ÿWPCH  /DE`Çâ‡0ºÙÔ°7¾4š«]_Âx²°BA¯_tÞKã÷°ca2å¿»Õl°³îB’Ô<’Êìœ3™µ(E]J²K2xÌ<µÅ#Àœ¤ ‘ôîß_˜èؗвLŒ!ånø$+}çÁ@S¢ˆ‰Ôô¡yë¸#ˆì?™˜=}®«ÝëcdJf’ûaUðh>ÉV\qm”™+¹âþ¹´µÍ;– q÷‘¾…@°‡Â·÷ Šbe½ä· 8gß'AÀU¹ÓD©%'{Ž$$…¸/“Ý´†!‹ •=<•ö•{Ñ9ÓbdÞ €¥è £–*3•p×¹çeùj)H¨S†ÑÚÐ%y):vÓ~ú×ôåŽ Ðò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€4(H)(1).€€However,€Fatherððs€assertion€that€a€parent€has€no€legal€duty€to€support€a€child€onceÐ T Ðthe€child€reaches€the€age€of€majority€is€settled€law€in€Tennessee.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Hawkins€v.€Hawkinsó óóó,€797€S.W.2d€897€(Tenn.Ð Ê ÐCt.€App.€1990).Ô#†XüX òôœe#Ô dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X«{XXXÔÑ  ÑÔ‡¼¤»XX«{ÔÑ8€«{XXdðdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ#†X«{X»¼¤h#ÔÔ‡îüoîXX«{ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†X«{Xîîüo #ÔÔ‡¼¤»XX«{ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓJanuary€23,€2002€SessionÐ X ÐÔ#†X«{X»¼¤¥#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼¤»XX«{ÔÔ_ÔISHMAELÔ_Ô€H.€MACE€òòóó€v.€òòóóPHYLLIS€C.€MACEÔ#†X«{X»¼¤:#Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAn€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€County€€Ð  h ÐNo.€130557€Ô_ÔR.D.Ô_Ô€€Karen€Williams,€Judge€Ð  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00574„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€April€15,€2002Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThis€is€a€post€divorce€action€to€recover€a€child€support€arrearage.€€The€parties'€originalÐ ¶ ÐPennsylvania€divorce€decree€required€that€the€father€pay€child€support€for€their€three€children.€€UnderÐ ¦ö Ðthe€foreign€decree,€the€support€was€not€to€be€reduced€on€a€pro€rata€basis€as€each€child€reachedÐ –æ Ðmajority,€but€simply€end€when€the€youngest€child€reached€majority.€€This€decree€was€laterÐ †Ö Ðdomesticated€in€Tennessee,€then€modified€to€increase€the€monthly€child€support€obligation.€€TheÐ vÆ Ðfather€did€not€pay.€€The€trial€court€found€him€in€contempt€and€ordered€him€to€pay€the€arrearage.€€TheÐ f¶ Ðfather€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€arguing€that€there€should€be€a€pro€rata€reduction€as€each€childÐ V¦ Ðreached€the€age€of€majority,€or€at€least€a€pro€rata€reduction€of€the€amount€of€the€TennesseeÐ F– Ðmodification.€€This€was€denied.€€The€father€now€appeals.€€We€affirm,€finding€that€the€€fatherððs€childÐ 6† Ðsupport€obligation€remains€subject€to€the€provision€in€the€original€foreign€decree€stating€that€the€Ð &v Ðchild€support€would€not€be€reduced€pro€rata€as€each€child€reached€majority.Ð f ÐÌÓÛÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.€ó óÐ öF ÐÌòòÓ  ÓHolly€K.€Ô_ÔLillardÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó(by€separateÐ Ö& Ðdissent)Ô#†XüXXX«{=#ÔÔ‡X«{XXXüÔòò€óóand€òò€David€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Æ  ÐÌMimi€Phillips,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Ô_ÔIshmaelÔ_Ô€H.€MaceÐ ¦"ö! ÐÌPhyllis€H.€Mace,€òòPro€SeóóÐ †$Ö# ÐÓa ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ f&¶!% ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÓ Óà  àThis€is€a€post„divorce€action€to€recover€a€child€support€arrearage.€€Plaintiff/Appellee€PhyllisÐ F(–#' ÐH.€Mace€("Mother")€and€Defendant/Appellant€Ô_ÔIshmaelÔ_Ô€H.€Mace€("Father")€were€marriedÐ 6)†$( Ðapproximately€sixteen€years€and€had€three€minor€children€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€Melanie,€AshleyÐ &*v%) Ðand€Ô_ÔLyndsayÔ_Ô.€€On€May€15,€1989,€the€couple€was€divorced€in€Pennsylvania.€Pursuant€to€theÐ +f&* ÐPennsylvania€divorce€decree,€based€on€a€marital€dissolution€agreement,€Father€was€to€pay€$1200€perÐ ,V'+ Ðâ âmonth€in€child€support.€Under€the€terms€of€the€Pennsylvania€decree,€the€child€support€obligation€wasÐ ö,F(, ÐÔ_Ônot€to€be€decreased€pro€rata€as€each€minor€child€reached€the€age€of€majority.€€The€child€support€wasÐ ° Ðto€cease€altogether€upon€the€youngest€daughter,€Lyndsay,€graduating€from€high€school.€€€Ð  ð Ðâ âà  àAfter€the€divorce,€Mother€moved€to€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€On€July€12,€1991,€Mother€had€theÐ €Ð ÐPennsylvania€decree€domesticated€in€Tennessee.€€On€August€1,€1991,€the€Tennessee€trial€courtÐ pÀ Ðincreased€the€amount€of€Fatherððs€child€support€obligation€from€$1200€to€$1500€per€month.€TheÐ ` ° ÐTennessee€order€did€not€otherwise€modify€the€original€foreign€decree.€Ð P   Ðà  àOn€August€25,€2000,€the€Tennessee€trial€court€entered€an€order€of€contempt€against€FatherÐ 0 € Ðfor€an€arrearage€in€child€support€of€$36,176.€€Father€made€a€motion€under€Rule€59.04€of€theÐ  p  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment,€arguing€that€since€the€order€ofÐ `  Ðchild€support€was€domesticated€in€Tennessee,€it€should€be€subject€to€a€reduction€on€a€pro€rata€basisÐ P  Ðas€each€child€reached€majority.€€This€motion€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€Father€now€appeals€theÐ ð@  Ðtrial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€Ð à0  Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Father€contends€Ô#†XüXXX«{X #Ôhe€should€not€be€required€to€pay€the€entire€arrearage€in€childÐ À Ðsupport.€€He€notes€that€the€original€foreign€decree,€requiring€him€to€pay€$1200€per€month,€not€to€beÐ À Ðreduced€pro€rata€as€each€child€reached€majority,€was€a€consent€order€based€on€a€marital€dissolutionÐ ¬ü Ðagreement.€€This€foreign€decree€was€then€domesticated€in€Tennessee€and€modified€to€increase€theÐ ˜è Ðchild€support€obligation€to€$1500€per€month.€€Father€argues€that€he€agreed€to€forego€any€pro€rataÐ „Ô Ðreduction€in€the€child€support€only€at€the€original€amount€of€$1200€per€month.€€Since€the€amount€wasÐ pÀ Ðincreased€to€$1500€per€month,€Father€maintains,€he€should€be€entitled€to€a€pro€rata€reduction€in€theÐ \¬ Ðamount€as€each€child€reached€majority.€€In€the€alternative,€Father€argues€that€the€pro€rata€reductionÐ H˜ Ðshould€apply€to€the€amount€of€increase€in€child€support,€the€$300€difference€between€the€originalÐ 4„ Ð$1200€per€month€and€the€modified€amount€of€$1500€per€month.€Ô‡X«{XXXüÔÐ  p Ðà  àBecause€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€without€a€jury,€we€review€it€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÐ øH Ðrecord€with€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.Ð è8 ÐApp.€€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòÐ Ø( ÐCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996).€€Interpretation€of€theÐ È ÐPennsylvania€and€Tennessee€orders€involve€questions€of€law€to€which€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ ¸  Ðattaches.Ð ¨!ø Ðà  àOn€appeal,€Father€relies€on€ò òòòClinard€v.€Clinardó óóó,€No.€01„S„01„9502„CV0021,€1995€WLÐ ˆ#Ø! Ð563858,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Sep.€25,€1995),€òòpetition€for€rehearing€deniedóó,€1995€Tenn.€LEXIS€665€(Tenn.Ð x$È" ÐNov.25,€1995),€òòsubstitute€order€entered€by€óó1995€Tenn.€LEXIS€734€(Tenn.€Dec.€4,€1995),€in€whichÐ h%¸ # Ðâ âthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€declared€that€a€parent€has€no€òòlegal€óóduty€to€support€a€child€once€the€Ð X&¨!$ Ðchild€reaches€the€age€of€majority.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€From€this€Father€argues€that€at€least€the€Tennessee€modificationÐ ° Ðâ âof€$300€per€month€should€be€reduced€as€each€child€reaches€eighteen.€€This€reliance€is€misplaced.€Ð  ð ÐWhether€a€parent€has€a€legal€duty€to€support€a€child€upon€that€child€reaching€adulthood€is€not€theÐ à Ðissue.€€The€issue€in€this€case€involves€Ô#†XüXXX«{»#Ôinterpretation€of€the€original€Pennsylvania€decree,€as€well€asÐ €Ð Ðthe€effect€of€the€subsequent€Tennessee€orders€domesticating€the€decree€and€modifying€the€amount.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€original€Pennsylvania€decree€states€clearlyÔ‡X«{XXXüÔ€that€ð ðsaid€sum€($1200)€will€be€not€be€reduced€as€eachÐ l ¼ Ðof€said€daughters€attains€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€years,€but€will€terminate€completely€upon€the€dateÐ l ¼ Ðof€graduation€from€high€school€of€the€youngest€daughter,€Lyndsay.ðð€€Generally€when€ð ðthe€husbandÐ \ ¬ Ðwife€contract€with€respect€to€the€legal€duty€of€child€support,€upon€approval€of€that€contract,€theÐ L œ Ðagreement€of€the€parties€becomes€merged€into€the€decree€and€loses€its€contractual€nature.ðð€ò òòòPenlandÐ < Œ  Ðv.€Penlandó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€222,€224€(Tenn.€1975).€€Therefore,€Ô#†XüXXX«{r!#Ôregardless€of€whether€this€order€wasÐ ,|  Ðentered€by€consent,€it€remains€a€court€order,€subject€to€ð ðthe€continuing€statutory€power€of€the€CourtÐ ,|  Ðto€modify€its€terms€when€changed€circumstances€justify.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€When€this€order€was€domesticatedÐ h  Ðand€modified,€the€only€change€to€the€original€order€of€divorce€was€to€increase€the€amount€of€childÐ T  Ðsupport€Father€was€obligated€to€pay.€€There€was€no€modification€of€the€language€in€the€originalÐ ð@  Ðdecree€stating€that€the€amount€of€child€support€would€not€be€reduced€as€each€child€reached€majority.€Ð Ü, ÐIndeed,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€Father€even€sought€a€modification€of€the€original€decreeÐ È Ðregarding€pro€ration.€€Ð ´ Ðà  àThe€dissent€correctly€notes€that€a€child€support€obligation€in€excess€of€that€which€is€legallyÐ ŒÜ Ðmandated€remains€ð ðcontractualðð€in€nature€even€though€it€is€incorporated€into€the€final€divorce€decree.ò òòò€Ð xÈ ÐSee€Penlandó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€at€225€(Tenn.€1975).€€ò òòòóóó óSince€a€parent€generally€cannot€be€ordered€to€payÐ d´ Ðchild€support€for€an€adult€child,€any€obligation€undertaken€to€pay€support€for€a€child€beyond€the€dateÐ P  Ðthat€child€reaches€the€age€of€majority€would€be€contractual€only€and€not€subject€to€revision€by€theÐ <Œ Ðcourts.€€ò òòòBryan€v.€Leachó óóó,€No.€91„540,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€421,€at€*36€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jun€5,Ð (x Ð2001).€€òòò òó óóóÐ d Ðà  àHad€Father€shown€that€the€$1500€per€month€child€support€obligation€was€in€excess€of€theÐ ì< Ðamount€of€child€support€that€would€have€been€justified€for€one€child€in€light€of€Fatherððs€net€income,Ð Ø( Ðwe€would€be€required€to€consider€this€fact€in€determining€whether€the€provision€stating€there€wouldÐ Ä Ðbe€no€pro€ration€of€the€amount€of€child€support€is€applicable€to€the€$300€per€month€increase€in€childÐ °  Ðsupport.€€In€this€case,€however,€Father€fails€to€show,€or€even€allege,€that€the€amount€of€monthly€childÐ œ!ì Ðsupport€ordered€by€the€trial€court€exceeds€that€which€would€have€been€required€under€the€childÐ ˆ"Ø  Ðsupport€guidelines€for€the€remaining€minor€child.€€òòò òSee€Rutledge€v.€Barrettó óóó,€802€S.W.€2d€604,€605Ð t#Ä! Ð(Tenn.€1991)€(finding€that€òòò òó óóówhere€circumstances€justify€the€original€total€amount€of€support€for€theÐ `$°" Ðremaining€minor€children,€a€òòò òó óóó€trial€court€is€not€obligated€to€apply€pro€ration€to€a€past€award).€€SinceÐ L%œ # Ðthe€conclusion€reached€by€the€dissent€is€premised€on€the€assumption€that€the€$1500€per€month€childÐ 8&ˆ!$ Ðsupport€obligation€is€ð ðabove€the€legal€mandates,ðð€and€Father€has€not€proven€or€even€alleged€this€fact,Ð ° Ðwe€respectfully€decline€to€reach€this€conclusion.€€€€€òòò ò€óóó óÐ œì Ðà  àAdditionally,€Father€relies€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1),€in€effect€at€theÐ tÄ Ðtime€of€modification,€which€provided€ð ðunless€the€court€specifically€orders€otherwise,€any€orderÐ `° Ðwhich€provides€for€the€support€of€two€or€more€persons€shall€be€deemed€prorated€in€equal€sharesÐ L œ Ðamong€such€persons.ðð€€This€statute€has€since€been€repealed.€€Regardless,€it€has€no€application€to€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase€since€the€Pennsylvania€order€specified€that€there€would€be€no€pro€rata€reduction.òòò òó óóóÐ $ t Ðà  àThus,€the€provision€of€the€original€Pennsylvania€decree,€stating€that€the€amount€of€childÐ ü L  Ðsupport€would€not€be€reduced€pro€rata€as€each€child€reached€majority,€remained€in€effect€when€theÐ è 8  ÐTennessee€trial€court€modified€the€amount€of€Fatherððs€obligation.€€Consequently,€Father€must€payÐ Ô$  Ðthe€entire€arrearage€ordered€by€the€trial€court.€Ô‡X«{XXXüÔÐ À  Ðà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,Ð ˜è  ÐIshmael€H.€Mace,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌÌÓ Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð (x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÐ h ÐÌÔ‡¼¤»XX«{Ôà0  àÔ#†¼®d»»¼¤?4#ÔÔ#†XüX»¼®dv6#Ô