Court Opinion

ID: 9908508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 22:07:45.942415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:12.990609
License: Public Domain

12/08/2023
                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                              AT KNOXVILLE
                             Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2023

               COREY ANDREW TATE v. ANDREA NICOLE JONES

                       Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Knox County
                            No. H-9246 Timothy E. Irwin, Judge
                          ___________________________________

                                 No. E2022-01524-COA-R3-JV
                            ___________________________________

This is an appeal by Father of a judgment rendered against him for child support. Because
the final judgment does not provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law for
this Court to conduct a proper review, we are unable to adequately address Father’s issues
on appeal. Therefore, we remand the case back to the trial court for the entry of a judgment
compliant with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Vacated and
                                    Remanded.

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT
and KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ., joined.

Sarah C. Easter and Catherine M. Harrington, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Corey Andrew Tate.

H. Stephen Gillman and Mikaela M. Smith, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Andrea
Nicole Jones.

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
        This case involves a petition to establish parentage, child support, and visitation
rights that was filed by the Appellant Corey Tate (“Father”) on June 22, 2016, in the Knox
County Juvenile Court (“the Juvenile Court”). As is relevant to this appeal, Father presently

       1
           Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

       This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse
       or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion
       would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it
       shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and shall not
       be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
challenges the Juvenile Court’s child support order concerning both his income and the
income of the Appellee Andrea Jones (“Mother”), the mother of the child who is the subject
of the support order. Regrettably, the Juvenile Court’s judgment frustrates our ability to
conduct proper appellate review.

       This Court has previously discussed the importance of including findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the court’s written order pursuant to Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure. See In re Britton H-S., No. M2016-01576-COA-R3-JV, 2018
WL 1040945 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018); see also Rogin v. Rogin, No. W2012-01983-
COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3486955 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 10, 2013). The inclusion of
appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law is not “a mere technicality” because
“[w]ithout such findings of fact and conclusions, this court is left to wonder on what basis
the court reached its ultimate decision.” In re K.H., No. W2008-01144-COA-R3-PT, 2009
WL 1362314, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2009). Here, the Juvenile Court’s judgment
lacks any findings of fact and conclusions of law that would assist this Court in attempting
to understand its reasoning in reaching its decision in this case. Although we have found
some brief discussion of relevant issues in a transcript transmitted as part of the record,
even here, the Juvenile Court’s reasoning is severely lacking. Moreover, we do not
typically review a trial court’s oral ruling unless it is incorporated by reference into the
final decree. In Re Britton H-S., 2018 WL 1040945, at *3. Here, the Juvenile Court did not
incorporate its transcript into its final judgment.

        However, as just alluded to, even if the transcript had been properly incorporated
into the final judgment, we have determined that it does not provide adequate findings of
fact and conclusions of law concerning the issues on appeal. For instance, although the
transcript indicates that the Juvenile Court orally found Mother was underemployed for the
years of 2016-2018,2 but not 2019-2022, we cannot discern from our independent review
of the transcript any reasoning underpinning the Juvenile Court’s decision to either impute
higher income to Mother for the years 2016-2018, or, having done so, its reasoning for why
Mother was no longer considered underemployed as of 2019. The transcript features
discussion outlining Mother’s decision to leave a higher-paying job in 2016 for
employment that garnered her a lower income, which certainly constitutes a factor
supporting a finding of willful underemployment, but it is only one factor to be considered.
See generally Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04-.04(3) (listing the factors for finding a
parent willfully underemployed). However, the Juvenile Court does not discuss any new
factor or change in circumstance to support the termination of Mother’s underemployment
in 2019, leaving this Court to largely speculate as to the reasons behind the Juvenile Court’s
decision. Simply put, in its present posture, the record does not contain an adequate

        2
         In connection with our discussion of the Juvenile Court’s judgment, we emphasize that Mother
was not found willfully underemployed in its written order. As the Child Support Guidelines instruct, the
court may impute additional income if “a parent has been determined by a tribunal to be willfully
underemployed.” Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04-.04(3).
                                                  -2-
explanation behind the decisions reached by the Juvenile Court.

        Because this hinders our ability to adequately conduct appellate review, we hereby
vacate the Juvenile Court’s judgment and remand the case with instructions for the Juvenile
Court to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain its reasoning regarding
its child support award in this case. We also acknowledge that “lives do not stand still
during the appellate process,” and as such, we authorize the Juvenile Court to hold further
hearings on the matter, if necessary. Canzoneri v. Burns, No. M2020-01109-COA-R3-CV,
2021 WL 3399860, at *11 (citing In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 252 (Tenn. Ct. App.
2017)).

                                         CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Juvenile Court’s child support order and
remand for the entry of a judgment compliant with Rule 52.01 of Tennessee Rules of Civil
Procedure.3

                                                            s/ Arnold B. Goldin
                                                          ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE

       3
          In light of our disposition on appeal, we respectfully decline Mother’s request for appellate
attorney’s fees in this matter.
                                                 -3-