FILED

July 1, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

WILLIAM MICHAEL ANDERTON, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Williamson Chancery

) No. 22482

VS. )

) Appeal No.

EVELYN ADELE MORGAN ANDERTON, ) 01A01-9701-CH-00013

)

Defendant/Appellee. )

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Mr. Anderton has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing and a Tenn.

R. App. P. 14 motion to consider post-judgment facts with regard to his actual gross

income in 1996 and 1997. Ms. Anderton has filed a response to these motions. We

have determined that Mr. Anderton’s motions should be granted.

Our June 5, 1998 opinion addressed issues concerning Mr. Anderton’s child

support and spousal support obligations. We determined that the trial court’s failure

to follow the child support guidelines resulted in Mr. Anderton paying child support

in amounts far less than what the guidelines required. Accordingly, we remanded the

case to the trial court for the second time to set Mr. Anderton’s child support in

accordance with the guidelines and to determine the amount of and make

arrangements for payment of the child support arrearage. 

On the issue of spousal support, we determined that the trial court had

overstated Mr. Anderton’s ability to pay rehabilitative spousal support in light of the

correct amount of his child support obligation and his actual income. We also

determined that Ms. Anderton should receive rehabilitative rather than long-term

spousal support. Thus, we found that Ms. Anderton was entitled to rehabilitative

spousal support for ten years beginning from the date of the original 1995 divorce

decree and that the amount of this support beginning in October 1996 should be

$3,000 per month.
-2-

In his petition for rehearing, Mr. Anderton requests this court to reconsider its

disposition of the spousal support issue and (1) to decrease the term of Ms.

Anderton’s rehabilitative support, (2) to decrease the amount of his spousal support

to $2,000 per month, and (3) to order that this decreased amount of child support

relate back to the date of the original divorce. In support of his petition for rehearing,

Mr. Anderton has filed copies of his 1996 and 1997 W-2 Wage and Tax Statements

showing that his actual net monthly income in 1996 was approximately $6,200 and

that his actual net monthly income in 1997 was approximately $8,000. Our original

decision to set Mr. Anderton’s spousal support at $3,000 per month was based on

evidence that his net earning potential was $9,150 per month. In light of the postjudgment facts concerning his actual income for 1996 and 1997, we have determined

that the amount of Mr. Anderton’s spousal support obligation beginning in October

1996 should be reduced from $3,000 as reflected in our original opinion to $2,000.

We affirm all other portions of our earlier opinion relating to Mr. Anderton’s

child support and spousal support obligations. We remand the case to enable the trial

court to calculate the correct amount of Mr. Anderton’s child support obligation since

June 1995, to determine the amount of arrearage, if any, of Mr. Anderton’s child

support and spousal support obligations, and to establish appropriate arrangements

for paying down the child support arrearage in a way that reimburses Ms. Anderton

for her expenditures for the children or otherwise benefits the children.

__________________________________

HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE

MIDDLE SECTION 

__________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE 

__________________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE