T en n. C t

. A p p . R

. 1 0 st ates: 1

T hi s C o urt , wi t h t he co ncurrence of al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af firm , r e v e rs e o r m o d i f y t he ac t i o ns o f

t he t rial co urt b y m em o ran d um o p i nio n w he n a fo rm al o p i nio n w o uld ha ve no p rec ed en t i al value

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed by m em o randum o p i ni o n i t shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " shal l no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 13, 200 5 S es sio n AM Y L YN ELLE GAR DN ER v. R ICHA RD WEN DEL L GA RD NER

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wilson County No. 3556-DV C Clara Byrd, Judge

No. M2004- 01992-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 24, 2006

Am y Ly ne lle Ga

rd ner app e a ls the po st- div or c e mod if ic a tio n o f c hil d s up po rt

pr ov isi on s. Father, Richar d Wendell Gardne r, petitioned the c ourt for modifications claiming the child support provisions were unconsciona ble, i n part due to the fact the parties used one attorney for the divor ce proce eding s from which the child support provisions emanate. The trial c ourt found F ather was not proper ly repr esente d and that ce rtain provision s wer e unconsc ionable. As a result, the trial c ourt relieve d Father of the contra ctual obligation to pay support for a

child past majority , require d that Mother apply

her state employ ee discount to the child’s colleg e tuition, and awa rded F ather

the tax deduction for

the y ear s he paid tuition. Finding no err or, we aff irm the trial court. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of t h e co u rt , i n which W I L L I AM B. C A IN and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J J ., joined.
J on S. J ablonski, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Amy

Ly nelle Ga

rdner

. Michae l R. J enning s, L ebanon, T ennesse e, for the appe llee, Richar d Wendell Gardne r. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 The pa rties wer e re prese nted by

one attorne y

during the divorce proce eding s. They had two c hil dr e n, bo th of wh om we re min or s a t the tim e of the div or c e . Th e old e r c hil d tu rn e d e ig hte e n in Oc t o b er2 0 0 1 , an d t h e y o u n g e r ch i l d t u rn ed ei gh t ee n i n Ap ri l o f 2 0 0 5 an d gra d u at ed fr o mh i gh school in 2005.Fat her r eques t ed t hat t he y oung es t chi l d be pl ace d on W i fe’ s i ns ur anc e pl an, an d M ot her be r equi r ed t o pay 2 F athe r’ s att o rne y f

ee s. -2- The pa renting plan incorpor ated in the divorc e decr ee pr ovided int e r a lia that Father pa y : 1)

“ in a c c or da nc e wi th the Te nn e sse e Chi ld S up po rt Gu ide lin e s, ” $1 ,3 00 in c hil d s up po rt pe r m on th be g inn ing 20 01 a nde nd ing 20 09 ; 2) tui tio n for the y ou ng e st ch ildthr ou g h h ig h s c ho ol i n a pr ivate school; 3) tuition, books and ex penses for a colleg e or technica l school for both children; and 4) that Mother re ceive the tax deduction for the c hildren.
I n Aug ust of 2003, Father filed the petition at issue, seeking to am en d t h e final decre e arg uing that he was not repre sented by counsel during the divor ce, that contrary to the child support g uid e lin e s th e mari ta l dis so lut ion a g re e me nt re qu ir e d F a the r to pa y c hil d su pp ort un til 20 09 , a lmo st four y ear s afte r t he y oung est child rea ched the ag e of majority , that he does not earn enoug h to justi fy his pay ing c olleg e tuition fullyfor both childre n, that Mother should share the costs of private school e du c a tio n fo r the min or c hil d thr ou g h hig h sc ho ol, that here c e ive the ta x de du c tio n f or the y ou ng e st c hil d e ve ry

oth e r y e ar a ndso me oth e r i ssu e s n ot r a ise d o n a pp e a l. 2
At the hea

ring , the trial court found that Father wa s not properly repr esente d, his obligation for c hild support ended in 2005 when the parties’ y oung est child g raduated from hig h school, Father wo uldc on tin ue to p a y

tui tio n f or the pa rt ie s’ mi no r c hil d a t a

private sc ho ol thr ou g h h is t we lf th gra d e y ea r, M o t h erwo u l d ap p l y h erT en n es s ee E m p l o y ee Di s co u n t (2 5 %) t o wa rd t h e c h i l d ’s co l l ege tuition wit h Father pay ing the rema inder and Father would rec eive the tax deduc tion f or 2004 and any subsequent y ear s in which he is paying c olleg e tuition. Mother appe als claiming it was err or for the trial cour

t to modifythe permanent par enti ng plan appr oved by

the court in the final divorce decr ee. The Perma nent Pare nting Plan upon which Mother re lies states, “The parties a g ree that fathe r shall pay child support in a ccor dance with the Tenne ssee Child Support Guidelines, in the amount of. . . .” The child support g uidelines would not re q u i re Father to pay support bey ond the ag e of majority and g raduation from high sc hool. Tenn. Code Ann. § 34- 1-102(b)

. The pa rties ac knowledg e that they ag ree d to use one a ttorney to handle the divorc e. F ather testified that he wa s told to st op by the offic e to discuss the pape rwork but whe n h e ar ri v ed the attorney was not there to review the documents with him. He further testified that he was instructe d they wer e routine a nd to just si g n the pape rs. Fa th e r ma d e $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 a

y e ar ; y e t h e w a s in d u c e d to p a y f o r b o thc h il d r e n ’ s c o ll e g e tu it ion, books and other e x penses at colleg e, plus $1,300 a month in child support. The tuition, room and board at a Tenne ssee c olleg e wa s approximately $20,00 0 per y ear

and F ather ’s child support obligation was an a dditional $15,600 per y ear . Ba sed upo n t hese f acts, we ag ree with the trialT he t r i al cour t found t he at t orn ey was onl y r epre s ent i ng M ot her , and t hat Fat her was not awa r e of t he s i ng ul ar 3

r e pr e s e n t a t i on a n d m i s t a k e n l y t h ou g h t t h e a t t or n e y a l s o r e pr e s e n t e d h i m. -3- c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion that it wo uldbe un c on sc ion able to h oldF a the r t o th e agreeme nt, e sp e c ia lly c on sid e ri ng the a tto rn e y ’s app are nt c on fl ic t of int e re st. 3
The judgme nt of the trial court is affirme d and this matter is remanded with costs of a ppeal assessed a g ainst Appellant, Amy L y nelle Ga

rdner

.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE