## Facts

- Helen Matlock Nash and Charles Mulle had a child (Melissa) in 1981; Nash was the custodial parent and Mulle the noncustodial parent.
- In 1984, a juvenile court order established paternity and set child support at $200 per month plus certain additional expenses.
- Mulle’s income increased substantially after the original order, rising from about $30,000 annually to approximately $192,000 (1988), $292,000 (1989), and substantially more by 1990.
- In 1990, Nash sought an increase in child support under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101(a) based on a substantial and material change of circumstances.
- The juvenile court found a substantial and material change, applied the Child Support Guidelines, and ordered $3,092.62 per month based on 21% of Mulle’s net monthly income.
- The juvenile court also directed that $1,780.17 per month be paid into a trust for Melissa’s future college education, funded during her minority but intended to pay educational expenses after she reached majority.
- The Court of Appeals limited support to $1,312 per month (21% of $6,250, the top income amount in the guideline schedule) and disallowed the trust as an improper extension of support beyond majority.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review; the material facts were undisputed.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee’s Child Support Guidelines cap child support at the top of the guideline income schedule when the obligor’s net monthly income exceeds $6,250.
2. Whether a court may require creation of a trust funded during the child’s minority for the child’s later college expenses without unlawfully extending the support obligation beyond the age of majority.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for recalculation.
- The Court held that when an obligor’s net income exceeds the top figure in the guideline schedule, the trial court is not limited to the schedule maximum and may set support above it, using the schedule as a starting point and exercising discretion consistent with statutory factors.
- The Court held that establishing a trust funded during the child’s minority for future college education is permissible as part of a child-support order, even if the child will benefit after reaching majority.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee’s Child Support Guidelines operate as a rebuttable presumption and do not function as a hard ceiling for high-income obligors whose net monthly income exceeds the guideline schedule.
- In high-income cases, the guideline schedule may be used as an initial benchmark, and the trial court may adjust upward based on the obligor’s ability to pay and relevant statutory considerations.
- A child-support order may structure payments to reserve a portion of support during minority for foreseeable child-related expenses, including higher education, through a trust or similar mechanism.
- Funding an educational trust during minority does not impose a new post-majority duty of support; it is a permissible structuring of the support obligation ordered while the child is a minor.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that courts retain discretion to award child support above the guideline schedule for high-income parents and may require an educational trust funded during the child’s minority, reversing the appellate limitation and remanding for a recalculated award.


Nash v. Mulle, 846 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. 1993)