ÿWPC( .# ”U:Ÿ %Ù 0(ßb n­w@À4 0J# 0Tm 0^Á 0h 0r‡ 0|ù 0†u 0û 1u‹ 0d U*d B)Ž AQ· Æ 0DÎ 0@ 0DR DC– D/Ù B B% D3B AMu  v~× vÓU˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ ;<D=D>?@ADBCÓ€Mzƒ=#‹"Ar3|xM2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!"#$&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 Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€29,€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  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€OÕXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌSHARON€ANNE€SMITH,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9705„CH„00216ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌÙ€!ÙßR€*+%A1-j|Æ1` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€22128ÌALAN€WAYNE€SMITH,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌR.€E.€LEE€DAVIESÌHARTZOG,€SILVA€&€DAVIESÌ123€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌP.€O.€€Box€664ÌFranklin,€Tennessee€37065„0664Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌROBERT€TODD€JACKSONÌJACKSON€&€ASSOCIATESÌ214€Second€Avenue€NorthÌSuite€103ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€MODIFIED€IN€PART;Ìà0 àà àà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÑ „ ÑÑ Ü ÑÌà àà àTwo€years€after€divorce,€the€wife€filed€a€petition€for€an€increase€inÏchild€support.€€The€husband€responded€with€a€petition€to€reduce€alimony.€€AfterÏhearing,€the€trial€court€did€both.€€We€affirm€the€reduction€in€alimony,€but€we€agreeÏwith€the€wife€that€in€light€of€the€increase€in€the€husbandððs€income,€the€amount€ofÏadditional€child€support€ordered€by€the€trial€court€was€not€sufficient€to€comply€withÏthe€guidelines.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àOn€August€4,€1994,€the€trial€court€granted€Sharon€Ann€Smith€andÏAlan€Wayne€Smith€an€absolute€divorce,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129.€ÏThe€final€decree€divided€the€marital€property€and€gave€the€wife€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€two€minor€children.€€The€court€ordered€the€husband€to€pay€$1,700€perÍmonth€alimony€for€sixty€months,€to€be€followed€by€permanent€alimony€of€$900€perÏmonth.€€Child€support€was€set€in€accordance€with€the€guidelines,€at€$1,995€perÏmonth,€based€upon€the€husbandððs€income€of€$108,000€per€year.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€July€19,€1996,€Sharon€Smith€filed€a€Petition€to€Modify€ChildÏSupport,€alleging€that€there€had€been€a€substantial€and€material€change€ofÏcircumstances,€such€as€would€warrant€an€increase€in€Mr.€Smithððs€child€supportÏobligation.€€On€November€6,€1996,€Mr.€Smith€answered€and€counter„petitioned,Ïasking€the€court€to€reduce€his€alimony€obligation.ÌÌà àà àThe€uncontradicted€proof€showed€that€the€husbandððs€salary€as€aÏVice„President€of€Comdata€Corporation€had€increased€since€1994,€and€stood€atÏ$113,000€per€year€at€the€time€of€hearing.€€It€was€also€uncontradicted€that€Mr.ÏSmith€had€received€additional€compensation€from€his€employer€between€theÏyears€1994€and€1996,€in€the€form€of€bonuses€and€commissions.€Mr.€Smith€alsoÏaccumulated€certain€stock€options,€which€he€exercised€in€1995,€realizing€a€capitalÏgain€of€$221,180€from€the€sale€of€Comdata€stock.ÌÌà àà àThe€proof€also€showed€that€the€wife,€who€had€no€income€of€her€ownÏat€the€time€of€the€divorce,€was€now€earning€about€$400€per€month€babysitting,Ïand€that€she€had€enrolled€the€partiesðð€sixteen€year€old€son,€Bradley€Smith,€inÏpublic€school,€rather€than€re„enrolling€him€in€Brentwood€Academy,€which€he€hadÏpreviously€attended.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€ordered€that€the€husband€henceforth€pay€$2,086€perÏmonth€in€child€support,€based€on€his€annual€salary€of€$113,000,€and€that€heÏadditionally€pay€32%€of€any€future€bonus€or€commission€as€child€support.€€TheÏcourt€also€found€substantial€and€material€changes€of€circumstances€to€warrant€anÏimmediate€decrease€in€alimony€to€$1,200€per€month.€€The€court€noted€the€wifeððsÏbabysitting€income,€and€observed€that€by€not€enrolling€her€son€in€BrentwoodÏAcademy,€she€had€effectively€reduced€her€monthly€expenses€by€$500.€€ThisÏappeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€Child€Supportó óÌÌà àà àBy€law,€the€child€support€guidelines€mandated€by€our€LegislatureÏand€promulgated€by€the€Department€of€Human€Services€create€a€rebuttableÏpresumption€that€the€amount€of€child€support€determined€by€reference€to€theÏguidelines€is€the€correct€amount€to€be€awarded,€unless€the€court€makes€a€writtenÏand€specific€finding€that€the€guidelines€would€be€unjust€or€inappropriate€in€aÏparticular€case.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(e).€€Tenn.€Rules€&€Regs.€1240„2„4.ÌÌà àà àChild€support€under€the€guidelines€is€based€upon€a€flat€percentageÏof€the€obligorððs€net€income.€€Net€income€may€be€calculated€by€subtracting€FICAÏtax€and€withholding€tax€from€the€obligorððs€gross€income,€but€in€most€cases€it€mayÏalso€be€derived€directly€from€tables€prepared€by€the€Department€of€HumanÍServices€expressly€for€this€purpose.€€Gross€income€is€very€broadly€defined€in€theÏguidelines€under€Tenn.€Rules€&€Regs.€1240„2„4„.03€(3)€€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÒ 0 ÒÒ  Ò(a)€Gross€income€shall€include€all€income€from€any€sourceÏ(before€taxes€and€other€deductions)€whether€earned€orÏunearned,€and€includes€but€is€not€limited€to,€the€following:Ïwages,€salaries,€commissions,€bonuses,€overtimeÏpayments,€dividends,€severance€pay,€pensions,€interest,Ïtrust€income,€annuities,€capital€gains€.€.€.€€ððIn€kindððÏremuneration€must€also€be€imputed€as€income,€i.e.€fringeÏbenefits€such€as€a€company€car.€.€.€.ÌÌ(b)€Variable€income€such€as€commissions,€bonuses,Ïovertime€pay,€dividends,€etc.€should€be€averaged€andÏadded€to€the€obligorððs€fixed€salary.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àIn€the€present€case,€Mr.€Smithððs€1994€gross€income€from€Comdata,Ïincluding€bonuses,€commissions,€car€allowance,€country€club€dues€and€otherÏbenefits€added€up€to€$144,027.€€His€1995€gross€income,€which€included€revenueÏderived€from€the€exercise€of€his€stock€options,€was€$363,449.€€His€1996€grossÏincome€amounted€to€$140,140.€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€dealt€with€the€annual€variability€in€Mr.€SmithððsÏbonuses€and€commissions€by€ordering€him€to€provide€the€obligee€with€a€copy€ofÏhis€bonus€or€commission€paystub,€together€with€32%€of€the€net€proceeds€asÏadditional€child€support.€€The€trial€court€did€not€take€Mr.€Smithððs€1995€capital€gainÏof€$221,180€into€account€in€any€way.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€unpublished€case€of€òòLovan€v.€Lovanóó,€Appeal€No.€01„A„01„9607„CV„00317€(filed€in€Nashville,€January€17,€1997),€the€trial€court€fashioned€aÏnearly€identical€solution€for€dealing€with€a€situation€where€an€obligorððs€incomeÏvaried€considerably€from€year€to€year.€€We€reviewed€that€action,€and€held€asÏfollows:€€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÒ 0 ÒÒ  Òà àð ðWe€believe€that€the€trial€court€exceeded€itsÏauthority€in€ordering€an€automatic€adjustment€in€childÏsupport€based€upon€a€percentage€of€the€husbandððs€futureÏincome€as€determined€by€his€income€tax€return.€€While€theÏchild€support€guidelines€create€a€rebuttable€presumptionÏas€to€the€correct€amount€of€child€support,€based€upon€theÏobligorððs€income,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(2)(A)Ïonly€authorizes€the€courts€to€provide€for€the€future€supportÏof€a€spouse€or€of€the€children€ðð.€.€.€by€fixing€some€òòdefiniteÏamountóó€or€amounts€to€be€paid€in€monthly,€semimonthly€orÏweekly€installments,€or€otherwise,€as€circumstances€mayÏwarrant€.€.€.ðð€(emphasis€added).€ÌÌà àð ðSuch€a€definite€obligation€provides€the€dependentÏchildren€with€a€predictable€amount€of€support,€andÏenables€the€obligor€to€shoulder€a€known€burden.€€If€theÏobligorððs€income€should€increase€or€decreaseÏsubstantially,€then€either€party€may€apply€to€the€court€for€aÏmodification€of€the€child€support€obligation.€€In€view€of€theÏexistence€of€a€well„established€mechanism€for€adjustmentÏof€child€support,€the€courtððs€action,€although€well„intentioned,€amounts€to€an€extension€of€its€authorityÏbeyond€the€mandate€of€the€legislature.ððÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ Òà àÓÓà àIt€thus€appears€to€us€that€in€the€present€case€too,€the€trial€courtÏshould€have€averaged€the€commission€and€bonus€amounts€in€with€Mr.€SmithððsÏsalary€in€order€to€establish€a€definite€amount€of€child€support.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€believe€that€in€order€to€conform€to€the€guidelines,€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€factored€Mr.€Smithððs€1995€capital€gains€into€his€child€supportÏobligation.€Mr.€Smith€argues€that€the€exercise€of€his€stock€options€was€a€one„timeÏevent€that€does€not€indicate€his€future€earning€capacity.€€He€also€claims€that€heÏwas€compelled€to€sell€the€stock€in€order€to€raise€cash€to€comply€with€theÏrequirements€of€the€marital€property€division€ordered€by€the€trial€court.€€He€allegesÏthat€his€liquidation€of€his€stock€holdings€triggered€certain€unanticipated€penaltiesÏand€taxes,€and€that€as€a€result,€he€did€not€really€benefit€from€the€stock€options.ÌÌà àà àIt€appears€to€us,€however,€that€even€after€discounting€the€taxes,Ïpenalties€and€obligations€that€Mr.€Smith€alleges,€he€still€realized€a€significantÏincrease€in€disposable€income€as€a€result€of€his€exercise€of€the€stock€options€inÏquestion.€€There€is€also€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€Mr.€Smith€will€not€beÏthe€beneficiary€of€additional€stock€options€in€the€future.ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€that€the€guidelines€do€not€permit€the€trial€court€to€ignoreÏcapital€gains€in€calculating€child€support,€and€despite€a€somewhat€tentativeÏargument€to€the€contrary€by€Mr.€Smith,€we€see€no€reason€to€characterize€hisÏincome€from€the€stock€sale€as€anything€other€than€capital€gains.ÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€hold€that€in€calculating€a€definite€monthly€amount€ofÏchild€support,€the€trial€court€must€consider€Mr.€Smithððs€1995€capital€gains€as€wellÏas€his€commissions,€bonuses€and€salary.€€Since€Mr.€Smith€apparentlyÍaccumulated€his€stock€options€during€the€entire€period€of€his€employment€atÏComdata,€and€not€just€during€the€year€in€which€he€exercised€them,€it€might€beÏequitable€to€average€his€capital€gains€over€that€entire€period,€or€to€prorate€them€inÏsome€way,€rather€than€just€averaging€them€over€the€three€year€period€that€wasÏused€for€calculating€his€average€salary,€commission€and€bonus.€€€The€trial€courtÏmay€take€proof€on€the€process€by€which€the€options€were€acquired,€in€order€toÏmake€this€determination.ÌÌà àà àWe€specifically€find€the€cases€of€òòEubank€v.€Eubank,€óóNo.€02A01„9110„CV„00242€(filed€in€Jackson€Oct.€10,€1992)€and€òòHall€v.€Hallóó,€No.€03A01„9701„GS„00030€(filed€in€Knoxville€July€27,€1997)€to€be€inapposite.€€Both€casesÏapparently€involved€the€sale€of€assets€that€had€been€awarded€as€marital€propertyÏin€the€divorce.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€AlimonyÌó óÌà àà àIn€reducing€alimony€by€$500€per€month,€the€trial€judge€looked€backÏat€the€final€divorce€hearing,€and€found€that€he€had€originally€granted€the€wife€thatÏamount€of€additional€alimony€€to€help€her€pay€for€her€sonððs€private€school€tuition€atÏBrentwood€Academy.€€The€judge€stated€that€he€was€reducing€€alimony,€in€view€ofÏthe€fact€that€the€child€was€now€enrolled€in€public€school,€and€the€wife€was€earningÏ$400€per€month€in€babysitting€income.€€€ÌÌà àà àMrs.€Smithððs€attorney€argues€that€the€minutes€of€the€court€containedÏno€indication€that€the€courtððs€original€order€on€alimony€was€based€in€any€way€onÏthe€expenses€of€private€school.€€He€asserts€that€as€a€court€speaks€only€through€itsÏminutes,€the€order€appealed€from€is€accordingly€erroneous.€€Mr.€Smithððs€attorneyÏpoints€out€that€the€transcript€of€the€1994€proceedings€contained€extensiveÏtestimony€about€Bradley€Smithððs€need€for€private€schooling,€and€asserts€that€theÏcourt€has€the€right€to€recall€the€reasoning€behind€its€ruling.ÌÌà àà àWe€believe€that€both€parties€would€concede€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„5„101(d),€which€sets€out€the€factors€the€court€must€consider€in€setting€alimony,Ïdoes€not€specifically€mention€special€educational€needs€of€the€children,€and€thatÏsuch€needs€are€addressed€in€the€provisions€for€deviation€from€the€child€supportÏguidelines€found€in€Tenn.€Rules€&€Regs.€12„2„4„.04(1)(c).€ÌÌà àà àHowever€this€court€has€said€many€times€that€in€setting€alimony,€theÏmost€important€factors€to€consider€are€the€obligeeððs€needs€and€the€obligorððs€abilityÏto€pay.€òòLoyd€v.€Loyd,€óó860€S.W.2d€409,€412€(Tenn.€App.€1993);òò€Hazard€v.€Hazardóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€911,€917€(Tenn.€App.€1991);€òòCampanali€v.€Campanalióó,€695€S.W.2dÏ193,€197€(Tenn.€App.€1985);€òòLancaster€v.€Lancasteróó,€671€S.W.2d€501,€503€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984).ÌÌà àà àThe€amount€of€an€alimony€award€depends€on€the€circumstances€ofÏeach€case,€and€is€largely€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Such€an€awardÍwill€not€be€€reversed€on€appeal€except€in€cases€where€the€courtððs€discretion€hasÏbeen€manifestly€abused.€òò€Rains€v.€Rainsóó,€58€Tenn.€App.€214,€228,€428€S.W.2dÏ650,€657€(1968);€òòHoughland€v.€Houghlandóó,€844€S.W.2d€619,€621€(Tenn.€App.Ï1993).€€Since€the€trial€court€found€that€Mrs.€Smithððs€needs€have€been€reduced€byÏa€decrease€in€her€expenses€and€an€increase€in€her€income,€it€acted€well€within€itsÏdiscretion€by€ordering€a€reduction€in€alimony.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.€Attorney€Feesó óÌÌà àà àMrs.€Smith€has€asked€to€be€awarded€her€attorney€fees€on€appeal.€ÏOur€courts€have€long€ago€determined€that€they€are€endowed€with€the€authority€toÏaward€legal€expenses€in€child€support€cases.€òò€Graham€v.€Grahamóó,€140€Tenn.€328,Ï334„35,€204€S.W.€987,€989€(1918).€€The€recovery€of€attorney€fees€in€child€supportÏand€custody€matters€is€also€authorized€by€statute.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„103(c).€€Such€an€award€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€court.€òò€Sherrod€v.€Wixóó,Ï849€S.W.2d€780,€785€(Tenn.€App.€1992);òò€Seal€v.€Seal,óó€802€S.W.2d€617,€623Ï(Tenn.€App.€1990).ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€insofar€as€a€substantial€portion€of€the€attorney€fees€Mrs.ÏSmith€incurred€in€this€appeal€were€for€the€purpose€of€vindicating€her€right€toÏcollect€an€appropriate€amount€of€support€for€the€benefit€of€her€children,€she€isÏentitled€to€receive€one„half€of€those€attorney€fees€from€her€former€husband.€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌà àÌà àà àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part€and€altered€in€part.€ÏRemand€this€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€equallyÏbetween€the€appellant€and€the€appellee.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÑ  Ñ