### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE SE PT E MB E R 3 , 200 8 S es sio n MEL ODYYO UN G v. D ONA LD GRE GOR Y G ODF REY Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Marion County

No. 16674 Bud dy D. P err y, Judge

No. M2007- 02308-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Dece m ber 19, 2008
T h is a p p e a l inv o lv e s an o r d e r e n te r e d b y an A la b a ma c o u rt in 1 9 9 6 r e g ar d in g c h il d custody and su pp or t. T he tr ia l court mod if

ie d the or de r to re qu ir e the fathe r to pay futur e and re tr oa c tiv e c hil d support. We vacate t he portion of t he order dealing with modification, beca use t he trial court lacke d jur isd ic tio n to mod if

y the or de r, and

re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t V ac at e d and Rem anded A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J .,W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., and J. S TEVE N S T A FF O RD , J ., joined. Melissa Thomas B levins, J asper , TN, for Appellant J ennife r Austin Mitchell, Dunlap, TN, f or Appe llee-2- OP IN ION I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY Melody Young (“Mother ”) a

nd Donald Gr eg ory

Godfre y (“F ather ”) a

re the pare nts of J acob (“Son”) , who was bor

n in 1989. Mother and F ather wer e never married. Mother lives in Tennessee , and F ather

lives in Alabama. Son lived in Tenne ssee with Mother f or the fir st few y ear s of his life, and F ather

would keep Son on we ekends. In approximately 1996, Mother bec ame involved in an abusive re lationship. Accordingto Mother, she asked Father if Son c ould live with him bec ause she fea red f or Son’s safe ty . Acc ording to Fathe r, he beca me conc erne d about Mother’ s circumstanc es and “took a ction” himself. In any event, the Ju v en i l e Court of J ackson County , Alabama , held a he ari ngon

July 11 , 1 99 6, and

su bs e qu e ntl y

e nte re d a “ Chi ld Cus tod

y Or de r, ” wh ic h pr ov ide d, in pa rt :

This matter came t o be heard on J uly 11, 1996, on the petition of the father for c ustody

of the pa rties’ mi nor child. . . . The parties and guardia n ad litem eng ag ed in s e ttl e me nt n e g oti a tio ns and e ve ntu a lly

re a c he d a

so lut ion wh ic h w a s a c c e pta

ble to the Court. . . . I t is, THEREFORE, ORDERED, AD J UDGED and DECREED: 1. . . . [T] he child’s custody is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of a c on se nt d e c re e e nte re d o n A ugus t 9, 19 95 . T he fathe r h a s su bs equ entl y petitioned the Court for sole c ustody of the c hild . . . .-3- 2. The fa ther shall have the prim ary custody of t he parties’ m inor child. The mother shall have seconda ry custody of the c hild. T h e m o t her sha ll have standa rd visitation wit h the child as set out on the Court’s attached E x hibit “A”.

. . . . 4. The mother will provide a policy of hea lth insurance f

or the c hild which is equal to or better

than the pre sent plan of he alth insurance provided by the father fo r t he c hil d. Th e fathe r c ur re ntl y pr ov ide s in sura

nc e fo r t he c hil d thro ug h h is employ er, the city

of S cottsboro, Alabama. Alternatively , the m other shall pay to the fathe r child support in the amount of his insuranc e pre mium in orde r that the father
may c on tin ue pr ov idi nghe a lthins ur anc e on the c hil d. Th a t pr e mium is pr e se ntl y $202. 0 0 per month. The mother shall pay this amount to t he father be g inning on Aug ust 1, 1996 and on the first day of ea ch month there afte r. T h i s ch i l d support pay ment shall be delinquent a fter the fifth day of ea ch month. Eac h party shall bear
on e -h a lf of the c hil d’ s unin sure d me dic a l e xpe ns e s.

. . . . 10 . All p ri or

or de rs of thi s Co ur t no t in c on fl ic t he re wi th s ha ll r e ma in i n f ull fo rc e and e ff e c t. Son liv e d w ithF a the r i n A la

bama fo r t he nex t tw o y e ars , a

nd Mo the r p a id a

pp ro xima te ly

$2 35 in child support per month.

I n 1998, Son returned to Te nnessee to live with Mother. Son stay ed with Father on wee kends
and duri ngthe su mme r. F a the r b e g an p ay ingMo the r b e tw e e n $ 15 0 and $2 00 pe r m on th i n c hil d-4-

su pp or t. Ho we ve r, the pa

rt ie s d id n ot r e tur

n to c ourt , s o th e 19 96 Al a bama Or de r r e ma ine d in

e ff e c t.

On Marc h 23, 2006, when Son wa s sevente en y ear s old, Mother filed a “Petition to Modi fy and to Enroll For eig n Dec ree ” in the Circuit Court of Mar ion County , Tenne ssee, se eking enfor ceme nt and m odification of the 1996 Alabama Orde r. Specific ally , Mother re quested that the
c ourt g ra nt h e r p ri mary

c us tod y of Son , o rd e r F a the r t o p ay c hil d s up po rt

a c c ordi ng to the c hil d support g uidelines, and orde r F ather to pay one-ha lf of Son’s uncove red me dical, dental, and vision expenses. Among other thi ng s, Father contended that the t rial court lacked jur isdiction to determine the issues prese nted by

Mother, and he argued that the 1996 Al ab am a Order should re main “the preva iling orde r” in the c ase.

The trial court held a he aringon Marc h 27, 2007, and Mother a nd Father both testified. Son
was e ighte en y ear s old at the time of the hea ring and a junior in high sc hool. On April 27, 2007, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d an or de r pr ov idi ng that the 19 96 Al a bama Or de r “ sh a ll b e e nr oll e d, purs ua nt t o T.C.A. § 36-6-229,” and fur ther providingthat “the Court ac cepts jurisdiction, pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-6-216 and T.C.A. § 36-6-218, in order to modify the J ackson County , Alabama custody order enter ed Jul y

11, 1996.” The trial c ourt did not address issues of c ustody or visitation, but it order ed F a the r t o b e g in p ay ingMo the r $ 73 2 p e r m on th i n c hil d s up po rt , e ff e c tiv e Ap ri l 1, 20 07
. Th e c hil d support would terminate June 1, 2008, afte r Son g raduated from hig h school. I n addition, the trial
c o u rtf o u n d t h a tF a t h e r

“ o w e d a d u t y t o p ay c h i l d s u

p p o rt p u r s u an t t o t h e G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e n i n e t yfour ( 9 4) months that the minor child resided in the phy sical custody of [Mother]” and awa

rded Mother a judgme nt a g ainst Father for “$53,808.00 for the unde rpay ment of child support.” Mother-5-

was a lso awar ded a judg ment ag ainst Father for $791.89 for unc overe d medical a nd dental expenses incurre d on behalf

of Son.

F a the r f ile d a mot ion to a lte r o r a

me nd the jud g me nt, wh ic h th e tr ia l court g ra nte d in pa rt , re d u ci n g Fa t h er ’s arre ar age to $26,465.94. F a the r t ime ly fi le d a no tic e of a pp e a l.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED
On appe al, Father pre sents the following issues for re view, slig htly restate d:

1. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in finding that it had subject matter jur isdiction; 2. Whether t he trial court e rre d in failing to impute income to Mother for pur poses of c alculating child support beca

use she wa s willfully

unemploy ed; 3. Whether t he trial court erre d in retroa ctively modify ing the order of the Juvenile Court of J ackson County , A la

bama ; 4. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in ca lculating the child support ar rea rag e owe d to Mother; 5. Whe the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in awa rd inga tto rn e y ’s fe e s.

For the following rea sons, we vac ate a portion of the dec is i o n of the c ircuit court a nd rema nd for fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s.

III . S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEWO n a ppea l , F at her doe s n ot c h al l en g e t h e r eg i s t r at i on of t h e 1996 Al aba ma O r der i n T en n es s ee f or 1 en fo rc e m e n t. H e si m p l y chal l enges t he t ri al co urt ’ s juri sdi ct i o n t o m o d i f y t he 1 9 9 6 A l ab am a O rder f o l l o wi ng re g istra tio n . R e g istra tio n o f a fo re ign d e c re e in T e n n e sse e d o e s n o t a u to m a tica lly g ra n t to T e n n e sse e c o u rts t h e a u tho rity to m o d ify the d e c re e . See T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -5 -2 6 0 3 (c ) (“E x c e p t a s o the rw ise p ro v id e d in this p a rt, a trib u n a l o f t h is st at e shal l recognize and enf o rce, but m ay no t m o d i f y , a regi st ered ord er i f

t he i ss ui ng t ri b unal had jur i sdi ct i o n. ”). -6- Wheth er a

court ha s jurisdiction is a question of law, which we revie w de novo with no presumption of cor

rec tness of the trial c ourt’s ruling
. Butt on v. Wa ite , 208 S.W .3d 366, 369 (Tenn. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Cawood , 134 S.W .3d 159, 163 (Tenn. 2004) ). “The conce pt of subject matter jurisdiction impl icates a

court’s pow er to a djudicate a particula r ty pe of c ase or

controve rsy .” Sta ats v. McKinnon , 2 0 6 S
. W
. 3 d 5 3 2 , 5 4 1 -4 2 (T en n . C t
. Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Os bo rn v . M arr , 127 S.W .3d 73 7, 73 9 ( Te nn . 2 00 4) ; Toms v. Toms , 9 8 S. W.3 d 1 40 , 1 43 (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; First Am. Tru s t Co. v. Franklin-Murray D ev. Co. , 59 S.W .3d 135, 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)) . Pa rt i es ca nnot confe r subject matter jur isdiction on a trial court by appea ranc e, plea , consent, silence , or wa iver. Id. at 542 (c i t i n g S ta tee xr e l. D e p ’ t o f S o c . S e r v s . v . W right , 73 6 S. W.2 d 8 4, 85 n. 2 ( Te nn . 1 98 7) ; Team Design v. G ottlieb , 104 S.W .3d 512, 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002))
.

IV. D I S CUS S I ON

A. Su bject Matter Jurisdiction

On a pp e a l, F a the r a

rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to mod if

y the 19 96 Al a

bama Or d er as t o ch i l d

s u p p o rt
. I n t er s t at e j u ri s d i ct i o n al qu es t i o n s re gar d i n g ch i l d s u p p o rt an d arre ar age 1 matters ar e g overne d by

the Uniform Interstate F amily Suppo rt Act (“ UI FSA”) , Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2001, et seq . State e x rel. Stricklan d v. Copley , N o . W2 0 0 7
- 0 1 8 3 9
- CO A
- R3
- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL-7-

3 8 7 5 4 2 5 , at * 4 (T en n . C t
. Ap p . Au g. 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g I n r e J

. B

. W. , No. M2007-02541-COA- R9- CV, 2007 WL 4562885, at *1 (Te nn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2007) , p er m. a pp. denied

(Tenn. A pril 7, 20 08 )) . B e fo re we e xami ne UI F SA, ho we ve r, we mus t a dd re ss Mo the r’ s c on te nti on

tha t th is c a se involves an ac tion to set child support, rather tha n a modification action.

1. The 1996 Alabama Order
On appe al, Mother a

rg ues t h at t he 1996 Alaba ma Orde r did not establish a child support ob lig a tio n a

nd , th e re fo re , th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r d id n ot a mou nt t o a mod if ic a tio n o f c hil d s up po rt
. Ac c or din g to M ot her, “she w a s n e ve r o rd e re d to pa y c hil d s up po rt

and so the re wa s n oth ingto modify .” We disag ree .

As pr e vio us ly

me nti on e d, the 19 96 Al a bama Or de r s ta te d, in r e le va

nt p art : Th e mot he r w ill pr ov ide a

po lic y of he a lthins ur anc e fo r t

he c hil d w hic h is e qu a l to or better than the pre sent plan of health ins uranc e provide d by the father for

the child. Th e fathe r curr e ntl y pr ov ide s insura nc e fo r the c hil d thr ou g h his em plo y e r, the c ity of Sc ott sb oro , Al a

bama . A lte rn a tiv e ly , th e mot he r s ha ll p ay

to t he fa the r c hil d support in the amount of his insurance premium in order that the father may

continue pro v id in g h e a lt

h in s u r an c e o n th e c h il d
. T h a t p r e mi u m is p r e s e n tl y $ 2 0 2
. 0 0 per month. The mother shall pay this amount to t he father be g inning on August 1, 1996 and on t h e fi rs t d ay

of ea ch month there afte r. This child support pay ment shall be-8-

delinquent af

te r th e f if th d ay o f e a c h mo n th
. E a c h p arty

s h a ll b e ar

o n e - h a lf o f the
c hil d’ s unin sure d me dic a l e xpe ns e s.

At the he ari ng be fo re the tr ia l c ourt , Mo the r wa s a sk e d if sh e re mit te d any c hil d s up po rt

pa y me nts to Fathe r while Son was living in Alabama, to whic h she responded, “Ye s, Idid. . . . $235, somewher e in there , a mont h.” She also testified t hat s he had a lway s provided hea lth insurance f or Son.

I n Alabama , “[t] he cost of health insurance is f actor ed into the calc ulation ofthe total childsupport obligation.” Alle

gr o v . St ate e x r e l. L e tt , 747 So.2d 913, 914 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (citing Ala. R. J ud. Admin. 32(B) (7))
. Alabama ’s child support g uidelines provide that the a ctual cost of a pre mium to provide health insuranc e bene fits for a c hild shall be added to the “ basic c hild support obliga tion” an d

d iv id e d b e tw e e nth e p ar e n ts in

p r o p o rti o nto th e ir

in c o me s . A la
. R. Ju d
. A d mi n. 32 (B )( 7) (1 99 3) . I f t

he ob lig or

is a c tua lly

pa y ingthe pr e mium, th e cost of the he a lthins ur a nc e is deducte d from the oblig or’s shar e of the “tot al ch i l d s u p port obligation.” Id. I n o the r w or ds , in Alabama , “a tr ial court is re quired to dete rmine if a de duction is to be allowed in a monthlychildsupport obligation ba sed on the fac t that he alth-insuranc e premiums are being paid on beha lf of the child in acc ordanc e with Rule 32(B )(7) , Ala. R. J ud. Admin.” V olovecky v. Hof

fm an , 903 So.2d 844, 848 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); Jackson v. Jackson , 777 S o . 2 d 1 55, 158 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). I f a de duction is allowed, the insura nce pr emium that the obligor is require d to pay is considere d part of his “over all child-support oblig ation.” See, e .g. , Mills v. Dailey , No. 2060807,
--- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2623930, at *4 (Ala . Civ. App. J uly 3, 2008).-9-

F ro m ou r r e vie w o f t

he 19 96 Al a

bama Or de r, it a

pp e ars that th e juv e nil e c ourt wa s a c tin g in compliance wi th the applicable child support g uidelines in order ing Mothe r to pay child support direc tly to Fathe r if she did not pay the hea lth insurance pr emiums. There is nothing in the re cord to expl ain how the juvenile court calc ulated the amount of child support Mother owe d, but that issue is not before us. Reg ardle ss o f whether Mother a ctually paid Son’s health insuranc e pre mium, or

“ c hil d s up po rt ” dir e c tly

to F a the r, we c on c lud e that th e Al a bama c ourt

did e sta bli shMo the r’ s c hil d
su pp or t ob lig a tio n, and

he r a rgume nt t o th e c on tr ary

is w ith ou t me ri t.

2. M odi fic at ion of C hild S uppor t P r ov isi ons

“The Uniform I nterstate Family Support A ct, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 5-2201, et seq. , c on tr ols the establishment, enf

orce ment, or modification of support order s acr oss state lines.” LeTe llier v. LeTe llier , 4 0 S. W.3 d 4 90 , 4 93 (T e nn . 2 00 1) . In 1 99 6, Con g re ss e na c te d a law r e qu ir inga ll f

if ty states t o adopt UI FSA by J anuar y 1, 1998. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 666(f) (1996)) . UI FSA addr esses p r o b l e m s t h a t c an ar i s e w h e n a p ar e n t an d c h i l d l i v e i n o n e s t a t e , b u t t h e o b l i g o r p ar e n t liv e s in another state. State ex rel. La Selva v . Ziom ek , No. E2005-00542-COA- R3-CV, 2006 WL 433635, at *5 (Te nn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2006)
. “The UI FSA is a c omplex statute, but it is designed to pre vent the occ urre nce of

competing multis tate support orde rs; thus, t h e ab i l i t y of one state to modify

the prior orde r of a

nother is extremely

limit ed.” S

t r i c k l a nd , 20 08 WL38 75 42 5, a t *4 . “ UI F SA i s intended to re cog nize that only one valid support order may be eff ective at any

one time.” LeTe llier , 40 S.W .3d at 493 (citation om itted). Key to this objective is the concept of “continuing e x clusive jurisdiction.” Id. The state that issues a child support order has continuing , exclusive jurisdiction-10-

ov e r th a t o r d e r , an d n o o th e r s tate ma y mo d if y th e o r d e r a s lo n g a s th e is s u in g s tate reta ins continuing e x clusive jurisdiction. Id. ; See also Te nn . Cod e Ann. § 36 -5 -2 20 5( d) (“ A tri buna l of thi s state shall re cog nize the continui ng , exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of anothe r state whic h has issued a child-suppor

t order pur suant to parts 20-29 or a law substantially

simil ar to pa

rts 20-29.”)
. The issuing tribunal reta ins continuing, e x clu s i v e jurisdiction over a child support order
e xce pt i n n a rr ow ly

de fi ne d c ir c ums tanc e s. Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d s e c tio n 3 6- 5- 22 05 pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art :
(a ) Atr ibu

na l of thi s st a te iss uin g a

su pp or t or de r c on sis te nt w iththe law o f t his state has continuing , exclusive jurisdiction over a child-suppor t order: (1) As longas this state rema ins the residenc e of the obligor , the individual obligee , or the c hild for whose be nefit the support orde r is issued; or (2) Until all of the pa

rties wh o are individuals have filed w ritten consents with the tr ibu na l of thi s st a te fo r a

tr ibu na l of ano the r s ta te t o mo dif

y the or de r a

nd a ssume continuing, e x clusive jurisdiction.

Al a bama ’s ve rs ion

of the statut e sim ila

rl y pr ov ide s:
(a ) Ac ourt of thi s sta te iss uin g a su pp or t ord e r co ns ist e nt wit

h the law o f t

his state has continuing , exclusive jurisdiction over a child-suppor t order:Co u r t s gi v e s u bs t a n t i a l de f e r e n c e t o t h e “ Com me n t s t o Of f i c i a l T e x t ” c on t a i n e d t h r ou g h ou t UI FS A. 2 L eT ell i er , 40 S.W
. 3 d at 49 3 , n. 2
. A l t ho ugh t he co m m ent s are not b i nd i ng, t hey are “ver y pe rs uasi ve i n i nt erpret i ng t he s t at ut e t o whi ch t hey appl y . ” I d. (quo t i ng Sm i t h v

. Fi r s t Uni on Nat ’ l Bank , 9 5 8 S.W
. 2 d 1 1 3 , 11 6 (T enn. C t
. A p p . 19 9 7 ))
.

-11- (1) a s long a s this st ate r emains the re sidence of the oblig or, the individual oblige e, or the c hild for whose be nefit the support orde r is issued; or (2) until all of the pa

rties who ar e individuals have f iled written consents with the
c ourt of this s ta te fo r a

tr ibu na l of ano the r s ta te to m od if

y the or de r a

nd a ssume continuing, e x clusive jurisdiction.

Ala. Code § 30-3A -205. I n sum, “[a] Tenne ssee court may not modify

a child support orde r fr om another state unless that state ha s lost it s continuing, exclusive jurisdiction bec ause ne ither par ent
no r t he c hil d s til l r e sid e s in th at st a te or the pa rt ie s c on se nt i n w ri tin g fo r a no the r s ta te to a ssume jurisdiction to modi fy .” C l i b u rn v. B ergeron , N o. M2002-01386-COA- R3-CV, No. M2001-03157- COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL31890868, at *11 (Te nn. Ct. App. Dec
. 31, 2002). As long a s the issuing state re t a i n s i t s c on tin

uin g , e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n o ve r i ts c hil d s up po rt or de r, a re g ist e ri ngsis te r s ta te is p re c lud e d f

ro m mo dif

y ing that or de r. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 3 6- 5- 26 11 , o ff ic ia l c omm e nt. 2

Acc ording ly , Tenne ssee Cod e An notated sec tion 36-5-2611(a ) conf ers subjec t matter jur isd ic tio n o n a

Te nn e sse e c ourt

to m od if y a sis te r s ta te ’s c hil d s up po rt or de r a s f

oll ow s:-12-

(a) After a child support order

issued in another state has bee n reg istered in this state, the re sponding tribuna l of this state may modify that order only if § 36-5-2613 doe s
no t a pp ly and a ft e r n oti c e and

he ari ngit f

ind s th a t: (1 ) T he fo llo wi ngre qu ir e me nts are me t: (A) The ch il

d , th e in div id

u a l o b li g e e, a n d th e o b li g o r d o n o t r es id

e in th e is s u ing sta te ; (B ) A petitioner who is a nonresident of thi s state seek s modification ; and (C) The r espondent is subject to the persona l jur isdiction of the tribunal of this state;
or

(2) The child, or a party who is a n individual, is subject to the per sonal jurisdiction of the tribunal of

this state and all of t h e p a r t ies who are individuals have filed wri tte n c on se nts in the issu i n g t ribunal for a tribunal of this state to modify the support order

and assume c ontinuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the or der. . . .

(empha sis added). It is undisput ed in this case that Fathe r re mains a re sident of Alabama, and the petitioner see king modific ation is a resident of t his state. I n addition, there is no indication that the pa rt ie s f i l e d w r i t t e nc o n s e n ti nA l a

b a m a f o r t h e C i r c u i tC o u rto f

M ar i o nC o u n t y , T e n n e s s e e , to modify the 1996 Alaba

ma Orde r. Ther efor e, the Ala bama c ourt reta ined continuing , exclusive jurisdiction over the 1996 Alabama Order, and the trial cour t was without subject matter jurisdiction-13-

to modify the Orde r. B ased on the resolution of this jurisdictional is s u e, it is not necessa ry for us to c on sid e r F a the r’ s a dd iti on a l is su e s.

V. C ONCL US I ON

For the afor ementioned rea sons, w e vacate the judgme nt of the circ uit court to the extent that the cour t modified the child support provisions of the 1996 Alabama Orde r. We note, howe ver, that Fa ther did not r a is e anis s u e o na p p e a l r e g ar d in g th e r e g is tr a ti o no f th e 1 9 9 6 A la

b a ma O r d e r f or enfor ceme nt. The 1996 Alaba ma Orde r re quired F ather to pay “one- half of the child’s uninsured medical e x penses,” and Mother’ s petition to enr oll the decr ee soug ht a judg ment for F ather ’s share of unpaid medic al expenses. The trial court ini tially enter ed a judgment a g ainst Father for $791.89 for unc overe d medical a

nd dental expen ses incurr ed by Mother on beha lf of Son. This portion of the jud g me nt w ou ld n ot b e dis tur be d b y our r uli ngre g ard ingthe tr ia l c ourt ’s la c k o f j ur isd ic tio n to modify the dec ree . Fr om our revie w of the amende d order , howeve r, it is not clear w hether the trial
c ourt a lte re d o r eli mi nated

the po rt ion

of the jud g me nt r e g ard ingun c ov e re d me dic a l e xpe ns e s. Th e re fo re , o n r e mand , th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld a dd

re ss t his lim ite d e nf

or cem ent is su e. Co sts of thi s-14-

a p p e a l ar e t a x e d

t o t h e a p p e l l e e , M e l o dy Y o u n g , f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n

m ay i s s u e i f

n e c e s s a r y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GH ERS , P. J., W.S
.