WPC # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m   0l 0D 0JH 0T 0^ 0hD 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d%U>U 6 D3 B0B)M 0@vDC AMU*FpPv~v AO_ 0Dt D/ BHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular 'D(D)D*+,E-.D/D0Ӏڃ">13|x;((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New++++'dxd d% Line 7 d("$    ,,,,7Border 1dd-.C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#(  00   YYY FILED0X December9,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.0AppellateCourtClerk  F !#d#(   $       ))Depreciationisnotanallowabledeductionincalculatingselfemploymentincome.SeeTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.03(3)(a).  !#d#(   $       ))Withrespecttothe1992motorhome,Mr.McGaffictestifiedthathisretired84yearoldfathermadethemonthlypaymentsof$429;however,itisclearthatatleast$8,000ofMr.McGafficsmoneywasusedasthedownpaymentforthemotorhome. w !#d#(   $       ))Mr.McGafficsalmosttotallackofvisitationwithhisminorsonisanotherfactormilitatingagainstareductioninchildsupport.SeeTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.04(1)(b).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . (  P )\RA'\7~XXdd7  R/1.A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEPAULWILLIAMMcGAFFIC,  )C/ANO.03A019707CV00286      )  PetitionerAppellant,)      )      )      )      )      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEv.      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT      )      )      )      )      )JANICEELOISMcGAFFIC,  )      )HONORABLEWILLIAML.BROWN,  RespondentAppellee.)JUDGEForAppellant     ForAppelleeROBERTD.LAWSON    ROBERTJ.BATSON,JR.̜Lawson&Lawson    Chattanooga,Tennessee̜Chattanooga,Tennessee@  OPINION))XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  Thisisapostdivorcecase.PaulWilliamMcGafficϜfiledapetitionseekingtomodifyhischildsupportandperiodicalimonyinfuturoobligations.Aspertinenttotheissuesonthisappeal,thetrialcourtrefusedtomodifyitsexistingchildsupportandalimonyinfuturodecrees.Mr.McGafficappealed,raisingissuesthatessentiallypresentthefollowingquestions: 8 1.Doestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsrefusaltomodifyitsalimonyinfuturoawardbyeitherterminatingit,orreducingitand/orconvertingittoanawardofrehabilitativealimony? 8 2.Doestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsrefusaltomodifyitschildsupportaward?  Theappellee,JaniceEloisMcGaffic,argues,bywayofseparateissues,(1)that,atthehearingbelow,Mr.McGafficabandonedhisϜrequestforareductioninchildsupport,and(2)thatsheisentitledtoreasonableattorneysfeesforenforcingthetrialcourtsjudgmentonthisappeal.@ I  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionthatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrect.Rule13(d),T.R.A.P.Wemustdefertothispresumptionunlesswefindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings. Id .; UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw,however,arenotaffordedthesamedeference. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1993).  Ourdenovoreviewistemperedbytheprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchcredibilitydeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836ϜS.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).Infact,thiscourthasnotedthat 8 ...onanissuewhichhingesonwitnesscredibility,[thetrialcourt]willnotbereversedunless,otherthantheoraltestimonyofthewitnesses,thereisfoundintherecordclear,concreteandconvincingevidencetothecontrary. TennesseeValleyKaolinCorp.v.Perry ,526S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.App.1974).@ II  WhenthepartiesweredivorcedonOctober9,1989,Ms.McGafficwasawardedcustodyofthepartiesthreeminorchildren,andMr.McGafficwasorderedtopaychildsupportof$1,000permonthandperiodicalimonyinfuturoof$500permonth.Atthattime,Ms.McGafficwas39yearsold.SheandMr.McGaffichadbeenmarriedforslightlyover20years.Thedivorcewasgrantedonthegroundofcruelandinhumantreatmentorconduct.Thedivorcejudgmentincludesthepartiesagreementsastocustody,childsupport,andalimonyinfuturo.    ByorderenteredNovember10,1993,Mr.McGafficschildsupportobligationwasreduced,onhispetition,to$500permonthϜbecausehistwoolderchildrenhadthenreachedtheageofmajority.Inthesameorder,thetrialcourtrefusedtoreducethealimonyinfuturoawardof$500permonth.  ThecurrentdisputebeganwhenMr.McGafficfiledapetitiononNovember6,1996,allegingthathis incomehasdecreasedsubstantially,andthathisformerwife nolongerrequireshisassistance.Heasksthecourtto adjustchildsupportpaymentsinaccordancewiththeguidelinesandterminatealimonypayments.Atthehearingbelow,asanalternativetheory,Mr.McGafficarguedthatifthecourtwasnotinclinedtoterminatethealimony,itshouldreduceitand/orconvertittoϜrehabilitativealimony.@ III  TheappelleearguesthatMr.McGafficabandonedhisrequestformodificationofthemonthlychildsupportawardof$500.Shecontendsthatthisabandonmentcanbefoundintheremarksofherformerhusbandscounsel.Wedisagree.  Inhisopeningstatement,counselforMr.McGafficmadethefollowingcomments: 8 WevealsoaskedtheCourttotakealookatchildsupport,butquitefrankly,YourHonor,Mr.McGafficdoesntwanttopursuethatstrenuously.Hespaying$500amonthchildsupportandanother$100formedicalanddentalexpenses,whichis$600amonth.HesnotreallyseriouslyaskingadjustmentonthatiftheCourtwouldterminatethealimony. 8 IftheCourtdoesntfeelthatthisisaninstancefortheterminationofalimony,thenwewouldliketheCourttoadjusteverythinginaccordancewithhispresentabilitytopay.Inclosingargument,Mr.McGafficscounselmadethefollowingstatements: 8 WethinkunderthepresentincomelevelthathehasthatwewerehopingthattheCourtwouldcancelthealimony,butiftheCourtdoesntseefittocancelit,wethinkitoughttobereduceddowntoalevelthathecanpay. 8 Underhispresentsituation,hespaying$600amonthfortheupkeepofthechild,whichismorethantheguidelinewouldcallfor,butlikeIsaidinthebeginning,wearenotreallyheretochallengethat.WeareheretoprimarilyasktheCourttolookatthealimony.  Wedonotunderstandcounselscommentstobeanunconditional,unequivocalabandonmentofhisclientsrequestforamodificationofchildsupport.ItisobviousthatMr.McGafficwas,andstillis,moreinterestedinobtainingreliefwithrespecttohisalimonyinfuturoobligation;butitisclearthattheissueoftheappropriateamountofchildsupportwasverymuchbeforethelowercourt.Itwaslitigatedbytheparties,anditisnowproperlybeforeusonthisappeal.Theappelleespositiontothecontraryiswithoutmerit.̜Ǜ@ IV  IndenyingMr.McGafficanyrelief,thetrialcourtmadeϜfindingsthatimpactouranalysisinthiscase: 8 ...theCourtisthoroughlyconvincedfromMr.McGafficsowntestimonythathehastheabilitytoearnmuchmorethanhesearning.@ *** 8 ...hehascertainlydemonstratedtheabilitytoearnmuchmoremoney,andtheCourtbelievesthat,infact,heisearningmoremoneythanwhathehasputonhisincomeandexpensestatement.@ *** 8 ButtheCourtfeelsthatnotonlydoeshehaveanabilitytoearnmuchmorethanheshowsheisearning,Ithinkheisearningmore.Thus,itcanbeseenthatthetrialcourtmadetwoimportantϜfindingsinthecontextoftheissuesbeforeus:first,itfoundthatMr.McGafficwasactuallyearningmorethanhewantedthecourttobelieve;andsecond,that,inanyevent,histestimony,takenatfacevalue,showsanabilitytoearnmore.WewillanalyzeMr.McGafficsissueswiththesetwofindingsinmind.@ V  Inapostdivorceproceeding,acourthasthepowerto decreeanincreaseordecreaseof[anawardofspousalsupport]onlyuponashowingofasubstantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstances.T.C.A.365101(a)(1).UnlessanduntilaϜpetitioningpartydemonstratesa substantialandmaterialchangeofcircumstances,theexistingawardofspousalsupportisresϜjudicata. Hicksv.Hicks ,176S.W.2d371,37475(Tenn.App.1943).  Priorto1994,requeststomodifychildsupportwereϜsubjectsolelytothematerialandsubstantialchangeofϜcircumstancesstandard. Id. at375.AnewstandarddealingwithamodificationrequestbasedonanincreaseordecreaseinanobligorsincomewasintroducedbythepassageofChapter987ofthePublicActsof1994: 8 Incasesinvolvingchildsupport,uponapplicationofeitherparty,thecourtshalldecreeanincreaseordecreaseofsuchallowancewhenthereisfoundtobeasignificantvariance,asdefinedinthechildsupportguidelinesestablishedbysubsection(e),betweentheguidelinesandtheamountofsupportcurrentlyorderedunlessthevariancehasresultedfromapreviouslycourtordereddeviationfromtheguidelinesandthecircumstanceswhichcausedthedeviationhavenotchanged.ӜT.C.A.365101(a)(1).Thechildsupportguidelinesweresubsequentlymodified,effectiveDecember14,1994,toprovideasfollows: 8 ForthepurposesofdefiningasignificantvariancebetweentheguidelineamountandthecurrentsupportorderpursuanttoT.C.A.365101,asignificantvarianceshallbeatleast15%ifthecurrentsupportisonehundreddollars($100.00)orgreaterpermonth...ӜTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.02(3).̜Ǜ@ VI  Intheinstantcase,theevidencereflectsthatin1993,whentheissuesofchildsupportandalimonywerelast visitedbythetrialcourt,Mr.McGafficwasearningincomeatanannualgrossrateof$38,256.Atthetime,heoperatedlunchroomconcessionsinvariousofficebuildingsinChattanooga.Alsobeforethecourtin1993wasMr.McGafficsworkhistory,includingastintasaserviceadvisorataForddealershipfrom1989to1991,whenheearnedasmuchas$36,000grossperyear.  ThetrialcourtwasnotauthorizedtomodifyMr.McGafficschildsupportobligationunlessitfounda significantϜvariance...betweentheguidelinesandtheamountofsupportϜcurrentlyordered.𛀜T.C.A.365101(a)(1).Underthechildsupportguidelines,therewouldbea significantvariancedownwardifthechildsupportproducedatMr.McGafficscurrentlevelofincomewaslessthanthechildsupportdecreedin thecurrentsupportorderby15%ormore.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.02(3).However,thisprincipleissubjecttoanotherprovisionofthechildsupportguidelinesthatisparticularlyrelevantintheinstantcase: 8 Such[significant]variancewouldjustifythemodificationofachildsupportorderunless,insituationswhereadownwardmodificationissought,theobligoriswillfullyandvoluntarily...underemployed. Id .Alsorelevantisanotherprovisionoftheguidelines: 8 Ifanobligoriswillfullyandvoluntarily 8 ...underemployed,childsupportshallbecalculatedbasedonadeterminationofpotentialincome,asevidencedbyeducationalleveland/orpreviousworkexperience.̛ӜTenn.Comp.R.&Regs.,ch.124024.03(3)(d).  Mr.McGaffictestifiedthathiscurrentincomeisintherangeof$13,300peryear.Heworksforablindindividualwhooperatesavendingconcession.Mr.McGafficearns$7.00perhouratthatemployment.Heclaimedattrialthathewasabletosubsistonthisincomebecausehiswifeworkedandbecausetheylivedwithhisfather,whoseretirementincome,ofanundisclosedamount,wasavailabletohelpdefraythehouseholdbills.  TherewasagreatdealoftestimonybelowregardingMr.McGafficshobbyofcompetitivedragracing.Hehasbeeninvolvedinthisendeavorsincehewas16yearsold.In1995,heearnedprizemoneyof$17,428,butclaimedanetlossfortaxpurposesofϜ$7,850;however,ignoringhisnoncashdepreciationdeductionofϜ$9,520, 2   כhehadanetincomefromracingof$1,670.  Ms.McGafficcontendedattrial,andargueshere,thatherformerhusbandispursuinghislesserpayingemploymentbecausehiscurrentemployerpermitshimtoleaveearlyforhisweekenddragracingcompetition.WhileadmittingthatheparticipatesinsuchcompetitionatvarioussitesfromMarchtoOctober,usuallythreeweekendsamonth,heattemptedtodownplaythesignificanceofthishobbyvisavishisemploymentbytestifyingthatheleavesasearlyasWednesdayorThursday onlyϜinconnectionwithfiveorsixofhisweekendtrips.Ontheotheroccasions,accordingtohim,heleavesafterworkonFridayoronSaturdaymorning.  Mr.McGafficsadultdaughter,whohadworkedwithherfatherinhiscurrentemploymentforaperiodoftime,testifiedthathetoldherthathewantedtoworkathiscurrentemploymentbecausehisemployerallowedhimtobeofffromworkwhenheϜneededtoleaveearlyforhisweekenddragracingcompetitions.  ThetrialcourtdidnotbelieveMr.McGafficstestimonythathisincomewaslimitedto$13,300fromhisemploymentandanetlossfromhisdragracinghobbyofsome$7,850peryear.Thisdeterminationwasbased,atleastinpart,onMr.McGafficstestimonythatheownedthefollowingassets,subjecttothemonthlydebtpaymentsshown:  (1)8 1995FordEscort,subjecttomonthlypaymentof$302.66;  (2)8 1992Mazda,subjecttomonthlypaymentof$220.90; 8 (3) 1992FordMotorHome 3   ; 8 (4) $9,800racecar; 8 (5) 1995PaceAmericanenclosedcartrailer; 8 (6) 1989Kawasakifourwheelscooter.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatMr.McGafficspossessionsbeliedhistestimonyofmeagerincome.Wedonotfindthatthetestimonyregardingthecontributionsofhiswifeandfatherissufficienttorebutthetrialcourtsconclusion.ThefactsbeforethetrialcourtsupportthatcourtsquestioningofMr.McGafficscredibility.Furthermore,sincewedidnotobservehimwhenhetestified,wearenotinapositiontodisagreewiththatcourtsassessmentofhiscredibility. Massengale ,915S.W.2dat819.  Moreimportantly,thetrialcourtfoundthatMr.McGaffichadtheprovenabilitytoearnmorethanheiscurrentlyearning,eventakinghistestimonyatfacevalue.HisworkϜhistory,aswellasthetestimonyofhisdaughter,givecredencetosuchafinding.TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstbutrathersupportsafindingthatMr.McGafficisunderemployedbecauseofhisdesiretoengageinhisdragracinghobby.Furthermore,thereisnothingbeforeustosuggestthatMr.McGafficcannotpursuehisformerworkasaserviceadvisoratanautomobiledealership.  InviewofMr.McGafficsapparentabilitytoearnϜincomeataratecomparabletohis1993earnings,theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsimplicitfindingthattherehasnotbeena significantvarianceasdefinedinϜT.C.A.365101(a)(1).̜Ǜ@ VII  WealsodonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindingssupportingitsdecisionnottomodifyMr.McGafficsalimonyinfuturoobligation.TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstafindingthatMr.McGafficfailedtoshowamaterialandsubstantialchangeofcircumstancessince1993.  Aswehavepreviouslyindicated,Mr.McGaffic,becauseofhisworkexperience,iscapableofearningasmuchas,ifnotϜmorethan,theincomeheearnedin1993.AstoMs.McGafficsemployment,therehasbeennochangeinthiscircumstancehercurrentjobistheoneshehadin1993,whentheissueofalimonywaslastreviewed.Sheisnowa47yearoldwomanwithahighschooleducationplustwocollegelevelcomputercoursecredits.Sheisthemotherofa13yearoldwhobasicallyhasnomeaningfulcontactwithhisfather. 4   כ  Thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingtoterminate,lower,orconvertthenatureof,thealimonypreviouslyordered.@ VIII  Theappelleeseeksattorneysfeesforenforcingthetrialcourtsjudgmentonthisappeal.SuchanawardisϜappropriateinthiscase.SeeT.C.A.365103(c).Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourttoholdahearingtodeterminetheamountofreasonablefeesandexpensestowhichtheappellantisentitled.See Folkv.Folk ,357S.W.2d828(Tenn.1962).  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellantandhissurety.Thiscaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings,consistentwiththisopinion,Ϝandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜CONCUR:______________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.______________________DonT.McMurray,J.