enough to include some of them in his weekly gross income, while it ordered Father to pay a percentage of the remainder of his irregular income on a periodic basis. The trial court recognized the fact-sensitive nature of Father's irregular income and followed the Guidelines in determining his weekly gross income. See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A). Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court's calculation of Father's weekly gross income was clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Lea, 691 N.E.2d at 1217 (noting that there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded); Thomas v. Smith, 794 N.E.2d 500, 506 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's
holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous holding that trial courts calculation of weekly gross income was not clearly erroneous holding that the trial courts conclusion regarding an easement of necessity was clearly erroneous holding trial courts finding omission of information was not intentional or with reckless disregard for truth was not clearly erroneous holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous