkowicz_ ,No.89396II,1990WL64534(Tenn.Ct.App.May18,1990) 4 ( noperm.app.filed ).In Oliver ,X>XXX>thetrial% T #X>XXX>29#%T[9X>XXX>courtfoundthatMr._Oczkowicz_Ԁowed$9,295.15inback  p childsupporttoMs.Oliverbutthathewasentitledtoacreditagainsthischildsupportarrearage  \ intheamountof$4,754.65,whichincludedcertainexpendituresmadebyMr._Oczkowicz_Ԁforthe H benefitoftheparties'children,certainexpensesincurredbyMr._Oczkowicz_Ԁinconjunctionwithhis 4 visitationwiththechildren,andapersonalloanthatMr._Oczkowicz_ԀhadmadetoMs.Oliver. Id.#X>XXX>9#X>XXX>    at*12.Onappeal,thisCourtfirstconcludedthatMr._Oczkowicz_Ԁwasentitledtooffsethischild   supportarrearagebyvoluntarypaymentsmadebyhimforthechildren'snecessariesthatwerenot  beingprovidedbyMs.Oliver. Id. #X>XXX>t<#X>XXX>Ԁat*2.Additionally,however,weconcludedthatMr._Oczkowicz_  wasnotentitledtooffsethischildsupportarrearagebyamountsowedbyMs.OlivertoMr.  _Oczkowicz_Ԁthatwereunrelatedtothechildsupportorder% U #X>XXX> >#%Uj?4 5  1  S1?  @  6?PO  7so?X>XXX>becausetoallowsuchasetoff would l amounttorequiringthechildrentopaythedebtsofthecustodialparent. Id. #X>XXX>@#X>XXX>Ԁat*2.Finally,this X  CourtcommentedthattheeffectofitsrulingwasnottowipeouttheamountsowedbyMs.Oliver  toMr._Oczkowicz_Ԁbut,rather,thatMr._Oczkowicz_Ԁwould havetoresorttotheordinarylegal  processestocollectthedebtratherthantakingitoutofhischildsupportobligation.#X>XXX>{A#X>XXX> Id. #X>XXX>qC#X>XXX>Ԁat*2.1??݌  Ќ  S#X>XXX>C#  ThisCourtreliedupon Oliver whenwereachedourdecisionin Hayesv.Hayes ,W1999  V 00445_COA_ԄR3CV,2000WL987331(Tenn.Ct.App.July12,2000)( noperm.app.filed ).In  B  Hayes ,Ms.Hayes(Ms._Beuerlein_)executedapromissorynotenamingMr.Hayesasthepayee. Id.   . at*5.Mr.Hayessuedtocollecttheentireamountdueonthenote,butthetrialcourtarrangeda   paymentschedulewhereMr.HayeswouldpayaportionofhischildsupportpaymenttoMs.   _Beuerlein_ԀeachmonthwiththeremainderofthechildsupportobligationsetoffagainstMs.    _Beuerlein_sdebtunderthepromissorynote. Id. Wereversedthetrialcourtsdecisionconcluding   that z  consistentwiththisCourtsrulingin Oliver ,thetrialcourtshouldnothaveordered R  that[aportion]ofMr.Hayesmonthlychildsupportobligationshouldbeappliedas >  asetoffagainstMs._Beuerlein_sindebtednesstoMr.Hayes.Rather,thecourtshould *z havegrantedajudgmenttoMr.HayesinthefullamountowedtoMr.HayesbyMs. f _Beuerlein_Ԁunderthepromissorynote.  R Id. at*6.  &   Applyingourdecisionsin Oliver andin Hayes ,weholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrin  refusingtoallowMr.HarristosetoffthechildsupportarrearagewiththejudgmentagainstMs.  Harris.    Inhisthirdissue,Mr.Harrisarguesthatthetrialcourterredincalculatingthechildsupport Z inarrearsbecausethetrialcourtfailedtogivepropercreditforSocialSecuritypaymentsmadeto F thechildonMr.Harrissbehalf.Mr.Harrishastheburdentoillustratethatthetrialcourterredin 2 calculatingtheamountofchildsupportinarrearage.AsMr.Harrisfailedtocarrythisburden,we n concludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrincalculatingthechildsupportarrearage.  Z ̀  Finally,Mr.HarrisarguesthatthetrialcourtviolatedtheEqualProtectionClauseofthe !2 UnitedStatesConstitutionasappliedtothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment.WefindMr. "  Harrissequalprotectionargumentwithoutmerit. # !   Ms.HarrisrequeststhatweorderMr.Harristopayherattorneysfees.Thedetermination % # ofwhethertoawardattorneysfeesforanappealiswithinourdiscretion.  #  5      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.365 ~&!$ 103(2000).Attorneysfeesareappropriateinchildsupportcaseswhenoneparentmustappealor j'"% litigateacaseonbehalfofaminorchildinordertosecurethatchildsfinancialwellbeing. Graham V(#& v.Graham ,204_S.W._Ԁ987,989(Tenn.1918); _Ragan_Ԁv._Ragan_ ,858S.W.2d332,33334(Tenn.Ct.  App.1993).Inthepresentcase,itisclearthatMs.Harrishadtoresorttothecourtsinorderto  enforceMr.Harrisschildsupportobligations.Therefore,weholdthattherequestforattorneys  feesisproperandremandthecausetothetrialcourttosetareasonablefeefortheservicesrendered t bycounselonappeal. `   Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtandremandthecauseforfurther 8  proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,John $ t W.Harris,Jr.,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. p   `    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE