On remand, the trial court was directed to recalculate the husband's income without considering the bankruptcy deduction. See Creson v. Creson, No. 02A01-9801-CH-00002, 1999 WL 65055 (Tenn.App. Feb. 12, 1999). In the present case, the district court adopted the referee's report, in which the referee concluded that the bankruptcy plan was comparable to a student loan and therefore was a fixed obligation.
Any rental income Father receives from this commercial property should clearly be included as income for child support purposes. See Jennette v. Jennette, No. 01A01-9810-CH-00549, 1999 WL 732519 at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 1999); Creson v. Creson, No. 02A01-9801-CH-00002, 1999 WL 65055 at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 1999); Lazenby v. Lazenby, No. 01A01-9708-GS-00432, 1998 WL 195973 at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 1998). Pursuant to the respective definition provided in the Child Support Guidelines:
In cases of this sort, the courts commonly consider the obligor spouse's (1) past and present employment or business activities, (2) current employability, (3) earning potential, and (4) assets and other indicia of wealth.E.g., Scott v. Scott, No. M1999-00322-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 266038, at *3 n. 4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Mar. 20, 2001) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed); Creson v. Creson, No. 02A01-9801-CH-00002, 1999 WL 65055, at *5 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 1999) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed); McGaffic v. McGaffic, No. 03A01-9707-CV-00286, 1997 WL 772899, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 9, 1997) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed).E.g., Eatherly v. Eatherly, 2001 WL 468665, at *11; State ex rel. Ledbetter v. Godsey, No. M1998-00958-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 798641, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 22, 2000) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed); Narus v. Narus, No. 03A01-9804-CV-00126, 1998 WL 959839, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 31, 1998) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed).
Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, 945 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996). Accordingly, the courts must scrutinize the reasons for the obligor parent's career decision, Creson v. Creson, No. 02A01-9801-CH-00002, 1999 WL 65055, *5 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 1999) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed); McGaffic v. McGaffic, No. 03A01-9707-CV-00286, 1997 WL 772899, *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 9, 1997) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed); Ford v. Ford, No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153, 1996 WL 560258, *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 1996) (No Tenn. R. App. 11 application filed), and the reasonableness of his or her ultimate career choice. Narus v. Narus, No. 03A01-9804-CV-00126, 1998 WL 959839, * 2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 31, 1998) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed).
In McGaffic v. McGaffic, No. 03A01-9707-CV-00286, 1997 WL 772899 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 9, 1997) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed), the prior work history of the father as well as testimony at the hearing supported the trial court's finding that the father was underemployed because he took a lower-paying job where his employer allowed him to be off from work to pursue his hobby of drag racing. However, in Creson v. Creson, No. 02A01-9801-CH-00002, 1999 WL 65055 at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 1999) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed), this court determined that an obligor's decision to reduce the number of clients he serviced in his lawn care business did not constitute willful underemployment in view of his other full-time employment. Often, the initial inquiry, where the reduction is sought on the basis of lost employment, is whether the obligor parent voluntarily quit. Where a parent with child support obligations voluntarily leaves the employment or business activity which provided the resources to maintain that support and chooses to cease working or to begin an activity which provides significantly less income, the courts are more inclined to find willful and voluntary unemployment or underemployment.
In McGaffic v. McGaffic, No. 03A01-9707-CV-00286, 1997 WL 772899 (Tenn.App. Dec. 9, 1997) (no Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed), the prior work history of the father as well as testimony at the hearing supported the trial court's finding that the father was underemployed because he took a lower-paying job where his employer allowed him to be off from work to pursue his hobby of drag racing. However, in Creson v. Creson, No. 02A01-9801-CH-00002, 1999 WL 65055 at * 5 (Tenn.App. Feb. 12, 1999) (no Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed), this court determined that an obligor's decision to reduce the number of clients he serviced in his lawn care business did not constitute willful underemployment in view of his other full time employment. Additionally, an obligor's testimony that he was capable of earning a greater income has been found to constitute evidence of willful unemployment or underemployment.