WPCJ  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0@,9 D3l9w@9 0J9 0T): 0^}: 0h: 0rC; 0|; 01< 0< 1uG= 0d=U6 >B)V>DC> AM>U*?9?OS@v~Av C AOHBI 0DJ D/LJ B{JV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xn<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dڃ"$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  STARNESMcCLUENSheldonT.R.C.P.T.R.A.P.se Kap("$    GGGG'dxd ZE[\D]^D_D`a VbecӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  WXYZ[\]^ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dhhhh7Border 1ddMiC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#g  kk   YYY FILEDkX October20,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.kAppellateCourtClerk  E F!#d#g  I$g         Attorneyfees,asusedinthecontextofthisstatuteis,inourview,sufficientlybroadtoincludethoseincurredinestablishingpaternity.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva MC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . g  ݛ  7:XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  h u` ќRjliA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONKATHRYNLOWERY@ @ ) ROANECOUNTY@ ) 03A019703JV00093 PlaintiffAppellant    @ )@ )@ ) v.   @ ) HON.THOMASA.AUSTIN,̀@ ) JUDGE@ ) @ KENNETHL.SHELDON@ )@ ) AFFIRMEDINPART DefendantAppellee @ ) andREMANDED@ W.BRIANSTARNESOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTJ.SCOTTMcCLUENOFHARRIMANFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  InthispaternityactiontheJuvenileJudgeforRoaneCountyfoundthattheDefendantKennethL.Sheldonwasthefatherofachildbornin1991tothePlaintiffKathrynLowery.  Hethereuponmadethefollowingdeterminations:1. Fatherwouldbeginpaying$250permonthaschildsupport.2. Themotherwasnotentitledtoretroactivechildsupport.3. ChildsupportinthiscaseundertheTennesseeChildSupportGuidelinesis$476permonth.4. Thepartiesshouldpaytheirownattorneyfees.5. Costswouldbeadjudgedonehalftoeachparty.  Themotherappeals,raisingthefollowingissues:       I.0  THETRIALJUDGEWASINCORRECTINFAILINGTO DETERMINETHEFATHER'SOBLIGATIONSTOPROVIDEFORMONETARYCHILDSUPPORTANDMEDICALRELATED INCIDENTSTHEREOFPURSUANTTOTHETENNESSEECHILDSUPPORTGUIDELINES.II.0  THETRIALJUDGEWASINCORRECTINFAILINGTO DETERMINETHEAMOUNTOFRETROACTIVECHILDSUPPORTOWEDBYTHEFATHERANDTOAWARDSAMETOTHE MOTHER.III.0  THETRIALJUDGEWASINCORRECTINDENYINGTHE MOTHER'SREQUESTFORAJUDGMENTAGAINSTTHEFATHERINTHEAMOUNTOFHERATTORNEY'SFEESAND LITIGATIONEXPENSES.IV.0  THETRIALJUDGEWASINCORRECTINTAXING1/2OFTHECOSTSOFTHEMOTHER'SSUCCESSFULPATERNITY LITIGATIONTOTHEMOTHER.         Thefatheralsoraisesissues,thefirsttwoofwhichcontesttheproprietyofthisappeal:       I.0  ISTHECOURTOFAPPEALSWITHOUTJURISDICTIONTO HEARTHEAPPEALONTHEBASISTHATTHEJUDGMENT APPEALEDFROMHASNOTBEENPROPERLYENTERED PURSUANTTORULE58,T.R.C.P.?II.0  ASSUMINGWITHOUTADMITTINGTHATTHEORDERUPON HEARINGWASPROPERLYENTEREDONJULY2,1996,IS THECOURTOFAPPEALSWITHOUTJURISDICTIONTOHEARTHEAPPEALBECAUSELOWERYHASFAILEDTOTIMELY APPEALTHEJUDGMENTPURSUANTTORULE4,T.R.A.P.III.0  SHOULDTHEAPPELLANT,LOWERY,BEDENIEDRECOVERY BECAUSESHEISGUILTYOFLACHESPRETERMITTING ISSUESI,II,IIIANDIVRAISEDBYTHEAPPELLANT?         ItisappropriateinviewofthenatureofMr.Sheldon'sissuesthattheybefirstaddressed.  Hisfirsttwoissuesarepredicateduponcertainordersenteredinthecasewhich,togetherwithpertinentmotionsoftheparties,areasfollows:1. July1,1996.Originalorderfiled,signedbytheTrialJudgeonJuly7,recorded,whichweassumewasplacedintheminutes,onJuly19.2. July25,1996.Amendmenttotheoriginalorderfiled,directingtheClerktomakethechildsupportpaymentstoMs.Lowery,signedJuly25,recordedonJuly29.3. August16,1995.Ms.Lowery'smotionforanewtrialortoalterandamendjudgment.4. August20,1995.Mr.Sheldon'smotiontoalteroramendjudgment.5. December20,1996.Orderenteredoverrulingbothparties'motionsanddirectingthattheysubmitproposedfindingsoffactrelativetotheTrialCourtdepartingfromChildSupportGuidelines,signedJanuary12,1997,recordedNovember10,1997.6. December31,1996.Findingsoffactfiled,signedJanuary2,1997,recordedJanuary10,1997.7. January29,1997.Noticeofappealfiled.  Allordersenteredaresignedbycounselforbothparties.  AstoMr.Sheldon'sfirstissue,Rule58oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,aspertinenttothisappeal,providesthefollowing:       @ ENTRYOFJUDGMENT Entryofajudgmentoranorderoffinaldispositioniseffectivewhenajudgmentcontainingoneofthefollowingismarkedonthefacebytheclerkasfiledforentry: (1)thesignaturesofthejudgeandallpartiesor counsel,or (2)thesignaturesofthejudgeandonepartyor counselwithacertificateofcounselthata copyoftheproposedorderhasbeenservedonallotherpartiesorcounsel,or (3)thesignatureofthejudgeandacertificateoftheclerkthatacopyhasbeenservedonallotherpartiesorcounsel.Whenrequestedbycounselorproseparties,theclerkshallmailordeliveracopyoftheenteredjudgmenttoallpartiesorcounselwithinfivedaysafterentry;notwithstandinganyruleofcivilorappellateproceduretothecontrary,timeperiodsforposttrialmotionsoranoticeofappealshallnotbegintorununtilthedateofsuchrequestedmailingordelivery.Intheeventtheresidenceofapartyisunknownandcannotbeascertainedupondiligentinquiry,thecertificateofserviceshallsostate.Followingentryofjudgment,theclerkshallmakeappropriatedocketnotationsandshallcopythejudgmentontheminutes,butfailuretodosowillnotaffectvalidityoftheentryofjudgment.         Mr.SheldoninsiststhatbecausetheorderwassignedbytheTrialCourtafterthedateitwasmarkedfiled,itthereforedoesnotmeettherequirementsofRule58and,consequently,isnotavalidjudgment.  ItisclearthattheprovisionsofRule58aredrawnforthepurposeofgivingcounselandthepartiesnoticeofthejudgment.Inthiscase,whileMr.Sheldonmaybetechnicallycorrect,intheinterestofjudicialeconomy,andbecausebothcounselapprovedtheorder,andknewintheregularcourseitwouldbesignedbytheTrialCourtandentered,wearedisinclinedtoremandthecasesothattheidenticalordermightbereentered.  Inhisargumentsupportingissuenumbertwo,Mr.Sheldoncontendsthatthenoticeofappeal,whichwasenteredonJanuary29,1997,wasmorethan30daysaftertheordermarkedfiledonJuly1andsignedbytheTrialJudgeonJuly2oftheprecedingyear.Whilethisargumentwouldbevalidiftherewerenotinterveningorders,itwillbenotedfromthechronologyhereinbeforesetoutthatwithin30daysofeitherJuly1orJuly2,specificallyonJuly25,anamendmenttotheoriginalorderwasfiled.Subsequently,within30daysoftheamendedorderMs.LoweryandMr.SheldoneachfiledamotionfornewtrialonAugust16andAugust20,respectively.Thereafter,onDecember20,anorderwasenteredoverrulingbothmotionsanddirectingthepartiestosubmitproposedfindingsoffactrelativetodeparturefromtheChildSupportGuidelines.Wenoteparentheticallythatthisdirectiveapparentlywasnothonoredasnoproposedfindingsoffactarefoundintherecord.Nevertheless,afindingoffactwasmarkedfiledonDecember31,signedbytheTrialJudgeonJanuary2.  WebelievethedatethetimebegantorunastothenoticeofappealisJanuary2,butevenifitwasDecember31,thenoticewasfiledwithin30daysofeitherdate.  Astotheissueaddressinglaches,whichisdirectedtotheTrialCourt'sfindingastopaternity,Mr.SheldoncontendsthatthelongdelaybetweenthebirthofthechildonMay9,1991,andthedatethepetitionforpaternitywasfiledonMarch17,1995,prejudicedhimbecauseofdeathofpartiesordestructionofcertainwrittenrecords.Inthisregard,hisbriefmakesthefollowingcontentions:        Ms.LowerytestifiedoncrossexaminationthatshehadwrittentoWilliamKiteandinthoselettershadtoldhimwhothefatherwas.Theseletterswerethrownoutordestroyedinahousefireinapproximately1986.Further,Ms.LowerytestifiedoncrossexaminationthatshetoldDr.Cunninghamwhowastreatingherforherpregnancy,thatshehadstatedtohimthenameofthefatherofthechild.Ms.Lowerysubsequentlytestifiedthatthoserecordswerelostordestroyed.Ms.LoweryalsotestifiedthatshehadtalkedtopeopleatRedKapwhereshewasformerlyemployedaboutherpregnancyandtoldthemwhothefatherwasbutduetothelapseoftimecouldnottellusthenameofthosepersons.Mr.SheldontestifiedthathadMs.Lowery'sdeceasedfatherLeonardWrightstillbe[sic]livinghewouldhavelikedtohavetalkedtoMr.WrightbecausetheappellantwaslivingwithMr.Wrightwhenthechildwasconceived.Mr.SheldonfurthertestifiedthatifthefatherofWilliamKitewhoisthemanthattheappellantwashavingarelationshipwithduring1980and1981werestillalive,hewouldliketotalktothemtofindoutwhatwasgoingonbetweenthosetwo.         WemightbedisposedtogivegreaterweighttothisargumentwereitnotfortheresultsofthebloodtestconductedattheinsistenceofbothMs.LoweryandMr.Sheldon,whichshowsthattheprobabilitiesofhisbeingthefatherwere99.62percent.TheresultofthistestoutweighsanystatementsMs.Lowerymighthavemaderegardingthefatherofherson.  WenowturntotheissuesonappealraisedbyMs.Lowery.  Astothefirst,theproofshowsthatuponapplyingtheChildSupportGuidelinesthefatherwouldbeobligatedtopay$478permonthratherthanthe$250fixedbytheTrialCourt.T.C.A.365101(e)specificallymandatesthatanydeviationfromthepresumptionaccordedtheGuidelinesmustbejustifiedinwritingbytheTrialJudgewhich,notwithstandinghisordertosubmitproposedfindingsoffact,doesnotfollowthemandatesoftheStatute.Inlightofthis,wedeemitappropriatetoremandthecasefortheTrialCourttoenteranorderinaccordancewiththeforegoingCodeSection.  ThequestionsraisedinissuestwoandthreeareaddressedinT.C.A.362108(b)and362102(4),respectively.TheseCodeSectionsprovidethefollowing:        362108.Orderofpaternityandsupport. .... (b)Theorderofpaternityandsupportshallspecifywhoistohavecustodyofthechild,andthesumtobepaidmonthlyorotherwise,throughtheclerkofthecourt,untilthechildreachestheageofmajority,andasotherwiseprovidedbystatute.Inadditiontoprovidingforthesupportandeducation,theordershallalsoprovideforthepaymentofthenecessaryexpensesincurredbyorforthemotherinconnectionwiththemother'sconfinementandrecovery;forthefuneralexpensesifthechildhasdied;forthesupportofthechildpriortothemakingoftheorderofpaternityandsupport;andsuchexpensesinconnectionwiththepregnancyofthemotherasthecourtmaydeemproper.Thecourtshallsetaspecificamountwhichisdueineachmonthtobepaidinone(1)ormorepaymentsasthecourtorders. 362102.Liabilityoffatherofchildbornoutofwedlock. 󀄄Thefatherofachildbornoutofwedlockisliablefor: .... (4)Suchexpenses,includingcounselfees, m   ׀inconnectionwiththemother'spregnancyasthecourtinitsdiscretionmaydeemproper.         AstoMs.Lowery'ssecondissue,webelieveaSupremeCourtopinioninStateexrel.Colemanv.Clay,805S.W.2d752(Tenn.1991),iscontrolling.Inthatcase,asinthecaseatbar,therewasalengthydelay14yearsinfilingthepetitionofpaternity.TheJuvenileCourtheldthefatherwouldnotbeliableforsupportpriortohislearningthathewasthefatherofthechild.  InrejectingtheJuvenileCourt'sdeterminationandaffirmingthemandatesofT.C.A.362108(b),theSupremeCourtstatedthefollowing(atpage755):        WethereforeaffirmtheholdingbytheCourtofAppealstotheeffectthatupondeterminationofpaternity,thefatherofachildbornoutofwedlockisstatutorilyliableforsupportfromandafterthechild'sbirth.Wefurtheragreethatthestatutegivesthejuvenilecourtthediscretiontoorderaretroactivesupportawardbacktothatdate,theamountandmethodofpaymenttobedeterminedbythejuvenilejudgeinlightofthecircumstancesofthecaseandconsistentwiththestandardswhichnormallygoverntheissuanceofchildsupportorders.SeeT.C.A.362108(d).Werejecttheimplicitholdingbythejuvenilecourtinthiscasethatthefather'sliabilityisretroactiveonlytothedateonwhichheknewforcertainthathewasthechild'sfather.         Inafootnotetoanearlierportionoftheopinion,theCourtalsostatedthefollowing:       Thefather'sabilitytopayisrelevanttotheamountoftheretroactiveorderandthemethodofitspaymentinthefuture,butitshouldnotbetakentoextinguishhisstatutoryliabilityforthechild'ssupport,unlessheisabletoshowthathecannotaffordtopayanythingatall,nomatterhownominaltheaward.         InlightoftheforegoingwealsoremandthecasefortheTrialJudge,afterhearingadditionalproof,ifhedeemsitappropriate,tofirstdeterminewhetherMr.Sheldonisinafinancialpositiontomakeanysupportpayments,and,ifso,uponexercisinghissounddiscretion,tomakesuchanawardundersuchtermsasarewarrantedbytheproof.  AproposofMs.Lowery'sthirdissue,anawardofanattorneyfeeisdiscretionarywiththeTrialCourt,andwethinkitmoreappropriate,inviewofthefactthatthecaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings,thatthisquestionnotbeaddressedatthistime,butawaitactionbytheTrialJudge,whomayreversehisoriginalorderandawardattorneyfees.  Thefourthissue,relativetotaxingofcosts,likewisedoesnotneedattentionuntiltheTrialCourthasacteduponremand.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtastofindingofpaternityisaffirmed,andastotheothermattersraisedbyMs.Loweryremandedforproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.Sheldon.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.