# F I L E D Jun e 11, 1999 C eci l C r o w son , Jr . A p p e l l a t e C o u r t C l e r k KAT H E R I

N ET H E R ES A De VAUL T , ) ) P l a i n tiff / A p p e lle e , ) A ppea l N o . ) 01- A

- 01- 9806- C V

- 00270 v . ) ) D avi

d s on C i r cui

t J A M E S CANON De

VAUL T , J R . , ) N o . 93D

- 3363

) D e f enda n t / A ppel l ant . )

) COUR T OFAP P E A L S OFT E NNE S S E E A P P E A LF ROM

T H ECI R CU I T COUR

T F OR DAVI D S ON COUNT

Y A T N A SHSV I LLE, TEN N ESS E E T H EHONORAB L E M URI E L ROB I N S ON, J UDGE

L E WCONNE

R J A M E S H. DRES CHE

R S t o k e r s & B ar t h ol o m

e w , P. A . 424 C hur ch St

r e e t , Sui t e 2800 N ashvi l l e , T enn ess ee 37 2 1 9 A TTO R N E Y S F

O R PLA I N T I F F

/ A P P ELLEE KARL A C. HE W I T T H a t c h e tt & H e w itt 211 D onel s on Pi ke,

Sui t e 4 N ashvi l l e , T enn ess ee 37 2 1 4 A T T ORNE

Y F OR DE

F E NDANT

/ A P P E L L ANT

A F F I R M E D AS M ODI F I E D AND RE M ANDE D

W I L L I A M B. CAI

N , J UDGE- 2

- 

# O P I N I O N T h i s appe a l i nvol ves a di s put e ove

r chi l d s u p p o rt f o r th e p artie s ' tw o mi nor c h ild r e n . T h e tr i a l

cour tdeni ed t he Fa t her ' s pet i t i on t o m odi f

y t he s uppor t a s i thad b

e e n s e t i n the f i nal dec r e e . I n addi

t i on, the c ourtpl a ced a

l i en on t w o o f th e F athe r ' s p rop erti es a n d aw ard e d fees t o th e M o ther ' s at t o r ney . O n appe

a l , w e a ffirm th e c o u rt' s d e c isio n w i t

h re g ar d to

c h i ld su p p o rt an d a t t

o r n e y fees . H o w e v e r , re g ar d i n g th e lie n , w e m o d i f y t he t r i a l cou r t ' s deci s i o n such t hat a l i e n r e m a i n s on onl y one

of th e Fat her ' s pr oper t i e s . A c co r d i ngl y , the de

c i s i on of th e tria l c o u rt is a f firm e d a s m o d ifie d a n d re m a n d fo r fu rth e r p r o c e e d i n g s . I . Jam e s C anon

D e V a u l t , Jr.("t

h e F athe r")an d K athe r i n e T h eresa D e V a u l t("th e M o t h

e r") w e r e d i v o r c e d b y fi n a l d e c r e e fi l e d A p r il 1 3 , 1 9 9 5 . T h e fin a l d e c r e e o r d e r e d th a t c u s t o d y o f th e p artie s ' tw o c h ild r e n , twi n boys, be j o i n t and that the M o ther be t he pr i m a r y phys i c a l cus t odi an.W i t h r ega

r d t o ch i l d s u p p o rt, th e c o u rt s t a t e d a s fo llo w s : T h e cour tf i nds th i s an a

ppr opri a t e s itu a tio n in w h i c h to devia t e fr o m th e G u i d e lin e s w ith re g ar d to c h ild s upport . B o t h parent s have t hei r

ow n success f

u l bu s inesses . E ach h a s t h e abi l i t y t o earn a subst ant i a l i nco m e f or t he s upport o f t hem sel ves a nd the s

uppor tof thei r chi l d r en.Fr o m

[ t h e F athe r ' s ] t e st i m ony he

i s not w o rk i ng l i ke he

has i n the pa s t , but the C o u r tsensesthat he i s goi ng t o sta rt u p . [T h e F a t h

e r ] i s c u rre n tly under e m

p l oyed. C h i l d s uppor ti s her eby s e t at $800. 00 per

m onth . B o t h part i es appeal e d fr o m

th e j udgment

of the t r i a l cour ton va r i ous i s sues one o

f the Fa t her ' s be i ng t he a

w a r d of $800 per m onth i n chi

l d s uppor t . T h e cour tof appe a l s f ound t hat ther e wa s in s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e fr o m w h i c h th e tria l cour tcoul d h ave d e t e r

mi ned t hat the Fa t her w a s under e m p l oye d and r e m ande d the caus e f

o r det e r mi nat i on of chi l d s uppor t . W e ar e of t

he opi n i on that

the e v i denc e does not p r eponde r a t e in fa v o r o f th e tria l c o u rt's fi n d i n g th a t th e def enda n ti s under

e m p l oye d .- 3

- T h e d e c i s i o n o f th e tria l c o u rt a s to c h ilds uppor ti s r evers e d and r e m ande d . O n r e m

and, the t r i a l cour tshal l hear evi den c e o n the a m ount of the de f enda n t ' s i ncom

e a s def i ned i n th e gui del i nes and det e r mi ne t he co rr ectnet i nco m e am o u n t . T hereaf t e r , the courts hal

l ent e r an or der r equi r i ng def enda n t t o pay chi l d sup p o r tequ a l t o t h i r t y-t w o p e r cent o f th i s n e t i ncom e a s r equi r ed by the gui del i nes . D eVaul t v. D e V a u l t , No . 01- A

- 01- 9601- C V 00012, 1996 W L 482968, at

*7 ( T enn.A pp. 1996) . T he Fa t her di d not pur s ue t h i s i s s ue on r e m

and t o the t r i a l cour t . I n s t e a d , he pa i d $800 per

m onth i n chi

l d s upp o rt p u r s u a n t to th e fin a l d e c r e e fo r o v e r ay e ar u n t il t h e ti m e tha t h e file d th is p e t i t i o n to m o d ify . O n N ovem

ber 4, 1997, the Fa

t her in itiat e d th e in s t a n t p r o c e e d i n g s b y filin g ap e titio n to m o d ify w h i c h a lle ged t hat h e h a d ex p eri e n c e d a "d rasti c d e c rease in i nco m e" s i nce t he t i m e of t he fi nal decree. H e ass e r t e d that he w a s e m p l o y e d in the sam e capaci t y as he h ad b een, a f r ee l ance p h o t o g r aph e r . H o w e v e r , he cl a i m e d that by no vo l u n t a r y act i o n of hi s ow n , he h ad earned appr oxi m a t e l y $12, 000 i n 1997 a

nd that " he des per

a t e l y ne ed[ed] a r

educ t i on i n chi l d s uppor tpay m ent s f o r a pe r i od of appr oxi m a t e l y tw e l ve m onth s . " A tthe Ma r

ch 26, 1998 he a r

i ng, the M

o ther of f e r e d no evi denc e a nd th e F a t her' s onl y w i t nessesw e r e hi m sel f, hi s curr ent w i f

e and hi s accoun t ant . Th e Fat her tes t ified tha t h

e is ase lf-em p l oy e d p r o f e s s i on a l p h o t o g r ap her

doi n g bus i nes s as

D e Vaul tPhot ogr aphy . T he Fa

t her cla i m e d that as of 1997, he c

oul d n o l onger pay hi s liv i n g expe

n s e s pl u s chi l d s uppor tw i t hout bor r o w i ng f r o m hi s p aren t s , cred i tca rd c o m

p a n i es a n d m o r t

g a g e c o m p a n i es. H e test

i fie d that hi s i ncom e had b e e n r educ ed due t o var i ous f a c t o r s w i t h i n the i

ndus tr y t hough he had t aken nu m e r o u s s t eps t o i ncreas e hi s busi ness. H e pres e n t e d aw ritt e n s t a t e m ent in d i c a tin g t h a t h i s gr o s s i ncom e t h r ough N ovem

ber 30, 1997 w a s $45, 766 bu thi s net

w a s onl y $9, 475. T he Fa

t her of f e r ed no evi denc e of hi s g r o s s i ncom

e f r o m hi s phot ogr aphy

bus i nes s f

o r D e ce m ber 1997 nor di d he o f f e r a n y fi n a n c i a l in f

o r m a tio n fo r

th e fi r s t th r e e m o n t h s o f

1 9 9 8 p r i o r

to th e tr i a l. T he F a t her' s ot her s o u r ce ofi ncom e i s a pi ece of pr o p e r t y w i t h seven r e n t a l un i t s . H e pres ent ed a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t fo r th i s re n t a l p r o p e rty w h i c h- 4

-

ite mi z e d the i

ncom e a nd exp ens e s f o r 1997 t h r ough N ovem

ber 30, 1997. Th e s t a t e m ent s how ed a

n al m o s t$500 l o s s . T he Fa

t her c l a i m e d th a t th i s p r o p e rty r e q u ired s i g n ific a n texpe

n s e s and t hat, due t o an u nus ual am ount o f r e f u r b i s h i n g i n 1997, i tw a s

s how i ng th i s l o s s . A tthe he

a r i ng w hen a

s ked w hat pr oper t y he ow ned, the Fa t h e r answ e r ed, "I o w n th e apa r t m ent bui l d i ng w i t h m

y w i f e Pa m e la a nd w e ow n our o w n ho m e . " H o w ever,the F a t her i n d i cat ed t hat he w as s o l e l y re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e debt o n th e ap artm e n t b u ild i n g . He te s tifie d th a the ow ed i n exc e s s of $340, 000 t o c r e d ito r s . He s t a t e d th a t, ot h e r th a n s h arin g fin a n c i a l re s p o n s i b ilityfo r h i s hom e wi t h h i s c u rr e n t w i fe , h e w a s s o l e l y re s p o n s i b l e fo r a ll t h i s d e b t. H e t e s tifie d th at his

h o m e w as w o r t h appr

oxi m a t e l y $200, 000 w i t h a m

o rt gage of $125, 000 and h

i s r ent a l pr oper t y w a s w o rt h $300, 000 w i t h a m o rt gage bal ance o f $116, 000. T he Fa

t her di d ac know l edge

that he ha d s pent m oney f i x i ng up hi s h o use as r

ecent l y as D ecem

ber 199 7 . T h e F a t h e r's fi n a l w itn e s s w a s J i m H ar p e r, a c e rtifi e d p u b lic a c count ant w h o had k

ept the Fa t her ' s books s i nce

the l a t e 1970 ' s . H e t est

i f i ed t hat he h a d prepar e d th e w ritte n s t a t e m e n t s h o w i n g a $9,475. 20 net i ncom e f o r D e Vaul t Phot ogr aphy

as of N ovem ber 1997 a s w e l

l as the s t a t e m ent s how i ng a $

489. 2 5 l o s s fo r th e F a t h e r's r e n t a l p r o p e rty . He s t a t e d th a t th e F a t h e r h a d g i v e n h i m th e check st u b s and b ank st

a t e m ent s and r ecei p t s and h e had cat ego r i zed th e m . T h e cour tcl a r i f i ed t hat the acco u n t ant w as not gu a r ant eei n g the t r u t h o f th e i n f o r m a tio n upon w h i ch he w a s r e l y i ng. L a t e r , w hen t h e F a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y asked t h e w itn e s s if h e b e lie v e d th a t th e in f o r m a tio n g i ven t o hi m by t he Fa t her w a s tru t h f u l , the M

o ther ' s at t o r ney obj e c t ed. T h e tria l ju d g e s u s t a i ned t he obj e c t i on. Fol l o w i n g the he

a r i ng, the co urt

i s sued a f

i nal o r d e r: " T h e p e titio n to m odi f y c h i l d s u p p o rt is d i s mi s s e d fo r f a ilu r e to s t a t e ac l a i m u p o n w h i c h re lie f can be gr ant ed a nd duet o the f

a i l u r e of the p e titi o n er t o estab l i s h fact s u p o n w h i c h th i s [ c ] ourtw oul d be e m pow e r e d t o r educ e s a id s uppor

t . " T he courtf

ound t h a tth e cur

r ent am ount of chi l d s uppor tw a s cons i s t ent w i t h a gr o s s i ncom

e of appr oxi m a t e l y $40, 000 pe r

ye a r w h i ch i s cons

i s t ent w i t h the a

m ount the Fa t her i s abl e t o ea

r n . T he courtf

u rt her f ound t hat the Fa t her ow n s ce r t a i n val uabl e- 5

-

ass e t s th a t ca

n be us ed t

o s e c u r e hi s obl i gat

i on t o pay

chi l d s uppor ti ncl udi n g equi t y i n hi s home a

nd r ent a l pr oper t y . T he courtt hus pl a ced l i ens on bot h p i eces of pr oper t y and o r der ed t hat they r e m a i n unti l the c

h i l d r en r e a ch t he a g e o f m a j o rity . F i n a lly , the courtor der

ed t he Fa t her t o pay the M o ther ' s at t o r ney th e s u m of $2500 f o r the a t t o r ney f e e s and e xpense s and t he courtor der

e d th e Fat her t o pay cour tcos t s . II. I n itia lly , we poi n tout

that th i s w a s

not a di s mi s s a l

pur s uant t o T enn ess e e Ru le o f C i v

i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 . 0 2 ( 6 ) fo r th e fa i l u r e to sta te a c laim

fo r r e l ie f . T h e p u r p o s e o f th i s ru l e is to te s t th e s u f f i c i e n c y o f th e com p l a i n t , and i t i s conseque

n t l y ba s ed upo

n the pl e a d i ngs al one. M errim a n v . S m ith , 599 S. W . 2 d 548, 560 ( T enn.A pp. 1979) ; Jaco x v. M e m p h i s C i t y B d . of E d . , 604 S. W . 2d 872, 873 ( T enn.A pp. 1980) . B o t h in its fin a l o r d e r a n d in its ru lin g fr o m th e benc h , t h e tria l cour

tus e d l angua ge i ndi c a t i ve of R u l e 12. 02( 6 ) . H o w eve

r , the court ' s o r der fo llo w e d ahea

r i ng dur i ng w h i ch t

he Fa t her pr e s ent ed pr oof t o s uppor thi s p e titio n fo r m o d ific a tio n . In a d d itio n to the R u l e 12. 02( 6 ) l angua

ge, the court s t a t e d in th e fin a l o r d e r th a t th e d i s mi s s a l w a s " d u e to th e fa ilu r e o f th e p e titio n e r t o est abl i s h f a c t s upon w h i ch t

h i s C ourtw oul d be e

m pow e r ed t o r educ e s a id s uppor t . " M o r e o v e r , fro m

the be nch, the t r i a l j udge st a t ed t hat "[ t ] here w as ver y littlepr oof

t oday . Al o tt a l

ked a bout but not h i ng r e a l l y t hat w oul d s ubs t ant

i a t e ap e t i t i o n to re d u c e the ch i l d sup p o r tas s e t . " I ti s clear that the co urt

mi sused t h e 12. 02( 6 ) l angua

ge a nd that i t s dec i s i on w a s based upo

n i t s r evi e w of the e v i denc e p r oduce d at the he a r i ng. T u r n i n g to th e su b s t ant i ve i s sue o f chi l d sup p o r t , these deci s i o n s ar e e n tru s t e d to th e d i s c r e tio n o f th e tria l c o u rt w h i c h is gui ded by the c h i l d s uppor

t gui del i nes pr o m u l gat ed b y the De p a r

t m ent of H u m an Ser v i c e s pur s uant t o th e T enn ess e e code . T enn.C ode A nn. § 36- 5 - 101( e ) ( 2 ) ( Supp. 199 4 ) . T h e gui del i nes app l y t o m o d i f

i cat i o n s of

supp ort as w e l l as t o t he o r i g i nal dec r e e s . See Jon es v. Jon e s , 870 S. W . 2d 281, 282 ( T enn.19 94) . A p p e lla t e re v i e w o f c h ilds uppor

t d e c i s i o n s i s i

n acco r dan ce w i t h R u l e 13 ( d) of the T enn ess ee R u l e s o f A ppel l a t e Pr oce dur e . T hus , w e a

f f o r d the t r i a l cour t ' s f a c t u a l fin d i n g s a1 " [ A ] sig n i f i cant variance shal l be at l east 15 % i f the cu rr ent supp ort

i s one h u n dred dol l a r s ( $100. 00) or

gr e a t e r per m onth . " T enn. C o mp . R . & R egs . r . 1240- 2 - 4 - . 02( 3 ) ( 1994) . - 6

- p r e s u m p t i o n of cor r e c t nes s but do not ext end t hat pr e s u m p t i on t o th e tria l c o u rt's l egal cons

truct i on of the gui del i nes . Turne r

v. Turner , N o . 01A 01- 9506- C V

- 00255, 1997 W

L 136448, at

*6 ( T enn.A pp. 1997) . W ith r egard t o c h i l d s uppor tm odi f i c a t i on, the code pr

ovi des that " upon ap p lic a tio n o f e i t

h e r p arty , th

e c o u r tshal l decree an i ncreas e or decr ease of such a l l o w ance w hen t

her e i s f oundt o b e a sig n i f

i cant vari ance, as def

i ned i n t he ch i l d s uppor tgui del i nes 1 est abl i shed b y sub sect

i o n ( e ) , bet w een t h e gui del i nes and t h e a m ount of s u p por t cur

r ent l y o r dered un l essthe v a r i ance h as r esul t ed fr o m a p r evi ous l y c o u rt-o

r d e r e d devia t

i on f r o m the gui del i nes and t he c i r cum s t anc e s w h i c h caused th e de

v i a t i on hav e not cha nged. " T enn.C ode A nn. § 36- 5 - 101( a ) ( 1 ) ( Supp. 1998) . T he g u i del i nes st a t e that av ari a n ce just i f i

es "t h e m o d ific a tio n of

a c h i l d s uppor

tor d e r un l ess , i n si t uat i o n s w

here a dow n w a r d m o d ific a tio n is s o u g h t, the o b lig o r is w illfu llya nd vol u n t a r i l y une m p l oye d or under e m p l oye d . " T enn.C o m

p . R . & R eg.r . 1240- 2 - 4 - . 02( 3 ) ( 1994) . T o re ite r a t e , the c o u rt f o u n d in its fin a l d e c r e e th a t th e F a t her w a s under e m p l oye d . T h e cour

tthen se t s uppor tat $800 per m onth w i t hout

m aki n g adet e r mi nat i on as t o the Fa t her ' s pot ent i a l i ncom e a s r equi r ed by the gui del i nes . See T enn.C o m

p . R . & R egs . r . 1240- 2 - 4 - . 03( 3 ) ( d ) ( 1994) ; H err era v. H erre r a , 944 S. W . 2d 379, 387 ( T enn.A pp. 1996) . T he courtof appe a l s re v e r s e d th e tria l cour tboth as t o the f i ndi ng that

the Fa t her w a s under e m p l oye d and

as to t h e a m ount of chi l d s uppor ts t a tin g th a t " it is im

p o s s i b l e to m a k e th e d e t e r m i n a tio n s necessar y t o devi a t e f r o m the gui del i nes based on th e in f o r m a tio n in th e r ecord o f th i s case . " D eVaul t

v. D eVaul t , N o . 01A 01- 9601- C V

- 00012, 1996 W L 482968, at

*6 ( T enn.A pp. 1996) . T h i s cou rt rem a n d e d t he case f

or t he t r i a l cour tt o hea r evi denc e on t he a m ount of the Fa t her ' s i n c o m e . H o w eve

r , th e Fat her di d not s e e k r e l i e f on r e m and.I n s t e a

d , he pa i d $800 per

m onth f o r over ay e ar u n til h e fi l e d th e in s t a n t p e tit i o n to m o d i f y .- 7

- I n the i n s t ant pr oce edi ng, the court n o t ed f

r o m the be nch t hat chi l d s uppor tas s e tby t

h e f i n a l d ecree "d o es ref

l ect app rox i m a t e l y $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 a y ear" i n i ncom e w h i ch wa s

" p r e t t y m uch i n kee p i ng w i t h [ t he F

a t h e r 's] ab ili t y to e ar n . " L i kew i se,in its fin a l o r d e r, th e c o u rt s t a t e d " [ c ] h ild s u p p o rt a s c u r r e n tlys e t is con s i s t e n t wi t h a gr

o s s i ncom

e of appr oxi m a t e l y $40, 000 pe r

ye a r and t hat a m ount is c o n s i s t e n t w ith [th e F a t h e r's] ab ilityto e ar n . " It is c l e ar th a t th e tria l cour t ' s f i ndi ng w i t h r ega

r d t o the $40 , 000 f

i gur e wa s bas ed upo

n t he $80 0 per m onth c h ild s u p p o r t th a t it h a d s e t in th e fi n a l d e c r e e ; in o t h e r w o r d s , t h e tria l cour t ' s reaso n i n g w a s

that $40, 000 i s the a

m ount of i ncom e t hat cor r e s ponds t o a n $800 m

onth l y c h i l d s uppor

taw a r d such that i f

chi l d s uppor tw a s s e t at $800 a m onth then t

he Fa t her m u s thave bee n abl e t o m ake $40, 000 pe r

year.It w a s necessar y fo r th e tri a l co u r ti n t h i s cas e t o en gag e i n such r evers e r easoni n g si nce i th a d fa ile d to m ak e afa c t u a l d e t e r m i n a tio n o f th e F a t h e r's in com e atthe t i m e o f the fi nal decree and si nce t he F a t her had fail ed t o o b t a i n such a d e t e r mi nat i o n fro m th e tri a l co u rt on c e th

e c o u rt' s in i t

ial e rro r w a s re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d . O n app eal i n t he case atbar,the F a t her cont end s t hat th e t r ial c o u r t e rre d b y fa ilin g to

d e term i ne h is c u rre n ti ncom e ba s ed upo n the pr oof pr e s ent e d a t tria l as r equi r ed by the c h i l d s uppor

tgui del i nes . H e c

l a i m s that the cour t based its a w ar d o n th e F a t h e r's e ar n i n g p o t e n tia l ra t h e r th a n h i s a c t u a l in c o m e . I ti s t he F a t her' s pos i t i on that

the courter

r ed by basi ng th e awa r

d upon e a r

n i n g pot ent i a l w hen i tneve r f ound t hat the Fa t her w a s vol unt a r i l y une mp l oye d or under e m p l oyed as r equi r ed by the G u i del i n es. T h e Fat

her al s o cont

ends that s i n c e th e tria l cou r tnev e r ascer t a i ned the F a t her' s curr ent i nco m e , i tnev e r r eached the p o i n t w here i tcou l d m ake a "si g n i f

i cant vari ance" det e r mi nat i o n . W e fin d th a t th e c o u rt's r u lin g w a s ab a s e d upon i t s fin d i n g th a t th e Fat her fa ile d t o s how hi s i nco m e w as lessthan i tw as at the t i m e of t

he o r i g i nal s uppor tor der and t hus fa ile d to s h o w a si gni f i c a n tvar i anc e . I n both the be

nch r u lin g a n d th e fin a l o r d e r, th e cour texpr e s s ed i t s opi n i on that

the Fa t her had t h e a b ilityt o ea

r n m o r e i ncom e t han he w a s s how i ng. T he co urt ' s concl usi o n seem e d t o be ba s ed upo n its fin d i n g that

the Fa t her w a s m ani pul a t i ng hi s deduc

t i ons t o s how a m uch sm a l l e r net i nco m e t han he

a c t u a llyw a s re c e i v i n g . Du rin g th e heari n g the courtcom

m ent ed t o the Fa t her , " your t e st i m ony now

i s that you c an' t- 8

-

c o mma n d that

i ncome [t hat

you pr evi ousl

y enj oyed] , s o how do yo u pay yo u r e x p e n ses? It

do esn' tj i ve. I n o t her words, the sam e st ory t o d ay t hat yo u h a d l ast t i m e y o u ca m e in h ere, m a n i p u l atio n o f ex p e n ses, so yo u w ant t o t r y t o ex p l a i n t h a t ? " W e fin d th a t th e e v i denc e does not

pr eponde

r a t e a gai n s tthe court ' s fin d i n g th a t th e F a t h e r f a ile d t o s how he w a s m aki n g l e s s than $4

0 , 000. T her

e w a s evi denc e t hat the Fa t her had p u tm oney i n t o r enova

t i ng hi s r ent

a l pr oper t y i n 1997 and i

n t o f i x i ng up hi s ow n home a

s r e cent l y a s D e ce m

ber of 1997. T h e cour tnot ed t

hat the Fa t her obvi ous l y had the " w h e r e w ith a l " f or such e x p endi t u r e s and t hat " m a y be t hat s houl d be d

e a l tw i t h by s c a

l i ng i tdow n i nst ead of

tr y i ng t o s c a

l e dow n hi s chi l d s uppor t . " Fur t her

m o r e , the F a t h e r pres ent e d s c a

n t y e v i denc

e on h i s ow n beha

l f . H e onl

y pr e s ent ed i ncom e a n d e xpense f i gur e s f o r 1997 t h r ough N ovem

ber of 1997 de s p i t e t

he f a c t th a t th e heari n g w a s hel d i n M a r ch of 199 8 . H e di

d not ent e r i n t o evi denc e a ny t a x r e t u r n s but onl y w r i t t en s

t a t e m ent s cr e a t ed by hi s ac count ant s how i ng net bus i nes s i ncom

e f r o m D e Vaul tPhot ogr aphy

and n e t l o s s f r o m the re n t a l p r opert y . A s s t a t e d , the tria l c o u r t det e r mi ned t he $40 , 000 f

i gur e r epr e s ent i ng th e Fat her ' s p o t e n tia l in c o m e f

r o m the m onth l y a m ount of chi l d s uppor t , $800, as s e t b y th e fin a l d e c r e e . T

h e g u i d e lin e s p r o v i d e th a t " [i] f a n o b lig o r is w illfu llya n d v o l u n t arily unem

p l oye d or under e m p l oye d , chi

l d s uppo r t

shal l be cal cul a t e d based on a det

e r mi nat i on of pot ent i a l i ncom e , as evi denc ed by educa t i onal l eve l and/ o r pr evi o u s w o r k e x p eri e n c e . " T e n n . C o m p . R . & R e g s . r. 1240- 2 - 4 - . 03( 3 ) ( d ) ( 1994) . It is c l e ar f r o m th e p r e v i o u s re v e r s a l o f th e $ 8 0 0 a m ount on ap pea l th a t th e tria l c o u rt d i d n o t p r o p e rly m a k e th i s d e t e r m i n a tio n . H o w e v e r , th e F a t h e r f a ile d to p u r s u e th e re lie f th a tw a s a v a ilab l e to h i m

a fte r th i s cour trev erse d t h e fin a l d e c r e e . H i s o n l y re lie f n o w is to s h o w as i g n ific a n t vari ance f r o m the $40 , 000 by s how i ng that he i s m aki

ng 15% l e s s than $4

0 , 000. T h e F a t her has not carr i e d hi s bur den of pr oof w i t h r ega

r d t o s how i ng a s i g n ific a n tvar

i anc e a nd thus he i s not

due a m odi f i c a t i on of chi l d s uppor t . See M c C a r t y v. M c C a r t y , 863 S. W . 2d 716, 719 ( T enn.A pp. 1992) ( e st abl i s h i ng that t h e part y seeki n g m odi f

i c a t i on i n al i m ony or chi l d s uppor thas the bur den of- 9

-

p r oof under the pr i or st and a r d o f

"s u b s t ant i a l and m a t e r i a l chan ge i n c i rcum s t a n ces"). III. T h e F a t h e r n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt a b used its d i s c r e tio n in a w a r d i n g th e M o t h e r a lie n agai nst al l o f th e F a t h e r 's r e a l p r o p e r t y . T he court i m pos ed a l i en a gai n s tboth th e F a t her' s hom e as w e ll a s h i s re n t a l p r o p e rty " i n o r der t o secure [t h e Fat

her ' s ] obl i gat i ons t o pay

chi l d s uppor t . " Sec t i on 36- 5 - 103 o f the code a

u thori z e s the i

m pos i t i on of

s uch l i ens as f o l l o w s : T h e cour tm ay en f orce i t s order s and d ecr ees by sequ est e r i n g t h e re n ts a n d p r o fits o f th e re a l esta t e of

the obl i gor aga i n s t w hom su c h or der

o r decree was i s sued , i f

such o b l i g o r

has any, and s uch ob

l i gor ' s per

s onal est a t e and cho sesi n act i o n , and by a ppoi n tin g are c e i v e r th e r e o f, a n d fr o m time to time causi n g the sam e t o b e app l i e d t o the use of the obl i gee and t h e c h ild r e n , o r

by s uch ot

her l a w f u l m eans t he co urt

deem s necessar y t o assur e com p l i ance w ith its o r d e r s , in c l u d i n g , b u t not lim ite d to , the im

p o s itio n of

a l i en ag a i nst the real

and per s onal pr oper t y of the obl i gor . T enn.C ode A

nn. § 36- 5 - 103( a ) ( 2 ) ( Supp. 1998) . W h ile w e fin d th a t th e tria l c o u rt's d e c i s i o n to im p o s e alie n w a s w ith i n its d i s c r e tio n , w e a g ree w i t h th e F athe r t h at anab u se o f discr

etio n ex i s t s in th e cour t ' s dec i s i on t o enc

u m ber both of the Fa t her ' s pi e ces of

r e a l p r o p e rty w ith lie n s . A c co r d i ng t o the Fa t her ' s pr oof, the t

w o pr oper

t i e s had acom b i ned e qui t y o f $260, 000. A tthe t

i m e of tria l , the t

w i n boys w e r

e ni ne y e a r s ol d . A s s u mi n g c h ilds uppor

tr e m a i n s f i xed a t$800 per

m ont h , th i s am

ount s t o $9, 600 per yea

r w h i c h t o t a l s appr

oxi m a t e l y $86, 000 i n chi

l d s uppor tby t he t i m e t he c h i l d r e n r each t he ag e of

m a j o r i t y . W e f

i nd that $260, 000 w o rt h of

pr oper t y i s an e x c e ssi v e am

ount w i t h w h i ch t

o s e c u r e a pr o j e c t ed $86 , 000 obl i gat

i on. W e t h e r e f o r e m o d ify th e tria l c o u rt's r u lin g s u c h th a t a lie n rem a i n s onl y upon t

h e Fat her ' s re n tal p r o p e rty

w h ich , re p r esen

t i ng $185, 000 i n equi

t y , s houl d ade quat e l y s e c u r e t he Fa t her ' s chi l d s uppor tobl i gat i on. I V .- 10- I n hi s next

i s s ue, t h e F a t h e r m a i n t a i n s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e r r e d in exc l udi n g te s tim o n y fro m

Jim H ar p e r re lating to

th e tru t h f u l ne s s o f th

e F a t h e r ' s fin a n c i a l r e co r d s . When a s ked ho w he a rr i ved a tth e figu r e s re p r e s e n tin g th e Fat her ' s in c o m e , M

r. H ar p e r te s tifie d th a t th e F a t h e r "gave [ h i m ] the c

hec k s t ubs and som e ban k st a t e m ent s and recei p t s t o i n d i cat e w hat the i nco m e i t e m s a n d expe n s e i t e m s we r e and [ he] j ust cat ego r i zed t hem . " T he t r i a l j udge t hen a s ked M r . H a r per , " [ s ] o you' r e no tgu a r ant eei n g the rel i abi l i t y o f these? O n l y y o u said y o u di d t hese f

r o m the i nfor m a t i o n supp l i ed b y y o u r cl i ent ?" Mr . H a rper r e s ponde d th a t th i s w as c o r r e c tb u tl ater

h e a n s w ered th at he h a d n o reaso n t o b e lie v e the i nfor m a t i o n w as i nco m p l e t e . When asked w het her M r . H a rper f

e l t t h a tth e in f o r m a tio n w a s tru t h f u l, the M o t h e r's a tto r n e y o b j e c t e d s a y i n g th a t th i s ques t i on ca l l ed f o r an op i n i on. T he courts u s t a i

ned t he obj e c t i on as f o l l o w s : W e ll, yo u know , he can t e l l he' s tru th f

u l , but th i s i s of abs o l u t e l y no ad vant age t o m e be c a u s e , you know , he' s th e a c c ount ant and i

t ' s not an a udi t ed t h i ng. H e ' s goi ng t o j u s t r e l y and m ake a l i s t

and m ayb e f

i l e the t ax ret

urn based sol e l y on the repr esent a t i o n m ade b y h i s c lie n t. T h a t ' s a ll h e can t est i f y b ecause he' s not gu a r ant eei n g i t . T h e Fa t her

ar gues on ap pea l that the courtt ook a r o l e i n cr o s s - exa mi n i n g M r . H ar p e rb y not i ng that he r e l i ed on a st a t

e m ent w h i ch wa s

not audi t e d and t hat th i s ca l l ed i n t o ques t i on the c r e d i b ilityo f th e F a t h e r. It is th e Fat her ' s pos i t i on that

the court ' s ques

t i ons i m pos ed a duty upon t

he Fa t her ' s counse l t o p r esen

t i n f o r m a t i on as t o the Fa t her ' s tru th f u l nes s pur s uant

t o R u l e 608( a ) of t he T enn ess e e R u l e s

of E v i denc e . W e di s agr

e e f i ndi ng that

the court ' s lin e of que s t i o n i n g did no t e f f e c ta n " a t t a c k " on

th e Fa t her' s char a c ter fo r tru t h f u l n e s s . Th e c o u rt w a s m e r e l y c l arify i n g th e s o u r c e o f th e s p e c ific fin a n c i a l i n f o r m a tio n u p o n w h i c h M r. H ar p e r r e lie d to fo r m h i s te s tim o n y . V . I n th e F a t h e r ' s fin a l i s s u e , h e c o n ten d s th a t t h e tri a l co u r te rre d in its a w a r d o f a tto r n e y fe e s to th e M o t h e r. T h e F a t h e r a r g u e s th a tth e r e is no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o rity f

or an aw a r d o f

at t orney fees

i n t h i s cas e . T he co de p r o v i des as- 11-

f o llo w s : T h e p lain t iff sp o u s e m ay recover f r o m the de

f enda n ts pous e , and t h e sp o u se o r o t h

e r p e r s o n t o w

hom t h e c u s t ody

of t h e c h ild , or ch i l d ren , i s aw arde d m a y recov er f rom t h e other s pous e r e a sona

b l e at t o r n e y f e e s i n c u r r e d i n e n f

o r c i ng a n y d ecree f o r al i m ony and/ o r ch i l d support , or

i n r ega r d t o any s u it o r

ac t i on con c e r n i ng the a

d j udi c a t i on of the c u s t ody o r the c hange of cus t o dy o f a n y c h ild , or c h ild r e n , o f th e p artie s , both upon t

he or i g i nal di vor c e hea r i ng and at any s ubs eque n theari n g , w h i ch fees

m ay b e f i xed and a llo w e d by t h e cour t , bef o r e w hom s uch a c t i on or pr oce edi ng i s pendi

ng, i n the di s c r

e t i on of s uch c ourt . T enn.C ode A

nn. § 36- 5 - 103( c )

( Supp. 1998) ( e m

p h asi s adde d ) . T he Fa

t her s u b mits th a tth i s sec t i o n i n i n a p p l i c a b l e to t h e inst a n tca se a s i to n l y aut hori z e s f ees i ncur r ed i n enf o r c i ng a d e c r e e and e n f o r c i ng a d e c r e e f o r chi l d s uppor tdoes not i ncl ude de f endi ng an a wa r

d of chi l d s uppor t . T he M o t her f

i l ed an answ e r

to t h e F a t h e r's p e titio n to m odi f y ; how eve

r , s he di d not count e r - pet i t i on t o enf

o r c e t h e d e c r e e . It is th e F a t h e r's p o s itio n th a t th e pur pos e of t h i s s t a t u t e w as t

o aw a r d a t t o r n e y fe e s to th

o s e li t i g a n ts w h o w e r e re q u i r ed t o com e i n t o cour tpur e l y bec aus e t he obl i gor par ent w a s not m e e t i ng hi s or

her s uppor tobl i gat i on. W e di sagr ee w i t h t he Fa t her ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i on of s e c t i on 36- 5 - 103( c ) fin d i n g that th i s s t a t u t e enco m passesthe at t orney f

ees i ncur r ed by a c u s t odi a l parenti n def

endi ng t h e o b l i g o r

parent ' s unsuccessf

u l sui tt o d ecr ease at

t orney fees. In asim i l ar fa c t u a l situ a t i o n , th is c o u rt h a s s tate d th a t "[i]t i s w e l l est abl i shed that

a non - cust odi a l par e n t m ay b e hel d l i abl e f

or legal exp enses i n c u r r e d by t

he c u s t odi a l par ent i n pr o t e c t i ng the r i ght of chi l d r en t o s uppor t . " B eck v. B eck , N o . 01A 01- 9710- C V

- 00547, 1998 W L 136130, at

*2 ( T enn.A pp. 1998) ( uphol d i ng aw

a r d of at t o r ney f e e s t o cus

t odi a l m o ther i n her def ens e a g ainst th e fa t h e r's a tte m p t s to re d uce

chi l d s uppor t ) ; s e e al s o Li ndber

g v. L i ndber g , N o . 02A 01- 9407- C V

- 00169, 1995 W L 607557 ( T enn. A pp. 1995) ( uphol d i n g th e tria l c o u rt's a w ar d o f p arti a l atto

r n e y fe e s to th

e c u sto d ial p ar e n t w hen t he non

- cust odi a l par ent pet i t i oned f o r a de c r e a s e i n chi l d s uppor t ) . T h e Fat her al s o cont ends that the courtabu sed i t s di scr

e t i o n i n m aki

n g t h i s part i cul a r aw a r d . T he co urts have w i de d i scr e t i o n i n aw ard i n g att

o rne y fees, a n d th i s c o u rt w ill n o t in t e r f e r e in th e e x e r c i s e o f th a t d i s c r e tio n in th e ab s e n c e- 12-

o f a c l e a r sho w i n g of

abuse . Sal i s bur

y v . Sal i s bur y , 657 S. W . 2d 761, 770 ( T enn. A pp. 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e tri a l co u rt' s a w ar d w i t h re g ar d to

a t t o r n e y fe e s nee

d onl y be ju s t and eq u i t a b l e u n d er t

h e c i rcu m s t a n c e s . Sher

rod v. W i x , 849 S . W . 2d 780, 785 ( T e n n . Ap p . 1992) . T he M o ther ' s at t o r ney s ubm i t t ed a n af f i davi ts how i ng hi s t o t a l f e e s and e xpense s t o be $ 5426. 81 and

ther e wa s nei ther pr oof nor al l ega t i o n t h a tth i s fig u r e w a s in a c c u r a t e . T h e c o u rt o r d e r e d th e F a t h e r to p a y to th e M o ther ' s at t o r ney $2500 o f th e s e f

ees and ex pen ses . W e f

i n d that the co urt

di d not abuse i t s di s c r e t i on i n awa r

d i ng the M

o ther ' s at t o r ney one h a lf of th

e fe e s and exp enses t

hat w e r e i ncu rr ed i n repr esent i n g the M o t her. F i n a lly , w e a d d ress the M o t her' s r equ est that she be aw a r ded her f ees and expe n s e s i ncur r ed on appe

a l . I n l i ght

of our c o n c l u sio n tha t t

h e tri a l co u r t s houl d not

have pl a ced a l i en on both of

the Fa t her ' s p r o p e rtie s , w e do n

o tf i n d t h a tthe F a t her has purs ued an u n n ecess a r y ap peal . S i nce t he F a t her' s app eal w a s

" p artia llysuc cessful , " s e e Young v. Young , 9 7 1 S . W . 2d 386, 393 ( T enn.A pp. 1997) , w e den y t he M o t her' s req u est for an aw ardo f he r att o rne y fees an d co s t s o n app eal . S e e F

o r d v. F o r d , N o . 01A 01- 9611- C V

- 00536, 1998 W L 730201, at * 6 ( T enn . A p p . 19 9 8 ) ( den y i n g the m o t her/ app e l l ee at t orney fees

and co s t s o n app eal w here t

he fat her/ app e l l ant w as par t i a l l y successf u l i n h i s appeal ) . V I . I n conc l u s i on, w e a

f f i r m the d e c i s i o n o f th e tria l c o u rt to d i s a llo w a decr eas e i n chi

l d s uppor t . Wh i l e w

e a g r e e w i t h the court ' s dec

i s i on that th e Fat her ' s s uppor tobl i gat i on be s e c u r ed by a l i en, w e fin d th a t th e cour

tabused i t s d i s c r e tio n i n enc

u m ber i ng bot h t he Fa t her ' s home a nd r ent a l pr oper t y f o r th i s pur pos e . A ccordi n g l y , w e m o d i f y t he co urt ' s deci s i o n such t hat a l i e n re m a i n s onl y upon t

he r ent a l pr oper t y . T he t r i a l cour t ' s d e c i s i o n s w ith re g ar d to th e t e s tim o n y of t h e w i t nes s , M r . H a r per , and w i t h r ega r d t o the a

w a r d of at t o r ney f ees ar e af f i r m ed. F i nal l y , the M o t her' s r equ est f or f ees on ap peal i s deni ed.

________________

_____________

_________

_ W I L L I A M B. CAI

N , J UDGE- 13-

CONC UR:

_______________________ ____________ B E N H . C A N T R E L L , P . J ., M . S .

_______________________ ___________ PATR I C I A J . CO TTRELL, J U D G E