WPC# ?~Wß7#$#X\kAl;Np@֮@ џln%Fο SM5?>{FW[ؖzE#YIZP?Z[C c;LXA8Eo[,NE S&Az֜t))T?[~A!RdL$C2*C172}"4Zj,XQy$(n.?˞h]d숟}_F4c!շC춬9/KVj{)ȓfa3^KMI^ z6~ʬD7Nu5 =mẃLaJEG8^LfN`$'(Ʃc n@0fR~_^Piݜֱ8B:!{b~8l^n郉t&o@^|X#y|E VwEz# %u ^ { 0 U+N w] 4a zu    m UN 7 0DONUNEJ:/U >ig,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,b 0 B 0 D5G D-| 0K AS &! 0! 0D" A""""""""""""" ######### ## #\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0~o1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular6h001s02 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular @ R$      1  4  _TheappendixtoMothersresponsivebriefinthisappealcontainsaguardianadlitemreportpreparedbyMs.  Zacharias.Thisreportwasnotmadeapartoftherecordonappeal.Rule28oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellate q Procedureonlyallowsabriefsoptionalappendixtocontainpartsoftherecord.Tenn.R.App.P.28(2004).Therefore, 2 byorderofthisCourt,Ms.Zachariassguardianadlitemreportwasstrickenfromtherecord.Ms.Zachariasstestimony C regardingthechildrensdevelopmentinschoolandrelationshipswiththeirparents,however,remainsapartofthe  record. 0 R$      2  4  _FathersnetmonthlyincomewasreachedafterdeductingFICA,Medicare,insurancepremiums,Mississippi  stateincometaxwithholding,andfederalincometaxwithholding.SinceFatherwastransferredbeforethehearingto q apositioninTennessee,thedeductionforMississippistateincometaxwillnolongeroccur.Thus,hismonthlynet 2 incomewillincreaseby$224.08.\  `&Times New Roman { R$      4  4  _ [T]heparentwithwhomthechild(ren)liveprimarilywillbereferredtoastheobligeeandtheparentwith  whomthechild(ren)donotprimarilylivewillbereferredtoastheobligor.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.03(1). ] R$      5  4  _Section365101(a)(1)oftheTennesseeCodeprovidesthat,inchildsupportcases,thecourtwillgranta  modificationofthesupportawardonly whenthereisfoundtobeasignificantvariance,asdefinedinthechildsupport q guidelines...,betweentheguidelinesandtheamountofsupportcurrentlyordered....Tenn.CodeAnn.365 2 101(a)(1).Undertheguidelines,ifthesupportorderis$100orgreater,a significantvariancewillbefoundwhere C thereisatleaseafifteenpercent(15%)differencebetweentheguidelineamountandthecurrentsupportorder.Tenn.  Comp.R.&Regs.124024.02(3).- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  4 d(|3!$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1    R$      3  4  _Pursuanttosection365101(e)(2)oftheTennesseeCode,thechildsupportguidelineswerepromulgatedby  theTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices.Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(e)(1)(2003Supp.).Theguidelinescan q befoundatTennesseeCompiledRulesandRegulations124024.01to.04(2004).^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3!$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKSR;3403SR;3406SR;3408 !.8dd8     _  8oXXdd8  @ n6INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#n6 #Ԉ #   September21,2004Session F XoX #XXo#GARYL.TURNAGEv.JUDITHWASHKATURNAGEXoX  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  9 @@No.161629R.D.RobertL.Childers,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200302790COAR3CVFiledNovember15,2004   AV) ` dE<]` A ^      XXXXoThisisachildsupportcaseinvolvingtheallocationofprivateschooltuition.Thetrialcourtordered V  thefathertopayonehalfoftheminorchildrensprivateschooltuition.Weaffirm. ? #XoXX X݈##XXoo#XoX| Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and J Remanded  4   #Xo#XoX.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined.  S.DeniseMcCraryandStephanieM.Micheel,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,GaryL. r Turnage. [ BarbaraMcCullough,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JudithWashkaTurnage. -}  OPINION #XXo#XoX O #XXo#XoX XXXXo StatementoftheFactsandProceduralHistory !"!    #XoXX XP #XXXXo  OnApril19,2000,GaryL.Turnage( Father)andJudithWashkaTurnage( Mother) ## weredivorcedinShelbyCountypursuanttoafinaldecreeofdivorcethatincorporatedamarital $$ dissolutionagreement( MDA).TheMDAprovidedthatthepartieswereentitledtojoint u% % custody,butthatMotherwouldbetheprimaryresidentialparentofthepartiesthreeminor ^&!& children,Elizabeth,Rachel,andHannah(collectivelythe children),whoatthetimeofthe G'"' divorcewereagesfourteen(14),nine(9),andsix(6),respectively.Additionally,theparties 0(#( agreedthatMotherwouldbetheultimatedecisionmakershouldthepartiesdisagreeonissues )i$) relativetothechildren. *R%*   PursuanttotheMDA,FatheragreedtopayMotherchildsupportintheamount +$', $1,576.00permonth,anamount baseduponastipulatedearningcapacityof$65,480.76. , (- Duringthemarriage,eachofthechildrenattendedSt.BenedictsSchool,aprivateCatholic -(. schoolwhereMotherworkedasateacher.AsanemployeeofSt.Benedicts,Motherreceiveda  discountintuitionforthechildren.AspartoftheMDA,thepartiesagreedtothefollowing  provisionregardingthechildrensprivateschooltuition:  8  Thepartiesacknowledgethatitistheirdesireandinthebestinterestofthe T childrenforthechildrentocontinuetoattendprivateschoolatSt.Benedicts =  School.However,both[parties]acknowledgethefinancialconstraintscurrently & v existing.Therefore,thepartiesagreethateachofthemshallpayonehalfofthe  _ tuition,books,andfeesincurredbythechildrenfortheschoolyearof20002001,  H aftertheapplicationofallapplicablediscounts,grants,andscholarships. 1    8   ` Theissueofwhetherfurtherprivateschoolingwilloccuraftertheyearof   20002001isherebyreservedforreviewbythepartiesinFebruary2001.      IntheSpringof#XoXXX # XXXXo2001,FatheradvisedMotherthathewasnolongerabletocontributeto n  thechildrenstuitionbeyondthe200001schoolyear.AtMothersrequest,Fatherinformedthe W  childrenthattheywouldnolongerbeattendingSt.Benedicts.InAugust2001,however, @ MotherreenrolledthechildreninSt.Benedicts.OnSeptember25,2001,Motherfiledher )y PetitiontoModifyFinalDecreeofDivorcetoModifyVisitationAnd/OrCustodyAndFor b PaymentofPrivateSchool( MothersPetition).Althoughitisnotclearfromtherecordhow K Motherfinancedthepaymentoftuition,MothercontinuedtosendthechildrentoSt.Benedicts 4 forthe200102and200203schoolyears.OnJanuary9,2003,byconsentorder,thetrialcourt  appointedLisaZacharias( Ms.Zacharias)asguardianadlitemtorepresenttheinterestofthe  children.MothersPetitionultimatelycametobeheardonSeptember5,2003.    AtthehearingonMothersPetition,thetrialcourtheardprooffromMother,Father,and q Ms.Zacharias. #  1      ׀TheevidencedemonstratedthatMotherearned$29,622.00ingrossincomein Z 2002fromheremploymentatSt.Benedictsandadditionalparttimeemployment.Motheralso C testifiedthatshereceivedanearnedincometaxcredit,allowinghertoavoidincometaxonher ,| earnings.Inadditiontohermonthlywages,Motherreceived$1,576.00inchildsupport e payments,resultinginroughly$4,000.00permonthinincome. N   Theproofshowedthat,duringtheyearsof2000,2001,and2002,Fatherearned$54,036, !   $55,963,and$59,065eachyear,respectively.Fathertestifiedthat,justpriortothehearing,he " ! hadbeentransferredtoanewposition,butheanticipatedearning$65,000.00in2003.Inhis #" affidavitofincomeandexpenses,Fatherlistedagrossmonthlyincomeof$4,922.16.Atthe $# hearing,however,Fathertestifiedthathereceivedbetween$150to$200permonthofrental t% $ incomefromrealpropertyheinheritedfromhisfather.Fathersaffidavitlistedanetmonthly  incomeof$3,014.49. #  2      ׀Fathersaffidavit,however,didnotlisttherentalincomeof$150to$200  permonth.Fathersaffidavitsetforthitemizedexpensestotaling$4,065.00,resultingina  monthlydeficitof$1,050.51.Thetrialcourt,however,tookexceptionwithseveralofthelisted k expenses,includingexpensesforacellphone;personalentertainment;Christmasandbirthday T gifts;andanadditionallifeinsurancepolicy.ThecourtalsonotedFathersfailuretoaccountfor =  anyincometaxrefund,failuretoincluderentalincome,andinclusionofadeductionfor & v Mississippistateincometax.Inissuingitsrulingfromthebench,thecourtstatedthefollowing:  _ 8  Mr.TurnagesstatementsthathecantaffordtosendhisdaughterstoSt.  1  BenedictsSchoolanylongersortofringshollow.ItappearstotheCourtthathe    choosesnottoaffordit.Hechoosestospendhismoneyinotherwaysotherthan   forhisdaughtersprivateschooleducation.    8   ` IntheCourtsview,heisabletoaffordit.Ifhewantstogetotherthings, n  thenthatsfine.Ifhewantstobuyotherthings,thenlethimgooutandget W  anotherjobortwoorthreejobs,likeMrs.Turnagehaschosentodo.@     Afterhearingtheevidence,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingMotherspetition b whichcontained,inrelevantpart,thefollowinglanguage: K 8   ` 1 .ThatthePlaintiff, GaryL.Turnage ,istocontinuetopaythesumof  $1,576.00permonth,aschildsupport....    8   ` 2. ThatthePlaintiff, GaryL.Turnage ,istocontinuetopayonehalf()  oftheprivateschooltuitionforthepartiesminorchildren.w   8   ` 2 .[sic]ThatthePlaintiff, GaryL.Turnage ,istopaythesumof I $6,000.00forhisshareoftheprivateschooltuitionfortheminorchildrenforthe 5 schoolyearsof2001/2002,and2002/2003,attherateof$500.00permonth, n effectiveOctober1,2003,foraperiodoftwelve(12)months,untilthetotalsum  W of$6,000.00hasbeenpaidto[Mother]. @   8   ` 3. ThatthePlaintiff, GaryL.Turnage ,istopaythesumof$4,000.00for "! hisshareoftheprivateschooltuitionfortheminorchildrenfortheschoolyearof #" 2003/2004,attherateof$400.00permonth,effectiveOctober1,2003,fora $# periodoften(10)months,untilthesumtotalof$4,000.00hasbeenpaidto % $ [Mother].i&!%    R'"&   Fatherhasappealedfromthetrialcourtsorderandpresentsthefollowingissueforour  review:WhetherthetrialcourterredinorderingFathertopayonehalfofhisminorchildrens  privateschooltuition.     StandardofReview  T     Incasestriedwithoutajury,Rule13(d)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure % u requiresthisCourttoreviewthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactdenovoaccompaniedbya  ^ presumptionofcorrectness,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.  G 13(d)(2004).ThisCourthaspreviouslysetforththeapplicablestandardtoapplyincaseswhere  0  thetrialcourtdeviatesfromthechildsupportguidelines:\ #  3          8   ` #XoXX Xݤ#XXXXoWhenatrialcourtexercisesitsdiscretiontodeviatefromtheChild   SupportGuidelines,wereviewitsdecisionaccordingtothe"#XoXXX.#XXXXoabuse% n #XoXXXݡ/#%n/XXXXoԀof#XoXXX0#XXXXodiscretion"   standard% w #XoXXXL0#%w0XXXXoԀof#XoXXX0#XXXXoreview% y #XoXXX1#%y?1XXXXo.#XoXXX݀1# XXXXoԀ#XoXX X1#XXXXoTallentv.Kates,45S.W.3d556,560((Tenn.Ct.App.2000); m  Stateex.rel.Vaughnv.Kaatrude,21S.W.3d244,248(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).A V  discretionarydecisionwillbesetasideonlywhenthetrialcourtmisconstruedor ? misappliedthecontrollinglegalprinciplesoractedcontrarytothesubstantial (x weightoftheevidence.Whitev.VanderbiltUniv.,21S.W.3d215,222(Tenn.Ct. a App.1999).#XoXXX2# XXXXoԀ#XoXX XN4#XXXXoTherefore,anappellatecourtwillreviewatrialcourt'sdiscretionary J decisiontodetermine:"(1)whetherthefactualbasisforthedecisionissupported 3 bytheevidence,(2)whetherthetrialcourtidentifiedandappliedtheapplicable  legalprinciples,and(3)whetherthetrialcourt'sdecisioniswithintherangeof  acceptablealternatives."Id.at223;seealsoKaatrude,21S.W.3dat248.   #XoXXXݑ4# XXXXoBerryhillv.Rhodes,No.W200100748COAR3JV,2002WL927442,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App. p May2,2002)(noperm.app.filed). Y   LawandAnalysis +{      Onappeal,Fathermakesthreeargumentsregardingtheissueraised.First,Fatherargues L thatbeforeorderinganobligor #  4      ׀spousetopayonehalfoftheprivateschooltuition,thetrial  5 courtmustmakeathresholdfindingthatprivateschooltuitionisan extraordinaryeducational !  expensefollowedbyadeterminationofwhethertheobligorspouseisabletoaffordthetuition. "!   Undersection365101oftheTennesseeCode,thereisarebuttablepresumptionthatthe $# amountofchildsupportdeterminedbythechildsupportguidelinesistheproperamount.Tenn. r% $ CodeAnn.365101(e)(1).Theguidelinessetchildsupportaccordingtoaflatpercentageof  theobligorsnetincome, dependingonthenumberofchildrenforwhomsupportisbeingset.  Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.ch.124024.03(2)(2004).Thecourtmaydeviatefromthechild  supportawardsetundertheguidelinesifcertaincriteriaaremet.Id.ch.124024.04.Under k theguidelines,thebasepercentageamountofchildsupportisdeemedaminimum,andpursuant T torule124024.04oftheguidelines, [e]xtraordinaryeducationalexpenses...shallbeadded =  tothepercentagecalculated[underthechildsupportguidelines].Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.ch. & v 124024.04(1)(c)(emphasisadded).  _   In2000,theTennesseeSupremeCourtexpresslyheldthatprivateschooltuitionisan  1   extraordinaryeducationalexpense,andthetuitionamount mustbeaddedtotheobligors    percentageofchildsupportcomputedundertheguidelines.Barnettv.Barnett,27S.W.3d904,   907(Tenn.2000).Asthesupremecourtexplained, [t]heguidelinesuseofthewordshall   leavesthetrialcourtnodiscretioninaddingextraordinaryeducationalexpensestotheobligors   computedpercentage.Id.Ingeneral,theguidelinesrequirethatthefullamountoftheprivate n  schooltuitionbeaddedtotheobligorsbasepercentageamountbecausethetuitionisan W  extraordinaryeducationalexpense,overandabovethebasechildsupportamount.Id.Thecourt @ inBarnett,however,tempereditsholdingbyrecognizingthat [s]trictapplicationofthe )y guidelines...couldimpoverishoneparent.Id.at908.Asthecourtreasoned, ifextraordinary b expenseswere...tackedonarbitrarily,thisindiscriminateimpositionofprivateschooltuition K  couldresultinatremendousdisparityintheobligorsrelativepercentageofincomecontributed 4 aschildsupport"eventotheextentofabsorbingeverypennyoftheobligorsincome.Id.at  908.Thus,inthosecases, itisappropriatetoconsidertheincomeofthecustodialparentin  consideringwhetheradownwarddeviationfromthetotalchildsupportaward(percentageplus  extraordinaryeducationalexpense)wouldachieveequity,byequitablyapportioningthetuition  costbetweentheparties.Id.at909. q   InlightoftheholdinginBarnett,themandateofthechildsupportguidelinesis C clear"privateschooltuitionisan extraordinaryeducationalexpensethatmustbeaddedtothe ,| obligorsbasechildsupportamount.Inappropriatecases,thecourtmayconsideradownward e deviationfromthetotalchildsupportaward,inorderto spreadthecostoftuitionequitably N amongtheparties.Barnett,27S.W.3dat909.Inthecaseatbar,Fatherearnedapproximately  7 $65,000.00fromworkingonejob,andMotherearnedjustunder$30,000.00fromworking !   multiplejobs.Thefactsinthiscasecomeclosetosupportingtheguidelinesmandatethat " ! Fatherpaythefullamountofthetuition.Mother,however,didnotseektohaveFatherpaythe #" fullamount.Thus,wecannotfindthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninorderingFatherto $# payonehalfthechildrensprivateschooltuition. t% $   Alternatively,Fatherarguesthat privateschooltuitionisinthenatureofchild F'"&  support,andanordertopayprivateschooltuitioniswarranted onlywhenthereissignificant /(#' variancebetweenthe[childsupportguidelines]andthesupportcurrentlyordered. #  5      ׀TheBarnett   decisionissupportedbyourholdinginHuntleyv.Huntley,61S.W.3d329,339(Tenn.Ct.App.  2001),wherethisCourtspecificallyheldthatprivateschooltuitionpaymentsareseparatefrom  basechildsupport.Id.;seealsoDwightv.Dwight,936S.W.3d945,950(Tenn.Ct.App.1996) k (holdingthattuitionexpensesdonotconstitutechildsupportundertheguidelinesandmustnot T beincorporatedintothepercentageofobligorsincomepaidassupport).Thus,anobligee =  spouseisnotrequiredtoproveasignificantvariancebeforeobtaininganorderthattheobligor & v spousepayamountsforextraordinaryeducationalexpenses.  _   Finally,FatherassertsthattheorderrequiringFathertopayonehalfthechildrens  1  tuitionwasunjustandinappropriateinviewofthefactthat,afterpaymentofchildsupportand    tuitioncosts,heisleftwith$1,532.99netincomepermonthforlivingexpenses,whileMother   has$3,644.50netincomepermonth.Fatherarguesthatifheisrequiredtocontinuetopayfor   onehalfoftheprivateschooltuition,hisnetmonthlyincomewouldbereducedtoroughly   $1,000.00permonth.Wenote,however,thatFatherstuitionpaymentswillbereducedfrom n  $900to$400,afterhehaspaidofftheamountheowesforbacktuitionfromthe200102and W  200203schoolyears.Additionally,aseachofthechildrengraduate,thetotaltuitioncostwill @ bereducedaccordingly.Further,Fathersargumentseemstoundervaluethefactthat,as )y primaryresidentialparent,Motherisbearingtheprimaryexpenseofraisingthethreeminor b children. K   InEarthmanv.McRae,No.W200200564COAR3CV,2003WL1860527,at*2!3  (Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.1,2003)(noperm.app.filed),thisCourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsorder  requiringtheobligortopay$500.00permonthtowardsherdaughtersprivateschooltuition,  evenwhentheobligorwasleftwithonly$1033.61netincomepermonth,orthirtyfourpercent  (34%)ofherincome.Id.at*4.InEarthman,theobligeewasaskingthattheobligorpaythe q entireamountofthetuition,andthisCourtwasfacedonlywiththeissueofapportioningthe Z tuitioncostbasedontherespectiveincomesoftheparties.Id.at*3.Aspreviouslystated,in C thiscase,MotheronlysoughtanorderrequiringFathertopayonehalfofthechildrenstuition. ,|   Conclusion N      Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costsaretaxedto !  theappellant,GaryL.Turnage,andhissurety.#XoXX X6# "!    `     h     ___________________________________ s% $    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE