WPC  7 %g ] Z+n> HG^j 1/9M(Mspab`Ew_Cl;uc".Bb =ʭގL (?;PePIg+|ǙuwRm)ncpNaҿ <GtzdIpBmQClSև8:p;̢QOhA:y3~îo~""BSX$&;H|#ܖ2)'wʲ`UEl["~'{\5b#\ % UN# 0q UN wG 4K z_  ^  | 0D[!N mEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K AS0 0I 0D A1HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL,+: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.wptW,L   R$      1  ݬ  _ԀInPennsylvania,theobligationofaparenttosupportachildgenerallyceasesuponthechildreachingthe  ageofmajorityorwhenthechildgraduatesfromhighschool,whicheveroccurslater.Hansonv.Hanson,625A.2d x 1212,1214(Pa.Super.Ct.1993).Theonlyexceptiontothisrule,referencedin23Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann.4321(3) @ (2001),concernsparentsofadultswithphysicalormentalimpairment.Hanson,625A.2dat1214.Accordingly,when X thefatheragreedtopaytheentireobligationafterthefirsttwodaughtersreachedtheageofmajorityandgraduatedhigh   school,hewasagreeingtoincurobligationsabovetherequisiteamount.  Ӏ3|x(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U  R$      2  ݬ  _ԀThemajoritystressesthefactthatthefatherdidnotallegethatthe$1,500.00wasabovethechildsupport  guidelinesamountforonechild.Commonsensedictates,however,thatwhenthecourtincreasedthefathers x obligations,theincreasewasmadetobringhisobligationsinlinewiththeguidelineamountforallthreeoftheparties @ children.Wefindnoreasontobelievethatwithallthreechildrenundertheageofeighteenatthetime,thecourtwould X haveincreasedtheamountofhisobligationstoalevelcommensuratewiththeamountdueforonlyonechild.From   myreviewoftherecord,itappearspainfullyobviousthatthecourtmerelyrewrotethecontractualobligationsofthe  father.- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  ݬ d(|3'$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3'$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8sXXdd8  @ wINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#w #Ԉ ,   JANUARY23,2002Session X XsX #XXs#_ISHMAEL_ԀH.MACEv.PHYLLISC.MACEXsX   ` @@ AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.130557_R.D._;TheHonorableKarenWilliams,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200100574_COA_ԄR3CVFiledApril15,_2002_ '  AV) ` dE<` A         #Xs#XsX.AlanE._Highers_,J.   DISSENTINGOPINION #XXsI#XsX v #XXs#XsX  Xh XXXs0  Irespectfullydissentfromtheconclusionreachedbythemajority.V(#(#   Importanttothiscaseisthefactthatthefatherandmotherenteredintoa FamilySettlement .~ Agreement,afactthatthemajorityappearstogiveonlycursoryattention.TheFamilySettlement j AgreementamountstowhatwewouldconsideramaritaldissolutionagreementinTennessee.In V thisagreement,thefatherconsentedtopaying$1,200.00permonthinchildsupportwithnoprorated B reductioninthisamountaseachchildreachedtheageofmajority.Thiscontinuingobligationwould . notceaseuntiltheyoungestchildgraduatedfromhighschool.    Thefathersdecisiontoconsenttopayingtheentireobligationamountafterthetwoeldest   daughtersreachedmajorityandgraduatedfromhighschoolwentbeyondhisgeneralobligations !  underPennsylvanialaw.   #  1      ׀Thefather,however,takesnoissuewiththePennsylvaniadecreeand z"! proposestopayallarrearageaccumulatedunderthatdecree. f#"   UnderTennesseelaw,wewouldobviouslyenforceanagreementwhereinaparentvoluntarily >% $ agreedtopaymorethanwouldberequiredunderlawforthesupportofhischildren.See_Penland_ *&z!%r v._Penland_,521S.W.2d222(Tenn.1975).Theenforcementoftheaward,however,followinga  petitionedincreaseintheobligation,wouldrequirefurtherreview.In_Penland_,our  supremecourtnotedthedifferencebetweenagreedchildsupportpaymentsoutlinedinamarital  dissolutionagreementthatfulfilledaparentslegaldutiesandthosepaymentsthatwentaboveand t beyondwhatwouldbeconsideredmandatory.Id.at22425.Thoseagreeduponpaymentsthat ` fulfillaparentslegalobligationmergeintothefinaldivorcedecree.Thosepaymentsabovethe L  legalmandates,however,continuetoretainacontractualnatureeventhough incorporatedintothe 8  finaldivorcedecree.Id.at225. $ t   Inthecasesubjudice,themajorityholdsthatallpaymentsagreeduponbythepartiesshould  L  beconsideredmergedwiththePennsylvaniadecree.UnderTennesseelaw,however,asstated  8  above,wetreattheportionsofanagreementthatrequireaparenttomakepaymentsinexcessofthe $  legalrequirementstobeofacontractualnature.Thus,Iwouldholdthattheportionofthepayments   thatthefatheragreedtopayaftertheeldestdaughtersbecameadultsandgraduatedfromhighschool   aremerecontractualobligationsandnotmodifiablepartsofthedecree.Themajority,however,in   requiringthefathertocontinuepayingtheentireadditional$300.00aftertheeldestdaughters   reachedtheageofmajority,ineffect,impermissiblyrewrotethefatherscontractualobligations.  #  2       p Ѐ \   Iwouldalsoholdthattheagreemententeredintobetweenthepartiesshouldbeenforcedas H written.Itiswhatthefathervoluntarilyagreedtopay.However,thefatherdidnotagreetopayan 4 additional$300.00permonthafterthefirstandseconddaughterreachedtheageofmajority.That  p amountwasassessedtohimbythestateofTennesseeand,accordingly,thatamountshouldbe  \ subjecttoreductionaseachofthedaughtersbecomesanadult.Ialsonotethatunderthereasoning H ofthemajorityopinion,thefatherwouldhavebeenentitledtonoproratareductionevenifthe 4 Tennesseecourthaddoubledortripledtheamountoftheoriginalaward.Thisresultdoesnotappear   tometobeeitherfairorlogical.     Iwouldgrantthefatheraproratareductioninthe$300.00modificationaseachchild  attainedmajority.ThePennsylvaniacourtenteredadecreewhichallowednoreductioninthesum  of$1,200.00permonth.Iwouldenforcethatdecree.#XsX XXh##XXs]#XsX l    `     h     ___________________________________ (#x!    `     h     ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGE