Mildred Louise McCollum v. Kliff Andrew McCollum

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02A01-9604-CH-00067

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; April 7, 1997; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mildred Louise McCollum appeals a decision from the Lake Chancery Court, presided over by Judge Joe G. Riley, regarding the modification of child support following a change in custody. The couple, who divorced on September 1, 1993, share three children: Drew, Zada, and Rachel. Initially, the Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) granted joint legal custody, with primary physical custody to Mildred and stipulating that Kliff McCollum would pay 41% of his net income or $150.00 weekly for child support.

On June 30, 1995, Kliff filed a petition for primary custody of Drew and a reduction of his child support obligation based on Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The trial court awarded Kliff custody of Drew and adjusted the support payments, determining that Kliff should pay 32% of his income for Zada and Rachel, while Mildred would pay 21% of her income for Drew. The court ordered Kliff to pay Mildred the difference, totaling $375.00 monthly.

Mildred argues on appeal that the trial court improperly applied the Child Support Guidelines, given she has custody of two children while Kliff has one, resulting in her receiving less support than if she had only one child. The appellate court reviews the case de novo, presuming the trial court’s factual findings are correct unless evidence suggests otherwise.

The Guidelines serve as a rebuttable presumption for determining child support amounts in all child support cases, including modifications, as per T.C.A. 36-5-101(e)(1) and related regulations. If a trial court finds that adhering to the Guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate based on the children's best interest or equity, it must document its findings and provide the support amount that would have been ordered according to the Guidelines along with justifications for any deviations.

The Guidelines apply primarily to situations where children reside with one parent but spend significant overnight time with the other parent, and they consider the actual physical custody arrangements. In cases of more equal overnight time, courts must assess support obligations on a case-by-case basis.

The trial court appropriately applied the Guidelines to establish relative child support obligations. However, the Wife contends that the court overlooked key factors, notably her provision of medical insurance for all children, which she argues warrants an increase in the Husband’s child support contributions according to the Guidelines. The case of Carden v. Carden supports her claim, indicating that custodial parents should receive an increase in support if they cover medical insurance, as the obligor parent is typically responsible for such costs. The Guidelines mandate that the obligor parent provide medical insurance, with limited discretion for courts to deviate from this requirement without written justification.

In this instance, the Wife is responsible for medical insurance for one child, while the Husband must cover medical insurance for two children, in addition to their respective child support obligations under the Guidelines.

Husband testified about obtaining medical insurance for the children, while the original divorce decree required Wife to provide insurance for all three children. Consequently, it is concluded that Wife was still covering the insurance for the children at the time of trial. Since the trial court did not provide written findings on the application of the Guidelines, if applicable, Husband may need to pay for the medical insurance of the two children in Wife’s custody, which could also necessitate an increase in his child support obligations. Wife remains responsible for the medical insurance of the child in Husband’s custody.

Wife argued that the trial court erred by not considering Husband's failure to exercise standard visitation with their youngest child, Rachel. Under the Guidelines, if the obligor parent does not follow the visitation schedule, the child support obligation should be adjusted accordingly. Evidence indicated that Husband has regular visitation with Zada but sees Rachel infrequently, suggesting an increase in child support may be warranted due to his non-compliance with standard visitation.

Additionally, Wife contended that the trial court did not account for Husband's use of a company truck as part of his gross income, which the Guidelines require to be included as in-kind remuneration. Husband confirmed he has continual access to the truck, with all associated costs covered by his employer. The trial court should have assessed whether this benefit affected Husband's gross income and adjusted support obligations accordingly.

The case is remanded to the trial court to reassess Husband's child support obligations based on his failure to provide medical insurance, his visitation practices, and the use of the company truck. The current child support of $375.00 per month remains in effect until the trial court establishes a new obligation. Appeal costs are to be split equally between the parties.