WPC  n^'oG@;%.J/7|6([LBZ_(t2B1A[b`.'Qi 1?Ϗn CgEvO|w]8QАS-" /z݇L~ < wR({Wp ,ϖE$Qx0C^nk9*{!k86:R)| 4\'T%xa!X +ęi n壈/Eh[(D,MGG(MC>_oo〜[a&6f'P8 JYjE&o"YƱ6* z('{=&M z,=m5:`CEM,2$t]sP>h%n6|GAkˡTĖ8]A"%SfT\Dl+O\gPIȹJWeX@9"NŎ&i bD1j܇`2d[Uv=4Khb#\ % ^ # 0/ U*N w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ' 1Nt 0 cvUNE'7)F`U>6U0toU@ 1uS 72b 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASK 0d 0D ALHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0bK)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(bk1 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular - R$      1  l   _Thelossofthiscontractresultedinalossforthecorporationin1998.Inaddition,thecorporationowedover  $90,000totheInternalRevenueService. < R$      3  l   _ThecourtcitedseveralfactorsincludingMr.Simmons1998salaryof$156,300anda$3800triptoHawaii  inOctober,1998.WetakenoticethatMr.Simmonsdiddrawa$3,000perweeksalarythroughmostof1998,butthat x itwasreducedto$1,100towardstheendof1998.Inaddition,itisclearthatMr.SimmonstriptoHawaiiwaspaidfor @ beforehiscompanyfelluponhardtimes.  R$      4  l   _Theappellee,Ms._Christyal_ԀDarleneSimmons,didnotfileabriefinthiscase.Asperourpreviousorder,this  courtwillonlyconsidertherecord,theappellantsbriefandtheappellantsoralargument.\  `&Times New Roman2 `CG Times e R$      5  l   _Withthisopinion,webynomeanssuggestthatMr.Simmonschildsupportobligationwillremainstatic.A  significantvarianceofhisincomeinthefuturemayaffecthisobligationeitherupwardsordownwards.(hH  Z(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  D R$      2  l   _ItisunclearfromtherecordexactlywhenMr.Simmonsbegantofallbehindonhischildsupportpayments. 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 !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ WDINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#DW #Ԉ ,   August29,2000Session X XXD #DXX#_CHRISTYAL_ԀDARLENESIMMONS(VANDYKE)v._JIMMIE_ԀDALE  ` SIMMONSXXD  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforGibsonCounty 0  @@No.13423GeorgeR.Ellis,Chancellor  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W199901393_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober10,_2000_Ԁ ?  AV) ` dE<` A     X1XXXThisappealarisesfromapetitionbyanoncustodialFatherforamodificationofhischildsupport  obligation.Afterseveraldelays,thecourtrefusedtomodifytheFathersobligationonthebasisthat   hehadfallenbehindonhissupportpaymentsbetweenthefilingofthepetitionandthedateupon  whichthecourtfinallyconsideredthematter.Inaddition,thetrialcourtfoundhimincontemptof  courtforfailingtomakehispaymentsandorderedhisincarceration.Onappeal,Fatherarguesthat ~ thetrialcourtimproperlyrefusedtomodifyhischildsupportobligationuponhisfirstrequest.In j addition,heasksthatthiscourtvacatethecontemptrulingonthebasisthathedidnotwillfully V disobeythecourtsorder.WeremandtothetrialcourtforamodificationoftheFatherschild B supportobligationbasedonhiscurrentincomeandorderthismodificationprospectivelyapplied .~ fromthedateofhisfirstpetition.Wealsovacatethetrialcourtscontemptruling. j  #XXXX1)##DXX#XXD Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisVacated;and F Remanded  6   #DXV #XX.DDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK.   _Lillard_,_J.J._,joined. !  _Jerald_ԀM.Campbell,Jr.,Trenton,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Jimmie_ԀDaleSimmons. #"   OPINION #DXXG #XXD v% $ #DXX> #XXDX1XXX     Accordingtothestatementoftheevidencefiledinthiscause,inNovemberof1998,the V'"& appellant,_Jimmie_ԀDaleSimmons,filedaPetitionforChangeofCustodyandOtherReliefto B(#' addressseveralissuessurroundingachildcustodydisputewithhisformerwife,_Christyal_ .)~$( DarleneSimmons.Mr.Simmonssoughtcustodyofhischildren,or,inthealternative,a *j%) reductioninhischildsupport.Mr.Simmonshadbeenorderedtopay$1,050perweekinthe +V&* originaldivorcedecreeandherequestedareductionbecauseofhischangeofcircumstances.Mr. +B'+ SimmonswastheownerofMidAmericaPlastics,Inc.(MidAmerica)which,atthetimeofhis ,.(, divorce,hadprovidedhimwitha$3,000weeklyincome.However,onlyafewweeksbeforeMr. -)-G Simmonshadfiledhispetition,MidAmericalostacontractrepresentingsixtypercent(60%)of  itsbusiness.  #  1      ׀Asaresult,Mr.Simmonssalarywasreducedto$1,100perweek,andsomeweeks  hewentunpaid.    InNovember,1998,andagaininDecemberofthesameyear,thetrialcourtrefusedto ` hearthematterofareductionofchildsupportseparatefromthechildcustodyhearing.Mr. L  Simmonswascurrentonhischildsupportpaymentsduringbothofthesetrialdates.Thechild 8  custodyhearingwasfinallyheldinJune,1999.Bythattime,Mr.Simmonshadfallenbehindon $ t hischildsupportpayments.Afterhisreductioninsalary,Mr.Simmonshadpaidhis$1050per  ` weekpaymentsmostlyoutofhissavings.Whenhissavingsweregone,Mr.Simmonscould  L  onlyafford$400perweekpaymentsandmadethesepaymentsuntilthehearinginJune,1999.U   #  2        8    Inthathearing,thetrialcourtrefusedtoconsiderareductionofMr.Simmonssupport   paymentsbecausehewascurrentlybehindonthem.Instead,citingnumerousexpendituresby   Mr.Simmonsin1998,  #  3      ׀thecourtfoundhiminwillfulcontemptofcourtandorderedhis   incarcerationuntilhepurgedhimselfofcontempt.Uponapaymentof$5,000,Mr.Simmonswas   releasedfromjail.Thisappealfollowed._  #  4      _ p   Theissuespresentedbytheappellantasweperceivethemareasfollows: H  (5h83"3"    3D25h  1  .3  0 `   Wasthetrialcourtincorrectinitsdenialoftheappellantsrequesttoreducehis  p childsupportobligation?3D}݌ \` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    325h  2  .3  0 `   Iftheappellantshouldhavebeengrantedachildsupportreduction,shouldthis 4 reductionbemodifiedretroactivelytothedateofthefilingofhispetition?3݌ ` (#` (# Ќ    "3"    3425h  3  .3  0 `   Wasitproperforthetrialcourttoholdtheappellantincontemptofcourtfor  willfulfailuretopaychildsupport?  34m݌` (#` (# Ќ  Totheextentthattheissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de l novo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly,wemaynot X  reversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. D!  See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);TennR.App.P.13(d).  Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withno  presumptionofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_  and_Ginsburg_,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). t    DenialofChildSupportReduction L       TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection365101(a)(1)clearlystatesthata #XXXX1 #X1XXXcourtshallnot $ t refusetoconsideramodificationofapriororderanddecreeasitrelatestofuturepaymentsof  ` childsupportbecausethepartyisinarrearsunderthatorderanddecree,unlessthearrearageisa  L  resultofintentionalactionbytheparty#XXXX1J##X1XXX.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1)(Supp.1999).From  8  therecordbeforeus,itisclearthatMr.Simmonswasnotinarrearagebecauseof intentional $  action.Rather,areversalofhisbusinessleadtoareversalofhispersonalfortunes.Asaresult,   hisincomedroppeddramatically.Mr.Simmonsstruggletomeethischildsupportpaymentsby   dippingintohissavingsshowshiswillingnesstomeettheseobligationstothebestofhisability.   Assuch,itiscleartothiscourtthatMr.Simmonsrequestformodificationinhischildsupport   paymentsshouldhavebeenconsideredbythetrialcourt. p   WenowturntotheactualmodificationofMr.Simmonschildsupportobligation. H TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection365101(a)(1)statesthat: 4 8  #XXXX1$#X1XXXIncasesinvolvingchildsupport,uponapplicationofeitherparty,thecourtshall  \ decreeanincreaseordecreaseofsuchallowancewhenthereisfoundtobea H significantvariance,asdefinedinthechildsupportguidelines...betweenthe 4 guidelinesandtheamountofsupportcurrentlyorderedunlessthevariancehas   resultedfromapreviouslycourtordereddeviationfromtheguidelinesandthe   circumstanceswhichcausedthedeviationhavenotchanged.   #XXXX1(#X1XXXTenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1)(Supp.1999).  8  #XXXX1l+#XLXXXThecurrentguidelinesrequirethatdecisionstomodifyexistingchildsupport X  ordersmustbebasedonacomparisonoftheamountoftheexistingsupport H! obligationandtheamountthattheobligationwouldbeifitwerebasedonthe 8"  _obligor_Ԁparent'scurrentincome.Amodification must bemadeiftheexisting (#x! supportobligationvariesbyfifteenpercentormorefromtheamountthatthe $h" obligationwouldbebasedonthe_obligor_Ԁparent'scurrentincome.%X #    Turnerv.Turner ,919S.W.2d340,344(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)(citationsomitted)(emphasis &8"% added).Acourtmayonlydenyarequesttomodifybasedona significantvarianceunder '(#& twocircumstances (1)whenthe_obligor_Ԁparentiswillfullyorvoluntarilyunemployedor ($' under-employedand(2)ifthevarianceresultsfromapreviousdecisionofacourttodeviate )%( fromtheguidelinesandthecircumstanceswhichcausedthedeviationhavenotchanged. Id. *%)  at344  (quotationsomitted). +&* Ї#XXXXL,#XLXXX  TurningtoMr.Simmonscase,itisclearfromareviewoftherecordthathemeets  neitherofthesecircumstances.Assuch,heisentitledtoamodificationofhischildsupport  payments.However,therecorddoesnotprovidethiscourtwithenoughinformationto  accuratelystateMr.Simmonscurrentincome.Asthedeterminationoftheamountofthis  incomeis themostimportantelementofproofinaproceedingtosetchildsupport,wefind p itnecessarytoremandthismattertothetrialcourt. Id. Assuch,thetrialcourtishereby `  orderedtodetermineMr.Simmonstotalincomefor1999,andusethisincomeincalculating P  hisfuturechildsupportobligationinaccordancewiththestandardssetforthbythechild @  supportguidelines.  #  5       0  #XXXXL1#X1XXX  RetroactiveChildSupport `       Retroactivemodifications[ofchildsupportorders]areplainlyunauthorized,under 8  Tennesseelaw. _Ausbrooks_Ԁv.  Moore ,No.01A019803CH00114,1999WL317626,at*3 $  (Tenn.Ct.App.May21,1999)( noperm.app.filed )(quoting _Rutledge_Ԁv.Barrett ,802S.W.2d   604,606(Tenn.1991)).However, prospectivemodificationscanbemade,butonlyafternotice   asprovidedinTennesseeCodeAnnotated365101subsection(a)(5). Id. at*3(quotations  omitted).Mr.Simmonsisaskingfora retroactivemodificationtothedatewhenhefirstfiled  hisPetitionforChangeofCustodyandOtherRelief,whereinherequestedamodificationofhis p childsupportobligationsbaseduponhischangedcircumstances.Assuch,thiscourtrecognizes \ thatMr.Simmonsisactuallyrequestinga prospective modificationtohissupportobligations H fromthedateofhisfirstpetition. 8   Itisclearfromourreviewoftherecord,andforthereasonsalreadycitedabove,thatMr. ` Simmonshadasignificantvarianceinhisfinancialoutlookthatwouldradicallyaffecthisability L toprovidechildsupportatthelevelsetatthetimeofhisdivorce.Diligently,andasrequiredby 8 Tennesseestatute,herequestedamodificationofhissupportpayments.Throughtheinactionof $ thetrialcourt,hewasnotgrantedthismodificationinthetimelymannerenvisionedbythe  legislatureandisentitledtorelief.    ThetrialcourtisherebydirectedtodetermineMr.Simmonsincomelevelfor1999.   Fromthiscomputation,thecourtwillthencalculateMr.Simmonsweeklychildsupport p! obligationinaccordancewiththechildsupportguidelines.ItshallthenmodifyMr.Simmons \"  supportpaymentseffectivefromthedateofhispetition,November25,1998.Anyoverpayment H#! byMr.Simmonsofhischildsupportduringthisperiodwillbecreditedtowardshisfuture 4$" requiredsupportpayments.  %p #    ContemptofCourt &H"%    0  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection #XXXX15#XXXX299102#XXXX@#X1XXXԀstates:( $'(#(# Ї8  #XXXX1A#X1XXXThepoweroftheseveralcourtstoissueattachments,andinflictpunishmentsfor  _contempts_Ԁofcourt,shallnotbeconstruedtoextendtoanyexceptthefollowingcases:  (1)Thewillfulmisbehaviorofanypersoninthepresenceofthecourt,orsonear  theretoastoobstructtheadministrationofjustice. t (2)Thewillfulmisbehaviorofanyoftheofficersofsuchcourts,intheirofficialtransactions. ` (3)Thewillfuldisobedienceorresistanceofanyofficerofthesuchcourts,party, L  juror,witness,oranyotherperson,toanylawfulwrit,process,order,rule,decree, 8  orcommandofsuchcourts. $ t (4)Abuseof,orunlawfulinterferencewith,theprocessorproceedingsofthecourt.  ` (5)Willfullyconversingwithjurorsinrelationtothemeritsofthecauseinthe  L  trialofwhichtheyareengaged,orotherwisetamperingwiththem.  8  (6)Anyotheractoromissiondeclaredacontemptbylaw.#XXXX1A#X1XXX$    Tenn.CodeAnn.299102(1980).Acourtmayonlyfindcontemptunderthisstatuteifit   discoversthatthedisobedienceorresistanceiswillful. See_Ahern_Ԁv._Ahern_ ,15S.W.3d73,79   (Tenn.2000).Foracourttofindthatthefailureofapartytopaychildsupportiscontemptuous,   thecourtmustfirstdeterminethattheparty hadtheabilitytopayatthetimethesupportwas p dueandthendeterminethatthefailuretopaywaswilful. Id .at79.Aswehavepreviously \ discussed,Mr.Simmonsdidnothavetheabilitytopayhischildsupportobligationatthetimehe H wasfoundincontempt.Therefore,wefindthatMr.Simmonsdidnotactwillfullyandthuswas 4 notincontempt.Weherebyvacatethetrialcourtscontemptorder.  p   Conclusion H     Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebydirectthetrialcourtto#XXXX1RF#XLXXXdetermineMr.   Simmonstotalincomefor1999.ThiscalculationshouldbeusedtodetermineMr.Simmons  futureweeklychildsupportobligation.Inaddition,thetrialcourtshallthenmodifyMr.  Simmonssupportpaymentseffectivefromthedateofhispetition,November25,1998#XXXXL4K#X1XXX.Any  overpaymentbyMr.Simmonsofhischildsupportduringthisperiodwillbecreditedtowardshis  futurerequiredsupportpayments.ThetrialcourtsfindingthatMr.Simmonswasincontemptof | theordersofthatcourtisherebyvacated.Costsonappealareassessedagainsttheappellee, h  _Christyal_ԀDarleneSimmons,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. T! #XXXX1L#   `     h     ___________________________________  $p"    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE