Turner v. Turner
919 S.W. 2d 340, 1995 WL 739559, 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 815 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court must modify a child support order when there is a significant variance, defined as 15% or more, between the existing order and the amount dictated by the child support guidelines based on the obligor's current income. Additionally, suspending a parent's visitation rights for nonpayment of child support is improper unless there is a finding that the parent is financially able to pay but willfully refuses to do so.
Facts:
- Rebecca Diane Turner and Charles Daniel Turner were married in 1984, had two children, and separated in 1987.
- Following their 1990 divorce, a court ordered Charles Turner to pay $704.13 per month in child support.
- Charles Turner operated an auto salvage business as a sole proprietorship, which experienced a significant decline in gross sales and became unprofitable in 1990, the same year the support order was entered.
- In June 1990, Charles Turner's business was in financial distress, leading him to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
- Charles Turner's business never recovered to its prior levels, and he testified his monthly income in 1994 was less than $1,000.
- Due to his financial situation, Charles Turner repeatedly fell into arrears on his child support payments, accumulating a significant debt.
Procedural Posture:
- The Circuit Court for Warren County entered a final divorce order on August 15, 1990, ordering Charles Turner to pay child support.
- Over the next several years, Rebecca Turner filed multiple contempt petitions against Charles Turner for non-payment, while Charles Turner filed multiple petitions to reduce his support.
- In February 1991, the trial court found Mr. Turner in contempt and refused to consider his modification petition.
- Following a 1993 petition, the trial court ordered Mr. Turner's arrest, suspended his visitation ex parte, and subsequently found him in both criminal and civil contempt in February 1994.
- The February 1994 order stated that Mr. Turner's visitation would be summarily suspended for non-payment, which the court later enacted.
- In July 1994, Mr. Turner filed another petition to modify child support and reinstate visitation.
- On December 20, 1994, the trial court denied Mr. Turner’s petition, finding no material change in circumstances.
- Charles Turner (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, with Rebecca Turner (appellee) responding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by denying a father's petition to modify child support based on an outdated legal standard and by suspending his visitation for non-payment without a finding of willful refusal to pay?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, J.
Yes. The trial court erred by applying the wrong legal standard to the child support modification request and by improperly suspending visitation without the necessary findings of fact. A recently enacted statute replaced the old 'substantial and material change of circumstances' test with a 'significant variance' test. This new standard mandates modification if the existing child support order varies by 15% or more from the amount that would be required under the guidelines based on the parent's current income. The trial court's denial of the petition on the grounds of 'no change in circumstances' indicates it applied the outdated test. Furthermore, child visitation decisions must be based on the best interests of the child and are not meant to be punitive. Suspending visitation for failure to pay child support is only warranted when a parent is financially able to pay but willfully refuses to do so. Since the trial court made no such finding regarding Mr. Turner's ability to pay, the suspension of his visitation rights was an error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant shift in Tennessee's approach to child support modification, moving from a discretionary standard to a more objective, mathematical one. It establishes that courts must apply the 'significant variance' test, making modifications more predictable and less dependent on judicial discretion. The ruling also strongly reinforces the legal principle that child visitation is a right tied to the child's best interest, not a privilege to be revoked punitively for financial failings. This precedent protects the parent-child relationship from being used as leverage in support disputes, requiring courts to make specific findings of willful non-payment before taking the drastic step of suspending visitation.
