ÿWPCN …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í  w@ 0„P 0DÔ 0J 0Tb 0^¶  0h 0r„ 0|ö 0†r 0ø 1uˆ 0dý U6aB)—DCÀ AMU*P0z8ª Bâæÿ D3åv~vÓ– 0@i AO©Æø 0D¾ D/ B1˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLDÒ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÚƒç"¡Ó 3|xÏ ¤P¥P¦P§¨Ó€ÀÁÂÃÄÓ€(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òOctober€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòÔ€!ôÔThe€mother€has€the€children€for€55.7€percent€of€the€year,€and€father€for€44.3Ïpercent.Ô€!XÔóóÌ d ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòò›We€should€note€that€no€standardized€method€of€calculation€has€beenÏestablished€for€calculating€downward€deviation€from€the€child€support€guide…lines.€€Consideration€of€deviation€on€a€"case€by€case"€basis€would€seem€toÏmake€a€standardized€method€difficult.€€For€another€approach,€òòseeóó€òòCasteel€v,ÏCasteelóó,€1977€WL€414401,€an€opinion€of€this€court,€auth‚ored€by€Senior€JudgeÏWilliam€Inman,€filed€at€Knoxville,€July€24,€1997.€€(A€rule€11€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€has€been€filed€with€the€Supreme€Court€but€has€not€as€yetÏbeen€acted€upon.€óóœÌ(((('ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€™äXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€$&#A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓJANET€LYNN€MORGAN,€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌÓ ` °œXÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9705„CV„00166€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€BILL€SWANNÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌMICHAEL€LEE€MORGAN,€€€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€)ÌÌÌÌÌWM.€STANTON€MASSA,€III,€Knoxville,€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌPATRICK€T.€PHILLIPS,€Knoxville,€for€Appellee.ÌÌ€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àMichael€Lee€Morgan€[father]€appeals€from€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment€requiring€him€to€pay€$192.50€per€month€child€support€toÏhis€ex„wife,€Janet€Lynn€Morgan€[mother].€€The€sole€issue€on€appealÏis€whether€the€court€erred€by€refusing€to€award€the€father€childÏsupport€for€the€three€months€in€the€summer€during€which€he€hasÏphysical€custody€of€the€children€for€a€greater€number€of€days€thanÏdoes€the€mother.ÌÌà àThe€parties€were€granted€an€absolute€divorce€on€May€6,€1996.€ÏThe€trial€court€approved€their€Marital€Dissolution€AgreementÏ(MDA),€which€provided€that€the€mother€would€have€primary€residen…tial€custody€during€the€nine€months€of€the€school€year€and€theÏfather€during€the€three€months€of€summer.€€Each€party€was€allowedÏliberal€visitation,€averaging€five€days€out€of€every€two€weeksÏduring€those€times€when€the€other€had€primary€residential€custody.€ÏThe€MDA€provided€for€joint€legal€custody€of€their€two€children,Ïthen€ages€nine€and€six€years.ÌÌà àThe€parties'€arguments€regarding€child€support€issues€wereÏheard€by€the€child€support€referee€for€Knox€County€on€July€3,Ï1996.€€The€referee€found€that€pursuant€to€the€MDA,€the€mother€hadÏcustody€of€the€children€for€an€average€of€203.5€days€per€year,€andÏthe€father€had€custody€for€161.5€days€per€year.€€In€his€writtenÏfindings€and€recommendations,€the€referee€found€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àA€variance€from€the€Child€Support€Guidelines€is€inÏorder€in€that€[father]€has€residential€custody€of€theÏchildren€for€a€period€of€time€each€year€and€that€he€hasÏphysical€possession€of€the€children€over€twice€theÏnumber€of€days€per€year€anticipated€by€the€guidelines,Ïthat€the€amount€of€child€support€ordered€should€be€one„half€(ðð)€the€guidelines€amount€...ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€referee,€found€the€father's€gross€income€to€be€$400€perÏweek,€and€recommended€that€the€father€pay€$225.50€per€month,Ïexactly€one„half€the€amount€corresponding€to€a€$400€weekly€incomeÏunder€the€child€support€guidelines.ÌÌà àThe€father€sought€a€review€of€the€referee's€findings€andÏrecommendations€in€the€circuit€court,€arguing€that€his€grossÍweekly€income€was€less€than€$400,€and€disputing€the€recommendationÏthat€he€pay€$225.50€monthly€in€child€support.€€The€father€offeredÏhis€recent€paycheck€stubs€into€evidence,€which€showed€that€hisÏweekly€income€was€$342.00.€€The€circuit€court€after€a€hearingÏadopted€the€referee's€findings€and€conclusions,€but€modified€theÏchild€support€order€to€reflect€that€the€father's€income€was€$342Ïper€week.€€The€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Referee€was€correct€in€reducing€[the€father's]Ïchild€support€obligation€by€50%€since€his€co„parentingÏtime€is€almost€exactly€twice€that€contemplated€by€theÏòòTennessee€Child€Support€Guidelinesóó.€€Thus,€[the€father]Ïshould€pay€the€sum€of€$192.50€per€month€as€ongoing€childÏsupport.€€This€amount€is€arrived€at€as€follows:€($342.00Ïper€week€x€52€weeks€ðð€12€months€=€$1,482.00€per€month;Ï$1,482.00€per€month€=€$385.00€per€month€GuidelinesÏSupport;€$385.00€per€month€ðð€2€=€$192.50€per€month€on„going€support).ÌÌÓÓÌà àOn€appeal,€the€father€argues€that€since€he€has€primary€resi…dential€custody€for€three€months€out€of€the€year,€the€motherÏshould€pay€him€child€support€for€those€three€months.€€It€appearsÏthat€a€calculation€of€child€support€in€this€manner€would€result€inÏan€annual€reduction€in€the€father's€child€support€obligation€ofÍapproximately€$180€per€year.€€The€mother,€on€the€other€hand,Ïargues€that€the€trial€court's€ruling€was€proper€and€correct.ÌÌà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€ofÏthe€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€preponder…ates€otherwise.€€No€such€presumption€attaches€to€the€court'sÏconclusions€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).ÌÌà àIn€child€support€cases,€the€court€is€required€to€apply€theÏchild€support€guidelines€as€a€rebuttable€presumption.€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ððÏ36„5„101(e)(1).€€If€the€court€finds€that€strict€application€of€theÏguidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€for€the€particularÏcase,€it€must€so€find€in€writing,€including€"a€justification€forÏthe€variance€from€the€guidelines."€òòIdóó.€The€trial€court€did€so€inÏthis€case.ÌÌà àThe€sole€authority€upon€which€the€father€rests€his€argumentÏis€òòGraham€v.€Grahamóó,€an€unreported€case€of€this€section,€where€theÏcourt€upheld€an€award€of€child€support€to€a€parent€while€she€hadÏcustody€of€their€child€during€the€summer€months.€òòGraham€v.€Grahamóó,Í1995€WL€447785€(Tenn.App.€July€31,€1995).€€The€òòGrahamóó€court€didÏnot€impose€any€kind€of€requirement€that€the€trial€court€awardÏchild€support€during€a€parent's€summer€custody;€it€simply€notedÏ"the€Trial€Court's€wide€discretion€in€awarding€child€support,"€andÏfound€no€abuse€of€that€discretion€under€the€circumstances.€€More…over,€òòGrahamóó€made€it€clear€that€the€trial€court€could€properlyÏhave€taken€such€action€as€the€court€did€in€the€present€case:ÌÌòòÓÓà8 àà àWhile€an€adjustment€of€support€for€the€extendedÏvisitation€period€might€have€been€made€by€reducing€theÏmonthly€payments€required€of€Mrs.€Graham,óó€we€find€theÏTrial€Court€acted€properly€in€requiring€payments€to€Mrs.ÏGraham€during€the€summer€months.€[Emphasis€added].ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€*4.ÌÌÓÓÌà àUnder€the€circumstances€of€the€present€case,€we€find€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€judgment.ÏPhysical€custody€of€the€children€is€divided€fairly€close€to€evenlyÏbetween€the€two€parents.× ƒ' ××  ×€€The€guidelines€are€based€on€the€assump…tion€that€the€primary€custodial€parent€has€custody€for€approxi…mately€285€days€per€year,€with€"co„parenting€time"€granted€to€theÏnon„custodial€parent€for€the€remaining€80€days:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThese€guidelines€are€designed€to€apply€to€situa…tions€where€children€are€living€primarily€with€oneÏparent€but€stay€overnight€with€the€other€parent€at€leastÏas€often€as€every€other€weekend€from€Friday€to€Sunday,Ïtwo€weeks€in€the€summer€and€two€weeks€during€holidaysÏthroughout€the€year€...€.€In€situations€where€overnightÏtime€is€divided€more€equally€between€the€parents,€theÏcourts€will€have€to€make€a€òòcase„by„case€determinationóó€asÏto€the€appropriate€amount€of€support.€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌTenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Reg.,€Ch.€1240„2„4„.02(6).× ƒ) ××  ×€ÌÌÓÓÌà àAs€the€trial€court€correctly€noted,€the€parties'€MDA€providedÏthat€the€father€would€exercise€more€than€twice€the€"co„parentingÏtime"€than€that€anticipated€by€the€guidelines.€€Under€the€circum…stances€of€this€case€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€court's€down…ward€deviation€from€the€guidelines€based€on€the€increased€numberÏof€days€in€which€the€father€has€physical€custody€of€his€children.€ÍWe€are€further€of€the€opinion€that€it€was€well€within€the€trialÏcourt's€discretion€not€to€award€the€father€"offsetting"€childÏsupport€during€those€months€when€he€has€primary€residential€custo…dy€especially€in€view€of€the€trial€court's€action€in€reducing€theÏfather's€child€support€obligation€for€the€same€reasons.€€To€reduceÏthe€father's€child€support€obligation€because€of€high€"coparentingÏtime"€while€at€the€same€time€requiring€the€mother€to€pay€childÏsupport€to€him€would€result€in€a€double€reduction€for€the€husband.€ÏWe€find€such€a€circumstance€to€be€inequitable€and€inappropriate.€ÏA€single€reduction€is€proper.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court's€judgment€is€affirmed€in€all€respects€andÏthe€case€is€remanded€for€such€further€action€as€may€be€necessary.ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDon€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€ëpXXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` è` ˜XÓJANET€LYNN€MORGAN,€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOX€CIRCUITÌÓ ` °œXÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9705„CV„00166€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€BILL€SWANNÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌMICHAEL€LEE€MORGAN,€€€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€)ÌÌÌò òòòà@ àJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Knox€County,€and€briefs€filed€on€behalf€of€theÏrespective€parties.€Upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€ofÏthe€opinion€that€there€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€trial€court's€judgment€is€affirmed€in€all€respects€andÏthe€case€is€remanded€for€such€further€action€as€may€be€necessary.ÏCosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM