### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Se pte m be r 21, 200 4 S es sio n GAR Y L . T UR NA GE v. JUD ITH WA SHKA TU RN AGE Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. 161629 R.D. Rober t L. Child ers, Judge

No. W2003-02790-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Novem ber 15, 2004
This is a child support case involving the a llocation of private school tuition. The trial court order ed thefathe r t o p a y

on e -h a lf of themin or

c hil dr e n’ s p ri vate sc ho ol tuit ion . We a ff irm.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t heCi r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined. S

. D e n i s e M c C r ar y

a n d S t e p h a n i e M

. M i c h e e l , M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e ap p e l l a n t , G ar y

L. Turnag e. Ba rbar a McCulloug h, Memphis, Tennesse e, for the appe llee, Judi th Washka Turnag e. OP IN ION Sta te ment o

f t he Fac ts a nd P

ro c e dur al H ist or y On April 19, 2000, Ga

ry L . Turnag e (“ Father” ) and Judith W ashka Turnag e (“ Mother”) wer e divorc ed in Shelby

Countypursuant to a f

inal decr ee of

divorce that incorporated a marital dissoluti on ag ree ment (“MDA ”). TheMDA provided that the parties we re e ntitled to joi nt custody , but that Mother would be the primary residential pa

rent of the parties’ three minor children, Elizabeth, Rac hel, and Hannah (c ollectively the “c hildren”) , who at the time of the divorce wer e ag es fourteen ( 14), nine (9) , and six (6), r espec tively . Additionally , the parties ag ree d that Mother would be the ultimate decision maker should the parties disag ree on issues relative to the children. Pursuant to the MDA, F ather ag ree d to pay

Mother child support in the amount $1,576.00 per month, an amount “based upon a stipulated earning c apac ity of $65, 480.76.” D uring theT he ap p en d i x t o M o t he r’ s re sp o nsive b rief in t his ap p ea l co ntains a gu ard i an ad l i t em rep o rt p rep are d b y M s. 1 Z a c h a ria s. T h is re p o rt w a s n o t m a d e a p a rt o f the re c o rd o n a p p e a l. R u le 2 8 o f the T e n n e sse e R u le s o f A p p e ll a te P r ocedur e o nl y al l ows a b r i ef ’ s o pt i onal ap pendi x t o cont ai n part s o f t he r ecor d. T enn . R

. A pp . P

. 2 8 ( 20 04 )

. T her efore, b y ord er of

t hi s C o urt , M s. Zacha ri as’ s guardian ad l i t em repo rt was st ri cken f rom t he reco rd. M s. Zacha ri as’ s t est i m o ny regardi ng t he chi l d ren’ s d evel o p m ent i n s cho o l and rel a tio nshi p s wi t h t hei r parent s, how ever, remains a pa rt of t he r ec or d. -2- marria g e, ea ch of the children attended St. Be nedict’s School, a private Catholic school whe re Mo the r w or

ke d a s a te a c he r. As a n e mpl oy e e of St. B e ne dic t’ s, Mo the r r e c e ive d a dis c ou nt i n tuition for the children. A s part of the MDA, the pa rties ag ree d to the following provision reg arding the childre n’s private school tuition: The pa rties ac knowledg e that it is their desire and in the best interest of the children f or the c hildren to continue to attend private school at St. Benedic t’s Sc ho ol. Ho we ve r, bo th [p art ie s] a c kn ow le dg e thefi nanc ia l c on str a int s c ur re ntl y exis ting. The ref

ore, the parties a g ree that eac h of them shall pay one-ha lf of the tuition, books , and fe es incurr ed by the childre n for the sc hool y ear of 2000-2001, a ft e r the app lic a tio n o f a ll a pp lic abledis c ou nts , g rants , andsc ho lars hip s. The issue of w hether

further private sc hooling will occ ur af ter the y ear

of 2000-2001 is here by

rese rved f

or re view by

the parties in Febr

uary 2001. I n th e Spring of

20 01 , F a the r a dv ise d M oth e r that hewa s n o lo ng e r a bleto c on tribu te to the childre n’s tuition bey ond the 2000-01 school y ear . At Mother’s r equest, F ather informed the children that they

would no longe r be attending St. B enedic t’s. I n Aug ust 2001, however , Mother re -enr olled the childre n in St. Benedic t’s. On September 25, 2001, Mother filed he r Petition t o Modify

Final De cre e of D ivorce to Modify Visitation And/Or CustodyAnd For Pay ment of Private School (“ Mother’s Petition”). Althoug h it is notclea r fr om the rec ord how Mother fina nced the payment of tuition, Mother continued to send the c hildren to St. Bene dict’s for the 2001- 02 and 2002-03 sc hool y ear s. On J anuary 9, 2003, by

consent orde r, the trial c ourt appointed Lisa Z acha

rias (“ Ms. Z acha

rias”) as g uardia n ad litem to repre sent the intere st of the children. Mother ’s Petition ult imately came to be hea

rd on September

5, 2003. At the hea

ring on Mother’s Petition, the trial court he ard pr oof fr om Mother, Father, and Ms. Z a c ha

ri a s. Th e e vid e nc e de mon str a te d th a t Mo ther e arn e d $ 29 ,6 22 .0 0 ing ro ss i nc omein 1 20 02 fr om h e r e mpl oyme nt a t St. B e ne dic t’ s a nda dd iti on a l pa rt -t ime e mpl oyme nt. Mo the r a lso testified that she re ceive d an ea rned inc ome tax credit, allowing her to a void income tax on her earnings. In addition to her monthly wag es, Mother r ece ived $1,576.00 in child support payments, resulting in roug hly $4,000.00 per month in income. The proof showed that, during the y ear s of 2000, 2001, and 2002, F ather earned $54,036, $55,963, and $59,065 ea ch y ear , respe ctively . Father testified that, just prior to the hearing , he ha d b e e n tr a ns fe rr e d to a

ne w p os iti on , b ut h e a nti c ipate d e arn ing$6 5, 00 0. 00 in 2 00 3. I n h is aff idavit of income a nd expenses, Father listed a g ross monthlyincome of $4,922.16. A t theFa t h er ’ s n et mon t h l y i n come was re ac h ed a f t er dedu ct i n g FI CA, M edi ca r e, i n s u r an ce pr emi u ms , M i s s i s s i ppi 2 sta te inc o m e tax w ithh o ld ing , an d fed e ra l i n c o m e tax w ithh o ld ing . S inc e F a the r w a s tra n sfe rr e d b e fo re th e h e a rin g to a p o s i t i on i n T enn es s ee, t he deduct i on for M i s s i s s i pp i s t at e i ncome t ax wi l l no l onger occu r . T hu s , hi s mo nt hl y ne t i n come w i l l i n cr ea s e by $224. 08. -3- hearing, how ever , Father testified that he re ceive d betwee n $150 to $200 per month of re ntal inc omefr om r e a l pr op e rty he inh e ri te d f

ro m hi s f a the r. F a the r’ s a ff

ida vit lis te d a ne t mo nth ly income of $3,014.49. Father’s a ffidavit, howe ver, did not list the rental income of $150 to $200 2 per month. F ather ’s af

fidavit set forth itemized expenses totaling $4,065.00, r esulting in a monthlydefic it of $1,050.51. The trial c ourt, howeve r, took exception with severa l of the listed expenses, including e x penses f or a c ell phone; per sonal entertainment; Christm as and birthday g ifts; and an additional life insurance policy . The c ourt also noted F ather ’s fa ilure to ac count for any income tax refund, f

ailure to include renta l income, and inclusion of a deduction for M i s s i s s i p p i s t at e i n co m e t ax . I n i s s u i n g i t s ru l i n g fr o mt h e b en ch , t h e c o u rts t at ed t h e f o l l o wi n g: Mr . T urna g e ’s state me nts that hec a n’ t a ff or d to se ndhis daug hte rs to S t. Be nedict’s School any

longe r sort of rings hollow. It appea rs to the Court that he chooses not to af

ford it. He c hooses to spend his money in other way s other than for his daug hters’ private school e ducation. I n th e Cou rt ’s vie w, he is a bleto a ff or d it . I f h e wants to g e t othe r thin g s, then that’s fine . I f he w ants to buy other thing s, then let him go out and g et another job or two or thre e jobs, like Mrs. Turna g e has c hosen to do. After hearing the evidenc e, the tria l court ente red an order g ranting Mother’s pe tition wh ic h c on ta ine d, in r e le va nt p art , th e fo llo wi ng la ng ua g e :

1 . That the Plaintiff, Gar y L. Tu rnage , is to continue to pay the sum of $1,576.00 per month, as c hild support. . . . 2. That the Plaintiff, Gar y L. Tu rnage , is to continue to pay one-ha lf (1⁄2) of the private school tuition for the parties’ minor children. 2 .[si c] That the Plaintiff, Gar y L. Tu rnage , is to pay the sum of $6,000.00 for his shar e of the private sc hool tuiti on for the minor c hildren for the school y ear s of 2001/2002, and 2002/2003, at the r ate of $500.00 per month, eff ective O ctober

1, 2003, for a

period of twe lve (12) months, until the total sum o f $ 6 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 h a s b e e n p a idto [M o th e r ]. 3. That the Plaintiff, Gar y L. Tu rnage , is to pay the sum of $4,000.00 for his share of

the private school tuition for the minor children f or the school y ear

of 2003/2004, at the rate of $400.00 pe r month, eff ective O ctober

1, 2003, for aPur s u an t t o s ec t i on 36- 5- 101( e) ( 2) of t h e T en n es s ee Code, t h e ch i l d s u ppor t g u i del i n es w er e pr omu l g at ed by 3 t he T enn es s ee D epar t ment of H uman Ser vi ces . T enn . Co de Ann. § 36

- 5- 10 1(e) ( 1) ( 20 03 Supp. )

. T he gu i del i nes ca n b e fo und at T enness ee C o m p i l ed R ul es and R egul at i o ns 1 2 4 0

- 2

- 4

- . 0 1 t o - . 0 4 (20 0 4 ).

“[T ]h e p a re n t with w h o m the c h ild (r e n ) live p rim a ri ly w ill b e re fer re d to a s the o b lige e a n d the p a re n t with 4 who m t he chi l d (r en) do not p ri m ari l y l i ve wi l l be ref erred t o as t he o b l i go r. ” T enn. C o m p . R

. & R egs. 12 4 0

- 2

- 4

- . 0 3 (1). -4- pe ri odof te n ( 10 ) m on ths , u nti l th e su m to ta l of $4 ,0 00 .0 0 h a s b e e n p a id t o [M o th e r ]. Father ha s appea led from the trial court’s or der and prese nts the following issue f or our revie w: Whether the trial c ourt err ed in orde ring Father to pay one-ha lf of his minor children’ s private sc hool tuiti on. Stan dard of Revie w I n case s tried without a jury , Rule 13(d) of the Tenne ssee Rules of A ppellate Proc edure re qu ir e s th is C ou rt

to r e vie w the tria l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t de novo a c c o m p a n i e d b y a presumption of cor

rec tness, unless the evidenc e pre ponderates otherwise . Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) (2004). This Court has pre viouslyset forth the a pplicable standa

rd to apply

in case s wherethe tria l c ou rt de viate s f

ro m th e c hil d s up po rt

g uid e lin e s: 3 Whe n a tria l c ou rt

e xer c ise s it s d isc re tio n to de viate fr om the Chi ld Support Guidelines, we r eview its dec ision accor ding to the " abuse of discretion" standard of

revie w. Tallent v. Kates , 45 S.W .3d 556, 560 ((Te nn. Ct. App. 2000); State ex. re l. Vaughn v. Kaatrude , 21 S.W .3d 244, 248 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). A discretionary

decision will be set aside only when the trial court misconstrued or misapplied the controlling leg al principles or acte d contra

ry to the substantial weig ht of the evide nce. W hite v. Vande rbilt Univ. , 2 1 S. W.3 d 2 15 , 2 22 (T e nn . Ct

. App. 1999). The ref

ore, an appellate court will revie w a tria l court' s discretionary decision to determine: "( 1) whe ther the f actua l basis for the de cision is supported by thee vid e nc e , ( 2) wh e the r the tria l c ou rt ide nti fi e d andapp lie d th e app lic able leg al principles, and (3) whe ther the tria l court' s decision is within the rang e of accep tab le a lt erna ti ves ." Id . at 22 3; see also Kaatrude , 21 S.W .3d at 248. Berryhill v. Rhode s , No.W2001-00748-COA-R3-JV, 2002 W L 927442, at *6 (Te nn. Ct. App. May 2, 2002)( no perm. app. filed ). La w and

Anal y sis On appe al, Father make s three a rg uments reg arding the issue ra ised. First, F ather arg ues that befor e orde ring an oblig or spouse to pay one-ha lf of the private school tuition, the trial court 4 must make a thre shold finding that private school tuition is an “extraordinary educa tional expense” followe d by

a dete rmination of whethe r the oblig or spouse is able to a ffor d the tuition.-5-

Under section 36-5- 101 of the Te nnessee Code, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support dete rmined by the child support g uidelines is the proper amount. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5- 101(e) (1). The g uidelines set child support ac cording to a flat pe rce ntag e of the obligor ’s net income, “ depending on the number of children f

or whom support is being set.” Te nn . Co mp. R. & Re g s. c h. 12 40 -2 -4 -. 03 (2 ) ( 20 04 ). Th e c ou rt ma y de viate fr om the c hil d support awa

rd set under

the g uidelines if ce rtain criteria a re me t. Id . ch. 1240-2- 4-.04. Unde r the g uid e lin e s, theba se pe rc e nta g e a mou nt o f c hil d s up po rt is d e e me d a

min imu m, andpu rs uant t o rule 1240-2- 4-.04 of the g uidelines, “[e]x traordina ry educational expenses . . . sh all be a dd e d to the per centa g e ca lculated [under the c hild support guidelines].” Te nn. Comp. R. & Reg s. ch. 1240-2-4- .04(1)( c) ( emphasis adde d). I n 2000, the Tenne ssee Supre me Court expressly held that private school tuition i s an “extraordinary

educational expense,” and the tuition amount “mustbe adde d to the obligor ’s perc entag e of c hild support computed under the g uidelines. Ba rn e tt v . B ar ne tt , 27 S.W .3d 904, 90 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) . A s th e su pr e me c ou rt e xpla ine d, “ [t]he g uid e lin e s’ us e of thewo rd‘s ha ll’ leave s the trial court no discretion in adding extraordinary educational expenses to the obligor’ s computed per centa g e.” Id . In g e ne ra l, the g uid e lin e s r e qu ir e that th e fu ll amou nt o f the private school tuition be added to the oblig or’s ba se per centa g e amount bec ause the tuition i s an extraordinary

educational expense, over and above the base c hild support amount. Id . The c ourt in Ba rn e tt , howeve r, temper ed its holding by rec og nizi ng that “[s] trict application of the g uidelines . . . could impoverish one pa rent.” Id . at 908. As the c ourt rea soned, “if e x traordina ry expenses wer e . . . tac ked on ar bitrarily ,” this indiscriminate impositi on of private school tuition “could r esult in a tremendous disparity in the obligor ’s re lative per centa g e of inc ome contributed as child support—eve n to the extent of absorbing every penny of the oblig or’s income .” Id . at 90 8. Th us , intho se c a se s, “ it i s a pp ro priate to c on sid e r the inc omeof thec us tod ia l pa

re nt i n considering whether

a downwa

rd deviation from the total child support awa rd (pe rce ntag e plus extraordinary

educational expense) would ac hieve e quity ,” by equitably apportioning the tuition cost betwe en the pa

rties. Id . at 909. I n light of the holding in Ba rn e tt , th e ma nd a te of thec hil d s up po rt

g uid e lin e s is clea r—private school tuition i s an “e x traordina ry educational expense” that must be adde d to the obligor ’s base child support amount. I n appropriate ca ses, the court may consider a

downwar d de viatio n f

ro m th e tot a l c hil d s up po rt a wa rd , inor de r t o “ sp re a d th e c os t of tui tio n e qu ita

bly among the parties.” Ba rn e tt , 2 7 S. W.3 d at 90 9. I n th e c a se a t ba r, F a the r e arn e d a

pp ro xima te ly $65,000.00 from wor

king onejob, and Mother e arne d just under $30,000.00 from wor king multipl e jobs. The f

acts in this case come c lose to supporting the g uidelines’ mandate that Father pay thefu ll amou nt o f the tui tio n. Mo the r, ho we ve r, didno t se e k to ha ve F a the r p a y thefu ll amount. Thus, we c annot find that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion in ordering Father to pay one-ha lf the childre n’s private school tuition. Al te rn a tiv e ly , F a the r a

rg ue s th a t “ private sc ho ol tuit ionis i n th e natur e of c hil d support,”and an order

to pay private sc hool tuiti on is warr anted “ only when ther e is signif

icantSe ct i o n 3 6

- 5

- 1 0 1 (a)( 1 ) o f t he T enness ee C o d e p rovides t hat , i n chi l d supp o rt cases, t he co urt w ill gr a n t a 5
m o d i f i cat i o n of t he supp o rt award only “ when t here i s fo und t o b e a si gni f i cant vari ance, as d ef

i ned i n t he chi l d s up p o rt g u i d e l i n e s . . . , b e t w e e n t h e g u i d e l i n e s a n d t h e a m o u n t o f s u p p o r t c u r r e n t l y o r d e r e d

. . . . ” Te n n . Code An n . § 36- 5- 1 0 1 (a)( 1 ). U nd er t he gui d el i nes, i f t he supp o rt ord er i s $ 1 0 0 or great er, a “ si gni f i cant vari ance ” w ill b e fo und where t here i s at l ease a f

i f t een p ercent (15 % ) di f

ference b et ween t he gui d el i ne am o unt a nd t he current s up p o rt ord er. T enn. C o m p . R

. & R egs. 12 4 0

- 2

- 4

- . 0 2 (3). -6- varia nce be tween the [child support guidelines] and the support cur rently order ed.” The Ba rn e tt

5 decision is supported by

our holding in Huntley v . Huntley , 61 S.W .3d 329, 339 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), whe re this Court specific ally held that private school tuition payments are separ ate f rom base c hild support. Id .; se e als o Dwight v. Dwight , 936 S.W .3d 945, 950 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that tuition ex penses do not constitute child support under the g uidelines and must not be incor porate d into the perc entag e of oblig or’s income paid as support). T hus, an oblig ee spouse is not require d to prove a signific ant variance befor e obtaining an orde r that the oblig or sp ou se pay

a mou nts fo r e xtra or din ary e du c a tio na l e xpe ns e s. Finally , Father a sserts that the orde r re quiring Father to pay one-ha lf the childre n’s tuition was unjust and inappr opriate in view of the fa ct that, af ter pay ment of child support and tuition costs, he is left with $1,532.99 net income pe r month for living expenses, while Mother ha s $3,644.50 net income pe r month. Father a rg ues that if he is re quired to continue to pay for one

half of the private sc hool tuiti on, his net monthlyincome would be reduce d to roug hly $1,000.00 per month. We note, howe ver, that Fathe r’s tuition pay ments will be reduc ed fr om $900 to $400, afte r he ha s paid off the amount he owe s for ba ck tuition from the 2001-02 a nd 2002-03 school y ear s. Additionally , as ea ch of the children g raduate, the total tuition cost will be re duced acc ording ly . Further, F ather ’s ar g ument seems to undervalue the f act that, a s primary

residential pare nt, Mother is bearing the primary expense of raising the thre e minor childre n. I n Earthman v. Mc

Rae , No. W2002-00564-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 1860527, at *2–3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr . 1, 2003)( no perm. app. filed ), this Court affirme d the trial court’s order requiring the obligor

to pay $500.00 per month towar ds her daug hter’s private school tuition, even w hen the oblig or wa s left with only $1033.61 net income pe r month, or thirty -four perc ent (34%) of her

income. Id . at *4. I n Earthman , the oblige e wa s asking that the obligor pay the entire amount of the tuition, and this C ourt was f ace d only with the issue of apportioning the tuition cost based on the re spective inc omes of the pa rties. Id . at *3 . A s p re vio us ly state d, in this case , Mother only

soug ht an orde r re quiring Father to pay one-ha lf of the c hildren’s tuition. Conclu sion F or thefo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt . Co sts areta xedto t h e ap p e l l a n t , G ar y L

. T u r n a g e , a n d h i s s u r e t y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE