Assigned on Briefs October 1, 2019
from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 42893
Michael Binkley, Chancellor
trial court denied Father's petition to modify child
support. Because Father failed to establish his current gross
monthly income, as necessary to prove a significant variance,
we affirm the decision of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery
Alexander White, Nashville, Tennessee, and Dan Richard
Alexander, Old Hickory, Tennessee, for the appellant, Bradley
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter,
Andrée Blumstein, Solicitor General, and Amber L.
Seymour, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State
D. Bennett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
John W. McClarty and Carma Dennis McGee, JJ., joined.
D. BENNETT, JUDGE
and Procedural Background
C. Sensing ("Mother") and Bradley K. Sensing
("Father") were divorced by a final decree entered
by the Chancery Court for Williamson County on August 14,
2015. In accordance with the marital dissolution agreement
and permanent parenting plan incorporated into the final
decree, Mother and Father had equal parenting time with the
parties' two minor children, and Father was required to
pay Mother $1, 414.00 a month in child support. At the time
of the divorce, Father's gross monthly income was $22,
500.00; Mother's gross monthly income was $1, 256.67.
25, 2017, the State of Tennessee filed, on Father's
behalf, a petition for modification of his child support
obligation. Father asserted that, since the entry of the last
child support order, there was a significant variance between
the amount of child support dictated by the child support
guidelines and his existing child support obligation.
initial hearing date, August 10, 2017, the trial court reset
the hearing and ordered Father to provide at the next hearing
a list of documents, including individual and business tax
returns for 2015 and 2016; and monthly balance sheets, gross
business receipts, and other business records for 2017.
Father's motion for modification was heard on October 23,
2017. The trial court entered an order on October 31, 2017,
denying Father's request for modification. The court
found that "there has not been any change in
circumstances to meet the criteria for a modification of the
filed a motion to alter or amend or, in the alternative, a
motion for a new trial, on November 27, 2017. Due to an error
in the trial court, this motion was not properly ruled upon
until March 27, 2019. In a memorandum and order entered on
the latter date, the trial court denied Father's motion
to alter or amend and accepted the State's requests for
corrections and modifications to Father's proposed
statement of the evidence. Husband appealed.
appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred (1) in
treating a loan as a capital gain or, alternatively, in
failing to consider a capital loss with the capital gain, and