F IL ED

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 E T H E R E S 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 OF AP P E A L S OF T E NNE S S E E

A P P E A L F ROM T H E CI R C U 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 E HONORAB L E M URI E L ROB I N S ON, J UDGE

L E W CONNE R

J A M E S H. DRE S CHE R

S t o k e r s & B a r t h o l 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 a rtie s ' tw o

m i nor c h ild r e n . T h e t r i a l cour t deni 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 t had b e e n s e t i n t he f i nal dec r e e . I n addi t i on, t he c our t pl a c ed a l i en on t w o

o f t h e F athe r ' s p rop ert i es a n d aw ard e d fees t o th e M o t her ' 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 a r d to c h i l d 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 a r 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 t h e Fat her ' s pr oper t i e s . A c c o r d i ngl y , t he de c i s i on of t h e

tria l c o u rt is a f f irm e d a s m o d ifie d a n d re m a n d fo r f u 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 a rtie s ' tw o c h ild r e n , tw i n boys, be j o i n t

and t hat t he M o t her 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 t f i nds t h i s an a ppr opr i a t e s itu a tio n in w h i c h to

devi a t e fr o m th e G u i d e lin e s w ith re g a r d to c h ild s uppor t .

B o t h parent s have t hei r ow n success f u l bu s i nesses . 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 uppor t o f

t hem sel ves a nd t he s uppor t of t hei r chi l d r en. Fr o m [ t h e

F athe r ' s ] t e s t i m ony he i s not w o r k i ng l i ke he has i n t he pa s t ,

but t he C o u r t senses t hat 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 t i s her eby s e t at

$800. 00 per m ont h .

B o t h part i es appeal e d fr o m th e j udgm ent of t he t r i a l cour t on va r i ous

i s s ues one o f t he Fa t her ' s be i ng t he a w a r d of $800 pe r m ont h i n chi l d s uppor t .

T h e cour t of appe a l s f ound t hat t her e w a 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 t coul d h ave d e t e r m i ned t hat t he Fa t her w a s under e m p l oye d and

r e m ande d t he c aus e f o r det e r m i nat i on of chi l d s uppor t . 

W e ar e of t he opi n i on t hat t he e v i denc e doe s not

p r eponde r a t e in fa v o r o f th e tria l c o u rt's f i n d i n g th a t th e

def enda n t i 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 ild s uppor t i s r evers e d

and r e m ande d . O n r e m and, t he t r i a l cour t shal l hear evi den c e

o n t he a m ount of t he de f enda n t ' s i ncom e a s def i ned i n t h e

gui del i nes and det e r m i ne t he co r r ect net i nco m e am o u n t .

T hereaf t e r , t he c our t s 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 t equ 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 t he 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 t he t r i a l

cour t . I n s t e a d , he pa i d $800 pe r m ont h 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 a y e a r u n t i l t h e ti m e th a t h e fil e d th is p e t i t i o n to m o d ify .

O n N ovem ber 4, 1997, t he Fa t her in itia t 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 a p 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 rast i 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 t hat he w a s

e m p l o y e d in t he 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 t hat 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 t hat " he de s per a t e l y ne ed[ ed] a r educ t i on i n

chi l d s uppor t pay m ent s f o r a pe r i od of appr oxi m a t e l y t w e l ve m ont h s . " 

A t t he M a r ch 26, 1998 he a r i ng, t he M o t her of f e r e d no evi denc e a nd t h e

F a t her' s onl y w i t nesses w e r e hi m sel f , hi s cur r ent w i f e and hi s accoun t ant . Th e

Fat her tes t i fied th a t h e is a se lf-em p l o y e d p r o f e s s i o n a l p h o t o g r a p her doi n g

bus i nes s as D e V aul t Phot ogr aphy . T he Fa t her cl a i m e d t hat 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 t w i t hout bor r o w i ng f r o m hi s

p aren t s , cred i t ca 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 t hat 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 t he i ndus t r 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 a w 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 t hi 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 c e 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 of i 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 m i z e d t he 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 t expe 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 t w a s s how i ng t h i s l o s s . 

A t t he he a r i ng w hen a s ked w hat pr oper t y he ow ned, t he 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 l a a nd w e ow n our

o w n ho m e . " H o w ever, t he 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 a p a rtm e n t b u ild i n g . H e te s tifie d th a t he ow ed i n exc e s s of $340, 000

t o c r e d ito r s . H e s t a t e d th a t, o t h e r th a n s h a rin g fin a n c i a l re s p o n s i b ility fo r h i s

hom e wi t h h i s c u r r e n t w i f e , 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 t h 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 r t gage of

$125, 000 and h i s r ent a l pr oper t y w a s w o r t h $300, 000 w i t h a m o r t gage bal ance

o f $116, 000. T he Fa t her di d ac know l edge t hat 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 f i n a l w itn e s s w a s J i m H a r p e r, a c e rtif i e d p u b lic a c c ount ant

w h o had k ept t he Fa t her ' s books s i nce t he 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 V aul t

Phot ogr aphy as of N ovem ber 1997 a s w e l l as t he 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 . H e 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 t cl a r i f i ed t hat t he acco u n t ant w as not gu a r ant eei n g t he 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 , t he M o t her ' 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 t he he a r i ng, t he co urt i s s ued 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 m i s s e d fo r f a ilu r e to s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h re lie f

can be gr ant ed a nd due t o t he f a i l u r e of t he p e titi o n er t o estab l i s h fact s u p o n

w h i c h t h i s [ c ] our t w oul d be e m pow e r e d t o r educ e s a i d s uppor t . " T he c our t f ound

t h a t th e cur r ent am ount of chi l d s uppor t w 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 t he a m ount t he Fa t her

i s abl e t o ea r n . T he c our t f u r t her f ound t hat t he 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 u s ed t o s e c u r e hi s obl i gat i on t o pay chi l d s uppor t i ncl udi n g

equi t y i n hi s hom e a nd r ent a l pr oper t y . T he c our t t hus pl a c ed l i ens on bot h

p i eces of pr oper t y and o r der ed t hat t hey r e m a i n unt i l t he 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 , t he c our t or der ed t he Fa t her t o pay t he M o t her ' s at t o r ney t h e

s u m of $2500 f o r t he a t t o r ney f e e s and e xpens e s and t he c our t or der e d th e Fat her

t o pay cour t cos t s . 

II.

I n itia lly , we poi n t out t hat t h i s w a s not a di s m i 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 i e 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 cons eque n t l y ba s ed upo n t he 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 t us 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 , t he c our t ' s

o r der fo llo w e d a hea 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 t hi s

p e titio n fo r m o d ific a tio n . In a d d itio n to t he R u l e 12. 02( 6 ) l angua ge, t he c our t

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 m i 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 es t abl i s h f a c t s upon w h i ch t h i s C our t w oul d be e m pow e r ed t o r educ e s a i d

s uppor t . " M o r e o v e r , fro m t he be nch, t he t r i a l j udge st a t ed t hat "[ t ] here w as ver y

little pr oof t oday . A l o t t 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

a p e t i t i o n to re d u c e t he ch i l d sup p o r t as s e t . " I t i s cl ear t hat t he co urt m i sused t h e

12. 02( 6 ) l angua ge a nd t hat i t s dec i s i on w a s bas ed upo n i t s r evi e w of t he e v i denc e

p r oduce d at t he he a r i ng.

T u r n i n g to th e su b s t ant i ve i s s ue o f chi l d sup p o r t , t hese 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 t he c h i l d s uppor t

gui del i nes pr o m u l gat ed b y t he D e p a r t m ent of H u m an Se r v i c e s pur s uant t o t h 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 ild s 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 t he 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 t he t r i a l cour t ' s f a c t u a l fin d i n g s a
1

" [ A ] si g n i f i cant vari ance shal l be at l east 15 % i f t he cu r r 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 ont h . " T enn. C o m p . 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 t h e tria l c o u rt's

l egal cons t r uct i on of t he gui del i nes . Turne r v. Turne r , 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 t m odi f i c a t i on, t he c ode pr ovi des t hat " upon

a p p lic a tio n o f e i t h e r p a rty , th e c o u r t shal 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 ound t o b e a si g n i f i cant vari ance, as def i ned i n t he ch i l d

s uppor t gui 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 ess t he 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 devi a t i on f r o m t he 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 t hat a v 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 t or 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, th e o b lig o r is w illfu lly a 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 , th e 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 t t hen s e t s uppor t at $800 pe r m ont h w i t hout m aki n g

a det e r m i nat i on as t o t he Fa t her ' s pot ent i a l i ncom e a s r equi r ed by t he 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 c our t of appe a l s re v e r s e d th e tria l

cour t bot h as t o t he f i ndi ng t hat t he 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 t s 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 t he gui del i nes bas ed 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 t t o hea r evi denc e on t he a m ount of t he Fa t her ' s i n c o m e . H o w eve r , t h 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 pe r m ont h f o r over

a y e a r 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 t he i n s t ant pr oce edi ng, t he c our t n o t ed f r o m t he be nch t hat chi l d

s uppor t as s e t by 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 w a 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] a b ili t y to e a r 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 tly s 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] a b ility to e a r n . " It is c l e a r th a t th e tria l

cour t ' s f i ndi ng w i t h r ega r d t o t he $40 , 000 f i gur e w a s bas ed upo n t he $80 0 per

m ont h 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 t hat $40, 000 i s t he a m ount of i ncom e t hat cor r e s ponds t o

a n $800 m ont h l y c h i l d s uppor t aw a r d such t hat i f chi l d s uppor t w a s s e t at $800

a m ont h t hen t he Fa t her m u s t have 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 t i 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 t h a d fa ile d to m a k e a fa 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 at t he t i m e

o f t he fi nal decree and si nce t he F a t her had fai l ed t o o b t a i n such a d e t e r m i nat i o n

fro m th e tri a l co u rt o n 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 at bar, t he F a t her cont end s t hat t h e t r ial c o u r t

e rre d b y fa ilin g to d e term i n e h is c u rre n t i ncom e ba s ed upo n t he pr oof pr e s ent e d

a t tria l as r equi r ed by t he c h i l d s uppor t gui del i nes . H e c l a i m s t hat t he c our t

based its a w a r d o n th e F a t h e r's e a r 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 t i s t he F a t her' s pos i t i on t hat t he c our t er r ed by bas i ng t h e aw a r d upon e a r n i n g

pot ent i a l w hen i t neve r f ound t hat t he Fa t her w a s vol unt a r i l y une m p l oye d or

under e m p l oyed as r equi r ed by t he G u i del i n es. T h e Fat her al s o cont ends t hat

s i n c e th e tria l cou r t nev e r ascer t a i ned t he F a t her' s cur r ent i nco m e , i t nev e r

r eached t he p o i n t w here i t cou l d m ake a "si g n i f i cant vari ance" det e r m i 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 a b 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 l ess t han i t w as at t he t i m e of t he o r i g i nal

s uppor t or der and t hus fa ile d to s h o w a s i gni f i c a n t var i anc e . I n bot h t he be nch

r u lin g a n d th e fin a l o r d e r, th e cour t expr e s s ed i t s opi n i on t hat t he Fa t her had t h e

a b ility t 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 t hat t he 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 lly w a s re c e i v i n g . D u rin g th e

heari n g t he c our t com m ent ed t o t he Fa t her , " your t e s t i m ony now i s t hat you c an' t
- 8 -

c o mma n d t hat i ncom e [ 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' t j i ve. I n o t her w ords, t he 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 ati o 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 doe s not pr eponde r a t e a gai n s t t he c our t ' 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 t han $4 0 , 000. T her e

w a s evi denc e t hat t he Fa t her had p u t m 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 hom e a s r e c ent l y a s D e c e m ber of 1997. T h e

cour t not ed t hat t he Fa t her obvi ous l y ha d t he " w h e r e w ith a l " f or s uch

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 t w i t h by s c a l i ng i t dow n

i nst ead of t r 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 , th e 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 xpens e 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 V aul t Phot ogr aphy and n e t l o s s f r o m th e re n t a l

p r oper t y .

A s s t a t e d , th e tria l c o u r t det e r m i ned t he $40 , 000 f i gur e r epr e s ent i ng t h e

Fat her ' s p o t e n tia l in c o m e f r o m t he m ont h 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 lly a n d

v o l u n t a rily 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 m i nat i on of pot ent i a l i ncom e , as evi denc ed by educ a 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 a r 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 t w a s a v a ila b l e to h i m a fte r th i s

cour t rev 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 a s i g n ific a n t

vari ance f r o m t he $40 , 000 by s how i ng t hat he i s m aki ng 15% l e s s t han $4 0 , 000.

T h e F a t her has not car r 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 t var i anc e a nd t hus 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 s t abl i s h i ng t hat

t h e part y seek i n g m odi f i c a t i on i n al i m ony or chi l d s uppor t has t he bur den of
- 9 -

p r oof under t he pr i or s t 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 a r 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 c our t

i m pos ed a l i en a gai n s t bot h t h 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 t he c ode a u t hor i z e s t he 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 t m 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 fit s o f th e re a l est a t e of t he obl i gor aga i n s t

w hom su c h or der o r decree w as i s s ued , i f such o b l i g o r has

any, and s uch ob l i gor ' s per s onal es t a t e and cho ses i n act i o n ,

and by a ppoi n tin g a re c e i v e r th e r e o f, a n d fr o m tim e to tim e

causi n g t he sam e t o b e app l i e d t o t he us e of t he 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 , th e im p o s itio n of a l i en ag a i nst t he real and

per s onal pr oper t y of t he 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 a lie 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 t h e F athe r t h at an ab u se o f discr eti o n ex i s t s in th e

cour t ' s dec i s i on t o enc u m ber bot h of t he 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 c o r d i ng t o t he Fa t her ' s pr oof , t he t w o pr oper t i e s had a com b i ned e qui t y

o f $260, 000. A t t he t i m e of tria l , t he t w i n boys w e r e ni ne y e a r s ol d . A s s u m i n g

c h ild s uppor t r e m a i n s f i xed a t $800 pe r m ont h , t h 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 t by 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 t hat $260, 000 w o r t 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 t obl 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 a r p e r re latin g to th e tru t h f u l n e s s o f th e F a t h e r ' s

fin a n c i a l r e c o r d s . W hen a s ked ho w he a r r i ved a t t h e fig u 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 a r p e r te s tifie d th a t th e F a t h e r "gave [ h i m ] t he 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 t he i nco m e i t e m s a n d

expe n s e i t e m s w e 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 t gu a r ant eei n g t he rel i abi l i t y o f t hese? O n l y y o u sai d

y o u di d t hese f r o m t he i nfor m a t i o n supp l i ed b y y o u r cl i ent ?" M r . H a r per

r e s ponde d th a t th i s w as c o r r e c t b u t l ater h e a n s w ered t h at he h a d n o reaso n t o

b e lie v e t he i nfor m a t i o n w as i nco m p l e t e . W hen asked w het her M r . H a r per f e l t

t h a t th e in f o r m a tio n w a s tru t h f u l, th e 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 c our t s 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 c an t e l l he' s t r u t h f u l , but t h 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 t h 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 t he t ax ret urn based

sol e l y on t he 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 t hat t he c our t t ook a r o l e i n cr o s s -

exa m i n i n g M r . H a r p e r b y not i ng t hat he r e l i ed on a s t a t e m ent w h i ch w a s not

audi t e d and t hat t h i s ca l l ed i n t o ques t i on t he c r e d i b ility o f th e F a t h e r. It is th e

Fat her ' s pos i t i on t hat t he c our t ' s ques t i ons i m pos ed a dut y upon t he Fa t her ' s

couns e l t o p r esen t i n f o r m a t i on as t o t he Fa t her ' s t r u t h 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 t hat t he c our t ' s

lin e of qu e s t i o n i n g di d n o t e f f e c t a n " a t t a c k " on t h 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 a rif y 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 a r 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 t e 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 t th 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 i ff sp o u s e m ay recover f r o m t he de f enda n t s 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 s ona 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 t he a d j udi c a t i on of t he c u s t ody

o r t he c hange of cus t o dy o f a n y c h ild , o r c h ild r e n , o f th e

p a rtie s , bot h upon t he or i g i nal di vor c e hea r i ng and at any

s ubs eque n t heari 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 t he di s c r e t i on of s uch c our t .

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 m its th a t t h 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 t ca se a s i t o n l y aut hor i 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 t does

not i ncl ude de f endi ng an a w a 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 t pur 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 t obl 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 t hat t h i s s t a t u t e enco m passes t he at t orney f ees i ncur r ed by a c u s t odi a l

parent i n def endi ng t h e o b l i g o r parent ' s unsuccessf u l sui t t o d ecr ease at t orney

fees. In a sim i l a r 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 t hat a non - cus t odi a l par e n t m ay b e hel d l i abl e f or l egal 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 t he 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 t her 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 a r d o f p a rti a l atto r n e y fe e s to th e c u sto d ial p a r e n t

w hen t he non - cus t 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 t hat t he c our t abu 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 urt s 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 a b s e n c e
- 12-

o f a c l e a r sho w i n g of abus e . 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 a r d w i t h re g a r 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 r od v. W i x , 849 S . W . 2d 780, 785

( T e n n . Ap p . 1992) . T he M o t her ' s at t o r ney s ubm i t t ed a n af f i davi t s how i ng hi s

t o t a l f e e s and e xpens e s t o be $ 5426. 81 and t her e w a s nei t her pr oof nor al l ega t i o n

t h a t th 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 t her ' 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 t hat t he co urt di d

not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n aw a r d i ng t he M o t her ' s at t o r ney one h a lf o f th e fe e s and

exp enses t hat w e r e i ncu r r ed i n repr esent i n g t he M o t her.

F i n a lly , w e a d d ress t he M o t her' s r equ est t hat 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 th a t t h e tri a l co u r t

s houl d not have pl a c ed a l i en on bot h of t he Fa t her ' s p r o p e rtie s , w e do n o t f i n d

t h a t t he 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 a rtia lly suc 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 ard o f he r at t 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 t he 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 t he 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 . W h i l e w e a g r e e w i t h t he c our t ' s dec i s i on t hat t h e

Fat her ' s s uppor t obl 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 t abus ed 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 hom e a nd r ent a l pr oper t y f o r t h 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 a r 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 t he 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 , t he 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