Jacqueline Fields v. Vincent Fifer

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02A01-9804-JV-00118

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; August 18, 1993; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jacqueline B. Fields appeals a juvenile court order that modified child support payments from Vincent Scott Fifer. Initially, on September 15, 1993, the court established paternity and set child support at $1,155.00 per month. Fifer successfully moved to set aside the default judgment, resulting in a reduced support amount of $840.00 after the court found that applying Tennessee Child Support Guidelines would be unjust. Fields appealed, leading to a September 20, 1995, ruling that vacated the juvenile court's order and mandated a reevaluation of Fifer's income and appropriate support levels.

On remand, the juvenile court determined Fifer's gross income to be $7,176.00 and guideline support at $1,055.00. However, citing Fifer's financial difficulties, the court maintained the $840.00 payment. Fields subsequently filed a petition to modify the child support amount, citing increased expenses for the child and Fifer's increased salary. After a series of motions and hearings, the juvenile court issued a "Modification of Order" on March 12, 1998, raising the monthly support to $1,378.65 and requiring Fifer to contribute $250.00 monthly to a trust fund for the child. Fifer's financial obligations included a marital dissolution agreement mandating significant alimony payments to his wife, complicating his financial situation. This appeal follows the court's latest modification.

On October 12, 1998, Mr. Fifer filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Fields’ appeal due to her failure to file a required transcript or statement of evidence, as outlined in T.R.A.P. 24. He also sought dismissal for her failure to prosecute the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal on November 12, 1998, for not filing the transcript. After Ms. Fields filed a petition for rehearing, the court ruled on January 19, 1999, that all issues from her March 13, 1996 notice of appeal were part of the current appeal, as the earlier notice was not ripe due to a pending modification petition.

In her initial brief, Ms. Fields questioned whether the trial court erred in setting child support below Tennessee guidelines, citing the defendant’s alimony obligations. Her supplemental brief raised additional issues, including: (1) alleged errors by the Special Judge regarding the child support amount; (2) failure to include stock sale income and bonuses in the defendant's gross income as per Tennessee guidelines; and (3) a lack of consideration for the defendant’s actual visitation time with the child.

Ms. Fields’ March 1996 filing was deemed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend a judgment, as it sought an increase in child support due to changed circumstances and was filed within thirty days of the juvenile court's final judgment on February 13, 1996. The juvenile court failed to rule on this motion for nearly two years, ultimately treating it as a petition to modify based on Mr. Fifer’s financial situation, which was deemed inappropriate. A hearing in January 1998 led to a March 12, 1998 order modifying child support to $1,378.65 monthly, starting March 15, 1998, but did not address the period from February 1996 to March 1998. The record reflects significant procedural complications, warranting the application of T.C.A. 27-3-128 (1990) for remand to correct the record.

The court will remand cases where complete justice cannot be achieved due to record defects, missing parties, or oversight without culpable negligence, directing the lower court to take further action as necessary. Specifically, the juvenile court must first address Ms. Fields’s 59.04 motion concerning the February 1996 order. After determining the appropriate support amount for February 1996, the parties can file motions to modify the support and assess if there is a significant variance from guideline amounts. In evaluating modification motions, the court should consider the effective date of modifications and address any arrears or overpayments during the February 1996 order's duration. The parties' counsel are expected to collaborate to ensure the record is accurate, facilitating timely support payments for the child. Until the court issues a new order on remand, the existing March 1998 order remains in effect. Costs for the appeal are shared equally between the parties.