WPC' w5Bs['!Ryʦx'e U2B,]ʥZ>HV!~ U=fSןnVBʡwW7$4PA N _u`%)^uԕsGOFB^柩OU S2׈BhПSl>%fL|s=4 mmcP]c[mCuC5#1MVVƅ%%i_C"K&m4II2H{>wTݐ>X*R͖o]`wCRMpMb#\ % U)@# 0c U=N 0 D9 9 z}  U,   }CLhN@^ BwNERTw|Bv 4!!! m!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!b!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0 !!!! B"" 0# D5# D-# 0K $ $ ASU$$ 0n% 0D& AV&HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(hH  Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   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,  AZArial   R:O$      4  }   _}  }Thetotallistedonthestatementwasactually$39,421.Althoughthisfigureistheresultofamathematical  error,thecourtusedthisfigureinawardingrelieftoMother.#}  }~# Β  }  R:O$      5  }   _}  }ԀFatherdidnotpayroomandboardmoneytoDaughterfortheperiodbetweenAugust1995andMay1996.  DuringthisperiodDaughterwasworkingfulltimeandattendingcollegeatnight(atotalof9credithours).Daughter t eitherlivedwithMotherormaintainedanapartmentduringthisperiod.FatherdidpayforDaughterstuitionandbooks 8 andprovidedherwith$630incash.#}  }~# Β  } s R:O$      1  }   _}  }ԀTheEducationalProvisionstatesasfollows:    Mr.Howardacknowledgesthatitishisdesirethattheminorchildrenofthepartiesattendacollegeoruniversity t oftheirchoicesubsequenttograduationfromhighschool.Inaccordancetherewith,Mr.Howardagreestobe 8 individuallyresponsibleforthecostoftuitionroomandboard,booksandotherrelatedcostsassociatedwitheach L childsundergraduateeducationalprocess.InordertolimittheextentofMr.Howardsobligationhereunder,itis  agreedthathisfinancialresponsibilityunderthisparagraphshallnotexceedthecostwhichwouldbeincurredwerethe  childrentoattendtheUniversityofTennesseeinKnoxville.Thisisnottosuggestthatitisthedesireofthepartiesthat H  saidchildrenattendsaiduniversity,butthecostwerethechildrentoattendtheUniversityofTennesseeshallbeutilized  \ asaguidelineinplacingalimitationonMr.Howardsresponsibilityhereunder.ThepartiesagreethatMr.Howardshall   beindividuallyresponsiblefortheundergraduateeducationalprocessofeachoftheminorchildrentocoveraperiod    offour(4)consecutiveyearsaftertheirrespectivehighschoolgraduationoruntileachchildbecomestwentythree(23) X   yearsofage,whichevereventfirst#}  }~#}  }occurs.(emphasisadded)#}  }#}  }#}  }# Β  }ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ^ R:O$      8  }   _}  }Fatherfiledseveralposttrialmotionstoalteroramendtherulingandseekinganewtrial.OnlyFathersmotion  tostaywasgranted.#}  }~#)L   R:O$      6  }   _}  }ThesemiscellaneousexpensesincludedadressandgiftforaweddingattendedbyDaughter,moneyfor  Daughtersentertainment,andmoneyforatriptoFloridamadebyDaughter.#}  }~# Β  } m R:O$      7  }   _}  }Atthetimehemadehisruling,thejudgeapparentlyencouragedFathertoappeal,statingthattherulingwas  inequitable.#}  }~# Β  } R:O$      2  }   _Thepartiesyoungestdaughterisnotattendingcollegeandthereforenotsubjecttotheeducationalprovision. 8 R:O$      3  }   _Motheralsoaskedforanincreaseinchildsupportthatwaslatergrantedbyanagreedorderoftheparties.The  increaseinchildsupportisnotatissueonappeal.~(bk23|xU- -(|G2:O$ !.8Udd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Udd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Udd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Medd8     _  Me8 XXdd8  @ @dMeINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Me@d #Ԉ &   MARCH2000Session L X XMe #MeXX #SUSAN_TRABUE_ԀHOWARDv.ROBERTMARKHOWARDX XMe  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.15223R4;TheHonorableJ.Russell_Heldman_,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199900670_COA_ԄR3CVFiled_August_Ԁ31,2000   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X XXX ThisappealarisesfromadisputeoveracontractualprovisioninaMaritalDissolutionAgreement x  ( MDA)betweentheparties.Susan_Trabue_ԀHoward( Mother)filedaPetitionforEnforcement d ofContractualObligation,allegingthatRobertMarkHoward( Father)hadfailedtoabidewitha P provisionintheMDAprovidingthatFatherwouldberesponsibleforDaughters relatedcostsof < education. ` ThecourtbelowfoundinfavorofMother,holdingthatFatherwasresponsiblefor (x allofDaughtersexpensesforthetimespecifiedinMDA.Fatherappeals.#X XXX ##MeXX #X XMe d  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversedand < Remanded  (   #MeX U#X X.MeAlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,and  Farmer,J.,joined.  MichaelE.Terry,Nashville,forAppellant t VirginiaLeeStory,Franklin,forAppellee L  )  OPINION #MeXX X #X XMe $"t! #MeXX #X XMe  X XXX Thepartiesweredivorcedin1983byafinaldecreethatincorporatedbothapropertysettlement #L# agreementandanagreementregardingthesupportandmaintenanceofthepartiestwochildren.The $8 $ agreementcontainedanEducationalProvisionprovidingthatFatherwouldberesponsibleforthe %$!% costoftuition,roomandboard,booksandotherrelatedcostsassociatedwiththechildrens &"& undergraduateeducation.TheprovisionlimitedFathersresponsibilitytothefirstofeitheraperiod '"'  offourconsecutiveyearsfollowingeachchildsgraduationfromhighschooloreachchildstwenty (#( thirdbirthday.  #  1      ׀Atthetimethiscauseofactionarose,onlythepartieseldestDaughterwasattending  college,Daughterisnowtwentythree.  #  2           InAugust1997,MotherfiledaPetitionforContemptandModificationoftheagreementin t theWilliamsonCountyChanceryCourt.MotherallegedthatFatherowedmorethanninethousand ` dollarsinexpensespursuanttotheEducationalProvision.L  #  3      ׀MotherlaterfiledanAmendedPetition L  forEnforcementofContractualObligation.Bothofthesepetitionssoughtmoneyunderthe related 8  costsofeducationclausecontainedintheEducationalProvision.Motherlatersupplementedher $ t previousitemizedlistofexpensestoincludevariousothercosts.Thisresultedinanexpenselistthat  ` totaledslightlymorethanthirtyfivethousanddollars.  #  4        L    Attrial,FatherpresentedundisputedproofthathehadpaidallofDaughterstuition,room $  andboard,andbooksfortheperiodswhileshewasenrolledincollege.  #  5      ׀Inaddition,Fatherhad   providedDaughterwithadditionalcashtotalingnearlyfifteenhundreddollars.Intheperiodcovered   undertheEducationalProvision,Daughterattendedfourdifferentcollegesandtookoffseveral   semesters. `      MotheracknowledgedFatherscontributions,butadmittedthatshesoughtreimbursement \ foreverythingthatshehadspentonDaughtersinceDaughtersgraduationfromhighschool.These H expensesincludedathirteenthousanddollarcarboughtbyMotherforDaughter,carinsuranceand 4 maintenanceexpenses,Daughterstrafficticketsandgasolineexpenses,cashintheamountofnearly  p sixthousanddollarsformoneygiventoDaughterbyMotherregardlessofwhetherDaughterwas  orwasnotenrolledincollegewhenthepaymentsweremade,approximatelythreethousanddollars  topayoffDaughterscreditcardbills,clothes,furniture,andmovingexpensestotalingnearlysix  thousanddollars,andothermiscellaneousexpenses. #  6       t   ThecourtfoundforMotherintheamountofthirtyninethousandfourhundredandtwenty L  onedollars,holdingthattheabovementionedexpensesfellunderthe otherrelatedcostsclausein 8  theEducationalProvision. #  7      ׀Inexplaininghisruling,theChancellorstatedthatFatherhadagreedto $ t befinanciallyresponsiblefortheundergraduateeducationalprocessofDaughterforfour  ` consecutiveyearsofcollegeoruntilshebecametwentythreeyearsofage.Accordingtothe  L  Chancellor,FathersdutycontinueduntilDaughterreachedtheageoftwentythree,becauseshehad  8  notattendedcollegeforaconsecutiveperiodoffouryears.Fatherappeals.#X XXX h #X XXX h #  8       x  $    Onappeal,FatherassertsthatthetrialcourterredinitsinterpretationoftheEducational   Provision.Inparticular,FatherassertsthatthetrialcourtsdecisioneffectivelymakesFather   responsibleforallexpensesincurredonDaughtersbehalf,regardlessofwhetherornotshewas   enrolledincollege.Inaddition,FatherclaimsthatthetrialcourterredinholdingthatFathers p financialresponsibilitytowardDaughterautomaticallycontinueduntilDaughterreachedtheageof \ twentythree.Motherseeksattorneysfeesincurredatboththetriallevelandonappeal. H   ANALYSIS   \ #X XXX y#X XXX     Thestandardofreviewforanonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecord.Wrightv.Cityof 4 Knoxville,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thereisapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrial   courtsfactualfindings,unlessthe preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.T#MeXX = #} MeENN#Me }"#X XMe.R.A#MeXX !##} MePP#Me }i##X XMe.P.   Rule13(d).Forissuesoflaw,thestandardofreviewisdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.  _Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).#X XXX 9!#X XXX Ԁ#X XXX $#X XXX ԀInthecaseatbar,theonly  issueinvolvesthetrialcourtsinterpretationoftheEducationalProvisionintheMDA.#X XXX .%#X XXX ԀThe  interpretationofawrittenagreementisamatteroflawandnotoffact,therefore,ourreviewisde l novoontherecordwithnopresumptionofthecorrectnessofthetrialcourt'sconclusionsoflaw. X  UnionPlanters_Nat'l_ԀBankv.AmericanHomeAssuranceCo.,865S.W.2d907,912(Tenn. D! App.1993).#X XXX %#X XXX Ԁ `  0"    #l!   Amaritaldissolutionagreementisessentiallyacontractbetweenahusbandandwifein   contemplationofdivorceproceedings.SeeGrayv.EstateofGray,993S.W.2d59,at63#X XXX '#X XXX Ԁ(Tenn.Ct.  App.1998)#X XXX H)#X XXX ԀcitingTownerv.Towner,858S.W.2d888(Tenn.1993).Therefore,theprovisionsin  aMDAaresubjecttothesamerulesofinterpretationasthosethatapplytocontracts.#X XXX )#X XXX Thecardinal t ruleforinterpretationofcontractsistoascertaintheintentionofthepartiesfromthecontractasa ` wholeandtogiveeffecttothatintentionconsistentwithlegalprinciples._Winfree_Ԁv.Educators L  CreditUnion,900S.W.2d285,289(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);_Rainey_Ԁv._Stansell_,836S.W.2d117,118 8  (Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Inconstruingcontracts,thewordsexpressingtheparties'intentionsshould $ t begiventheirusual,natural,andordinarymeaning.Taylorv.WhiteStores,Inc.,707S.W.2d514,  ` 516(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Intheabsenceoffraudormistake,acontractmustbeinterpretedand  L  enforcedaswritten,eventhoughitcontainstermswhichmayseemharshorunjust._Heyer_-Jordan  8  &_Assocs_.v.Jordan,801S.W.2d814,821(_Tenn.App_.1990). $  #X XXX *#X XXX   Anambiguityinacontractischaracterizedasdoubtoruncertaintyarisingfromthe   possibilityofthesamelanguagebeingfairlyunderstoodinmorewaysthanone.Hillisv.Powers,   875S.W.2d273,276(Tenn.App.1993).However,thepartiestoacontractcannotcreatean   ambiguitywherenoneexists.Edwardsv.TravelersIndemnityCo.,201Tenn.435,300S.W.2d615, p 617-618(1957)."Wherethereisnoambiguity,itisthedutyofthecourttoapplytothewordsused \ theirordinarymeaningandneitherpartyistobefavoredintheirconstruction."_Heyer_-Jordan& H Assoc.v.Jordan,801S.W.2d814,821(Tenn.App.1990).#X XXX /#X XXX  4    A. OtherRelatedCosts  H 23  Withtheforegoingprinciplesinmind,wewillexaminetheMDA.Inparticular,thecase   belowcentersontheinterpretationoftwosentencesfoundintheEducationalProvisionofthe   partiesMDA.Thefirstsentencereadsasfollows: Inaccordancetherewith,Mr.Howardagrees  tobeindividuallyresponsibleforthecostoftuitionroomandboard,booksandotherrelatedcosts  associatedwitheachchildsundergraduateeducationalprocess#MeXX ##} MeԀ#Me }5#X XMe(emphasisadded).Essentially,  Motherarguesthat otherrelatedcostsmeans allcostswhetherornottheyareactuallyrelated l toDaughterseducation.AccordingtoMother,Fatherisresponsibleforeverypennyspenton X  Daughter,regardlessofwhetherDaughterwasenrolledincollegeatthetimetheexpenseswere D! incurredandregardlessofthepurposeoftheexpenses.Wedonotagree. 0"    Inaccordancewiththeprinciplesstatedabove,wemustconsiderboththepartiesintention $X" whenmakingthisagreementandtheactualmeaningof otherrelatedcosts.Clearly,atthetime $D # thisagreementwasmade,FatherintendedtoprovideDaughterwiththeopportunitytoattend %0!$ college.WeareunpersuadedthatFatherintendedtobearallexpensesDaughterincurredduringthis &"% period,regardlessoftheirorigin.Inaddition, otherrelatedcostsmustbegivenitsusual,natural, '#& andordinarymeaning.ThisCourtcanneitherbroadennorrestrictthemeaningofthosewords. (#' Accordingly,wefinditimpossibletoconstruethewordstomeanFatherisfinanciallyresponsible )$( forallofDaughtersexpenses.Whileeverystrugglingundergraduatewouldnodoubtenjoytheuse |*%) ofacar,extramoneytotaketrips,andaconstantlyupdatedwardrobe,thesethingsarebynomeans h+&*  otherrelatedcostsessentialtotheeducationalprocess.Accordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourt  erredinholdingFatherresponsiblefortheseandseveralotherquestionableexpenses.Therefore,  thisissueisremandedtothetrialcourtwiththeintentthatthecourtrevieweachexpenseto  determinewhetheritisacostrelatedtotheeducationalprocess. t   B.TimePeriod 8       WenowturntotheremainingsentenceatissueintheEducationalProvisionoftheMDA.  ` Thissentencestates: ThepartiesagreethatMr.Howardshallbeindividuallyresponsibleforthe  L  undergraduateeducationalprocessofeachoftheminorchildrentocoveraperiodoffour(4)  8  consecutiveyearsaftertheirrespectivehighschoolgraduationoruntileachchildbecomestwenty $  three(23)yearsofage,whichevereventfirst#X XXX 2#X XXX occurs#X XXX @#X XXX (emphasisadded).Thecourtbelowinterpreted   thisprovisiontomeanFathersfinancialresponsibilitytoDaughterdoesnotendunlesssheremains   incollegeforfourconsecutiveyears#X XXX A#X XXX Ԁoruntilshebecomestwentythree.Thetrialcourtfoundthat   sinceDaughterscollegeattendancehadnotbeencontinuous,thetimeperioddidnotrunand   FathersresponsibilityautomaticallyterminatedwhenDaughterreachedtwentythree.Wedonot p agree. \   WefindthatthepartiesintendedtoprovideforDaughterseducationforfourconsecutive 4 years,withthetriggeringeventbeingDaughtersgraduationfromhighschoolandfirstenrollment  p incollege.Thepartiesdivorcedin1983,andDaughterdidnotgraduatefromhighschooluntilMay  \ 1994,someelevenyearslater.ShefirstenrolledincollegeinAugust1994.Therefore,atthelatest, H FathersfinancialresponsibilityforDaughterseducationalexpensesterminatedinAugust1998. 4 ThetimeperiodcontinuedtoaccrueregardlessofwhetherornotDaughterwasactuallyattending   college.TheageprovisionsimplyrepresentedacaponFathersobligationsothat,innoevent,   wouldhebeobligatedbeyondthechildstwentythirdbirthday.Fathercouldnothaveknownwhen  theagreementwassignedhowlongitmightrequireforthechildrentograduatefromhighschool,  andtheagreementprotectedhimfrompotentiallyprolongeddelayinthechildrenseducational  expenses.Thisinterpretationisconsistentwithboththeintentofthepartiesaswellastheordinary l andnaturalmeaningofthewords.Accordingly,thetrialcourtisreversedonthisissue. X  ̀  AttorneysFees #l!      Mothersrequestforattorneysfeesincurredbothonthetriallevelandonappealishereby $D # denied.Withoutanexpressagreementtopayattorneysfeesforenforcementofacontract,such %0!$ feesarenotrecoverable._Pinney_Ԁv._Tarpley_,686S.W.2d574,at581(Tenn.Ct.App.1984)#X XXX 4B#X XXX Ԁciting &"% #X XXX fK#X XXX _Stringfield_Ԁv.Hirsch,94Tenn.425,29_S.W._Ԁ609(1895);Goingsv.Aetna_Cas_.&Sur.Co.,491 '#& S.W.2d847(Tenn.Ct.App.1972)#X XXX K#X XXX . (#'      h+&* CONCLUSION    #X XXX M#X XXX   Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisherebyreversedandremanded.  CostsofappealaretaxedonehalftoAppellant,RobertMarkHoward,andonehalftoAppellee,  Susan_Trabue_ԀHoward,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.#X XXX M#X XXX  t #X XXX OO##MeXX 6#X XMe   `     h     ___________________________________  `    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE