WPCu' dyح=HIò&z0^x6si9$l1}[.%mUhԑqEPflwvnWNl)%vhd Q0Ј2@tut%?JcBFArGQ~*?YI1wuyM䮤bζpzsFpV}7uO} eBa9ПwDkx-5&:A5pLt98<xNoa-@~ĝ0-D LJG ΢g7.WNSY'^; o:RH%ثX|$AMHMǧ= nCs#Qi"JX7wن!C[@y9(t@b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #  _ % 0DN 0U 0LE) 0+ 0 0 0V 0 0 0K 0 0 0p 0 0 0e 0 0 0$ 0 0g 0/ 0 0} 0 0bE 0M 0 ]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]!]! 0r"r"r"r" B]#]# 0z# D3$ D-Q$ 0K~$~$ AS$% 0% 0D& A&~1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1:i+003|x 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.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h - -(&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L    Rȑ$      1    _ThereisabsolutelynothingintherecordbeforeusshowingthatthisdistributionwentintooneofMothers  accounts.(|G2ȑ$ !.8Ndd8         0   d(|3?$ !.8Ndd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$ !.8Ndd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ndd8     _  N8!XXdd8  @ @|NINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#N@| #Ԉ &   August13,2004Session L X!XN #NXX!#JEFFREYSCOTTWESTv.SHARONANNWESTX!XN  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.02D268SamuelH.Payne,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200400422_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDNOVEMBER30,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     JeffreyScottWest( Father)filedapetitionagainsthisformerwife,SharonAnnWest( Mother), x  seekingtomodifythepartiesPermanentParentingPlan,whichplanhadnotrequiredMothertopay d childsupportduetothefactshewasunemployed.Thetrialcourt,findingthat,sincetheentryofthe P parentingplan,Motherhad_had_Ԁatwoyeargrossincomeofover$25,000,heldthattherehadbeen < asubstantialandmaterialchangeincircumstancesjustifyinganorderrequiringthatMotherpaychild (x supportof$290permonth.Motherappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterredinorderinghertopay d childsupportandinthemethodologyusedbythecourtincalculatingchildsupport.Weaffirm. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt ( Affirmed;CaseRemanded     #NX!k#X!X.NCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,  andWilliamH._Inman_,_Sr.J._,joined.  MorganG.Adams,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SharonAnnWest. ` PhillipC.Lawrence,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JeffreyScottWest. 8!   OPINION #NXX! #X!XN #`" #NXX!H #X!XN    I.#NXX! #X!XN $8 $    ThepartiesweremarriedonDecember23,1986.Twochildrenwereborntotheirunion: &"& BradleyScottWest(DOB:August13,1988)andRebeccaAnnWest(DOB:April1,1994).OnMay '"' 1,2002,thetrialcourtawardedthepartiesadivorceonthegroundofirreconcilabledifferences.The (#( courtapprovedthepartiesMaritalDissolutionAgreementandtheirparentingplan,whichplan )$) designatedFatherastheprimaryresidentialparentofbothchildren.TheplanaddressedMothers p*%* childsupportobligationasfollows: \+&+   H,', _8  8`   Motheriscurrentlyunemployedandhasbeenunemployedfora   sufficientperiodoftimethatsheisnotpresentlyemployable;  therefore,circumstancesexistthatjustifyadownwarddeviationin  herchildsupportobligationasprovidedbytheTennesseechild t supportguidelines.Therefore,Motherwillnothaveachildsupport ` paymentobligationtoFatheruntiltherehasbeenasubstantialand L  materialchangeinthepartiescircumstances.Ifandwhenachild 8  supportobligationshallbeimposed,thepartiesacknowledgethatno $ t actionbythepartieswillbeeffectivetoreducechildsupportafterthe  ` duedateofeachpayment,andthatcourtapprovalmustbeobtained  L  beforechildsupportcanbereduced. 8 ` x` x Thereafter,MotherrelocatedtoMarylandandmovedinwithhermother,JudithFlanagan.     OnMay16,2003,Fatherfiledapetitiontomodifytheparentingplan,allegingthefollowing:   8  8`   PursuanttothePermanentParentingPlan,as[Mother]was p unemployedandhadbeenunemployedforasufficientperiodoftime \ suchthat[Mother]wasdeemedtobenotpresentlyemployable, H [Mother]wasnotrequiredatthattimetocontributefinancially 4 towardthesupportforthepartieschildren. p` x` x 8  8`   Therehasbeenamaterialchangeincircumstancesinthat[Mother] H returnedtothelaborforcefollowingtheentryofthefinaljudgment 4 ofdivorceandiseithercurrentlyemployedoriscurrentlyemployable   withtheconcurrentabilitytomakeachildsupportcontribution. ` x` x (Numberinginoriginalomitted).Inaddition,Fatheraskedthecourttodeterminethefairmarket  valueofthepartiesformermaritalresidence!whereFatherandthechildrenhadresidedsincethe  divorce!forthepurposeofestablishingtheamountofMothersequityinterestintheresidence. l FatherfurtherrequestedthatthecourtthenrequireMothertotransferherinterestinthehouseto X  Father,inexchangeforhispaymentofherequityinterest. D!   Thepartiessubsequentlystipulatedthevalueofthehouse,settingMothersequityinterest #l! at$13,413.49.TheyagreedthatFatherwouldpaythisamountandthatitwouldbeplacedinescrow $X" andheldatinterest.ThepartiesagreementwasmemorializedbyanorderenteredOctober3,2003, $D # inwhichthecourtdecreedthat,uponpaymentoftheaforementionedamountintoescrow,Mother %0!$ wouldexecuteanddelivertoFatheraquitclaimdeedofherinterestintheproperty.Thetrialcourt &"% furtherorderedthattheequityinterestwouldbeheldinescrowuntiltheissueofchildsupportwas '#& resolved. (#'   OnJanuary13,2004,thetrialcourtheldahearingonFatherspetitiontomodify,receiving |*%) testimonyfrombothMotherandFather.Mothertestifiedthat,foraperiodofabouttwoandahalf h+&* monthsin2002,shewasemployedasamailclerkatamilitarybaseinMaryland.Motherstatedthat  shedroveherselftoworkeachdayinher2001CadillacDeVille,forwhichFatherwasstillmaking  thecarpayments.WhileMotherwasemployedatthemilitarybase,sheearned$2,712.Father  introducedcopiesofMothersbankrecords,alongwithasummaryofdepositsintoMothers t checkingandsavingsaccounts,showingtotaldepositsof$25,088.39fora21monthperiodinthe ` years2002and2003.Motherclaimedthatmanyofthesedepositswereloansfromhermother, L  includinga$5,000checkonwhichhermotherhadindicatedinthenotationportionofthecheckthat 8  itwasa gift. $ t   Inaddition,thetrialcourtreceivedintoevidencethedepositiontestimonyofMothers  L  psychiatrist,Dr.DenisT.Kennedy.Dr.Kennedy,whopracticesinChattanooga,firstsawMother  8  asapatientinJune,2001,atwhichtimehefoundthatshehadsymptomsofdepression.Dr. $  KennedycontinuedtotreatMotheroverthecourseofthenextsevenmonthsandprescribedvarious   antidepressantandantipsychoticmedicationsforMother.MothersfinalvisittoseeDr.Kennedy   beforemovingtoMarylandwasinJanuary,2002,atwhichtimethedoctornotedthatMotherwas   doing fairlywell,althoughshewasstillexhibitingsomesignsofdepression.Dr.Kennedydidnot   seeMotheragainuntilNovember17,2003.Atthatappointment,Dr.KennedydiagnosedMother p ashaving [m]ajordepressivedisorderwithpsychoticfeatures,andopinedthatMother wasnot \ fitforanygainfulemploymentandthatshesunlikelytobecomefitwithintheforeseeablefuture. H However,oncrossexamination,Dr.KennedyadmittedthathecouldnotsaythatMotherwould 4 neverbeabletoworkagain;hejustfounditunlikely thatshellbeabletoholdajobinthe  p foreseeablefuture.  \   Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrialcourtfoundthatMotherhadreceived, [f]rom 4 whateversource,atotalincomeof$25,088.39overthecourseoftwoyears.Baseduponthatfigure,   thecourtfoundthatMothershouldberequiredtopay$290permonthinchildsupport.Thetrial   courtfurtherfoundthatthemoneyheldinescrow,which,atthetimeofthehearing,amountedto  $13,421.14,shouldbepaidintotheofficeofthecircuitcourtclerk,whowouldthendisburse$290  permonthtoFather.Monthlypaymentswouldcontinueatthislevel,thecourtruled,untilthefunds  hadbeenexhaustedoruntiltherewasanotherchangeincircumstances.Thesefindingswere l memorializedinanorderenteredJanuary29,2004. X    Fromthisorder,Motherappeals. 0"    II. $X" N*  Ourreviewofthisnonjurycaseisdenovo;however,therecordcomestousaccompanied %0!$ byapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfactualfindings,apresumptionwemusthonor &"% unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Nopresumption '#& ofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourtsconclusionsoflaw. Jahnv.Jahn ,932S.W.2d939,941 (#' (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). )$(   h+&*   III.  ,  Motherraisesthreeissuesforourreview:  8  8`   1.WasthereamaterialchangeincircumstancesinMothers100% ` disablingcondition,justifyingachangeintheawardofchildsupport?L ` x` x 8  8`   2.Cana100%disabledpersonbeorderedtopaychildsupportfrom $ t hershareofthemaritalproperty? `` x` x 8  8`   3.Didthetrialcourterrinitscalculationofchildsupport? 8 ` x` x Wewilladdresseachoftheseissuesinturn.     IV.   /   @ A. p /  MotherfirstarguesthatFatherfailedtoproveamaterialchangeincircumstancesinher H  100%disablingcondition,justifyingachangeinchildsupport.Wethinkthisissueisbetterstated 4 asfollows:whetherthetrialcourtwasjustifiedinorderinganincreaseinMotherschildsupport  p obligation.Weholdthatitwassojustified.  \    Tenn.CodeAnn.365101(a)(1)(A)(Supp.2004)providesthat,upontheapplicationof 4 eitherparty,thecourtwillorderanincreaseordecreaseinchildsupportpayments whenthereis   foundtobeasignificantvariance...betweentheguidelinesandtheamountofsupportcurrently   ordered. Id. Thestatutefurtherprovidesthatthecourtdoesnothavetoordersuchanincreaseor  decreaseif thevariancehasresultedfromapreviouslycourtordereddeviationfromtheguidelines  andthecircumstanceswhichcausedthedeviationhavenotchanged. Id. Theguidelinesdefinethis   significantvarianceasbeing atleast15%ifthecurrentsupportawardisequaltoorgreaterthan l $100permonth,and atleastfifteendollars($15.00)ifthecurrentsupportawardislessthan$100 X  permonth.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.124024.02(3)(2003).Motherspreviouschildsupportset D! atthetimeofthedivorce,i.e.,zero,isobviouslylessthan$100permonth.Hence,thesecond 0"  scenariosetforthaboveisthecriteriaapplicabletotheinstantcase. #l!   Theparentingplanenteredintobythepartiesatthetimeoftheirdivorceprovidesthat $D # Motherhadnochildsupportobligation.Theplanstatesthatthisdownwarddeviationfromthe %0!$ guidelineswasbaseduponthefactthatMotherwas,atthattime,unemployed,andthatshe hasbeen &"% unemployedforasufficientperiodoftimethatsheisnotpresentlyemployable.WhenFatherfiled '#& hispetitiontomodifyoneyearlater,MotherhadbeenemployedinMarylandfortwoandahalf (#' months,earningatotalof$2,712.Infact,thetrialcourtfoundthat,includingMothersincomefrom )$( heremployment,Motherhadatotaltwoyearincomeof$25,088.39, fromwhateversource. |*%)  h+&*   Childsupportisbased,notonlyuponearningsfromemployment,butonalltypesofincome  asthatconceptisdefinedintheguidelines:  8  8`   Grossincomeshallincludeallincomefromanysource(beforetaxes t andotherdeductions),whetherearnedorunearned,andincludesbut ` isnotlimitedto,thefollowing:wages,salaries,commissions, L  bonuses,overtimepayments,dividends,severancepay,pensions, 8  interest,trustincome,annuities,capitalgains,benefitsreceivedfrom $ t theSocialSecurityAdministration,i.e.,TitleIISocialSecurity  ` benefits,workerscompensationbenefitswhethertemporaryor  L  permanent,judgmentsrecoveredforpersonalinjuries,unemployment  8  insurancebenefits,gifts,prizes,lotterywinnings,alimonyor $  maintenance,andincomefromselfemployment. ` x` x 124024.03(3)(a)(1)(emphasisadded).     Clearly,thecircumstancesjustifyingtheoriginaldownwarddeviationinchildsupporthad p changed,asMotherwentfromnoincometoincome,asthetrialcourtfound,inexcessof$25,000 \ overatwoyearperiod.Hence,a significantvariancehadoccurred,asMotherwentfromno H incometoincome,ontheaverage,ofalmost$1,200permonth.See124024.02(3).Accordingly, 4 wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindings  p underpinningitsdecisiontoorderMothertopaychildsupport.  \   B. 4 A  Mothernextassertsthatthetrialcourterredinrequiring a100%disabledpersontopay   childsupportfromhershareofthemaritalproperty.Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsjudgment.    Thedeterminativefactorindecidingwhethertoorderapartytopaychildsupportisnot  whetherthatpartycanobtainormaintainemployment;rather,theissueiswhetherthepartyhas l  income.Aswehavepreviouslystated, incomeencompassesavarietyofthings,notjust X  earningsfromemployment.See124024.03(3)(a)(1).Evenassuming,withoutdeciding,that D! Motheriscompletelydisabled,thetrialcourtfoundMotherhadincomefrom whateversource,and 0"  theevidencebeforeusdoesnotpreponderateagainstthatfinding. #l!   C. $D # E  Finally,Mothercontendsthatthetrialcourterredinthemethodologyitemployedwhenit &"% calculatedchildsupport.Specifically,Motherassertsthatthetrialcourt,inarrivingatthe '#& $25,088.39twoyearincomefigure,erroneouslycountedtransfersbetweenMotherscheckingand (#' savingsaccounts,resultinginthecourtdoublecountingcertaindeposits.Inaddition,Motherargues )$( thatthetrialcourtshouldnothaveincludedMothersalimonypaymentsincalculatingherincome, |*%) norshouldthetrialcourthaveincludedMothersreceiptof35%ofFathersprofitsharingplan. h+&* Ї  WithrespecttoMotherscontentionthatthetrialcourtcountedcertaindepositstoMothers  bankaccountstwice,resultinginaninflatedincomefigure,wefindnoevidencethatMotherever  broughtthisallegederrortotheattentionofthetrialcourt.Wearenotrequiredtograntanyrelief  toaparty whofailedtotakewhateveractionwasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifythe t harmfuleffectofanerror.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).Likewise,wefindnoevidencethatMother,at ` thetrialcourtlevel,everaddressedtheissueofherreceiptofapercentageofFathersprofitsharing L  planor,morespecifically,thatshecalledtothecourtsattentionthattheprofitsharingmoneywent 8  intoheraccounts1 #  1      .BecauseMotherfailedtodowhatwasnecessarytocalltheseallegederrorsto $ t thetrialcourtsattention,wedeclinetoaddresstheseissues.  `   Furthermore,withrespecttoMothersassertionthatheralimonypaymentsshouldnothave  8  beenincludedinthecalculationofincome,wedirectherattentiontothechildsupportguidelines, $  which,aswehavepreviouslyindicated,consideralimonyaformofgrossincome.See124024   .03(3)(a)(1).Accordingly,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsinclusionofalimonyinitsincome   calculation.     V. p dO  Thejudgmentofthecircuitcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfor H enforcementofthatcourtsjudgmentandforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuantto 4 applicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,SharonAnnWest.  p    `     h     _______________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE