IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION
FILED
LISA AUSTIN, ) March 05, 1999
) SHELBY JUVENILE
Plaintiff/Appellant ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appe llate Court C lerk
)
v. ) Appeal No. 02A01-9807-JV-00176
)
GREGORY GRAFLUND, )
)
Defendant/Appellee )
APPEAL FROM THE JUVENILE COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY
AT MEMPHIS
THE HONORABLE A.V. McDOWELL, SPECIAL JUDGE
For the Appellant:
Valerie T. Corder
212 Adams Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
For the Appellee:
David E. Caywood
Stacy A. Ingle
100 North Main, #2400
Memphis, TN 38103
AFFIRMED
WILLIAM H. INMAN, Senior Judge
CONCUR:
W. FRANK CRAWFORD, JUDGE
DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE
The appellee sought a reduction in his child support obligation in accordance
with the mandates of the Guidelines.
A modest reduction was granted.
This appeal resulted. Mother claims the trial Court heard no evidence, and
would not allow her to testify or to offer proof.
The Father says, not so. His financial records were tendered to the Court
without objection, and at no time did the appellant request to testify or offer proof.
There is no verbatim transcript. The Statement of the Evidence presented
by the appellant was not approved by the Court, but is nonetheless included in the
record on appeal.
The Statement of the Evidence presented by the appellee was approved by
the Court.
In support of her insistence that she was repelled and disdained by the trial
Court, the appellant refers to her unapproved, really disapproved, Statement of the
Evidence, to which the appellee takes understandable umbrage. We are content to
hold that the unapproved Statement of Evidence should not have been included in
the record. See Rule 24, T.R.A.P. Consequently, we will not further notice it.
Our de novo review is made a little difficult because the appellant refers us
to a Statement of the Evidence we cannot consider. The appellee refers us to an
approved Statement of the Evidence, which recites that “no witnesses took the
stand”; that, without objection, Mr. Graflund’s 1997 income and projected income
for 1998 were documented and considered by the court; that the amount of Mr.
Graflund’s monthly gross income was not disputed, which was $3,021.11, and that
the child support was set at $581.00, plus the Clerk’s fee, and this includes $91.00
for an upward deviation occasioned by Mr. Graflund’s refusal to visit his child.
2
There is no evidence that the appellant was not allowed to testify or to offer
proof. Conversely, the undisputed evidence is that the Court considered the
documented income of the appellee for 1997 and projected for 1998 and fixed his
obligation in accord with the Guidelines, having found that a significant variance,
i.e., at least 15% existed. See, Tenn. Comp., R. & Regs., Ch. 1240-2-04-.02(3).
We need not belabor the point. The appellant did not object to the procedures
employed and made no effort to present evidence. The judgment is therefore
affirmed at the costs of the appellant.
_______________________________
William H. Inman, Senior Judge
CONCUR:
_______________________________
W. Frank Crawford, Judge
_______________________________
David R. Farmer, Judge
3