WPC %y_fEɲ-:o-w!S#tcHӁ(2qQi EQi`M1/SAV >Tg+AY/)T1 Fp۷TTȾ)ly㧄Ho;TBފ7G|{sAvOzEvd1*hUgM׮U}ɬq"8Dݬ(g s&{`IAp/lpA*: =0HAf)PJ}SrސKӊOW ~yQC]sm<`!l"r\I   ThepartiesweremarriedonDecember27,1991.Onechildwasborntotheirunion,Madison &"& McKenzieMorgan(DOB:December13,1994). '"'   In1992,FatherformedMorganTool&Die,andsixyearslater,heestablishedMorganTool )$) &Automation,Inc.( theCompany).TheCompany,whichoperatesasanScorporationforfederal p*%* incometaxpurposes,buildsmachineswhichareusedtomanufacturecomponentpartsforthe \+&+  automotiveindustry.AtthetimetheCompanywasformed,Father,theCompanyspresidentand H,', itsleadengineer,wasthemajorityshareholder,owning99%oftheCompanysstock,withMother,  assecretary/treasurer,owningtheremaining1%.     OnFebruary18,2003,Motherfiledacomplaintfordivorceinthetrialcourt.Inadditionto t thedivorce,Mothersought,interalia,alimony,attorneysfees,andanequitabledivisionofthe ` maritalproperty.FatheransweredMotherscomplaintandfiledacounterclaimfordivorce. L    ThetrialcourtheardthecaseoverthreedaysinAprilandJuneof2004.Inorderto $ t determinethefairmarketvalueoftheCompanyforthepurposeofthedivorce,FatherhiredRonald  ` E._Arnett_,aCPAandcertifiedvaluationanalyst.Mr._Arnett_Ԁtestifiedattrialasanexpertwitnessfor  L  Father.HetestifiedextensivelyonthevaluationreporthepreparedatFathersbehest.Amongmany  8  otherthings,hisreportindicatedthat,whileFatherdrewasalaryof$32,338  #  1      ׀in2003,areasonable $  salaryforthepositionoccupiedbyhimwouldbe$110,000.Mr._Arnett_Ԁarrivedatthisfigurebased   uponwhathebelievedtheCompanywouldhavetopayinordertohireathirdpartytoperformthe   variousfunctionsnowbeinghandledbyFather.ThetestimonyattrialalsorevealedthatFather   receiveddistributionsfromtheCompanyin2003totaling$68,259,foratotalreceivedincome   associatedwiththeCompanyof$100,597. p   Attheconclusionofthedivorcetrial,thecourtannounceditsrulingfromthebench, H awardingMotheranabsolutedivorceonthegroundofinappropriatemaritalconductandnaming 4 Motherprimaryresidentialparentofthechild.Inaddition,thetrialcourtmadeadivisionof  p property;awardedalimonytoMother;andorderedFathertopayMothersattorneysfeesand  \ expenses.Withrespecttochildsupport,thetrialcourtheldthatthisobligationshouldbebasedupon H anannualgrossincomeof$110,000.Thecourt,inmakingthisdetermination,reliedonwhatFather 4 earnedin2003, orwhatwouldhavebeenareasonablesalaryforhim.Thecourtthenorderedthe   partiestomediate sharedparentingissuesandchildsupport.ThemediationresultedinFather   beingobligatedtopayMotherchildsupportof$1,000permonth,onthefollowingbasis:  8  8`   ThisamountiscalculatedasaresultofFatherhavingseventyeight  (78)daysoverandabovethestandardeighty(80)dayscoparenting l everyyear.Thenormalchildsupportfigurewould[be]$1,383per X  monthwithoutadeviation.Consideringthedeviation,thesupport D! shouldbe$1,087permonth.However,inconsiderationofFather 0"  carryinghealthinsuranceandcoveringallmedicalanddental #l! expensesnotcoveredbyanyinsuranceineffect,thepartieshave $X" deviatedfurtherto$1,000permonth.$D #` x` x   ThetrialcourtentereditsfinaljudgmentonOctober4,2004,incorporatingitsmemorandum &"% opinionfromthehearing,aswellastheparentingplanagreedtobythepartiesduringmediation. '#& Fromthisjudgment,Fatherappeals. (#' Ї  II.    Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsisdenovo;however,the  casecomestousaccompaniedbyapresumptionthatthosefindingsarecorrect!apresumptionthat t wemusthonorunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindings.TennR. ` App.P.13(d); _Musselman_Ԁv._Acuff_ ,826S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Oursearchfor L  thepreponderanceoftheevidenceistemperedbytheprinciplethatthetrialcourtisinthebest 8  positiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledto $ t greatweightonappeal. _Massengale_Ԁv._Massengale_ ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);  `  Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566,567(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).  L    III. $  A.   _#  Fatherraisestwoissuesonappeal,whichissuesessentiallypresentthefollowingquestions:   8  8`   1.Doestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsdecision \ tonameMothertheprimaryresidentialparentofthepartieschild?H` x` x 8  8`   2.Doestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourts  p determination,forthepurposeofcalculatingchildsupport,that  \ Fatherhasagrossannualincomeof$110,000?H` x` x Bywayofaseparateissue,Motherseeksanawardofherattorneysfeesandcostsincurredin   defendingthisappeal.     B.  &  FatherfirstcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinnamingMotherasprimaryresidentialparent l ofthepartiesminorchild.Insupportofhisargument,Fatherreliesontestimonyindicating,fora X  varietyofreasons,thathewouldbethemoresuitableprimaryresidentialparentforthechild.In D! addition,Fathercontendsthatthetrialcourterredinorderingthepartiestomediatetheissueof 0"  parentingtimeandassertsthat,ataminimum,heshouldhavebeenawardedequalparentingtime #l! withthechild. $X"   Atrialcourthasbroaddiscretionregardingacustodydetermination. _Brumit_Ԁv._Brumit_ ,948 %0!$ S.W.2d739,740(Tenn.Ct.App.1997);   _Varley_Ԁv._Varley_ ,934S.W.2d659,665(Tenn.Ct.App. &"% 1996); _Marmino_Ԁv._Marmino_ ,238S.W.2d105,107(Tenn.Ct.App.1950).Wewillnotdisturb '#& suchadeterminationunlesstherecordreflectsan erroneousexerciseofthatdiscretion. _Mimms_ (#' v._Mimms_ ,780S.W.2d739,74445(Tenn.Ct.App.1989). Absentsomecompellingreason )$( otherwise,considerableweightmustbegiventothejudgmentofatrialcourtinadivorceproceeding |*%) inrespecttothecredibilityofthepartiesandtheirsuitabilityascustodians. Id. at744. h+&* Ї  Thereare [_n]o_Ԁhardandfastrules...fordeterminingwhichcustodyandvisitation  arrangementwillbestserveachildsneeds. _Gaskill_Ԁv._Gaskill_ ,936S.W.2d626,630(Tenn.Ct.  App.1996).Acustodydeterminationis factuallydrivenand requiresthecourtstocarefully  weighnumerousconsiderations. Id. Theoverridingconsiderationisthebestinterestofthechild. t  Id.  `   Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourt,inreachingitscustodydecision,madethefollowing 8  findings: $ t 8  8`   ButIdobelieve[Mother]hasacrediblebasisforherfeelingoffear  L  andcontinuedconcernaboutthreateningbehaviorby[Father].I  8  dontlikemakingthatfinding,butIdobecauseIveobserved $  [Father]inthscourtroomashestestified.Andheappearsincourt   tohave,asIsaid,outstandingqualities,theworkethicthathes   displayed,thediligencetobuildthebusiness,butheis!hesvery   overbearinginhisdemeanor.Andhescombativeandhasbeen   combativeinhisresponsesattimestosimplequestioningby p adversarycounselandevenbytheCourt.AndIvehadtonotethat. \ Hispositioninthiscasethat[Mother]wouldbeentitledtonothing H fromthebusinessinmyviewisunreasonable,hasbeenunreasonable, 4 butthatattitudeisconsistentwithwhatsomeonetestifiedthathe  p wouldjustassoonseethemotherofhischildlivingonthestreet.Its  \ totallyconsistentwiththepositionhestakeninthiscase.Itspeaks H volumesofhisattitudetowardhiswife,themotherofhisdaughter.4` x` x 8  8`   SoIhavetosaythis,thatinthishostileattitudetoward[Mother]   theresanoldadagethatsaidmoreiscaughtthantaught.AndI  understandthechildsaid,well,hedoesntsaybadthingsaboutmy  mom,butthisattitudehehasabout[Mother]isboundandIbelieve  iscaughtbythechildandwillbecaughtbythechild.Itcertainlywas l displayedhereinopencourttothistrialcourt.AndsoIthinkthats X  aseriousconcerntheCourthasabout[Father]andhisrelationship D! withhisdaughter.Iwilljustsayitsverylikely,muchmorelikely 0"  thathisattitudetoward[Mother]woulddriveawedgebetween #l! [Mother]andthedaughterthananythingIveheardabout[Mothers] $X" commentsabout[Father]wouldtendtoalienateherfrom[Father].$D #` x` x 8  8`   [Father]doeshaveaverygoodrelationshipwithhisdaughterandthe &"% daughterneedsherfatherandshethrivesinhiscompanyand '#& presence.ButitsthedeterminationofthisCourtthat[Mother]isthe (#' moresuitablepersonforprimaryresidentialparentandshesawarded )$( thatstatus.|*%)` x` x  h+&*   Itisclearfromtherecordthatthetrialcourt,havingheardallofthetestimony,assessedthe  credibilityofthewitnessesanddeterminedthatitwasinthechildsbestinteresttoresideprimarily  withMother.Aswehavepreviouslystated,itistheuniquefunctionofthetrialcourttoassess  witnesscredibility,and,havingfoundnoabuseofdiscretioninthatassessment,wedeclineto t overturnthelowercourtsdecisiondesignatingMotherasprimaryresidentialcustodian. ` Furthermore,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecisiontoorderthepartiestomediatetheissue L  ofsharedparentingtime,nordowefindanyerrorinthedecisiontoawardFathersome158daysof 8  visitationperyear.Accordingly,wefindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrial $ t courtsrulingonthisissue.Thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionontheissueofcustody.  `   C.  8  @    Fathernextcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingandholdingthathisgrossincome   forthepurposeofcalculatingpercentagechildsupportgoingforwardwas$110,000peryear.Father   strenuouslyarguesthatthereisnoevidence,fromanhistoricalperspective,thathehaseverreceived   anannualsalaryintherangefoundbythetrialcourt.Heurgesustofindthathispracticeof    plowingearningsbackintotheCompanyratherthantakingthemoutassalarywasareasonable p businessdecisiononhispart. \   FatherarguesthatthetrialcourtfailedtoproperlyapplytheholdingoftheSupremeCourt 4 inthecaseof Taylorv._Fezell_ ,158S.W.3d352(Tenn.2005)tothefactsofthecaseatbar.Because  p  Taylor involvesanScorporation,   #  2      ׀asdoestheinstantcase,weturntothatcaseasapreludetoour  \ discussionoftheissuenowunderconsideration. H   In Taylor ,theSupremeCourtrejectedasuggestionthattheretainedearningsofanS   corporationshouldautomaticallybeimputedtoasoleormajorityshareholderofsuchacorporation   forthepurposeofcalculatinghisorherpercentagechildsupportobligationunderthechildsupport  guidelines. Id. at357.TheHighCourtheldasfollows:  8  8`   Weconcludethatabsentashowingthattheretainedearningsare l excessiveorthatanobligorisactuallymanipulatinghisorher X  income,theretainedearningsofanScorporationshouldnotbe D! imputedasincometothesoleormajorityshareholderincalculating  achildsupportobligation.` x` x  Id. at35455. t   Taylor isinapposite.Thetrialcourtintheinstantcasedidnotimputetheretainedearnings L  oftheCompanytoFather.Rather,asthetrialcourtstated,hisselectionofthe$110,000figurewas 8   based[_up]on_Ԁ[Fathers]lastyears[i.e.,2003]earningsorwhatwouldhavebeenareasonablesalary $ t forhimlastyear.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingwithrespect  ` tothegrossincomefigureof$110,000.  L    Fathers2003incometaxreturnreflectsasalaryfromtheCompanyof$32,338.Healsopaid $  federalincometaxon$127,298,afigurethatisreflectedonhispersonaltaxreturnas [_r]ental_Ԁreal   estate,royalties,partnerships,Scorporations,trusts,etc.Itisobviousthatthisfigurerelates,at   leastinpart,tothenetincomeof$126,588reflectedontheCompanystaxreturn. Taylor teaches   thatthefigureof$126,588cannotbeimputedtoFatherintheabsenceofa showingthatthose   retainedearningsareexcessiveorthattheincomeisactuallybeingmanipulated. Id. at358. p However,itisnotcorrecttoassertthatthetrialcourtintheinstantcaseimputedthe$126,588figure \ toFather.Itdidnot.Rather,itaddedtoFatherssalaryof$32,338,notthe$126,588figure,but H ratheranotherverysignificantentryontheCompanystaxreturn.Onpage3oftheCompanys 4 returnpreparedbyitsCPA,theCompanyreflectedthatitdistributed [_t]otal_Ԁpropertydistributions  p (includingcash)of$68,259.Itisclearfromthetestimonyoftheexpertwitness!whowashimself  \ aCPA!presentedbyFatherthatthisentrymeansthat,oftheCompanysearnings,theamountof H $68,259orthereaboutswasdistributedtoFather,the99%shareholderoftheCompany.Whenthis 4 figureisaddedtoFatherssalaryof$32,338,weareleftwithagrossreceivedincomefigureto   Fatherof$100,597.     Thereisothertestimonyintherecordbearinguponthesubjectathand.In2003,the  CompanypaidpersonalattorneysfeesforFatherof$12,143.TheCompanyalsopaidforFathers  andthechildsdentaltreatmentintheamountof$2,212.50inthesameyear.Itisalsoclearfrom l therecordthatthereweresomechildsupport,alimony,andexpertwitnessfeespaiddirectlyoutof X  thefundsoftheCompany.Inthisconnection,itshouldbenotedthattheCompanystaxreturn D! reflects,asofDecember31,2003, [_l]oans_Ԁtoshareholdersof$18,128. 0"    AsapartofthetestimonyofFathersexpertwitnesspertainingtothesubjectofthevalueof $X" thebusiness,theexpertopinedthatifanoutsidepersonhadtobehiredtooperatethebusiness,i.e., $D # taketheplaceofFather,heorshecouldreasonablyexpectasalaryof$110,000andthat,fromhis %0!$ analysisoftheCompany,itwouldhavebeenfinanciallyabletopaythissalary. &"%   Whenallofthisevidenceisconsidered,weareunabletosaythattheevidencepreponderates (#' againstthetrialcourtsestablishmentofa$110,000figureasFathersannualgrossincome. )$(  h+&*   D.  -Y  Motherseeksanawardofherattorneysfeesincurredonthisappeal.Wefindthatsheis  entitledtosuchanawardandthereforeremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforadeterminationofa t reasonablefee.See Dv.K ,917S.W.2d682,687(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)(awardingreasonable ` attorneyfeesuponpetitionforrehearingandremandingtotrialcourtforadeterminationofsaid L  fees). 8    IV.  ` m[  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothecircuitcourtfor  8  suchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion,andforthecollectionof $  costsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,   _Jeffrie_ԀW.Morgan.      `     h     _______________________________ \    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE