### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y

19, 200 7

GRE TA DEN ISE SM ITH (A US TIN) v. R ICKY AL LAN SM ITH

An Appeal f

rom the Chancer y Court for Hardin Coun ty No. 5658 Donald P. Harr is, Sr. Jud ge, Sitting by Designation

No. W2006-02448-C OA-R3-C V - Oct ober 3, 2007

This appea l involves a petition for past due c hild support. W hen the pa rties divorce d in 1993, the mot he r w a s d e sig nate d a s th e pr ima ry re sid e nti a l par e nt of

the c hil d, and

the fathe r w a s o rd e re d to pay child support “dire ctly

to” the mother. In 1998, the m other remarr ied. From that point forwar d, the father made his child support chec ks pay able to the child, not to the mother. Ne verthe less, the mother endor sed the c hecks, de posit ed t h em into the same ba nk acc ount as she had be fore , and

ma int a ine d c on tr ol o ve r t he us e of the fu nd s. Ye ars la te r, in 2 00 5, the fa the r f ile d a pet it io n to modify custody , seekingto be desig n at ed as p ri mary residential pa

rent. The mother filed a counter claim for c hild support arre ara g es, cla iming that the father ha d not made prope r pay ments as

re qu ir e d und e r t

he div or c e de c re e sin c e 19 98 , a nd tha t he sh ou ld n ot r e c e ive c re dit fo r t he c hil d support chec ks that were made pa y able to the c hild. After a hear ing, the trial court g ave the fathe r
cre dit for the child suppo rt checks. The tria l court re asoned that, although the chec ks were made pay able to the child, the m oney rema ined in the mother’s c ontrol and she tre ated it as he r own. The mother now a

p p ea l s

. W e affirm, concluding that the father should re ceive cre dit for the disputed pay ments under the c ircumstance s prese nted.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the Court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., and D A V ID R. F ARMER , J ., joined.

Terr y L . Wood, C orinth, Missis sippi, for the appe llant, Greta Smit h Austin.

L loy d R. Tatum, Hender son, Tennesse e, for the appe llee, Ricky

Allan Smith.

OP IN ION
Plaintiff/Appellant Gre ta Denise Smit h (Austin) (“Mother”) and De fenda nt/Appellee Ricky Allan Smith (“Father” ) we re divorc ed on September 14, 1993. The pa

rties had one child during the marria g e, Ga

rrick A llan Smit h (“G arr ick”) , born F ebrua ry 2, 1991. When they

divorce d, the par

ties signe d a Mar ital Dissoluti on Ag ree ment (“MDA ”) de signatin g M o t her a s the child’s primar yFa t h er pai d M ot h er $347 pe r mon t h i n s u ppor t , e v en t h ou g h t h e ch i l d a l l eg edl y r es i ded wi t h h i m 50% t o 60% 1
of t he t i me.

O n t he ad vi ce o f

co unsel
, i n M arch 2 0 0 5 , Fa t her agai n b egan m aki ng t he supp o rt checks payable t o M o t her. 2

-2- residential pa

rent a nd requiringFather to “pa y direc tly to [ Mother] the s u m o f Eig hty Dollars ($ 80 .0 0) pe r we e k as Chil d Supp or t . . . . ” F or

se ve ra l y e ars , F a the r r e g ula rl y pa id t he re qu ir e d c hil d support direc tly

to Mother as orde red. 1

I n November

1998, Mother re marrie d. T h e r e a f te r , F a th e r c o nti n u e d s e n d in g the child support

c he c ks , b ut i ns te a d o f makin g the c he c ks pa y a ble to Mo the r, he be g an ma kin g the c he c ks pa

y a ble to G arr ic k. F a the r c on tin ue d th is m ann e r o f p ay

me nt f or ov e r s ix y e ars

.
On F e br ua ry 22 , 2 00 5, F a the r f

ile d a mot ion to mod if

y the tr ia l c ourt ’s pr e vio us or de rs , seekingto be desig nated Ga rrick’ s p ri m ary

residential pa

rent. I f he w ere desig nated pr imary residential pa

rent, F ather

also soug ht to modify

his child support pay

ments ac cordingly . Mother responde d by

filing a counter claim for c hild support arre ara g es, cla iming that F ather should not

rec eive c redit for

the pay ments made dire ctly to the minor child in contrave ntion of the MDA and Tenne ssee law

. The parties enter ed int o a settl ement and compromise on the issues raise d in Fathe r’s motion to m odify , but Mother’s counte rcla im remained at issue.

On Au g us t 28 , 2 00 6, the tr ia l c ourt he ld a he ari ngon

Mo the r’ s c ountercl aim fo r t he c hil d support arr ear ag e. At the he aring , the trial cour t hear d testimony

from both Mother and F ather reg ardingthe pay

ments t h at Father made direc tly to Garr ick. Mother f

irst describe d her pr actice wh e n F a the r’ s c he c ks we re ma de pa y a ble to he r, a s re qu ir e d un de r the div or c e de c re e

. She sa id t hat, pr ior to he r re marr ia g e , wh e n s he re c e ive d F a the r’ s c hil d s up po rt c he c ks , s he de po sit e d th e pa y me nts int o a ba nk a c c ount e sta

bli sh e d in the name s of bo th he r a nd Ga rr ic k. Th ou g h th e a c c ount w a s in both names, M o t h er ex er ci sed control ove r it. The funds in the a ccount we re use d for the c hild’s

ne c e ssa ry e xpe ns e s, me dic a l and

oth e rw ise . In N ov e mber 19 98 , Mo the r r e marr ie d. Af te r t hat, F a the r s e nt t

he same a mou

nt o f c hil d s up po rt

e a c h mo nth , b ut h e ma de the c he cks pa y a ble to Gar rick, rather than to Mother

. Father did not discuss with Mother this ch an ge in hi s manner of 2
pa y me nt pr ior to imp le me nti ng it. He la te r tol d Moth e r that he be g an ma kin g the c he c ks pa

y a ble to Gar rick be cause he did not want her new husba

nd to have acc ess t o the m oney

. Mother testified that F a the r “ c on tin

uo us ly tr ie d to te ll m e that it wa s his mon e y , it wa s not mine and he wa nte d to te ll m e how to spend it.” She told Father, however, that the m oney was to be used for Ga rrick, a nd that he, Father, ha d no control over how i t was used. Mother indicated that Fathe r had a temper, a nd that at times she was a fra id to confront him.

Mother admitted that, even afte r Father beg an making the support che cks pay able to Ga rrick, sh e c on tin

ue d to re c e ive a ll o f t

he c he c ks . Sh e e nd or se d th e m a s b e fo re , an d s he de po sit e d th e m inM o t her ackno wl ed ged t hat
, al t ho ugh s he changed ba nks at s o m e p o i nt t o earn a hi gher i nt erest rat e, t he acco unt 3

i n whi ch she dep o si t ed a l l o f the checks rem ai ned t he same, and i t remained i n t he nam es of bo t h G arri ck and M o t her.

-3- the same ba

nk acc ount as befor e. She assumed that F ather intended them as support chec ks for 3 Ga rr ic k. Mo the r c la ime d th a t, a ft er Fathe r b e g an ma kin g the c hil d s up po rt

c he c ks pa

y a ble to Ga rr ic k, sh e dis c on tin

ue d p ay ingfo r m os t of

Ga rr ic k’ s n e c e ssi tie s o ut o f t he jo in t ban k a c c ount. I nstead, she de cided to tre at the majority of the pa y ments as a g ift to G arr ick. Afte r depositing the chec ks in the joint account, Mother used the monies in the ac count for thing s that Garr ick wante d, such as e lectronic items, musical instruments, and the like, rathe r than for nece ssities. S he cla imed that sh e the re a ft e r us e d he r ow n pe rs on a l fu nd s fo r Ga

rr ic k’ s ne c e ssi tie s, su c h a s his c lot he s and his lun c h mo ne y , a

nd e sti ma te d th a t sh e ha d s pe nt a bo ut $ 25 ,0 00 on

tho se ty pe s o f i te ms. She sa id t

hat, of the $26,247 that had been deposited into Ga rrick’ s acc ount sinc e Father beg an making the che cks pa y a ble di rect ly

to h im, a pp ro xima te ly

$5 ,0 00 ha d b e e n s pe nt o n n e c e ssi tie s, and a pp ro xima te ly $8,00 0 t o $9,000 rema ined in the ac count. She soug ht past due child support fr om Fathe r in the

a mou nt o f $ 26 ,2 47 min

us the $5 ,0 00 us e d f

or ne c e ssi tie s and the a mou nt re ma ini ngin t

he a c c ount. Mo the r p lann e d to us e the pr oc e e ds re ma ini ng in the joi nt a c c ount f or Ga rr ic k’ s c oll e g e e xpe ns e s. She acknow ledg ed that, at a ll times, she m aintained control over the dispositi on of the funds in the joint account.

Father testified as well. He stated that the child support chec ks made pay able to Garrick w ere int e nd e d to satis fy

his c hil d s up po rt

ob lig a tio n. F a the r s a id h e c ha ng e d th e pa

y e e on the c hil d support ch e c k s to G ar

r ic k a f te r M o th e r r e ma r r ie d b e c a u s e “ [t ]h a t m o n e y

w a s to b e s p e n t f

or [Garrick’ s] child s upport, not . . . for [Mother and he r newhusband] to take vacations [or] . . . for the nig ht life.” He suspected that Mother was using the child support proce eds for rec reation for he r
and he r n e w hus ba

nd be c a us e Mo the r w ou ld h old

thr e e or fou r c he c ks and the n d e po sit

the m ju st befor e she a

nd her husba

nd went on extended, we ek-longtrips. Fathe r said he did not r emember that the divorce decr ee ha d require d him to make the child support p aym en t s d i rec tly to Mother. He claimed that he had told Mother that the c hecks ma de payable to Ga rrick wer e for child support, and that Gar rick kne w that the che cks we re c hild support pay ments. Fa t h er s aid he never thre atene d Mother or trie d to tell her how to use the c hild support money

.
At the c on c lus ion

of the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t th e su

pp or t c he c ks ma de pa

y a ble to Gar rick satisfied Father’s obligation under the operative child support order , and that, ther efor e, Father wa s not in arre ars in his child support pay ments. The trial c ourt rea soned:

I n th i s c a s e , [M o t h e r ] r e c e i v e d t h e m o n e y t h a t w a s t o b e c h i l d s u pp or t. A s I understand it, she e ndorsed e very chec k with her name, s he put it in an ac count, she controlled how it wa s used, how it was spent and I don’t think that Ihave a ny choice but to consider it to be child s u p p o rt and that in satisfac tion of this child support ob lig a tio n

. T h e f

a c t t h a t s h e c an ’ t a c c o u n t f o r i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t s h e w a s t r e a t ing it

re a lly a s h e r m on e y

and no t a s G arr ic k’ s.-4-

The trial c ourt noted that F ather ’s attempt to control the use of the mon ey p ai d t o M o ther wa s inappropriate, commenting that Mother is pe rmitted to use the child support pay ments in any

way that she see s fit. “[I ]f [ Mother and he r husband] want to g o on trips or . . . whateve r they

want to do, that’s her business as long as she pr ovides . . . for the [child’s] nece ssities . . . .” On October 12, 2006, the trial court enter ed an order consistent with its oral ruling

. On Marc h 26, 2006, the orde r
wa s ma de fi na l and

a pp e a la ble . F ro m th a t or de r, Mo the r n owa pp e a ls.

We re vie w the tr ia l court ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t de novo o n t h e re co rd
, p re s u m i n g t h o s e f i n d i n gs to b e c or re c t un le ss t

he e vid e nc e pr e po nd e ra

te s o the rw ise . T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; see Beard v

. Be ard , 206 S.W .3d 463, 466 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). T he trial c ourt’s conc lusions o f l aw are revie wed de novo , without a presumption of cor rec tness. Be ard , 206 S.W .3d at 466.

Mother ar g ues that, under Tenne ssee law , voluntary pay m en t s made on be half of minor

c hil dr e n th a t do no t c omp ly wi th t he op e ra tiv e c hil d s up po rt

or de r m ay

no t be cred ited

a s c hil d support pay

ments unless the pay

ments are made “for the children’ s nece ssaries which are not being supplied by

the custodial par ent.” See Oliver v. Oc zkowicz , No. 89-396-I I , 1990 WL 64534, at *2 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. May

18 , 1 99 0) ; se eals o Br owny ard v . Br owny ard , No. 02A01-9803- CH-00063, 1999 WL 418352, at *15 (Tenn. Ct. App. J une 22, 1999) (re fusing to give cre dit for pay ments made to and on beha lf of the c hildren in the abse nce of evidenc e s h o wi n g that the primary residential pa re nt w a s n ot p ro vid ingne c e ssa ri e s f or the c hil dr e n) ; Sut

ton v. Su tton , No. 180, 1991 WL 16234, at *1 (Te nn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 1991) (per mitti ng cre dit f

or nece ssaries provided to the child during the one y ear

that the child lived with the obligor pare nt); Netherton v. Netherton , No. 01-A- 01- 9208-PB00323, 1993 W L 4 9556, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 1993) (per mitti ng cre dit for

nece ssaries pr ovided to the child while in the oblig or’s custody ). She points out that F ather produce d no evidenc e that the pr ocee ds of the che cks made pay able to Ga rrick were for necessa

ries that we re not being provided by

Mother, nor did F ather

even make an a lleg ation that Mother fa iled to provide such nec essar ies. I n absenc e of suc h a showing , Mother ar g ues, F ather may not rec eive c redit for the pay ments made dire ctly

to Garr ick, and the tr ial court’s de cision must be reve rsed.

Fathe r a rgue s th a t g ivi nghim

c re dit fo r t he c he c ks ma de pa

y a ble to G arr ic k w a s p ro pe r i n thi s c a se

. I n su

pp or t of his argume nt, F a the r c ite s We inst e in v . He imburg , 490 S.W .2d 692 (Tenn. Ct. App

. 19 72 ). I n tha t c a se , th e op e ra tiv e c hil d s up po rt

or de r r e qu ir e d th e fathe r t o p ay fo r h is min or c hil d’ s c oll e g e tui tio n and e xpe ns e s. Th e c hil d c ha ng e d c oll e g e s wi tho ut his fathe r’ s c on se nt,

w h ic h r e s u lt e d in an in c r e a s e in an n u a l tu it io n an d e xp e n s e s o f a b o u t $ 1 , 800. We inst

e in , 490 S.W .2d at 694. Ther eaf

ter, the f ather made se vera l pay

ments direc tly

to the child totaling $960, a nd the c hil d u se d th e mon e y

fo r h is c oll e g e e xpe ns e s. Whe n th e mot he r s ou g ht t o h a ve the fathe r h e ld in c on te mpt

ba se d o n a

c hil d s up po rt

arr e ara g e , th e fath er so ught c re dit fo r t he $9 60 that he pa id dir e c tly to t he c hil d. Th e tr ia l c ourt

dis a llo we d the c re dit
, ho ldi ng that the mon ie s pa id t o th e c hil d constituted a g ift. Id. The a ppellate c ourt reve rsed, ba sed i n part on the fact that the m oney was used for the purpose orig inally intended by the trial court. Id. at 6 9 5 -9 6

. C i t i n g We inst e in , Father a

rg ues in this case that he was properly g iven credit for his pay ments made directly

to Garr ick, bec ause the money was used f

or the purpose for whic h it was intended – Ga rrick’ s support.-5-

Th e pe rt ine nt T e nn e sse e statut e pr ov ide s:
The [child support] order or dec ree of the c ourt may pro v i d e t h at the pay

ments for the support of such c hild or children sha ll be paid either to the clerk of the c ourt or direc tly to the spouse, or other person awar ded the custody of the c hild or children.

. . . Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 5-101(c )(2) (A ) (2 0 0 5 ). I n acc ordanc e with this statute, the parties’ 1993 MDA, incorpor ated into the divorce decr ee, provides that Father is to “pay direc tly to [ Mother] the sum of Eig hty

Dollars ($80.00) per wee k as Child Support

. . . .” I t is undisputed that, from the e nd of 1998 to Marc h 2005, Father sent timely chec ks in the requisite amount made pay abl e to the parties’ son instead of to Mother. The se che cks wer e sent to the home Gar rick shar ed with Mother, and the chec ks wer e g iven to Mothe r and endorse d by her. They wer e then deposi t ed i n t o a bank

acc ount under Mother ’s control and the m onies wer e used as Mot her deemed fit. Both parties w ere
aware th at Mothe r c on tin ue d to re c e ive F a the r’ s c he c ks and to c on tr ol h owthe pr oc e e ds of tho se
c he c ks we re sp e nt.

T h e f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e ar e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e f a c t s i nt h e c a s e s c i t e d

b y t h e p art i e s

. In Oliver v . Ozkowicz , sup ra , cited by Mother, the obligor fathe r had made various pay ments for c hildrelated expenses, appa

rently made dire ctly

to the ultimate pay ee, suc h as pay ments for private school tuition, m edica l bills , and a boy scout uniform. The Oliver c ourt he ld:

[W]e th ink the be tte r ru le is t o a llo w a c re dit fo r v olu nta ry pa y me nts ma de on

be ha lf of the c hildren only

wher e the pa

y ment is for the children’ s nece ssaries whic h are not be ingsu pp lie d by the c us tod ia l pa re nt. Th is re su lt is in lin e wi th w hat is a pp are ntl y the majority

view, see 24 Am. J ur.2d Divorceand Separation § 1077, which disallows cre dits for pay

ments not made in ac corda nce w ith the support order, a nd it r e c og nize s th a t e qu ita ble c on sid e ra

tio ns may

a llo w c redits un de r c e rt a in circ umstances. Id.

* * * Apply ing the rules we have outlined a bove, we do not think the respondent is entitled to any cre dit for the items contested by the [father]. Ther e i s n o ev i dence in the

rec ord befor e us from which we can c onclude that the pa y ments claimed by

the father

wer e for nece ssaries whic h the custodial par ent fa iled or re fused to fur nish.

Id. at *2-*3. Thus, wher e the obligor pare nt ma de pay ments direc tly to the purveyors of the se rvice s
on the child’s behalf

, cre dit f or these pay

ments was disallowed in the absenc e of proof that t he primary residential pa

rent wa s not furnishing ne cessa ries. This is dist inguisha

ble from the instant

c a se , w he re Mo the r r e c e ive d th e fu nd s and e xer c ise d c on tr ol o ve r t

he m.

Simi larly , in Bro wny ard, sup ra , also cited by Mother, the fathe r’s c hild support obligation incre ased a

nd the parties had ag ree d to split the childre n’s colleg e expenses. Id. at *2-*3. The fathe rW e e x c lud e c a se s fro m ju risd ic tio n s in w h ic h the re is a sta te sta tute tha t re so lve s the issu e in this a p p e a l, 4

b e c a u se T e n n e sse e ha s n o su c h sta tute

. S e e , e.g ., In re M a rria g e o f K ra u th , N o . 0 0 -0 3 5 9 , 2 0 0 1 W L 4 8 7 3 7 1 , at *1 -*2 ( I owa Ct

. Ap p. 200 1) ( r el y i ng on s t at ut e r equi r i ng t hat pay ment s be mad e t o c l er k of t he cour t or t he col l ect i on s er vi ces

c e n te r) ; M oni cken v. M oni cken , 5 9 3 N .W .2 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 4 -1 5 (W is. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) (r e lying o n sta tute w h ic h a llo w s c re d it f or di r ect cont r i but i ons t o t he chi l d wher e “ t he pay er p ro ve s b y c l ear an d convi nci ng ev i dence

. . . t hat t he pay ee exp res sl y agreed t o accep t t he p ayments i n l i eu o f chi l d

. . . s up p o rt ”).

-6- made se vera l pay

ments directly

to the colleg e-a g e children, furnished them used automobiles, and direc tly paid a variety

of colleg e-r elated e x penses. The appellate court de clined to cr edit the father for the pa y ments made dire ctly

to the parties’ adult son, not i n g t h at t h ere was no e vidence in the

rec ord that the chec ks wer e for nece ssities that wer e not provided by the mother. Id. a t *1 5. De sp ite the re c or d co nta ini ng do c ume ntatio n of vari ou s col le g e -r e la te d expe ns e s pai d by the fa the r, he did not provide the c ourt with the t otal colleg e ex penses for t he children, and ther efor e could not show that he had pa id half of them. Conseque ntl y , t h e appellate court a ffirme d the trial cour t’s order requiringthe father to pay half of the st u d ent l oan. Id. at *16. Thus, in Bro wny ard , the obligor pare nt’s pay

ments were made dire ctly to the child or to the par

ty furnishing service s to the child, and the ob lig e e pa

re nt w a s d e pr ive d o f h e r r ig ht t o e xer c ise c on tr ol o ve r t he fu nd s.

We noted above the circ umstances in W e i n ste in , cited by

Father, whe re the obligor fathe r was orde red to pa

y his son’s colleg e ex penses. The father pa id money direc tly to the adult son, and the m onies wer e in fa ct used to pay colleg e expenses. In We inst e in , then, the pay

ments at issue wer e not child support pay

ments for the support of a minor child, and so the fa cts are distinguishable f rom the ca se at ba

r.

Th e pa rt ie s h a ve no t c ite d a

Te nn e sse e c a se dir e c tly

on po int on the iss ue in t

his a pp e a l, namely , whether

an oblig or pare nt ma

y be cre dited with c hild support pay ments made in the form of che cks made pay able to the c hild under circ umstances in which the oblige e par en t re ceives the

c he c ks
, e nd or se s the m, de po sit s th e m, a nd e xer c ise s c on tr ol o ve r t

he pr oc e e ds . We re c og nize that, to da te , the on ly a

pp e llate c a se s in Tenne sse e that hav e a llo we d a cr e dit fo r p ay me nts ma de dir e c tly to the child have r equire d a showing that the pay men t s were made “ for the c hildren’s ne cessa ries which ar e not being supplied by the custodial par ent.” Bro wny ard , 1999 WL 418352, at *15 (interna l quotations omi tted). I t is undisput ed that there i s no such showing in this case, a nd Father does not alleg e that Mother is not providing nece ssaries for Garrick. Rather, he a rg ues that such a showing is not required unde r these c ircumstance s. Be cause of the unique c ircumstance s prese nted in this case , we revie w ca ses from other jurisdictions that invol ve similar circ umstances to dete rmine whether Father should be c redited f or the pa y ments made dire ctly

to Garr ick. 4

I n g ener al, an obligor pare nt is not g iven cre dit f or child support pay

ments made in a ma

nner oth e r t ha n th a t sp e c if

ie d in the op e rativ e c hil d sup po rt or de r. Th is fo r t wo re a so ns . F ir st, to d o s o
c ou ld b e c on str

ue d a s a re tr oa c tiv e mod if

ic a tio n o f a chi ld su

pp or t or de r, pr oh ibi te d in

mos t jurisdictions. Se ege ne ra lly Alice Wrig ht Cain, J .D., Right to Cr edit on Child-Support Arrearages for Mo ne yGi v e n D ire c tly

to C hil d , 1 19 A. L .R. 5th

44 5, a t *2 (2 00 4) . Se c on d, pe rm itt ingsu c h c re dit could have the ef

fec t of g iving c ontrol over the use of the funds to the obligor pare nt, thus int erf ering

w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a l p ar e n t ’ s d u t y an d r i g h tt o d i s b u r s e t h e f

u n d s a s h e o r

s h e d e e m s n e c e s s ar

y:-7- Courts ge nera lly

do not allow a cr edit t o the obligor spouse for voluntar

y
e x p e n d i tu r e s m a d e o n b e h a l f o f a c h i l d i na m an n e r o t h e r t h ant h a ts p e c i f

i e d b y a decr ee. To permit such a cre dit would eff ectively permit the obligor pare nt to vary the terms of the decr ee a

nd to usurp from the custodial pare nt the right to determine the manner

in which support money should be spent and c ould allow the obligor eff ectively to curtail pay

m en t s t o t h e custodial pa rent at the whim of the oblig or. Additionally , when an obligor makes extra pay ments on behalf

of his or her

children,

a c ourt c an vie w tho se pa y me nts a s be ing ma de un de r his or he r c omm on -l aw d uty to support the children, and althoug h child support order s under the statute may be vie we d a s th e c ourt -e nf

or c e d f ulf ill me nt o f t

his ob lig a tio n, the vo lun tary pa y me nts

ma de in f

ulf ill me nt of th is ob lig a tio n a re no t ne c e ssa

ri ly to b e of fs e t a g a ins t a statutory obligation enfor ced by a court order

. Thus, a court will deny an oblig or a
cre dit for any

voluntary

pay ments for travel expenses, automobiles purcha sed for a child, tuition or educational e x penses, c lothing, g ifts, food, or ente rtainment. The ob lig or is a lso no t e nti tle d to a c re dit fo r p ay me nts if the ob lig or

make s th os e pa y me nts to th ir d pa

rt ie s f or the c hil dr e n’ s b e ne fi t or

to t he c hil d d ir e c tly , e ve n if such pay ments equal the a

mount du e t h e o b l i gee, or if the oblig or make s the pa y me nts un de r t

he mis take n b e lie f t

hat the pa

y me nts are re qu ir e d a ft e r t he c hil d

r e a c h e s m a

j o r i t y.

24A A M

. J UR

. 2 D D

I VO RC E AN D S EPARA TIO N § 1067 (1998) ( footnotes omitted), cited in Oliver , 1990 WL64 53 4, a t *2 . E ve n s o, c ourt s f a c e d w iththi s is su e of

te n r e c og nize that “ sit

uatio ns may

a ri se in w hic h e qu ita

ble c on sid e ratio ns me ri t g ivi ng an o bli g or sp ou se a c re dit a g a ins t su

pp or t pa y me nts for voluntary expenditures made on behalf of [ or di rec tly to] a mi nor child.” Id. § 1 06 8; see Cain, sup ra , at § 8.
Courts addressingwhether an oblig or should g et cr ed i t fo r p ay ments made dire ctly

to the children have taken one of two approa ches. Under the first, more liberal approa ch, trial courts a re permitted to exercise their discretion on a ca se-by -ca se basis to deter mine whether

an oblig or par ent should be g iven cr edit ag ainst his child support obligation for pa y m en t s m ad e d irec tly

to the children. Stin son v. Carter , 543 So. 2d 11 98 , 1 20 0 ( Al a . Ci v. Ap p. 19 89 ) ( ho ldi ngthat w he the r t o
cre d i t fo r p aym ents to the child is within the sound discretion of the trial c ourt, and “ [a] lthough a tr ia l c ourt may , un de r c e rt a in c ir c ums tanc e s, a llo w a fa the r c re dit a g a ins t c hil d su pp or t arr e ara g e s, it i s und e r n o c omp uls ion to d o s o” ); McCrady v. Mahon , 4 0 0 A. 2 d 1173, 1174 (N.H. 1979) (holding that whether

to allow cre dit for pay

ments to t h e child is within t he discre tion of the trial

c ourt , a nd the tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld a llo w s uc h c re dit “ un de r s pe c ia l c ir c ums tanc e s w he re e qu ita ble

c on sid e ratio ns wa

rr ant s uc h a

n a ll owa nce” ). I n e xer c isi ngits dis c re tio n, c ou rt s ma y we ig h a ll equitable c onsiderations, such a s whether allowing cre dit works an injustice to the oblig ee pa rent or whether to hold otherwise w ould unjustl y enric h the oblige e par ent. See Tescher v. Te scher , 491 P.2 d 8 2, 84 (C olo . Ct . App . 1 97 1) ; Johns ton v. Parham , 758 So. 2d 443, 445-46 (Miss. Ct. App. 20 00 ); see also Goodson v. Goodson , 2 31 S.E .2 d 1 78 , 1 82 (N .C. Ct. Ap p. 19 77 ) (l ist ingfa c tor s toW e no t e t hat t he ho l d i ng i n G oods on ha s be en pa r t i al l y s u per ce ded by s t at u t e, bu t t h e s u per ce ded por t i on of 5
the c a se is un re la te d to o u r a n a lysis. S e e C ra ig v . C ra ig , 40 6 S.E

. 2 d 65 6 , 65 8 (N

. C

. C t

. A p p

. 19 9 1 ).

-8- consider, but stating that “contr olling princ iple is that credit is appr o priate only when a n injusti ce would exis t if cre dit were not give n,”); Cain, sup ra , at § 8. 5

Under the sec ond, more c onservative approa ch, the obli go r p ar ent i s g iven cr edit for p ay m en t s m ad e dire ctly

to the child only

under spe cific c ircumstance s that would result in an injusti ce if

cre dit were n o t g iven. One spe cific c ircumstance is where the par ties have a g ree d or consente d to this m anner

of pay ment. Se e

, e .g ., Be ndi x v . Be ndi x , 5 50 N. E. 2d

82 5, 82 6 ( I nd . Ct

. Ap p. 19 90 ) ( no tin g ru le tha t c re dit fo r p ay me nts no t c on fo rm ingto t he c hild su pp ort ord e r i s
a llo wa ble wh e n th e pa

rt ie s h a ve a g re e d to an a lte rn a te me tho d o f p ay me nt) ; Dun n v

. D unn , 546 So. 2d 819, 827 (L a. Ct. App. 1989) (r efusingto give the father c redit for pay ments made directly

to the

c hil d, bu t allo wi ng c re dit fo r pay me nts ma de to the c hil d’ s sch oo l a t th e mot he r’ s r e qu e st) ; Guri v. Gur i , 44 8 A.2d 37 0, 37 2 (N. H. 19 82 ) ( no tin g that ob lig or pa re nt i s a llo we d c re dit

fo r p ay me nt t o child when oblig ee pa

ren t consents to s uch pay ments). These courts re cog nize that the custodial pare nt should have unfe ttered discr etion over h o w t o u s e child support proce eds, and the obligor pare nt should not be able to inhibit t he exerc ise of that discre tio n u n i latera lly . Howeve r, the

cu s to d ia l p ar e n t is p r e v e n te d f r o m o b je c ti n g if h e o r s h e h a s e n te r e d in to an a g r e e me n t with the obligor for pa y ments to be made dire ctly to the ch i l d or in a manne r contra ry to the child support order

. Se eGuri , 448 A.2d at 372.

An oth e r s pe c if

ic c ir c ums tanc e in w hic h th e ob lig or pa re nt h a s g e nerall y bee n g ive n c re dit ag ainst h i s chil d support obligation is where, e ven thoug h the pay ment is made to the child, the custodial pare nt actually

rec eives the mone y

and has c ontrol of the funds. Cot ton v . W rig ht , 190 So. 66 5, 67 0- 71 (L a . 1 93 9) ; Bra df ord v . Fut re ll , 1 7 1 A

. 2 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 7 ( M d

. C t

. A p p

. 19 61 ); A u bry v. Aubr y , N o. H- 86 -2 2, 19 87 WL11 24 1, a t *2 (O hio Ct. Ap p. May 22 , 198 7) . Co nv e rs e ly , s uc h c re dit has not bee n allowed whe n the money paid to the child is not acc essible by the custodial par ent, and the c hil d ma int a ins c on tr ol o ve r t he fu nd s. Se e , e .g ., Be ndi x , 550 N.E.2d at 826-27 ( ref using to g ive

c re dit fo r p a y me nts ma de to ch ild

re n pay me nts te nd e re d dir e c tly

to t he c hil dr e n b e c a

us e thi s p e rm its the obligor

“to usurp the r ight of

the custodial par ent under the s upport order

to determine the

man ner in

wh ic h s up po rt

pa y me nts sh ou ld b e sp e nt” ); T r a n s y l v a n ia C o u n t y D e p ’t o f So c . S e r v s.
e x r e l. D owl

ing v . Co nnol ly , 443 S.E.2d 892, 895-96 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994) (unde r Ge org ia law,

re fu sin g to g ive c re dit

fo r c he c ks se nt t o th e c hil d w he n the c us tod ia l pa re nt did no t have a c c e ss t o the fu nd s and the c hil d us e d th e mon e y to b uy “ Ni nte nd o g a me s and

thi ng s o f t

hat natur e ” ). Th e se
c ourt s r e c og nize tha

t the c us tod ia l pa

re nt ha s the pr ivi le g e and

re sp on sib ili ty

of dic ta tin g ho w c hil d support funds should be used. Unless t he custodial pare nt rec eives the money and is in control of how it is disbu rs ed , then g iving the oblig or par ent cr edit toward his child support oblig ation for monies g iven direc tly

to the child interfe res with this rig ht. See Cotton , 190 So. 2d at 670; Bra df ord , 171 A.2d at 496.

We believe that th e s econd, mor e conse rvative a pproac h is more consona nt with ex isting Te nn e sse e c a se law tha

n the a pp ro a c h und e r w hic h tr ia l c ourt s h a ve g re a t di sc re tio n o ve r w he the r t o-9-

allow cred i t fo r p ay

ments made dire ctly

to a child. Ther efor e, we hold that a trial cour t may g ive

c re dit fo r s uc h p ay

me nts on ly

un de r s pe c if

ic c ir c ums tanc e s that wo uld c re a te an inj us tic e if c re dit

wer e not g iven. Ther efor e, we consider w hether this case pr esents such a

specific circ umstance.

I n addre ssing whe ther Father should re ceive a cr edit for the c hecks ma de payable to Ga rrick in t h e ca s e at b ar , we are mindful that “the purpose of [a child support] pay

ment is to fulfill t he non-custodial par ent’s oblig ation to contri b u t e t o t he child’s support.” Rutl e dgev . Ba rre tt , 802 S.W .2d 604, 607 (Tenn. 1991) (empha sis omit ted). The fact s ar e essentially undisputed. Mother

rea dily admits that she receive d all of t he checks made pay able to Garrick, that the chec ks were made for th e p r o p e r c o u rt- o r d e r e d a mo u n t, an d th a t s h e w a s aw ar e th a t F a th e r in te n d e d them to be considere d as his court-or dere d child support pay ments. Mother conc edes a s well that she endor sed the c he c ks , de po sit e d th e m in to t he a c c ount t

hat sh e ha d e sta

bli shfo r G arr ic k’ s su

pp or t pa y me nts , and maintained c ontrol over the f unds at all times. She was a sked spec ifically , “So Gar rick doe sn’t have c ontrol over this money , y ou do? ” Mother r esponded, “ Right.” Th e ev i d en ce showed that F a the r, Mo the r, and Ga

rr ic k we re a ll awa

re that F a the r m a de the se pa y me nts in o rd e r t o s a tis fy

his child support obligation under the ope rative or der. In ex er ci s ing c ontrol over the f unds, Mother

c ho se to u se on ly

$5 ,0 00 fo r n e c e ssi tie s and pe rm itt e d G arr ic k to us e so me of the mon ie s to purc ha se items that might be c onsidered lux uries, not ne cessities. Mother did not inform Father that she w as treating the proce eds from his c hecks as “g ifts” rathe r than child support, over the six y ear s in which Father made the che cks pay able to Ga rrick.

Under the spec ific circ umstances of this case, we ag ree with the trial court that it would be ine qu ita ble no t to a llo w F a the r c re dit a g a ins t hi s c hil d s up po rt

ob lig a tio n f

or the six y e ars of

c hil d support chec ks made pa

y able to Ga

rrick. L ike the trial c ourt, we note that it was inappropr iate for Father to make the che cks pay able to the c hild, most likely an improper

attempt to control Mother’s use of the f

unds. I f so, howeve r, it ended up being a rather ineffec tual g esture; Mother rec eived the chec k s , e n d o r s e d th e m, d e p o s it e d th e m, an d h a d u n f e tt e r e d c o n tr o l o v e r th e d is p o s it ion of the proce eds. The f

act that Mother

used some of the funds for luxuries, as thoug h Father’s c hecks w ere g if ts t o th e c hil d, is o f n o c on se qu e nc e; th e fac t th a t sh e re c e ive d th e mon e y and e xer c ise d f

ull control over

it are the critica l fac tors. Thus, while it cannot be sa id that Mother ag ree d to Fathe r’s prac tice of making the chec ks pay able to G arr ick, in this case , this practice did not actually interfe re with her c ontrol of t he child support funds. P ermitting Mother to collect these monies from F ather

a g a in a s a c hil d s up po rt

arr e ara g e wo uld

un jus tly e nr ic h M oth e r a

nd le a d t o an in equ it a

ble re su lt. Th e re fo re , w e re c og nize a lim ite d e xce pti on

to t he g e ne ra l r

ule and pe rm it F a the r a

c re dit a g a ins t hi s child support obligation under the spec ific circ umstances in this case
, where Mother r ece ived the

c he c ks ma de pa

y a ble to t he c hil d, wi tho ut a ff

e c tin g he r r ig ht a

nd ob lig a tio n to c on tr ol h owthe c hil d support monies were spent. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the trial court a cted pr operly in giving Father c redit for

the child support chec ks that wer e made pay able to Gar rick a nd rec eived by

Mother.-10-

Th e de c isi on

of the tr ia l c ourt

is a ff ir me d. Cos ts o n a

pp e a l are to b e ta xed

to A pp e lla nt G re ta D e n i s e S m i t h ( A u s t i n ) an d h e r s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e , i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE