Opinion ID: 1867600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: extraordinary educational expenses

Text: In Barnett v. Barnett, 27 S.W.3d 904 (Tenn.2000), we considered whether private school tuition is an extraordinary educational expense which the non-custodial parent should be required to pay in addition to the base child support calculated under the Child Support Guidelines. We first concluded that private school tuition is an extraordinary educational expense, as that term is used in the Guidelines. [3] Id. at 907. We then went on to consider whether that expense must be added to the obligor's base child support calculated under the Guidelines. As stated in Barnett , the Child Support Guidelines in effect at that time provided, [e]xtraordinary educational expenses ... shall be added to the percentage calculated in the above rule [setting out the percentage of net income to be paid as child support]. Id. (quoting Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-2-4-.04(1)(c)) (emphasis added). Based upon that mandatory language, shall be added, we held that extraordinary educational expenses must be added to the obligor's base child support calculated under the Guidelines. Id. See also, Umstot v. Umstot, 968 S.W.2d 819, 824-25 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997); Dwight v. Dwight, 936 S.W.2d 945, 950 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). We recognized in Barnett that [t]he wholesale imposition of private school tuition on the obligor in these cases could result in a tremendous disparity in the obligor's relative percentage of income attributed as child supporteven to the extent of absorbing every penny of the obligor's income. Barnett, 27 S.W.3d at 908. To avoid an interpretation of the guidelines that would lead to an absurd result[,] id., we went on to state that it is appropriate to consider the income of the custodial parent in considering whether a downward deviation from the total child support award (percentage plus extraordinary educational expense) would achieve equity. Id. at 909. We therefore held that imposing the entire amount of extraordinary educational expenses on the non-custodial parent could constitute an `unjust or inappropriate' application of the guidelines that would warrant a downward deviation. Downward deviation in this context would spread the cost of tuition equitably among [sic] the parties. Id. From our analysis in Barnett , it is clear that payment of extraordinary educational expenses is a separate component of an obligor's total child support obligation, that is, separate from the base child support calculated under the Guidelines. Barnett also makes it clear that the court can order the obligor to pay less than the full amount of a child's (or children's) extraordinary educational expenses, depending upon the proof in a particular case. While those two issues were resolved in Barnett , the question presented in the pending case is whether an obligee may seek modification of an existing child support order to require the obligor to pay any extraordinary educational expenses, absent a showing of a significant variance in the obligor's income. [4]