Court Opinion

ID: 1055164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-08 20:55:24.47526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:00.875229
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                             AT NASHVILLE
                                     July 8, 2004 Session

                         KENNETH MORGAN JOHNSON v.
                        DOROTHY LYNN JOHNSON (HOLT)

                     Appeal from the Chancery Court for Coffee County
                             No. 98-4 John W. Rollins, Judge

                    No. M2003-00866-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 1, 2004

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., concurring.

        I agree completely with the majority opinion. I write separately to express my opinion that
the statement in State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) that
“[s]etting child support is a discretionary matter,” id. at 248, should not be broadly read. For
example, it is clear to me that a trial court has “limited discretion” to deviate from the amount of
child support determined by applying the rules set forth in Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1240-2-4-
.03. See Jones v. Jones, 930 S.W.2d 541, 544-45 (Tenn. 1996). However, I agree with the majority
that the Kaatrude principle set forth above applies to the facts of this case. Finding no abuse of
discretion in the trial court’s judgment, I concur.

                                                     _______________________________
                                                     CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE

                                                 1