ÿWPC¿ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) AQ< Æ 0DS 0@— 0D× DC D/^ B Bª D3Ç AMú U*G ýq v~n vÓì˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡  D€  V‚ Vƒ D„ V… U† e‡ Ó€‘ ê‚_#3|x‘ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌDecember€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óò òÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌBARBARA€ANDREWS€PIPER,€€€€€€€à à)à àÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óSumner€Law€No.€6498„C€€€Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌò òv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌDONALD€McLEAN€ANDREWS,€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9612„CV„00570ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellee,ò òà àà àà à)ÌÙ€!ÙœßR€*,%A1-j|0` ç `€€@ÿRߛ̀ÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SUMNER€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEE€€ÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€TOM€E.€GRAY,€JUDGE€òòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:òòÌóóÌThomas€F.€Bloom€€€€€€€€à àà àà àJohn€R.€Phillips€Jr.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌNashville,€Tennessee€à àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Gallatin,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€INÏPART,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.ÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ü‘XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€is€a€post„divorce€action€in€which€the€mother€seeks€an€increase€in€child€support.€€TheÏmother€sought€an€increase€based€on€the€fatherððs€income€from€the€closely„held€corporation€of€whichÏhe€is€the€sole€shareholder,€as€well€as€on€the€fact€that€the€fatherððs€visitation€was€less€than€theÏstandard€under€the€child€support€guidelines.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€mother€an€increase€in€anÏamount€less€than€the€she€sought.€€We€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remand.Ìà àAppellant€Barbara€Andrews€Piper€(ð ðMotherðð)€and€Appellee€Donald€Andrews€(ð ðFatherðð)Ïwere€divorced€in€1989,€and€Mother€was€awarded€custody€of€the€coupleððs€two€minor€children.€ÏFather€was€ordered€to€pay€$600.00€a€month€in€child€support.€€Father€now€lives€in€Texas€andÏMother€lives€in€Tennessee.€€Ìà àIn€1995,€Mother€petitioned€for€an€increase€in€child€support€based€on€Fatherððs€increasedÏincome€and€the€fact€that€Father€exercised€visitation€rights€less€than€the€standard€under€the€childÏsupport€guidelines.€€Since€the€divorce,€Father€had€become€the€sole€shareholder€of€a€closely„heldÏcorporation.€Mother€argued€that,€because€all€of€the€corporationððs€income€would€inevitably€come€toÏFather,€the€trial€court€should€set€child€support€based€on€his€increased€salary€and€compensationÏpackage€plus€the€corporationððs€annual€income.€Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€Motherððs€petition.€€The€trial€court€heard€testimonyÏregarding€Fatherððs€income€from€both€parties€as€well€as€expert€testimony€from€certified€publicÏaccountants€for€both€parties.Ìà àIt€is€undisputed€that,€since€1985,€Father€has€been€employed€by€Mobile€Sports€MedicineÏSystems,€Inc.,€a€Texas€company.€€In€1993,€when€he€became€sole€shareholder€of€the€corporation,ÏFather€received€a€salary€of€$45,000€and€a€bonus€of€$15,000.€€When€added€to€his€other€benefits,Ïhis€total€compensation€for€that€year€was€$80,650.€€In€1994,€Father€received€a€salary€of€$48,000Ïand€a€bonus€of€$12,000.€€Combined€with€other€benefits,€his€total€compensation€for€1994€wasÏ$72,000.€€In€1995,€the€year€Mother€filed€her€claim€for€additional€child€support,€Father€received€aÏsalary€of€$48,000€and€a€bonus€of€$1,000.€€His€total€compensation€for€1995€was€$59,800.à àà àÌà àBoth€parties€presented€expert€testimony€on€the€issue€of€the€corporationððs€retained€earnings.€ÍMotherððs€expert,€Robert€Jennings,€testified€that€the€corporationððs€retained€earnings€benefited€theÏsole€shareholder,€Father,€by€reducing€his€overall€tax€burden.€€Jennings€compared€FatherððsÏcircumstances€to€those€of€a€sole€proprietor,€and€noted€that€the€use€of€the€corporate€entity€in€thisÏsituation€reduced€his€tax€burden,€because€there€were€two€taxable€entities,€each€in€a€lower€taxÏbracket.€€Jennings€acknowledged€that,€in€reviewing€the€corporationððs€financial€documents,€heÏfound€nothing€ð ðimproper€or€unusual,ðð€and€admitted€that€the€corporationððs€cash€reserves€were€notÏð ðexcessive.ððÌà àThe€corporationððs€accountant,€Barbara€May,€testified€on€behalf€of€Father.€€May€testifiedÏthat€the€corporationððs€retained€earnings€were€reasonable€and€consistent€with€prudent€businessÏpractice.€€She€stated€that€Father€had€never€requested€her€to€manipulate€the€corporationððs€finances€toÏdecrease€his€income.€€She€acknowledged€that€the€retained€earnings€benefitted€the€sole€shareholder,ÏFather.Ìà àRegarding€visitation€with€the€children,€Father€noted€that€the€parties€were€separated€by€aÏdistance€of€six€hundred€miles.€€He€testified€that€it€was€not€practical€financially€or€physically€for€himÏto€see€the€children€every€other€weekend,€and€that€he€paid€all€the€transportation€costs€for€theÏchildrenððs€visits.€Ìà àAfter€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€issued€an€oral€ruling.€€The€trial€court€increased€the€childÏsupport€to€$1,133€per€month,€based€on€the€admitted€increase€in€Fatherððs€salary.€€The€trial€courtÏdeclined€to€include€the€corporationððs€retained€earnings€in€its€calculation€of€Fatherððs€income:ÌÓÓà8 àThis€isnððt€a€sole€proprietorship.€€We€do€have€a€corporate€entity.€€We€have€anÏemployer/€employee.€€Mr.€Andrews€is€an€employee€of€the€corporation.€€If€it€were€aÏsole€proprietorship,€or€in€looking€at€[a]€sole€proprietorship,€The€Court€would€haveÏto€state€that€things€would€be€managed€somewhat€differently.€€Even€in€a€soleÏproprietorship€we€do€not€set€the€child€support€based€upon€gross€income€of€the€soleÏproprietorship.€€We€consider€the€expenses€of€doing€business.€€In€this€matter,€TheÏCourt€does€not€find€that€the€corporation€is€merely€a€sham€or€a€shield€or€that€the€soleÏshareholder€reaches€into€the€corporation€for€payment€of€personal€expenses,€whichÏwould€have€been€income€to€him.€€The€Court€sees€no€reason€to€disregard€theÏcorporate€entity.ÌÌÓÓThe€child€support€award€was€calculated€based€on€an€income€of€$59,800,€Fatherððs€total€income€forÍ1995.€€The€trial€court€apparently€did€not€consider€Fatherððs€bonus€history€in€its€calculations,€nor€didÏit€indicate€a€reason€for€declining€to€deviate€upward€on€the€child€support€in€light€of€the€less„than„standard€overnight€visitation€exercised€by€Father.€€From€this€decision,€Mother€now€appeals.€€Ìà àOn€appeal,€Mother€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€the€retainedÏearnings€of€Fatherððs€closely„held€corporation,€Fatherððs€entire€compensation€package,€and€hisÏbonus€compensation€in€his€total€income€figure.€€Mother€also€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€deviate€upward€from€the€child€support€guidelines€because€Father€exercises€less„than„standard€visitation€rights.€€Lastly,€Mother€seeks€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€and€the€costs€of€thisÏappeal.ÌÇà àWe€review€this€case€in€accordance€with€Rule€13(d)€Tenn.€R.App.€P.,€which€mandates€a€òòò òdeÏnovoó óóó€review€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€in€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact,Ïunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€òòò òHass€v.€Knightonóóó ó,€676€S.W.2d€554,€555€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984);€òòò òLancaster€v.€Lancasteró óóó,€671€S.W.2d€501,€502€(Tenn.€App.€1984).òòò ò€ó óóó€There€is€noÏpresumption€of€correctness€in€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€of€law.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ìà àMother€argues€first€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€the€retained€earnings€ofÏFatherððs€corporation€in€determining€the€appropriate€amount€of€child€support.€€Mother€emphasizesÏthe€undisputed€testimony€at€trial€that€retaining€earnings€in€the€corporation€benefits€the€soleÏshareholder€and€reduces€his€tax€burden.€€Mother€argues€that€Father€was€in€sole€control€of€whetherÏcorporate€earnings€were€retained€or€paid€to€Father€as€profits.€€Ìà àIn€effect,€Mother€seeks€to€ð ðpierce€the€corporate€veilðð€and€allocate€the€corporationððs€incomeÏto€Father.€€The€separate€identity€of€a€corporation€may€be€disregarded€upon€a€showing€that€it€is€ð ðaÏsham,€or€dummy€or€where€necessary€to€accomplish€justice.ðð€ò òòòMuroll€Gesellschaft€M.B.H.€v.ÏTennessee€Tape,€Inc.ó óóó,€908€S.W.2d€211,€213€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€The€matter€is€ð ðparticularlyÏwithin€the€province€of€the€Trial€Court.ðð€òòò òId.óóó ó€(citing€ò òòòElectric€Power€Bd.€of€Chattanooga€v.ÏSt.€Joseph€Valley€Structural€Steel€Corp.óóó ó,€691€S.W.2d€522€(Tenn.€1985).€Ìà àThe€decision€must€turn,€in€part,€on€the€trial€courtððs€perception€of€the€witnessesðð€candor€andÏtruthfulness.€€In€òòò òWeaver€v.€Nelmsó óóó,€750€S.W.2d€158€(Tenn.€App.€1987),€the€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€given€to€any€witnessðð€testimony€lies€in€the€firstÏinstance€with€the€trier€of€fact€who€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€manner€andÏdemeanor€of€the€witnesses€as€they€testify.€€The€credibility€accorded€by€the€trier€ofÏfact€will€be€given€great€weight€by€the€appellate€court.Ìò òòòÌÓÓId.óóó ó€at€160€(citations€omitted).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€observed€the€testimony€of€Mother,€FatherÏand€their€accountants€and€assessed€their€credibility.€€Fatherððs€accountant,€May,€testified€that€theÏamount€of€earnings€retained€by€the€corporation€was€consistent€with€prudent€business€practice€andÏthat€she€had€never€been€asked€to€manipulate€the€finances€to€decrease€Fatherððs€income.€€EvenÍMotherððs€accountant€acknowledged€that€he€found€nothing€ð ðimproper€or€unusualðð€about€theÏcorporationððs€finances€and€that€its€cash€reserves€were€not€ð ðexcessive.ðð€€Viewing€the€record€as€aÏwhole,€we€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€toÏinclude€Çthe€corporationððs€retained€earnings€in€the€determination€of€Fatherððs€income.€€ò òòòSee€Koch€v.ÏKochóóó ó,€874€S.W.2d€571,€575€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€€Ìà àMother€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€Fatherððs€bonus€history€inÏits€determination€of€the€amount€of€child€support.€€She€contends€that€the€testimony€established€thatÏFather€controls€the€size€of€his€yearly€bonus€and€that€he€dramatically€reduced€the€amount€of€hisÏ1995€bonus€from€that€of€previous€years€in€order€to€lower€his€income,€hoping€to€minimize€theÏamount€of€child€support€he€might€have€to€pay.€€She€maintains€that€the€corporate€minutes€establishÏthat€the€1995€bonus€was€determined€after€she€filed€her€petition€to€increase€child€support.€ÏConsequently,€she€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€at€least€considered€Fatherððs€bonus€historyÏin€its€calculations.€à àMother€also€points€to€the€child€support€guidelines€promulgated€by€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Human€Services,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„5„101(e)(2)€(1996€and€1997€Supp.).€€Under€the€guidelines,€child€support€obligations€shouldÏnormally€be€based€on€a€flat€percentage€of€the€obligorððs€net€income.€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.Ï1240„2„4„.03(2)€(1994).€Net€income€is€calculated€by€subtracting€appropriate€deductions€fromÏgross€income.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(4)€(1994).€€ð ðGross€incomeðð€is€definedÏas€ð ðall€income€from€any€source,ðð€including€salaries,€bonuses,€dividends,€interest,€and€annuities.€ÏThe€guidelines€specify€that€if€bonuses,€commissions,€overtime€pay,€dividends,€etc.,€are€variable,Ïthe€amounts€should€be€averaged€and€added€to€the€obligorððs€fixed€salary.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&ÏRegs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(a)€&€(b)€(1994).€€These€guidelines€are€applied€as€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€in€child€support€cases.€€If€the€trial€court€determines€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏrebut€this€presumption,€it€must€make€a€ð ðwritten€or€specificðð€finding€of€the€amount€that€would€beÏrequired€under€the€guidelines€and€the€reasons€why€application€of€the€child€support€guidelinesÏwould€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€in€this€particular€case.€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(7)€(1994).Ìà àIn€this€case,€there€is€some€evidence€in€the€record€from€which€the€trial€court€could€haveÏconcluded€that€Fatherððs€bonus€history€should€not€be€considered.€€For€example,€Father€testified€thatÍthe€higher€bonus€in€1993€was€a€ð ðone€time€pay€backðð€for€the€ð ðinitial€investment.ðð€€However,€theÏtrial€court€failed€to€state€in€the€record€its€reasons€for€declining€to€consider€Fatherððs€bonus€history€inÏits€calculation€of€child€support.€€As€noted€above,€this€is€required€in€the€guidelines.€€€ò òòòSee€óóó óTenn.ÏComp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.€1240„2„4„.03(3)(a)€&€(b)€(1994);€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(7)€(1994),€discussedÏòòò òsupraó óóó.€€Consequently,€on€this€issue,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€must€be€reversed€and€remandedÏfor€the€trial€court€to€either€include€Fatherððs€bonus€history€in€its€calculation€of€the€award€of€childÏsupport€or€state€in€the€record€the€amount€that€would€be€required€under€the€guidelines€and€itsÏreasons€for€determining€that€inclusion€of€Fatherððs€bonus€history€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate.€€€Ìà àMother€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€deviate€upward€from€the€childÏsupport€guidelines,€based€on€the€less„than„standard€overnight€visitation€exercised€by€Father.€ÏFather€lives€and€works€in€Fort€Worth,€Texas.€€He€testified€that,€although€he€spends€as€much€timeÏwith€his€daughters€as€he€can,€it€is€financially€and€physically€impractical€for€the€children€to€spendÏthe€standard€visitation€of€at€least€eighty€nights€a€year€with€him.€€The€child€support€guidelinesÏprovide€a€minimum€base€for€determining€child€support€obligations,€and€apply€to€situations€whereÏchildren€are€living€primarily€with€one€parent€but€stay€overnight€with€the€other€parent€at€least€asÏoften€as€every€other€weekend€from€Friday€to€Sunday,€two€weeks€in€the€summer€and€two€weeksÏduring€holidays€throughout€the€year.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€tit.€10,€ch.€1240„2„4„.02(6)€&€(7)Ï(1994).€€Here,€Father€testified€that,€at€most,€he€has€twenty„four€overnight€visitations€with€theÏchildren€a€year.Ìà àIn€òòò òDwight€v.€Dwightó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.€App.€1996),€this€court€discussed€theÏissue€of€less„than„standard€visitation:€€ÌÓÓà8 àð ðWhatever€the€reasons€may€be€that€Husband€does€not€see€his€children€forÏsignificant€periods,€the€fact€remains€that€the€children€need€to€be€supported.€If€theÏchildren€are€constantly€in€the€care€of€Wife,€the€amount€of€child€support€WifeÏreceives€should€reflect€the€true€state€of€affairs.ðð€òòò òÌÌÓÓId.óóó ó€at€949€(citing€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.€tit.€10,€ch.€1240„2„4„.04€(1)(b)).€€The€regulationsÏprovide€that€if€the€children€do€not€stay€overnight€with€the€non„custodial€parent€for€the€averageÍvisitation€period,€the€trial€court€ð ðshallðð€increase€the€award.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,€ch.ò ò€ó ó1240„2„4„.04(1)(b)(1994)).€€As€with€consideration€of€Fatherððs€bonus€history,€this€is€a€rebuttableÏpresumption.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€the€evidence€sufficient€to€rebut€the€presumption,€it€must€makeÏa€written€finding€of€the€amount€that€would€be€required€under€the€guidelines€and€the€reasons€whyÏapplication€of€the€guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate.€€Tenn.€Comp.€R.€&€Regs.,Ïch.1240„2„4„.02(7)(1994).€€à àIn€this€case,€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€which€could€support€aÏconclusion€that€a€deviation€upward€is€inappropriate€in€this€case.€€For€example,€both€partiesÏacknowledge€that€Father€pays€all€of€the€childrenððs€transportation€costs€for€visitation.€€However,€inÏlight€of€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€make€the€required€written€findings,€we€must€reverse€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€on€this€issue.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€the€trial€court€to€either€deviate€upward€inÏsetting€the€amount€of€child€support,€in€view€of€Fatherððs€less„than„standard€visitation,€or€to€make€aÏwritten€finding€of€the€amount€that€would€have€been€required€under€the€guidelines€and€the€reasonsÏwhy€application€of€the€guidelines€in€this€case€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate.Ìà àFinally,€Mother€seeks€her€attorneyððs€fees€for€this€appeal.€€The€decision€to€award€attorneyððsÏfees€in€a€divorce€action€is€in€the€discretion€of€the€court.€òòò òFox€v.€Foxó óóó,€657€S.W.2d€747,€749Ï(Tenn.€1983);€òòò òThreadgill€v.€Threadgilló óóó,€740€S.W.2d€419,€426€(Tenn.€App.€1987);€€òòò òSeal€v.ÏSealóóó ó,€802€S.W.2d€617,€623€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€If€the€wife€has€adequate€funds€for€her€needs€asÏwell€as€the€payment€of€her€attorneyððs€needs,€an€award€of€attorneyððs€fees€is€not€mandatory.Ïò òòòFranklin€v.€Franklinóóó ó,€746€S.W.2d€715,€719€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ36„5„103(c)€(1996)€allows€a€custodial€spouse€to€recover€legal€fees€incurred€in€enforcing€orÏpursuing€an€action€for€alimony€and/€or€child€support.€€In€this€case,€on€some€issues€the€decision€ofÏthe€trial€court€has€been€affirmed,€and€in€other€respects€it€has€been€reversed.€€Mother€has€pointed€toÏnothing€which€indicates€that€she€is€unable€to€pay€her€attorneyððs€fees.€€Under€the€circumstances,ÏMotherððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€is€denied.Ìà àIn€sum,€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€consider€Fatherððs€corporationððs€retained€earnings€inÏcalculating€child€support€is€affirmed.€€The€trial€courtððs€apparent€decision€not€to€consider€FatherððsÍbonus€history€is€reversed.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€deviate€upward€in€light€of€Fatherððs€less„than„standard€visitation€is€also€reversed.€€On€the€issues€regarding€the€bonus€history€and€theÏvisitation,€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€either€an€award€in€accordance€with€theÏguidelines€or,€in€the€alternative,€a€finding€of€the€amount€that€would€be€awarded€under€theÏguidelines€and€a€statement€of€the€reasons€why€application€of€the€guidelines€would€be€inappropriateÏor€unjust.€€Motherððs€request€for€attorneyððs€fees€on€appeal€is€denied.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part€and€remanded€forÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€are€taxed€equally€to€Appellant€and€Appellee,€for€Çwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.ó ó€