Sensing v. Sensing (Tennessee 2019)

The parent requesting the child support modification bears the burden of proving a significant variance exists between the existing support amount and the amount based on the parent’s current income. The father filed to modify his child support, and the court denied his petition. He appealed on the basis that the court improperly imputed capital gains income to him and that the court applied an improper legal standard. The court of appeals disagreed. The court found no evidence in the record to support the father’s argument about imputing capital gains income. The father had taken out a loan from his business, which was referenced in the findings, but nowhere was it used as income. Further, the appellate court found that while the trial court could have used more precise language, the proper standard was applied. The father failed to present any evidence of his gross monthly income. He testified as to his employment as a medical courier and how he was paid.