WPC2  YBVi Z{WW2?)bUiT=v:lsSc$EAONK9<BP3$QwgG5K췵6Ҽ4f6]ZzssLtIͬh%F\3~;3V74@B&\]y wĥr@ } 3jl~+,2 rSY.:FjV ޠKVoF, a4HJљ2GqX[<4{ʾ1IߵK%+/bw`ɻ `k@lbnuo i4@wͮΤ  )3Nܰ2;iVC'K'ɐ~nI9jfIPSC&nd ĄJu҈XSj*p~ɵcoxtd2@b3H u)# >UNI % 0cU<w@<4| 0D*U:*OU:y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y AQ  0D 0D 0DR R D/ B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;B$X^XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman /U01E2D34U56ӀBEn~<$3|xE($$   1    !"   XuXXX GX Xu   Ad FILED XuX G   September16,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. {X XuAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XuXXXGXXu   Ad FILEDXuXG   September11,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.{XXuAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !" %C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  (#$  0  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd B!Xt]XXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7    B6r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r6BEBr (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, rBEEE@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@!WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________ Et (>.*jxY` `@EL ` ttx$( tEMARGARETSCHINDLERHAAS,    ` Appellant, `     h     ShelbyLawNo.141090Vs. `     h     C.A.No.02A019709CV00241    MICHAELLEEHAAS,     ` Appellee.____________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@o o THEHONROABLEJAMESE.SWEARENGEN,JUDGE@ Dav2e23id3E.CaywoodandMarcE.Reismanof@% % Causey,Caywood,Taylor,McManus&BaileyofMemphis@>>(ForAppellant@__KathleenDayNorfleetofMemphis@rr(ForAppellee@$ REVERSEDANDREMANDED  %!! @'Opinionfiled://10.COV01// `  `     h      p   W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 1--  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGEDAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE 4 955  ;779 457XXdXXd7 ` Thiscase,whichisbeforeusasecondtime,involvesapetitiontoreducechild  support.Appellant,MargaretSchindlerHaas(Mother),appealsthetrialcourtsorderreducingtheamountofthemonthlychildsupportobligationofappellee,MichaelLeeHaas(Father). ` ThepartiesweremarriedonNovember8,1986,andtwochildrenwerebornofthemarriage.OnJanuary4,1993,Motherfiledfordivorceallegingirreconcilabledifferencesandinappropriatemaritalconduct.Inanattempttoresolvedisputedissues,MothersattorneywrotealettertoFather,whowasthenunrepresentedbycounsel,whichstatedinpartthatFathersmonthlychildsupportobligationwouldbeapproximately$1,700.00permonth.Shortlythereafter,MotherandFathermetatarestaurantwherethetworeachedanagreementthatFatherschildsupportobligationwouldbe$2,000.00permonth. ` Subsequently,thepartiesenteredintoaMaritalDissolutionAgreement(MDA)whichwasapprovedandratifiedbythetrialcourtinthefinaldecreeofdivorceenteredMay12,1993.PursuanttotheMDA,thetrialcourtawardedthepartiesjointlegalcustodyofthechildren,withprimaryphysicalcustodytoMotherandreasonablevisitationrightstoFather.TheMDAprovidedthatFatherwouldpay$2,000.00permonthassupportforthetwochildrenbaseduponhisannualincomeofapproximately$75,000.00.TheMDAfurtherprovidedthatFatherwouldprovidehealthinsuranceforthechildrenandpayallthechildrensuncoveredmedicalexpenses. ` OnMarch23,1994,Fatherfileda PetitionforRelieffromFinalDecreeofAbsoluteDivorce,whereinherequested, interalia ,areductioninhischildsupport 0,, obligation.Fathercontendedthatheonlyagreedtopay$2,000.00permonthforchildsupportafterMotherinformedhimthathewasresponsibleforpaymentofchildsupportinsuchanamountpermonthinaccordancewiththeChildSupportGuidelines.Fatheralsocontendedthatitwasonlyafterhehiredanattorneyofhis 844 owninJanuary1994thathelearnedthathischildsupportobligationexceededtheguidelineamountbyapproximately$600.00. ` Asgroundsforthereductioninchildsupport,Fatherassertedthatamaterialchangeincircumstanceswarrantedareductioninthechildsupportamount.Inaddition,FatherarguedthatpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02heisentitledtorelieffromthejudgment duetothemistake,inadvertenceandmisrepresentationofthecorrectamountofguidelinechildsupportforonehavinganincomeof$75,000peryear. ` UponFathersrequestandafterthetrialjudgeenteredanOrderofReference,thematterwasreferredtothedivorcerefereeforhearing.ThedivorcerefereedeniedFatherspetitionrequestingareductionofhischildsupportobligation.Thereafter,Fatherfileda MotionAppealingRefereesRulingand,inFebruary1995,an AmendedPetitionforRelieffromFinalDecreeofAbsoluteDivorce.Inthelatter,FatherassertedthatasignificantvarianceexistedbetweentheamountofchildsupportwhichheshouldpayundertheChildSupportGuidelinesandtheamountofchildsupportheiscurrentlyrequiredtopay. ` Afterahearing,thetrialjudgeenteredanorderfindingthatasignificantvariancegreaterthanfifteenpercentexistedbetweentheChildSupportGuidelineamountandthesupportorderandreducedthechildsupportfrom$2,000.00permonthto$1,394.00permonth. ` MotherappealedtothisCourt,andthisCourtreversedthetrialcourtsreductioninchildsupportbecausetherecorddidnotrevealanychangeincircumstancessincetheentryofthedivorcedecreenoranymaterialchangesinFathersannualsalarythatwouldhavewarrantedsuchreductionunderT.C.A.365101(a)(1).However,weremandedthecausetothetrialcourtforadeterminationofwhetherFathershouldbegrantedreliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02. ` Onremand,thetrialcourtagainreducedFatherschildsupportobligationas 844 previouslyorderedpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02.Ingrantingsuchrelief,thetrialcourtfoundthatthepartiesmistakenlyappliedtheChildSupportGuidelinesbycalculatingchildsupportusingFathersgrossincomeratherthanhisnetincome. ` Motherperfectedthisappealandbasicallypresentsoneissueforourreview:WhetherthetrialcourterredinreducingFatherschildsupportobligationpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02. ` Motherassertsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthattherewasamistakebyeitherpartyinthecalculationofchildsupport.ShestatesthatthechildsupportamountFatheragreedtopayforthebenefitofthetwominorchildrenwasaconsciousdecisionwhichwasreachedbetweenthepartiesafterdeterminingtheneedsofthechildrenandthatFathervoluntarilyassumedpaymentinanamountinexcessoftheminimumamountprescribedbytheChildSupportGuidelines.Motherfurthercontendsthateveniftherewasamistakeinbasingchildsupportongrossincomeratherthannetincome,thismistakewouldconstituteamistakeoflawwhichdoesnotentitleFathertoreliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02. ` Ontheotherhand,FathercontendsthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyreducedhischildsupportobligationpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02uponfindingthattherehadbeenanerrorintheinitialcalculationofchildsupportandamistakeoffactregardingFathersincomeuponwhichthechildsupportobligationwasinitiallycalculated.Fatherassertsthattherewasamistakeoffactduetohismistakenbeliefthatbasingchildsupportongrossincomewasthepropermethodofcalculatingsuch.Therefore,duetosuchamistake,reliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02waswarranted. ` AmotionforreliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02lieswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Onappeal,thescopeofreviewislimitedtowhetherthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretion. Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co. ,854S.W.2d94,97 400 (Tenn.1993). ` Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02providesinpertinentpart: 844 8 ` 8 ` !` ! Rule60.02Mistakes;񛀜Inadvertence;Excusable  МNeglect;Fraud,etc.   OnMmotionanduponsuchterms  asarejust,thecourtmayrelieveapartyorthepartyslegalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderorproceedingforthefollowingreasons:(1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;(2)fraud(whetherheretoforedenominatedintrinsicorextrinsic),misrepresentation,orothermisconductofanadverseparty;(3)thejudgmentisvoid;(4)thejudgmenthasbeensatisfied,releasedordischarged,orapriorjudgmentuponwhichitisbasedhasbeenreversedorotherwisevacated,oritisnolongerequitablethatajudgmentshouldhaveprospectiveapplication;or(5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment....     ` TheSupremeCourtofTennesseehasstated, Rule60.02actsasanescapevalvefrompossibleinequitythatmightotherwisearisefromtheunrelentingimpositionoftheprincipleoffinalityimbeddedinourproceduralrules. Thompson  v.FiremensFundIns.Co. ,798S.W.2d235,238(Tenn.1990). Becauseofthe  importanceofthisprincipleoffinality,theescapevalveshouldnotbeeasilyopened. Toneyv.MuellerCo. ,810S.W.2d145,146(Tenn.1991).    ` Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02isnotamechanismtobeutilizedbyapartywhoismerelydissatisfiedwiththeresultoftheircase. Id .Theruleismeanttobeusedin " onlythosecasesthatmeetoneormoreofthecriterialistedwithintherule. Id.  $  WhileFatherallegesthatreliefiswarrantedunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02 duetothemistake,inadvertenceandmisrepresentationofthecorrectamountofguidelinechildsupport,theonlypossiblebasisintherecordforreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02isundersubsection(1)oftherulesincetheproofdoesnotrevealanymisrepresentationonMotherspart.Specifically,inordertograntFathersrequestedreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1),theremustexistsome mistakethatwouldwarrantsuchrelief. ` WheretheextraordinaryreliefprovidedforinTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)isrequested,themovantcarriestheburdentosetforthinapetitionormotionfactsestablishingwhymovantwasjustifiedinfailingtoavoidthemistake,inadvertence, 844 surpriseorneglect. Hopkinsv.Hopkins ,572S.W.2d639,640(Tenn.1978).The  partyseekingrelieffromajudgmentunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)carriestheburdenofprooftoestablishfactswhichgiverisetotherequestedrelief. Bivinsv.  HospitalCorp.ofAm. ,910S.W.2d441,446(Tenn.App.1995).    ` ThisCourthasstatedthat apartymustmakesomeshowingofwhyhewasjustifiedinfailingtoavoidmistakeorinadvertence.Grosscarelessnessisnotenough.Ignoranceoftherulesisnotenough,norisignoranceofthelaw. Kilbyv.Sivley ,   745S.W.2d284,287(Tenn.App.1987)(quoting11CharlesAlanWright&ArthurR.Miller, FederalPracticeandProcedure 2858(1973)); seealsoAlgeev.State  FarmGen.Ins.Co. ,890S.W.2d445,447(Tenn.App.1994).Additionally,the  SupremeCourtofTennesseehasstatedthatif ignoranceofthelawisapropergroundforreliefunderRule60.02,TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,itishardtoconceivehowanyjudgmentcouldbesafefromassaultonthatground. FoodLion,  Inc.v.WashingtonCountyBeerBd. ,700S.W.2d893,896(Tenn.1985). Itis,of  course,ageneralruleoflawthatthecourtswillsometimesgrantrelieffromamistakeoffact,butnotamistakeoflaw. MetropolitanDev.&Hous.Agencyv.Hill ,518 "  S.W.2d754,768(Tenn.App.1974). SeealsoNailsv.AetnaIns.Co. ,834S.W.2d $$  289,29394(Tenn.1992)( ourexaminationofthemedicalandotherproofleadsustoconcludethattherewasnomistakewithinthemeaningofTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02,inthattherewasnomistakeoffactconcerningNails'injuryanddisabilitythenexistingatthetimeoftheoriginalhearinginthecase). ` Accordingly,itiswellestablishedthatamistakeoflawwillnotwarrantthereliefprovidedforunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1).Therefore,inorderforFathertobegrantedreliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1),hisallegedmistakenbeliefthatitwaspropertobasethecalculationofchildsupportongrossincomemustbeamistakeoffactratherthanamistakeoflaw. ` PursuanttoT.C.A.365101,theTennesseeChildSupportGuidelinesset 8(44 forththeminimumamountofchildsupportanoncustodialparentisrequiredtopaytothecustodialparent.TheChildSupportGuidelinesprovideinpertinentpart:8 ` 8 ` !` !Thechildsupportawardisbasedonaflatpercentageoftheobligors netincome asdefinedinparagraph(4)   belowdependingonthenumberofchildrenforwhomsupportisbeingsetintheinstantcase....    8 `  ` !` !  `     h *    * p   *    8 `  ` !` ! 8 ` 8 ` !` !Afterdeterminingthe netincome oftheobligor,that   amountistoberoundeduptothenextdollaramount.Thatamountisthenmultipliedbythepercentagebelowthatcorrespondstothenumberofchildrenforwhomsupportisbeingsetintheinstantcase....    Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.tit.10,ch.124024.03(2)and(5)(1989,revised1994)(emphasisadded). ` Motherreliesheavilyupon Hamptonv.Hampton ,No.01A019108CH00311,  1992WL1400(Tenn.App.M.S.Jan.8,1992)forhercontentionthatFathersallegedmistakenbeliefthathischildsupportobligationwasbasedonhisgrossincomeconstitutesamistakeoflawtherebypreventingreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1).In Hampton ,thepartiesenteredintoachildcustodyandproperty ! settlementagreementwhichwasincorporatedintotheirdivorcedecree.Theagreementprovidedinpertinentpartthatthefatherwastoprovidesupportforthepartiesminorchilduntilthechildwastwentyoneyearsofage.Inanattempttovoidtheagreement,thefathercontendedthathewasmistakenastotheageofmajoritywhenagreeingtopaysupportuntilthechildwastwentyoneyearsofage,andthatsuchmistakewarrantedrelieffromtheagreement. Id. at*1.ThisCourt - )) characterizedthefathersmistakeregardingtheageofmajorityasamistakeoflawandheldthatsuchamistakedidnotvoidanotherwisevalidagreement. Id. at*3. 1--  ` Fatherattemptstodistinguish Hampton byarguingthatunderstandingthe 3// ChildSupportGuidelinesisamuchmorecomplicatedandoneroustaskthandeterminingthelegalageofmajority.However,aplainreadingoftheChildSupportGuidelinesclearlystatesthatchildsupportistobebaseduponapercentageofnet 955 income. ` Mistakeoflawoccurswhenapartyknowsthefactsofthecasebutisignorantofthelegalconsequences. Stateexrel.McCormackv.AmericanBldg.&LoanAssn ,  177Tenn.385,428,150S.W.2d1048,1065(1941).ItisclearthatthelawinTennesseeisthatchildsupportistobebaseduponnetincome. See Tenn.Comp.   R.&Regs.tit.10,ch.124024.03(2)and(5).Amistakebasingchildsupportongrossincomeincontraventionoftheplaindirectivesofthelawnecessitatestheconclusionthatsuchamistakeisclearlyamistakeoflaw.Fromtherecord,itisevidentthatFatherwasawareofthefactsofthecase,butwasignorantofthelaw.ThisisnotthetypeofmistakethatTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02isdesignedtocorrect.Thus,weconcludethatFathersallegedmistakenbeliefthatchildsupportwasbasedongrossincomeconstitutesamistakeoflaw.Assuch,reliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02shouldnothavebeengrantedsinceamistakeoflawisnotavalidgroundforreliefascontemplatedbytherule. ` Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsofappealareassessedagainsttheappellee. `     h      p _________________________________ `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD, '##  `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.  ( $$  CONCUR: * &&  ____________________________________ ,((  DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE  -)) ____________________________________ DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE      5