ÿWPC¿ £“ñK8@5lqPR´XŒ|*Ö1<¸u˜•?lsP³Þ{×K)@,4¦Ù$Ú2Ì-þ¹÷«8§'öá{ÏÕc-‹pïH!Ñy“©.!QÇ…Ü⚥p”××êî]#ÂYÑm ½æeB a©ßðѹ¼c½­ âÚ„Š©®æ…6ö×*ÂOÖ(XvGžê¹ùb„ŸFP !ܯüWÂOgª'mî¬,aŸ•Ũ-Â+r`ªÀIG©™²Ç-ÚŸÑŒ äÈ!<#Êæœ<ÁêW¬­¹tutM¸©Nå^¬¨Ïiuƒœ¼‰•Ëê¤Ôú0’ùz ¹ç?Ïtƒ;Á$Ѽ~°ÐÀî:{F,éè3ík]ª®WÓbDòò:µÌ¯au[ÔÚ;|­Œ¿Û©â­ee‹å&6PËŒáËò)iÉZ(3¼Ÿ˜œÌ~T жöМubŒAd’¨Ãº(;'Á_ëŸҥd×Ó î„íö:YNÉjßÎÏû`l]PDAÓ;€œP/§Ub#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ™ ƳÆyÆ?ÆLËN 0DE]]]U_____________________b´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´ 0ë¼¼¼¼ B§§ 0¤Ä D3h D-› 0KÈÈ ASÆf 0¤, 0DÐ A«˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»tF1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularéJE1B011C8 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ BRENDI COAHeldmanBagullaBoultMcRaeTenn.Ct.AppWeissfeldDeptScheiblerMundingerManahansubstitut[eTelecommsGleaves$Tenn.Ct.Crim.AppSherrod WixSeatonT.R.A.P.BugallaobligorTenn.R.App.P.DevorakCommnLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 BÝ ƒRã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€preceding€sentence€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€36„5„101(a)(1)€to€which€this€language€was€added€provided€that:€ð ðOnÐ ° Ðapplication€of€either€party€for€spousal€support,€the€court€may€decree€an€increase€or€decrease€of€such€allowance€only€uponÐ tÄ Ða€showing€of€substantial€and€material€change€of€circumstances.ðð€€This€court€drew€the€logical€conclusion€in€òòTurner€v.Ð 8ˆ ÐTurneróó,€919€S.W.2d€340€at€342„343€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1995)€that€the€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€test€had€supplanted€theÐ üL Ðð ðsubstantial€and€material€change€of€circumstancesðð€test€when€modification€of€existing€child€support€orders€are€in€issue.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó KÝ ƒRã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç!ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Recognizing€the€effect€of€Chapter€447€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2001,€rule€1240„2„4„.04(3)€was€changed€toÐ ° Ðconform€to€the€statute€by€amendment€filed€September€29,€2003€and€effective€December€13,€2003.€€The€statute€being€inÐ tÄ Ðeffect€at€the€time€of€both€the€May€10,€2002€hearing€and€the€February€3,€2003€hearing€the€subsequent€alteration€of€the€ruleÐ 8ˆ Ðto€conform€to€the€statute€is€not€significant€in€this€case.- ù-(|G2ã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôç!ò»»Ô d(|3IL$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IL$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€G »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼G »»»ÔÑ8€¥XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îYxG ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼G »îîYx #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Ó€May€7,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¥X»¼G ÔÌò òÔ#†¼G »XX¥ñ#ÔBRENDI€€KAPLAN€(formerly€BUGALLA)òòóó€v.€JOHN€A.€BUGALLAÔ‡X¥X»¼G Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€28272€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„01012„COA„R3„CVò ò€„€Filed€October€6,€2004ó óÔ#†¼G »XX¥q#ÔÔ‡X¥X»¼G ԀР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<€` AßÐ Ñ  ÐÓÓÌÓ  ÓÓÓThis€case€involves€a€petition€to€modify€child€support.€€By€court€approved€Marital€DissolutionÐ h¸ ÐAgreement€executed€May€10,€2002,€child€support€payable€by€the€father€was€set€at€$4,000€per€month.€Ð T¤ ÐAt€the€time€of€the€agreement€and€divorce€decree€father€was€earning€in€excess€of€$20,000€per€month.€Ð @ ÐThe€parties€did€not€appeal€the€May€10,€2002€judgment,€but€on€September€4,€2002€the€mother€filedÐ ,| Ða€petition€to€increase€child€support€in€order€to€accommodate€attendance€of€the€two€children€to€privateÐ h Ðschool.€€The€trial€judge€denied€the€petition.€€We€affirm€the€action€of€the€trial€court.Ð T ÐÓ¹ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ Ü, ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ È ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼G »àX¥#ÔÔ‡X¥X.¼G ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòóóWòòILLIAMóó€C.€KòòOCHóó,€JòòRóó.,€P.J.,€M.S.,Ð  ð Ðand€òòóóFòòRANKóó€G.€CòòLEMENTóó,€JòòRóó.,€J.,€joined.Ð ŒÜ ÐÌJames€Glasgow€Martin€and€Gregory€Dye€Smith,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€BrendaÐ d´ ÐBugalla€Kaplan.Ð P   ÐÌDavid€William€Garrett,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€John€A.€Bugalla.Ð ("x! ÐÓ2ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼G »XX¥a#ÔÔ‡X¥X»¼G ÔÐ $P# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼G »XX¥¡ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¥X»¼G Ôà  àPrior€to€their€divorce€on€May€10,€2002,€both€Brendi€K.€Bugalla€(Kaplan)€and€John€A.€BugallaÐ Ø%(!% Ðwere€successful€in€their€respective€professions€and€had€accumulated€rather€extensive€propertyÐ Ä&"& Ðholdings.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce€father€was€earning€in€excess€of€$20,000€per€month€and€motherÐ °'#' Ðhad€$87,000€in€annual€earnings.Ð œ(ì#( ÐÌà  àWe€are€hampered€in€our€consideration€of€this€appeal€in€the€fact€that€neither€the€final€judgmentÐ t*Ä%* Ðof€Judge€Heldman€entered€May€10,€2002,€nor€the€apparently€extensive€Marital€DissolutionÐ `+°&+ ÐAgreement€executed€by€the€parties€and€incorporated€within€that€judgment€is€preserved€for€appellateÐ L,œ', Ðreview.€€These€documents€were€neither€filed€as€exhibits€to€the€pleadings€nor€made€exhibits€in€theÐ 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_Ôtrial€court.€€The€abbreviated€transcript€of€the€May€10,€2002€hearing€before€Judge€Heldman€is€filedÐ ° Ðas€an€exhibit€in€the€trial€court€but€discloses€only€a€hearing€wherein€Mrs.€Bugalla€was€represented€byÐ œì ÐMr.€Martin€and€Mr.€Bugalla€was€represented€by€Ms.€Russell€with€only€Mrs.€Bugalla€testifying.€€HerÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€consists€of€four€questions€limited€to€her€desire€to€get€a€divorce€on€irreconcilableÐ tÄ Ðdifferences€and€her€acknowledgment€that€the€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€and€its€parenting€planÐ `° Ðshould€be€approved€and€incorporated€in€the€Final€Decree.€€Beyond€the€brief€examination€of€Mrs.Ð L œ ÐBugalla,€the€only€thing€of€significance€disclosed€by€the€transcript€is€the€statement€by€Mr.€Martin:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà ` àMrs.€Bugalla€is€a€lawyer€with€Boult,€Cummings,€Conners€&€Berry,€and€it€„€„Ð  ` Ðshe€may€very€well€move€to€Chicago.€€She€doesnððt€have€a€job€in€Chicago,€and€doesnððtÐ ü L  Ðhave€a€firm€to€go€to€at€this€point€in€time.€€So€thatððs€the€reason€for€the€six€months€ofÐ è 8  Ðalimony.€€Right€now€sheððs€making€$87,500€[per]€year.€€So€if€she€gets€a€job,€then€thatÐ Ô$  Ðwill€impact€her€decision€to€move.€€If€she€doesnððt€get€a€job,€she€may€end€up€stayingÐ À  Ðhere.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€record€discloses€that€at€the€time€of€the€May€10,€2002€divorce€hearing,€both€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðchildren€were€attending€private€school€in€Nashville.€€At€that€time€Mr.€Bugalla€was€earning€betweenÐ pÀ Ð$279,000€per€year€and€$350,000€per€year.€€Mrs.€Bugalla€further€acknowledged€that€at€the€time€of€theÐ \¬ Ðhearing€on€her€petition€to€increase€support€Mr.€Bugalla€was€earning€about€the€same€income€as€he€hadÐ H˜ Ðearned€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€The€$4,000€per€month€child€support€provided€for€by€the€MDAÐ 4„ Ðexceeds€by€$800€per€month€the€minimum€support€under€the€guidelines€for€an€income€of€$10,000Ð  p Ð(32%€of€$10,000€=€$3,200.)Ð  \ ÐÌ1.à0  àThe€burden€of€proof.€€òòHuntley€v.€Huntley€and€Ch.óó,€447€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2001.Ðä4(#(# ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€divorce,€as€well€as€at€the€present€time,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ ¼  Ð36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€provided:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àNotwithstanding€any€provision€of€this€section€or€any€other€law€or€rule€to€theÐ €Ð Ðcontrary,€if€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€exceeds€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000)€perÐ l¼ Ðmonth,€then€the€custodial€parent€must€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÐ X ¨ Ðchild€support€in€excess€of€the€amount,€[calculated€by€multiplying€the€appropriateÐ D!” Ðpercentage€set€forth€in€the€child€support€guidelines€by€a€net€income€of€ten€thousandÐ 0"€  Ðdollars€($10,000)€per€month],€is€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€theÐ #l! Ðminor€child€or€children€of€the€parties.€€In€making€its€determination,€the€court€shallÐ $X" Ðconsider€all€available€income€of€the€obligor,€as€required€by€this€chapter,€and€shallÐ ô$D # Ðmake€a€written€finding€that€child€support€in€excess€of€the€amount€so€calculated€is€orÐ à%0!$ Ðis€not€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€minor€child€or€children€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€parties.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e)(1)(B).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€record€gives€no€indication€as€to€why€Mrs.€Bugalla,€despite€her€knowledge€that€Mr.Ð ° Ðâ âBugalla€was€earning€in€excess€of€$20,000€per€month€prior€to€May€10,€2002,€agreed€to€the€$4,000€perÐ œì Ðmonth€limitation€on€his€child€support€obligation€rather€than€carry€her€burden€of€proof€under€theÐ ˆØ Ðstatute€in€order€to€reach€the€excess.€€Nonetheless€the€agreement€to€the€support€thus€limited€exists.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€1994€the€General€Assembly€amended€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(a)(1)Ð L œ Ðto€provide:€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€cases€involving€child€support,€upon€application€of€either€party,€the€courtÐ  ` Ðshall€decree€an€increase€or€decrease€of€such€allowance€when€there€is€found€to€be€aÐ ü L  Ðsignificant€variance,€as€defined€in€the€child€support€guidelines€.€.€.€between€theÐ è 8  Ðguidelines€and€the€amount€of€support€currently€ordered€unless€the€variance€hasÐ Ô$  Ðresulted€from€a€previously€court„ordered€deviation€from€the€guidelines€and€theÐ À  Ðcircumstances€which€caused€the€deviation€have€not€changed.€€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  Ðà  à1994€Tenn.Pub.Acts€Ch.€987€sec.€2(b).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThis€undisputed€factual€background€brings€this€case€into€sharp€contrast€with€òòBarnett€v.Ð pÀ ÐBarnettóó,€27€S.W.3d€904€(Tenn.€2000);€òòEarthman€v.€McRaeóó,€2003€WL€1860527€(Tenn.Ct.App.€AprilÐ \¬ Ð1,€2003);€òòEmerson€v.€Emersonóó,€2002€WL€31106426€(Tenn.Ct.App.€Sept.€23,€2002)€and€òòWeissfeldÐ H˜ Ðv.€Weissfeldóó,€2001€WL€569096€(Tenn.Ct.App.€May€29,€2001).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€òòBarnettóó,€the€1986€divorce€decree€provided€child€support€of€$2,167€per€month.€€The€hearingÐ  \ Ðon€the€petition€to€modify€filed€in€March€of€1996€showed€Dr.€Barnettððs€gross€income€to€be€$209,206Ð øH Ðannually€justifying€an€increase€to€$3,700€per€month.€€Although€the€trial€court€ordered€educationalÐ ä4 Ðexpenses€to€be€paid€from€that€amount,€the€net€effect€of€the€appeal€was€to€add€the€ð ðextraordinaryÐ Ð  Ðeducational€expenseðð€of€private€school€tuition€to€the€courtððs€award.€€Clearly€there€was€a€ð ðsignificantÐ ¼  Ðvarianceðð€between€Dr.€Barnettððs€income€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€and€his€income€at€the€time€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðmodification.€€òòBarnettóó,€27€S.W.3d€904.€€No€such€ð ðsignificant€varianceðð€appears€in€the€case€at€bar.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€guidelines€provide:€ð ðFor€the€purposes€of€defining€a€significant€variance€between€the€guidelineÐ €Ð Ðamount€and€the€current€support€order€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€36„5„101,€a€significant€variance€shall€beÐ l¼ Ðat€least€15%€if€the€current€support€is€one€hundred€dollars€($100.00)€or€greater€per€month...ðð€€Tenn.Ð X ¨ ÐComp.€R.€&€Regs€rule€1240„2„4„.02(3).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àòòEarthmanóó€involved€a€divorced€motherððs€obligation€to€assist€with€private€school€tuition€at€aÐ #l! Ðtime€when€she€was€earning€$49,000€per€year.€€Income€in€excess€of€$10,000€per€month€was€notÐ $X" Ðinvolved.€€òòEarthman€v.€McRaeóó,€2003€WL€1860527.Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àIn€òòEmersonóó,€an€MDA€had€been€entered€into€in€1990€providing€the€husbandððs€supportÐ ° Ðâ âobligation€to€be€$1,200€per€month€for€two€children€with€the€husband€assuming€responsibility€for€theÐ œì Ðchildrenððs€college€education.€€The€complaint€to€modify€was€filed€by€the€mother€in€October€of€2000Ð ˆØ Ðat€a€time€when€the€fatherððs€income€had€dramatically€increased€to€more€than€$200,000€annually.€€AÐ tÄ Ðð ðsignificant€varianceðð€had€obviously€occurred.€€òòEmerson€v.€Emersonóó,€2002€WL€31106426.Ð `° ÐÌà  àòòWeissfeldóó€involved€an€original€contested€divorce€action€wherein€the€fatherððs€gross€monthlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðincome€exceeded€$17,000.€€The€appellate€court€opinion€makes€no€mention€of€either€Tennessee€CodeÐ $ t ÐAnnotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€or€rule€1240„2„4„.04(3),€though€the€case€obviously€involvedÐ  ` Ðobligor€parent€income€in€excess€of€$10,000€per€month.€€òòWeissfeld€v.€Weissfeldóó,€2001€WL€569096.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€particular€facts€of€this€case€make€critical€the€issue€of€upon€whom€the€burden€of€proofÐ Ô$  Ðrested€on€May€10,€2002€to€address€the€income€of€Mr.€Bugalla€that€exceeded€$10,000.€€BothÐ À  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€and€rule€1240„2„4„.04(3)€were€in€effect€onÐ ¬ü  ÐMay€10,€2002€and€directly€contradict€each€other€as€to€who€bears€the€burden€of€proof€as€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðavailability€of€income€in€excess€of€$10,000€per€month€for€child€support€purposes.€€The€rule€provides:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àThe€court€must€consider€all€net€income€of€the€obligor€as€defined€according€to€1240„2„Ð \¬ Ð4„.03€of€this€rule.€€The€court€must€order€child€support€based€upon€the€appropriateÐ H˜ Ðpercentage€to€the€custodial€parent€up€to€a€net€$10,000€per€month€of€the€obligorððsÐ 4„ Ðincome.€€When€the€net€income€of€the€obligor€exceeds€$10,000€per€month,€the€courtÐ  p Ðmay€consider€a€downward€deviation€from€the€guidelines€if€the€obligor€demonstratesÐ  \ Ðthat€the€percentage€applied€to€the€excess€of€the€net€income€above€$10,000€a€monthÐ øH Ðexceeds€a€reasonable€amount€of€child€support€based€upon€the€best€interest€of€the€childÐ ä4 Ðand€the€circumstances€of€the€parties.€€The€court€may€require€that€sums€paid€above€theÐ Ð  Ðpercentage€applied€to€the€net€income€above€$10,000€be€placed€in€an€educational€orÐ ¼  Ðother€trust€fund€for€the€benefit€of€the€child.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€rule€1240„2„4„.04(3).€€This€provision€of€the€rule€was€adopted€by€anÐ €Ð Ðamendment€effective€October€5,€1997.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€history€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€is€interesting€andÐ D!” Ðenlightening.€€Prior€to€the€enactment€of€section€20€of€Chapter€447€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2001,Ð 0"€  Ðeffective€July€18,€2001,€the€statutes€did€not€address€income€in€excess€of€$10,000€and€it€was€clear€thatÐ #l! Ðsuch€income€was€subject€to€the€provisions€of€rule€1240„2„4„.04(3),€including€the€provision€thereinÐ $X" Ðthat€the€burden€of€proof€was€on€the€obligor€to€establish€why€his€income€above€$10,000€should€notÐ ô$D # Ðbe€subject€to€support€percentages€under€the€guidelines.€€On€June€14,€2001,€this€court€issued€itsÐ à%0!$ Ðopinion€in€òòHuntley€v.€Huntleyóó,€61€S.W.3d€329€(Tenn.Ct.App.€2001)€specifically€holding€that,€basedÐ Ì&"% Ðupon€this€provision€of€the€guidelines,€the€burden€of€proof€rests€upon€the€obligor€to€establish€a€basisÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€a€downward€deviation€from€the€guidelines€as€to€income€in€excess€of€$10,000.€€òòHuntleyóó,€61Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.3d€at€337.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àLess€than€one€month€later€the€General€Assembly,€on€July€12,€2001,€enacted€Chapter€447€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€Public€Acts€of€2001,€which€contained€extensive€amendments€to€Title€36€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ œì ÐAnnotated,€with€section€20€thereof€inserting€into€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101€theÐ ˆØ Ðlanguage€which€now€appears€as€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B),€and€which€Ð tÄ Ðleaves€little€doubt€as€to€the€legislative€purpose.Ð `° ÐÌà8  àSECTION€20.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€section€36„5„101(e)(1),€is€amendedÐ 8 ˆ Ðdesignating€the€current€language€as€item€ðð(A)ðð€by€adding€the€following€new€language,Ð $ t Ðto€be€designated€as€item€ðð(B)ðð:Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(B)€Notwithstanding€any€provision€of€this€section€or€any€other€law€or€rule€toÐ ü L  Ðthe€contrary,€...Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌ2001€Pub.€Acts€Ch.€447€sec.€20.Ð À  ÐÌà  àBy€its€terms€the€effective€date€of€section€20€of€Chapter€447€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2001€is€JulyÐ ˜è  Ð18,€2001,€though€other€amendments€within€that€Chapter€are€specifically€made€effective€only€on€JulyÐ „Ô  Ð1,€2002.€€It€cannot€be€seriously€questioned€that€the€effect€of€this€2001€Act€of€the€General€AssemblyÐ pÀ Ðis€to€reverse€the€burden€of€proof€as€to€income€in€excess€of€$10,000€per€month€and€place€upon€theÐ \¬ Ðcustodial€parent,€rather€than€the€obligor,€the€burden€of€proving€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ H˜ Ðthat€child€support€in€excess€of€the€amount€calculated€under€the€guidelines€on€$10,000€is€reasonablyÐ 4„ Ðnecessary€to€provide€for€the€minor€children€of€the€parties.à p àÐ  p ÐÌà  àWhile€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€have€the€force€of€law,€the€provisions€of€Rule€1240„2„2„Ð øH Ð.04(3)€cannot€prevail€in€the€face€of€a€subsequent€act€of€the€General€Assembly€directly€invalidatingÐ ä4 Ðit.€€Where€two€acts€conflict€and€cannot€be€reconciled€the€prior€act€will€be€repealed€or€amended€byÐ Ð  Ðimplication€to€the€extent€of€the€inconsistency€between€them.€€òòState€Depððt€of€Revenue€v.€Mooreóó,€722Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€367€at€374€(Tenn.€1986).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B),€having€been€in€full€force€and€effectÐ €Ð Ðon€May€10,€2002,€and€Mrs.€Bugalla€having€made€no€attempt€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof€that€theÐ l¼ Ðamount€of€child€support€calculated€on€$10,000€per€month€is€inadequate€or€that,€an€amount€in€excessÐ X ¨ Ðthereof€ð ð.€.€.€is€reasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€minor€child€or€children€of€theÐ D!” Ðparties,ðð€it€necessarily€follows€that€before€she€can€succeed€in€altering€the€child€support€provided€inÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Marital€Dissolution€Agreement€she€must€establish,€that€there€has€been€a€ð ðsignificant€varianceððÐ #l! Ðbetween€the€amount€of€child€support€established€under€the€guidelines€on€May€10,€2002€and€theÐ $X" Ðamount€that€should€be€established€as€of€February€3,€2003.€€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àIt€is€obvious€that€if,€as€the€guidelines€suggest,€income€in€excess€of€$10,000€per€month€is€toÐ ° Ðâ âbe€used€in€such€calculations,€$4,000€per€month€is€no€more€inadequate€on€February€3,€2003€than€itÐ œì Ðwas€€on€May€10,€2002.€€It€is€equally€evident,€however,€that€$4,000€per€month€exceeds€the€ChildÐ ˆØ ÐSupport€Guidelines€amount€when€calculated€on€the€basis€of€$10,000€per€month.€€We€are€thus€facedÐ tÄ Ðwith€a€situation€in€which€there€has€been€no€change€of€income€for€Mr.€Bugalla€since€the€May€10,€2002Ð `° Ðjudgment€and€no€effort€by€Mrs.€Bugalla€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ L œ ÐAnnotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€that€income€of€Mr.€Bugalla€in€excess€of€$10,000€per€month€ð ðisÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needsðð€of€the€children.€€When€the€Child€Support€GuidelinesÐ $ t Ðare€coupled€with€the€mandatory€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)Ð  ` Ðthe€$4,000€per€month€in€child€support€is,€and€was,€on€both€May€10,€2002€and€February€3,€2003,€inÐ ü L  Ðexcess€of€the€guideline€amounts.€€Although€this€conclusion€may€be€inconsistent€with€the€spirit€of€theÐ è 8  Ðlaw€predating€Chapter€447€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2001,€section€20€of€that€Act€will€admit€of€no€otherÐ Ô$  Ðreasonable€construction.€€The€court€is€not€at€liberty€to€disregard€legislative€mandates€because€a€courtÐ À  Ðmay€determine€such€enactments€to€be€ill€advised€or€even€unreasonable.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà ` àMoreover,€the€Court,€under€the€guise€of€a€liberal€construction,€can€not€soÐ „Ô  Ðminimize€the€plain€provisions€of€a€statute€as€to€practically€destroy€their€efficientÐ pÀ Ðoperation,€and€so€say€that€the€Legislature€did€not€intend€that€its€command€should€beÐ \¬ Ðobeyed;€and€for€a€stronger€reason€this€is€true,€when€the€requirement€is€that€aÐ H˜ Ðparticular€thing€be€done,€and€when€this€requirement€is€a€new€graft€upon€an€oldÐ 4„ Ðsystem,€and€one€of€the€most€strongly€marked€of€all€the€new€features€introduced.€€ItÐ  p Ðis€the€duty€of€the€Court€to€enforce€this€law€as€it€is€found€upon€the€statute„book;€and,Ð  \ Ðif€it€be€good€law,€its€beneficent€results€will€more€clearly€appear;€if€it€be€a€bad€one,€itsÐ øH Ðcharacter€will€be€the€sooner€manifest,€and€relief€can€be€craved€of€that€body€whoseÐ ä4 Ðduty€it€is€to€make€new€laws€and€to€mend€old€ones.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòÌScheibler€v.€Mundingeróó,€86€Tenn.€674,€693€(Tenn.€1888).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àA€present€day€reiteration€of€this€time„honored€rule€is€equally€unimpeachable.Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà ` àFinally,€it€is€not€for€the€courts€to€alter€or€amend€a€statute.€€òòSee€Town€of€MountÐ X ¨ ÐCarmel€v.€City€of€Kingsportóó,€217€Tenn.€298,€306,€397€S.W.2d€379,€382€(1965);òòseeÐ D!” Ðalso€Richardson€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Dentistryóó,€913€S.W.2d€446,€453€(Tenn.€1995);Ð 0"€  ÐòòManahan€v.€Stateóó,€188€Tenn.€394,€397,€219€S.W.2d€900,€901€(1949).€€Moreover,€aÐ #l! Ðcourt€must€not€question€the€ð ðreasonableness€of€[a]€statute€or€substitut[e]€[its]€ownÐ $X" Ðpolicy€judgments€for€those€of€the€legislature.ðð€€òòBellSouth€Telecomms.,€Inc.€v.€Greeróó,Ð ô$D # Ð972€S.W.2d€663,€673€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1997).€€Instead,€courts€must€ð ðpresume€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðlegislature€says€in€a€statute€what€it€means€and€means€in€a€statute€what€it€says€there.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòId.óó€€Accordingly,€courts€must€construe€a€statute€as€it€is€written.€€òòSee€Jackson€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐJacksonóó,€186€Tenn.€337,€342,€210€S.W.2d€332,€334€(1948).Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐòòÌGleaves€v.€Checker€Cab€Transit€Corp.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€799,€803€(Tenn.€2000).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ð2.€€The€proof€offered€on€February€3,€2003.Ð ° ÐÌà  àEven€if€it€could€be€said€that€the€petition€of€September€4,€2002,€filed€less€than€four€monthsÐ ˆØ Ðafter€the€final€judgment€of€May€10,€2002,€could€provide€a€vehicle€for€reopening€the€proof€and€allowÐ tÄ ÐMrs.€Bugalla€another€opportunity€to€carry€her€burden€of€proof€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ `° Ðsection€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)€no€proof€was€offered€at€the€February€4,€2003€hearing€that€addressed€itselfÐ L œ Ðto€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€support€in€excess€of€the€amount€calculated€on€$10,000€per€month€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonably€necessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€minor€children.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€last€sentence€of€subsection€(e)(1)(B)€provides:€ð ðIn€making€its€determination,€the€courtÐ ü L  Ðshall€consider€all€available€income€of€the€obligor,€as€required€by€this€chapter,€and€shall€make€aÐ è 8  Ðwritten€finding€that€child€support€in€excess€of€the€amount€so€calculated€is€or€is€not€reasonablyÐ Ô$  Ðnecessary€to€provide€for€the€needs€of€the€minor€child€or€children€of€the€parties.ðð€€Tenn.CodeAnn.€ððÐ À  Ð36„5„101(e)(1).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àSince€the€divorce€decree€entered€as€a€result€of€the€May€10,€2002€hearing€is€not€in€the€recordÐ „Ô  Ðbefore€us,€we€have€no€means€of€determining€whether€or€not€Judge€Heldman€made€such€writtenÐ pÀ Ðfindings€in€that€order.€€While€it€is€only€logical€to€assume€that€he€did€not€make€such€findings,€givenÐ \¬ Ðthe€very€limited€hearing€held€May€10,€2002,€we€cannot€presume€that€the€logical€result€in€factÐ H˜ Ðoccurred.€€The€obligation€rests€upon€an€appellant€to€preserve€an€appellate€record€that€allows€thisÐ 4„ Ðcourt€to€review€the€trial€courtððs€actions.€€òòSee€óóTenn.R.App.P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€798€S.W.2d€783,Ð  p Ð789€(Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.€1990);€òòSherrod€v.€Wixóó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€783€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1992).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case€we€are€confronted€with€a€situation€analogous€to€òòLee€v.€Leeóó,€66€S.W.3d€837Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.Ct.App.€2001).€€In€that€divorce€case,€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€considering€a€custody€issueÐ Ð  Ðwhich€in€normal€circumstances€would€be€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€ruleÐ ¼  Ð13(d).€€The€trial€court,€however,€made€no€findings€of€fact€and€the€court€of€appeals€held:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€Tennessee€lawÐ €Ð Ðrequires€that€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€ofÐ l¼ Ðcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidenceÐ X ¨ Ðpreponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€Ð D!” ÐTenn.R.App.P.€13(d).€€However,€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€made€no€findings€of€fact.€Ð 0"€  ÐThe€final€decree€of€divorce€states€what€the€parties€have€stipulated€and€simplyÐ #l! Ðconcludes,€without€explanation,€that€Wife€is€entitled€to€custody€of€the€minor€child.€Ð $X" ÐWithin€Appelleeððs€brief€is€a€section€entitled€ð ðruling€of€the€courtðð€containing€aÐ ô$D # Ðtranscript€of€proceedings€dated€November€16,€1999,€the€same€date€as€that€of€the€trialÐ à%0!$ Ðtranscript€contained€in€the€record;€however,€the€transcript€of€the€rulings€from€theÐ Ì&"% Ðbench€are€not€included€in€the€record.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.R.App.P.€13(c),€we€areÐ ¸'#& Ðlimited€to€the€facts€ð ðestablished€by€the€evidence€in€the€trial€court€and€set€forth€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecord€and€any€additional€facts€that€may€be€judicially€noticed€or€are€consideredÐ )à$( Ðâ âpursuant€to€rule€14.ððÐ|*Ì%)Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThere€was€nothing€found€as€a€fact€to€which€we€may€attach€the€presumptionÐ ° Ðâ âof€correctness.€€Therefore,€we€will€review€the€record€òòde€novoóó€to€determine€where€theÐ œì Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.€€òòBrooks€v.€Brooksóó,€992€S.W.2d€403,€405€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1999)€(citing€òòDevorak€v.€Pattersonóó,€907€S.W.2d€815,€818€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1995);Ð tÄ ÐòòGoodman€v.€Memphis€Park€Commððnóó,€851€S.W.2d€165,€166€(Tenn.Ct.App.€19092);Ð `° Ðand€òòKelly€v.€Kellyóó,€679€S.W.2d€458,€460€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1984)).ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐòòÌLee€v.€Leeóó,€66€S.W.3d€837,€842„843€(Tenn.Ct.App.€2001).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAs€to€both€the€May€10,€2002€hearing€and€the€February€3,€2003€hearing,€we€are€left€withÐ ü L  Ðsomething€of€a€dilemma.€€The€last€sentence€of€the€statute€requires€the€trial€court€to€make€findings.€Ð è 8  ÐThe€transcripts€of€the€May€10,€2002€abbreviated€hearing€and€of€the€February€3,€2003€extensiveÐ Ô$  Ðhearing€are€before€the€court€and€neither€of€the€transcripts€discloses€any€effort€by€Mrs.€Bugalla€toÐ À  Ðcarry€the€burden€of€proof€resting€upon€her€under€the€specific€provisions€of€section€(B).€€If€the€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt,€after€either€hearing,€made€a€finding€adverse€to€Mr.€Bugalla€on€this€issue€not€only€would€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€preponderate€against€the€findings€but€indeed€no€evidence€would€support€such€a€finding.Ð „Ô  ÐÌ3.€€Attorneysðð€fees.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMrs.€Bugalla€takes€issue€with€the€decision€of€Judge€Harris€to€award€her€only€a€portion€of€herÐ 4„ Ðattorneys€fees€incurred€in€prosecuting€a€contempt€petition€against€Mr.€Bugalla.€€At€the€same€time€Mr.Ð  p ÐBugalla€asserts€that€he€is€entitled€to€reasonable€attorneys€fees€on€appeal.€€We€have€considered€theÐ  \ Ðrecord€before€the€trial€court€as€it€relates€to€the€contempt€petition.€€The€award€of€attorneys€fees€liesÐ øH Ðwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€the€partiesÐ ä4 Ðcan€show€an€abuse€of€that€discretion,€which,€in€this€case,€does€not€exist.€€òòLyon€v.€Lyonóó,òò€óó765€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð759,€763€(Tenn.Ct.App.€1998).€€While€this€court€has€authority€to€award€attorneys€fees€for€servicesÐ ¼  Ðon€an€appeal,€òòSeaton€v.€Seatonóó,€516€S.W.2d€91€(Tenn.€1974),€we€decline€to€do€so€based€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðparticular€circumstances€in€this€case.Ð ”ä ÐÌ€4.€€Conclusion.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhen€the€record€in€this€case€under€T.R.A.P.€rule€24(a)€and€(b)€are€considered€under€theÐ D!” Ðmandate€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€36„5„101(e)(1)(B)(Supp.€2003)€we€are€compelled€toÐ 0"€  Ðaffirm€the€trial€court€on€the€basis€that€Mrs.€Bugalla€did€not€carry€her€burden€of€proof€under€theÐ #l! Ðstatute.€€We€further€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsðð€discretion€in€declining€to€award€the€fullÐ $X" Ðamount€of€attorneysðð€fees€to€Mrs.€Bugalla€as€to€the€contempt€petition.€€We€further€find€that€Mr.Ð ô$D # ÐBugalla€is€not€entitled€to€attorneysðð€fees€on€appeal.à  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€forÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€reasons€herein€stated€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÐ Ì&"% Ðnecessary.€€Costs€of€the€cause€are€assessed€against€Mrs.€Bugalla.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌòòÐ ÐóóÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE