## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE D ec em be r 3, 200 3 S es sio n JAS ON G. GULVARTI AN v. SHE NNA HOPE GULVARTI AN Direct Appeal fromthe G eneral Sessions Court for Loud on Coun ty

No. 8050 Hon. Will iamH. Russell, Ju dge

F ILED FEBRUARY24, 2004 No. E2002-03117-COA- R3-CV

The Trial Court in this divorceaction aw arde d child support for the two children of the par ties and attorney ’s fe es to the mother. Thefather appe als. We aff irm, as modified.
Te nn. R. App . P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; Judgm e ntof t heCi r c uitCo urt A ffirm e d asM odi fie d.
H ER SCH EL 

### P I CKE N S 

### F RAN KS 

### , J . delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H OUS TON 

### M. G O D D A RD 

### , P.J ., and D. M I CH A EL 

### S WINEY 

### , J ., joined.
Sc ott D. Hall, Seviervill e , T enn e sse e , f or Appe lla nt. J errold L . Be cker , Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or Appe llee.

OP IN ION

I n th is d iv o rc e actio n , the h u sb an d h as ap p ealed the T ri al C o u rt ’s aw ard o f ch il d sup po r tand the aw ar d o f att orney ’ s f

ees t o the w i f

e. B yw ayof

back g r ou nd , the p art i es w er e d i vo r ced i n 20 02 o n sti pu l at ed g r ou nd s af t er a 13 1⁄2 y ear m arr i ag e, t he secon d m arr i ag e f or bo t h. Tw o m i no rchil dren w er e bo rn o f the m arr i ag e, a g e s 10 a nd 12 a tthe t i me of t r i a l
. T he pa rt i e s r e s i de d i n Ca l i f orni a thr oug houtthe i rma rr i a g e , a nd t he wi f e , who i s or i g i na l l yf

r om Te nne s s e e , r e turne d home t o L oudo n Coun t yi n Nove mbe rof 19 99 w ith the ch il d ren , therea f te r fili n g this d ivo rce actio n in A u gus t 20 0 0
. Prior to th e m o v e to Te nne s s e e , the wi f

e ha d move d f

r om the ma r i t a l hom e into an ap a rt men ti n Ca l i f orni a , whe r e the hu sban d p ai d all the exp enses plus an ad dit i on al $2 , 00 0.00 per m on t h to her du r i ng t hat t i m e. In that

### -2-

s a me y e a rhi s t a x r e turn r e port e d i nc ome of $1 2, 000. 00. Af

t e rthe wi f

e ’ s move t o T e nne s s e e , the hu sban d co nti nu ed to paythe ch i l dren’s pri vate s cho ol tuit i on plus $2 , 00 0.00 per m on t h to the w i f e. Howeve r , a f

t e rs he f i l e d f ordi vor c e , he be g a n s e ndi ng $1 , 000. 00 pe r month, c l a i mi ng he c oul d n o l on g eraf f ord $ 2,00 0.00
. Th e l eg al proceed i ngs w er e protr act ed, bu t t he ap peal has been n arr ow ed t o the chil d su pp orti ssues.

F o ll o w ing tr ial, the T ri al C o u rto rde red th e h u sb an d to p ay$ 3 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 p er m o n th ch il d s uppo r t , pl us pr i va t e s c hoo l tuit i on of $1 0, 000. 00 pe ry e a r , a nd a c a rpa ymen tt o the wi f e “ f orthe ben ef i tof the p art i es’ m i no rchil dren. ” Fu rt her, he w as al so req u ire d to ob t ai n h eal t h insu r ance c ove r a g e f

orthe c hi l dr e n a nd t o p ayf orthe vi s i t a t i ons c os t s f ortr a ve l be t wee n Ca l i f orni a a nd T e n n e s s e e . O n app eal , he a r g ue s tha tthe Jud g e ’ s a war d u nde rthe c hi l d s uppo rtg ui de l i ne s, e qua t e s t o a m onthl yi nc ome of ove r$13, 000. 00 pe rm onth. He c ont e nds tha the i s un a bl e t o ma ke t he s e s uppo r tpa ymen t s be c a us e , a c c or di ng t o h i s t a x r e turns , the m os the e a rne d i n a nyon e of the pa s tf i ve y e a r s wa s $5 1, 300. 00, and i n mosty e a r s c ons i de r a bl yl e s s . T he Tr i a l Courta ddr e s s e d the i s s ue of the hu s ba nd’ s i nc ome i n i t s f i ndi ng s a nd s a i d: Th atthe C ou r tf

i nd s that t he f

ather c on du ct s his bu si ness af f ai r s i n su ch a m ann eras t o b af f l e and con f

use al l part i es, i nclud i ng t he C ou rt , that i tis imp ossible t o m ake an acc u rate de term ina ti o n a s to h is in co m e. H o w ev er, b ase d o n h is d em o n strated ab il ity to p rov ide in th e p ast an d h is c o n ti n u ing p erf o rm an ce d u ri n g the sep aration the co u rt f i nds a nd or de r s that t he f a t he rs ha l l pa yt o the wi f e c hi l d s uppo rti n the a mountof t hr e e thous a nd dol l a r s ( $3, 000. 00) pe rmonth. F orr e a s ons pr e vi ous l ys t a t e d the no rm al g uideli nes ar e no tapp l i cable i n this case . A r ev iew o f

the ev ide n ce d em o n strates tha t m an yo f the h u sb an d ’s a n sw ers w ere r am bli ng and evasi ve an d n on - r espo nsive. W hen the part i es w er e marr i ed in 19 88 , hu sban d d i scl osed i n a prenu pti al ag r eem ent thath e h ad asset s t otal i ng app r ox i m at el y$5
. 2 M i l l i on , w i t h o nlym i nim al en cu m b ran ce. T h e h u sb an d d en ied this f ig u re at tr ial, an d claim s th at he los t virtu allyall o f h is wea l t h by t he mi d 1 990' s i n b a d i nve s t men t s a nd r e a l e s t a t e ve ntur e s . He g a ve s ke t c hyde t a i l s of e xa c t l yho w he l os tt hi s w e a l t h. He t e s t i f i e d t ha the no l ong e rhas anyof t he a s s e t s di s c l os e d i n the prenu pti al ag r eem ent, except f or a L am bo r g i ni C ou ntach autom ob i l e. The wi f e t e s t i f i e d tha ts he wa s a war e that the hus ba nd c oul d l os e a g r e a tde a l of m o n ey“ an d n o t blink an ey e.” S h e also testi f ied that h e h ad g o o d so li d b u sin ess es an d inv estm en ts t hat m ade “t on s of m on ey ” al t ho ugh she did not kn ow exactl y ho w m uch he earns, part i cular l ysi nce t he s e pa r a t i on. Th e hu sban d is i n t he r et ai l jew el ryb usiness, an d h as been inv olved i n f ou rven tures sin ce th e early9 0 ' s. T o d ay , acc o rdin g to th e ev ide n ce, h is o n lyp resen t i n terest i s a 5 0 % p artne rsh ip i n M on aco Trade, L P. I n t he 90 ' s h e o w ned a ser i es o f jew el ryst ores that had inv entori es i n ex cess o f o n e m illio n d o lla rs o n so m e o c c a s io n s .

### -3- I n 2 002 M ona c o T r a de ’ s g r os s s a l e s we r e a bouto ne mi l l i on dol l a r s . Th e c ompa ny l eases a 20 01 M er cedes f or him at a costof

$8 00
. 00 per m on t h. H e do es no tkeep a l og f or bu si ness and personal usag e, and the co m pan yd oes no trepo rtthe l ease as inco m e t o h i m . M on aco Trade has d e b ts es tim a te d at $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 an d as s e ts o f ap p ro x im a te ly$ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
. The hu s ba nd h ol ds a g e ne r a l po werof a t t orne yf

orbo t h o f

hi s e l de r l ypa r e nt s who sp eak alm o st n o En gl ish
. Th eytru st h im to h elp them w ith their f ina n cial m atters, an d h is p aren ts h a v e h a d in te re s ts in so m e o f th e h u s b a n d ’s en te rp ris e s . T h e h u s b a n d t e s t i fi e d th a t h e o w e s large pe r s ona l i nde bt e dne s s , a nd t he I RS i s cl a i mi ng he owe s anywhe r e f r om $10 0, 000. 00 t o $ 170, 000. 00 i n taxes and pen al t i es.

T h e h u sb an d resid es i n a 5 , 0 0 0 sq u are f eet h o m e, ex p en siv elycu sto m d eco rated w ith a v alu e o f

ap p rox im ately$ 8 5 0 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 in M issio n V iejo, C alif o rnia. T h e m o rt gag e p ay m en t i s b etw een $ 4 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 an d $ 6 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 p er m o n th. Th e h u sb an d testi f ied the h o u se is o w n ed b yh is m o the r. I n t h is r egard, th e w if e testif ied that sh e u n d ersto o d the h u sb an d o w n ed the h o u se u n ti l s e ve r a l y e a r s i nt o the ma rr i a g e whe n h e t ol d he rhe c ha ng e d t he t i t l e on i tt o h i s mothe rbe c a us e of va r i ou s l a ws ui t s a g a i ns th i m.

D esp it e all o f

the a d v e rs e fin an cial cir cu m stan ces testi f ied to b ythe h u sb an d , it ap p ears th at his lif

esty le ha s n o t bee n n o ti cea b lyco m p rom ised o r d isrup ted
. H e claim s, h o w ev er, t ha the ha s f

i na nc i a l l ys urvi ve d o nl ybyl i qui da t i ng pr ope rt y( wi t houti de nt i f y i ng the pr ope rt y ) a nd bo rr ow i ng on cr editcar ds. H e con t i nu es t o tr avel abroad e xt e nsi vely , al l eg edlyf or bu si ness pu rpo ses to b u yjew e lry
. O ur r eview of f i nd i ngs of

f actbya t r i al cou rtare de n ovo up on t he r e c or d, accom pan i ed b ya presum pti on of corr e c tne s s, un l ess the p r epo nd er ance of the ev i den ce i s otherw i se. Al ex ande rv . I

nman, 97 4 S
. W
. 2d 689, 69 2 ( Te nn. 19 98) ; Te nn. R. App. P. 13 ( d)

. I f the tri al co u rt m ak es n o sp ecif

ic f ind ing o f f act o n a r elev an t m atter, the re v ie w in g c o u rtr ev iew s th e reco rd to d eterm ine w h ere the p rep o n d eran ce o f the ev ide n ce lies, af

f o rdin g n o d ef

eren ce to the lo w er co u rt
. Kend ri ck v. Sh oem ake, 9 0 S .W .3 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 9 (T e n n . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e lo w ercou rt ’ s con cl usion s of l aw c a rryn o p re s u m p tio n o f co rre c tn e s s o n ap p e a l. G a n zev o o rt v. Ru sse ll , 949 S. W
. 2d 293, 29 6 ( Te nn. 1 9 9 7 ). A tr i al cou r t ’ s deci si on m aybe setasi de f or abuse o f

disc re tio n if

i tr est s on an in a d e q u a te e v id e n ti a ry f o u n d a ti o n , is c o n tr a ry to go v e rn in g la w , m is a p p li e s o r fa il s to id e n ti fy c o n tro llin g lega l p rin c ip le s , o r is a gain s t th e su b s ta n tia l w e igh t o f th e e v id e n c e . Stat e ex r e l

. Va ughn v. Kaa trud e, 2 1 S.W
. 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 (T en n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); W hit e v. Va nd erbil tU

niversi t y, 21 S. W
. 3d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Wal t on v . Camp, 2002 W L 13 4950 6 a t*5 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. M a r . 19 , 2 0 0 2 ). D et erm i ning t he co rr ectamo un tof t he n on - custod i al pare nt’ s net i nco m e i s the m ost im p o rta n t ele m e n t o f

p ro o f in th e in i tia l p ro c e e d in g to se t ch ild su p p o rt. Tu rner v. Tu rner, 91 9 S .W
. 2 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 4 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); K irch n er v. Pr itch ett, 19 95 W L 71 4279 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 1 9 9 5 ). “ T h e g o a ls o f

the ch il d su p p o rtg u ide li n es are b est f u lf il led b yu se o f

cu rr en t, accu rate

### -4-

i nf orm at i on r eg ar ding t he o bli g or par ent’ s i nco m e. ” Tinsle y v . Tinsl ey, 20 02 W L 31 4432 10 a t*3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . N o v . 1 , 2 0 0 2 ).

The r e c or d b e f

or e us c l e a r l y s uppo rt s t he Tr i a l Court ’ s c onc l us i on t ha t he c oul d n ot accurat el ydeterm i ne the hu sban d’s i nco m e f or pu rpo ses of est abli shing chil d supp ort
. I n this case , t he a mountof

c hi l d su pporthus ba nd ha s pai d i n t he pas ti s notdi s put e d, a nd i ti s ve ryne a re qua l t o, a nd s ome t i mes mor e tha n, the t ot a l i nco m e h e ha s r e port e d o n h i s t a x r e turns . He of f e r e d n o exp l anati on f

or this on cr oss e xam i nati on , excep t he e xp l ai ned as t o so m e speci f i c ci r cum st ances t hat h e b o rro w e d m o n e yto p a yth e o b ligati o n s .

T he c hi l d s up po r tg ui de l i ne s s pe a k t o t hi s d i l e mma , wh e r e the o bl i g or ’ s i nc om e c a nn otb e d e t e rmi ne d f

r om the e vi de nc e , the gui de l i ne s a utho r i z e the tr i a l c ou rtt o i mp ut e a nyi nc om e to th e o b ligo r. S e e T

e n n . C o m p . R . A n dR egs ., c h. 12 40- 2- 4- 02( e )
. M or e ove r , i f the c ourtf

i nds the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d o f

the ob l i g or ’ s i nc ome i s no tc r e di bl e , i tma y i mput e i nc ome a nd de t e rmi ne the a m o u n t o f

c h ild s u p p o rt a c c o rd in gly
. See, gen erall y, W il ls v. W il ls , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 2 2 0 9 3 5 7 ( T en n . C t. App. Se pt
. 25 , 20 03)
. T he r e c or d i s c l e a rt ha tt he Tr i a l C ourtf ound the hu s ba nd notc r e di bl e , a nd ev en d ece p ti v e. Trial co u rt s are in th e b est p o siti o n to “o b serv e w itn ess es as t h eytesti f yan d to assess t heird em eano r , w hich best situates t r i al jud g es to evaluate w i t ness cr edibil i t y . ” We l ls v . Te nn. Bd

. O f Reg ents, 9 S.W
. 3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 3 ( T en n . 1 9 9 9 ). A f i nd i ng t hat an o bli g or has the p otenti al or capab i l i t yt o p r od uce g r eat eri nco m e has b een tr eated as th e f

u n ction al eq u iva len t of , o r an im p li cit f

in d in g o f, w il lf

u l and v o lun tary une mpl oymen torun de r e mpl oymen t
. Iti s the r e f or e a ppr opr i a t e t o appl ythe pr i nc i pl e s of the vol unt a ry une mpl oymen t c a s e s t o s e l f

- e mpl oymen t c a s e s . I f

the ob l i g ori s f

ound t o b e wi l l f

ul l ya nd vol unt a r i l yun e mpl oy e d o run de r e mpl oy e d, “ c hi l d s uppo rts ha l l be c a l c ul a t e d b a s e d o n a d eterm ina ti o n o f p o ten ti al i n co m e, as ev ide n ced b yed u catio n al l ev el an d /or p rev iou s w o rk exp er i ence. ” W

i l l is v. W i l l is, 6 2 S .W .3 d 7 3 5 , 7 3 8 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). T e n n . C o m

p . R . & R egs ., 1 2 4 0 -2 -4 -.0 3 (3 )(d ).

A n o the r c ri te ri a fo r im p u ti n g inc o m e is a l if esty le i n co n sisten t w ith the o b li gor’s c la im s . Te nn. Comp. R. & Regs . , ch. 12 10
- 2-4-. 04 ( 1)( f ) prov i des: V al uab l e asse t s and r esou r ces ( exp e nsive ho m e or autom ob i l e w hich seem i na ppr opr i a t e f

orthe i nco m e c l a i med bythe ob l i g or ) of the ob l i g ors houl d b e co n sid ered f

o r the p u rpo se o f

im p u ti n g inc o m e an d increa sin g the su p p o rtaw ard in an ycase if

the co u rtf

ind s th at eq u ityr eq u ir es it. T h e au tho ri ti es clea rl yem p o w er th e C o u rtto im p u te i n co m e to th e h u sb an d o n the ev ide n ce b ef o re us . The pr obl e m i s as c e r t a i ni ng t he amoun tof i nc ome w hi c h sh oul d be i mput e d t o the hu s ba nd. T he onl yno n- s pe c ul a t i ve a ppr oa c h tha tthi s r e c or d s uppo rt s i s t o s e t t he c hi l d s uppo rta tthe a mountthe hu sban d w as vo l un t ar i l ypay i ng t o the m othe r b e f ore this di spu t e ar ose, w hich w as $2 , 00 0.00 per month. T he r e wa s no e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d t o i ndi c a t e the r e ha s be e n a nyma t e r i a l c ha ng e i n the h u s b a n d ’s s ta tus since that amo un tw as bei ng paid. Itm aybe r eason ablyi nf err ed f r om these p ay m en ts tha t h e h ad su f f icien t inc o m e to m ak e the se p ay m en ts, an d that h e sh o u ld b e req u ir ed to

### -5-

c on t i nu e ma ki ng c hi l d s up po r tp a yme nt s o n t ha t b as i s o n be ha l f o f the c hi l dr e n. Ac c or di ng l y , we m od i f ythe J ud gm e n t o f

the T r i al C ou rtt o requir e the h usb and t o p aythe m other $2 , 00 0.00 per m on t h, plus t he scho ol tuit i on and otherob l i g at i on s order ed as chil d su pp ortbythe T r i al Ju dge.

Nex t , the hu s ba nd c ont e nds the wi f e c a n a f f or d t o pa y he r a t t orne y ’ s f e e s be c a us e s he i s c a pa bl e of

worki ng a nd be c a us e s he r e c e i ve d $ 80, 000. 00 t o $ 90, 000. 00 w ort h of j e wel ryi n the d i v o r c e , a l o n g w i t h m o s to t h e rp e r s o n a l p r o p e rt y.

At t orne yf

e e a war ds a r e tr e a t e d a s a f orm of s pous a l s uppo rtde t e rmi ne d b y c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e f a c to rs se t f

o rth in T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -5 -1 0 1 (d ). Gi l l i am v. Gi l l i am, 77 6 S
. W
. 2 d 8 1 , 8 6 (T en n . C t. A p p . ( 1 9 8 8 ); Fu lbr igh t v. Fu lbr igh t, 64 S. W
. 3d 359, 36 9 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 2001 )
. An a war d o f

a t t orne yf

ee s i s pr ope rwhe n o ne s pous e i s di s a dva nt a g e d a nd doe s no tha ve su f f icien t r eso u rces to p aysu ch f ees , an d su ch aw ard s li e w ith in th e so u n d d iscretion o f th e tr ial co u rt a n d w ill n o t b e d is tu rb e d o n ap p e a l u n le s s th e ev id e n c e p re p o n d e ra te s o th erw is e . Ki nc ai d v

. Ki nc ai d, 91 2 S
. W
. 2d 14 0, 14 4 (Tenn
. C t
. A pp . 19 95 )
. Th e t r i al cou rt ’ s disc r et i on extends to r eason able f ee a w a rd s in ch ild su p p o rt ca s e s . H u n tle y v. H u n tle y , 6 1 S
. W
. 3 d 3 2 9 -33 7 (Te n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Te nn. C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -5-1 0 3 (c). Th e cu sto d ian w h o d ef en d s a ch il d su p p o rtaw ard incu rs l it ig ation co sts f or the ch i l dren’s ben ef

i t , using f

un ds thatr edu ce the asset s l ef tavailable f

or the ch i l dren’s actual c a re ; fairn e s s d ic ta te s th a t th e n o n -c u s to d ia l p a re n t b e a r th e s e ex p e n s e s . H u n tle y , 61 S. W
. 3d a t32 9; Rag an v . Ra gan, 8 5 8 S
. W
. 2 d 3 3 2 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). M o reo v er, the co u rth as au tho ri tyto aw ard a d d itio n a l a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in c u rre d o n ap p e a l w h e re ap p ro p ria te
. Se at on v . Se at on, 51 6 S
. W
. 2d 91, 93 ( Ten n. 19 74 )
. Th e eviden ce do es no t prepo nd er at e ag ai nst t he Tr i al C ou rt ’ s aw a rd o f att orney f e e s , a nd we a f

f i rm the T r i a l Cou r ton t hi s i s s ue . On a pp l i c a t i on o f the a pp e l l e e , u po n r e ma nd , we di r e c ttha tthe Tr i a l Courts e tr e a s onabl e a t t orne y ’ s f e e s f or t he a ppe l l e e f

or de f e ndi ng the a war d o f ch il d su p p o rto n ap p eal.

The Jud g men tof

the Tr i a l Courti s a f

f i rmed , a s modi f

i e d, a nd t he c a us e r e man de d, wi t h the c os tof

the a ppe a l a s s e s s e d t o Ja s on G. Gul va rt i a n.



### _________________________ H ER SCH EL 

### P I CKE N S 

### F RAN KS 

### , J.