Charles Michael Vance, II v. Angela Michelle Taylor Vance

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2017-00622-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; March 16, 2018; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed an appeal involving child support calculations, extraordinary educational expenses, and attorney’s fees in the case of Charles Michael Vance, II v. Angela Michelle Taylor Vance. The trial court's decisions regarding child support and extraordinary educational expenses were found to be erroneous, leading to a partial affirmation and partial remand of the case. 

The factual background reveals that Charles Michael Vance, II (Father) and Angela Michelle Taylor Vance (Mother) divorced in 2009, establishing a permanent parenting plan that allocated equal residential time with their two children, Michael and Dani. Each parent had a detailed schedule for residential days and holiday arrangements, with joint authority on major decisions, granting Father final decision-making power in case of disagreement.

The parenting plan included provisions for Michael's private schooling, specifying shared financial responsibility for his tuition and related costs for a limited period. Importantly, the agreement noted that this arrangement would not set a precedent for future schooling decisions for either child. At the time of the divorce, Father's gross monthly income was $5,589, while Mother's was $12,500, with Mother ordered to pay $897 per month in child support. In 2013, Father filed a petition to modify the parenting time. The appellate court’s ruling emphasized the need for correct calculations of child support and educational expenses, necessitating further proceedings to address these issues.

Father withdrew a portion of his petition but sought an increase in Mother’s child support obligations due to her increased earnings and requested that she share in extraordinary educational expenses for their children. He asked for these changes to be retroactive to the filing date. The court hearing occurred on January 25, 2017, where both parents testified. In its February 21, 2017 order, the trial court designated Mother as the primary residential parent for Dani and Father for Michael. It found a significant variance to justify modifying Mother's child support obligation to $2,100 per month. Regarding extraordinary educational expenses, the court deemed the requirement for mutual agreement on private schooling ineffective and asserted its control over the matter, ordering both parties to share tuition and related expenses proportionately. The court made the adjustments to child support and educational expenses retroactive to January 1, 2015, resulting in a retroactive child support judgment of $31,278 and tuition arrears of $57,146. Additionally, the court awarded Father his reasonable attorney fees.

On appeal, Mother raised six issues, questioning the trial court's calculations, deviations from child support guidelines, retroactive applications, and attorney fee awards, both for Father and herself. Father also sought attorney fees for the appeal. The analysis indicated that child support determinations are discretionary, subject to a standard of review that checks for evidentiary foundation, legal principle application, and acceptable alternatives, emphasizing that the appellate court would not replace the trial court's judgment unless it was inadequately supported or contrary to law.

Child support calculations are influenced by the actual number of days each child spends with each parent, rather than the days outlined in the permanent parenting plan. The original child support worksheet indicated that each parent was to have the children for 182.5 days. The Mother contends this should remain unchanged, while the Father argues that the actual time spent is unequal, asserting that he has 183 days with Michael and 182 days with Dani, while the Mother has 183 days with Dani and 182 days with Michael. This discrepancy forms the basis of the appeal, which revolves around factual disagreements regarding the parenting schedule.

Both parents testified about their adherence to the permanent parenting plan, except for the handling of President’s Day. The Mother claimed that the plan stipulated they would split the children on that day, but acknowledged under cross-examination that she had not exercised her right to have the children on President's Day since 2011. The Father confirmed he has consistently had both children on President's Day since that time. The trial court found that the parenting time was generally equally divided, except for President's Day, which was not adhered to as intended. The court noted that this arrangement reflects the parties' intent to designate each as the Primary Residential Parent for one child. The Father’s testimony indicated that he had both children on President's Day in 2015 and 2016, and the Mother ultimately conceded that the Father had the children on those holidays.

The calendar of the individual in question did not go beyond 2015, and she could not recall the arrangements for the President’s Day holiday prior to that year. The Parenting Plan explicitly delineates each parent's scheduled parenting time. If one parent adheres strictly to the schedule while the other does not, the non-compliance of the delinquent parent should not justify a modification of child support. Evidence at trial indicated that the child support amount would change based on the number of days of parenting time. The trial court awarded the Father $2,100 monthly in child support, but this was deemed erroneous. Both parties acknowledged that their parenting time was generally equal, aside from President’s Day. The trial court mistakenly concluded that the Father had parenting time on President’s Day, resulting in a count of 183 days for him and 182 days for the Mother. Consequently, the case was remanded for recalculating the child support amount.

Additionally, the Mother contended that the trial court incorrectly deviated from child support guidelines due to extraordinary educational expenses and did not enforce their agreement requiring mutual consent for the children’s private school attendance. Although the Mother acknowledged the children were in private school, she claimed she never agreed to it. However, in her response to the Father’s petition to modify, she indicated that the Father wanted the children to attend private school and that she had agreed to this arrangement for the 2013-2014 school year but would not cover the tuition costs. The court found her responsible for paying her share of tuition based on her prior agreement. For later years, however, she did not consent to the private school attendance. Tennessee law supports resolving child support issues through mutual agreements, which, once approved, lose their contractual nature and become subject to court modification. The trial court can deviate from child support guidelines but must comply with the official requirements.

Tennessee Child Support Guidelines allow for educational expenses to be considered a deviation from standard child support amounts. Initially, these guidelines mandated the addition of "extraordinary educational expenses" to the calculated child support percentage. However, a 2005 revision changed the language from "shall" to "may," providing trial courts with discretion regarding the inclusion of private school tuition. 

Extraordinary educational expenses encompass costs such as tuition, room and board, and other fees linked to special needs or private schooling, reflecting the parents’ financial capabilities and the child's lifestyle. Courts must assess these expenses case-by-case, considering scholarships and cost-reducing programs, and must articulate the basis for any deviation from the presumptive support amount, including what the support would have been without the deviation. 

The guidelines stipulate that if deviations for extraordinary educational expenses are allowed, they should be documented on a worksheet with an average based on prior or anticipated expenses. Overall, the guidelines affirm that such expenses are integral to child support calculations, albeit calculated separately, and emphasize that the best interest of the child is the primary consideration in any determinations. The Vances' child support agreement is subject to court modification, reinforcing the discretionary power granted to the court by the guidelines.

The court's discretion regarding deviations from child support guidelines is restricted by specific legal requirements. Under Tenn. Comp. R. Regs. 1240-02-04-.07(1)(c), a judge must provide written findings that include: (1) reasons for the deviation from the presumptive child support amount; (2) the amount that would be required under the guidelines if not rebutted; and (3) justification for how applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in the specific case, as well as how the child's best interests are served by the deviation. Additionally, the court must evaluate private schooling expenses on a case-by-case basis, considering their appropriateness relative to the parents' financial capabilities and the child’s lifestyle.

In this case, the parents had a mutual agreement that required both to consent for their child to attend private school. The mother, while financially able to afford private schooling, opposed it on philosophical grounds but allowed her children to attend under certain conditions. The father testified they could afford private school and indicated that the mother contributed to other educational expenses but not tuition. The trial court’s findings were deemed insufficient, particularly in addressing how the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate and how the child’s best interests would be served by any deviation. Consequently, the court vacated the trial court’s decision on these grounds and remanded the matter for the necessary findings. The trial court's judgment regarding extraordinary educational expenses for the 2013-2014 school year was affirmed, while the remaining issues, including retroactive fees and attorney's fees, were vacated and remanded for reconsideration. Costs of appeal were assessed equally against both parties.