Full text
W. Dale Gordon v. Robbyn Gordon - Concurring
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED June 5, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk W DALE GORDON, . ) SCOTT CI RCUI T ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9702- CV- 0005 4 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CONRAD TROUTMAN, J R. ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) ROBBYN GORDON, ) J UDGMENT VACATED; ) REM ANDED TO THE TRI AL COURT ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )
KEVEN W SHEPHERD, M r yvi l l e , f or Appe l l a nt . . a
CHARLI E ALLEN, One i da , f or Appe l l e e .
O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J . c ur
Thi s i s a di vor c e c a s e t ha t c ome s t o us i n a n unus ua l pos t u r e . The Hu s ba nd f i l e d hi s or i gi na l c ompl a i n t on Apr i l 3, 1996. No
a ns we r wa s f i l e d b y t he W f e . i A ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt wa s
f i l e d o n J une 12, 1996. Th e ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt pr ovi d e d f or t h e di vi s i on of t he pa r t i e s ' pr ope r t y a nd f ur t he r c ont a i ne d t h e f o l l o wi ng pr ovi s i on:
The pa r t i e s a gr e e t ha t t he y a r e e qua l l y r e s pons i bl e f or t he br e a kdown of t he ma r r i a g e a nd r e s pe c t f ul l y r e que s t t h e c our t t o de c l a r e t he m di vor c e d r a t he r t ha n a wa r di ng a di vor c e t o e i t he r pa r t y a l one .
The c a s e wa s he a r d i n t he t r i a l c our t a nd a " Fi na l De c r e e " wa s s i g n e d by t he t r i a l j udge , t h e pl a i nt i f f ' s a t t or ne y, a nd f i l e d wi t h t he Co u r t Cl e r k on J une 12 , 1996. On Oc t obe r 12, 1996, a pe t i t i o n
t o s e t a s i de t he j udgme nt wa s f i l e d by t he W f e . i The ba s e s f or t h e
p e t i t i on t o s e t a s i de t he f i na l de c r e e we r e t hr e e f ol d: ( 1) Th a t
t he W f e' s i s i gna t ur e on t he ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt wa s
o b t a i n e d by f r a ud; ( 2) Tha t t he f i na l de c r e e of t he c our t f a i l e d t o g r a n t a di vor c e t o e i t he r pa r t y; a nd ( 3) t ha t t he f i na l de c r e e wa s not e f f e c t i ve l y e nt e r e d f or f a i l ur e to c ompl y wi t h Rul e 58, Te n n e s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e .
The mot i on t o s e t a s i de t he f i na l de c r e e wa s he a r d by t h e c our t o n De c e mbe r 19t h, 1996, a nd ove r r ul e d by or de r e nt e r e d o n
J a n u a r y 10, 1997. The W f e f i l e d he r i not i c e of a ppe a l t o t hi s
c o u r t o n J a nua r y 21, 1997. On J a nua r y 22, 1997, t he a t t or ne y f o r t he h u s ba nd f i l e d a " Ce r t i f i c a t e of Se r vi c e " c e r t i f yi ng t ha t an e x a c t c o py of t he f i na l d e c r e e a nd ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me n t
wa s s e r ve d upon t he W f e b y U. S. i ma i l on J a nua r y 12, 1996. No
o t h e r or f ur t he r or de r s we r e f i l e d.
Th e f i na l de c r e e pr ovi de d a s f ol l ows :
1. The ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt i s a ppr ove d by t he c our t a nd ma de a pa r t of t he Fi na l De c r e e .
2. The p a r t i e s s ha l l s t r i c t l y c ompl y wi t h t h e pr ovi - s i ons of t he ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt .
3. The de f e nda nt i s r e s t or e d t o t he us e of he r f or me r na me Col l i ns .
W t hout i que s t i on t he c our t i nt e nde d t o a wa r d a di vor c e i n
a c c or d a nc e wi t h t he ma r i t a l di s s o l ut i on a gr e e me nt , howe ve r , t he f i na l de c r e e f ai l ed to de c r e e a di vor c e a nd, t he r e f or e , t he v a l i d i t y of t he di vor c e i s de ba t a bl e .
Rul e 58, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , pr ovi de s in p e r t i ne nt pa r t a s f ol l ows :
Ent r y of a j udgme nt or a n or de r of f i na l di s pos i t i on i s e f f e c t i ve whe n a j udgme nt c ont a i ni ng o n e of t he f o l l owi ng i s ma r ke d on t he f a c e by t he c l e r k a s f i l e d f or e n t r y:
( 1) t he s i gna t ur e s of t he j udge a nd al l pa r t i e s or c ouns e l , or
( 2) t he s i gna t ur e s of t he j udge a nd one pa r t y or c oun- s el wi t h a c e r t i f i c a t e of c ouns e l t ha t a c opy of t he pr opos e d or de r h a s be e n s e r ve d on a l l ot he r pa r t i e s or c ouns e l , or
( 3) t he s i gna t ur e of t he j udge a nd a c e r t i f i c a t e of t he c l e r k t ha t a c o p y ha s be e n s e r ve d on a l l ot he r pa r t i e s or c ouns e l .
I t ha s be e n he l d t o be ma nda t or y t ha t j udgme nt s c ompl y wi t h Rul e 58, Te n n e s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , be f or e t he y ar e
e f f e c t i ve l y e nt e r e d. Se e St a t e e x r e l Age e v. Cha pma n, 922 S. W 2 d .
516 ( Te n n. App. 1995) ; Gr a nt ha m v. Te nne s s e e St a t e Boa r d of
Eq u a l i z a t i on , 794 S. W 2d 751 ( Te nn. . App. 1990) ; a nd Ye a r out v.
Tr u s t y, 684 S. W 2d 612 ( Te nn. . 1984) . Si nc e t h e f i n a l de c r e e i n
t hi s c a s e c ont a i ne d onl y t h e s i gna t ur e of t he j udge a nd c ouns e l f o r t h e Hu s ba nd, i t c l e a r l y wa s not e f f e c t i ve l y e nt e r e d.
W r e ma nd t he c a s e t o t he t r i a l c our t f or a r e c ons i de r a t i on o f e
t h e c a s e o n r e ma nd a s i f a f i na l de c r e e ha d not be e n e nt e r e d. In s o d o i n g , we do not e xpr e s s a ny opi ni on on t he me r i t s of a ny i s s u e . On r e ma nd, ne i t he r pa r t y s ha l l be de pr i ve d of a ny r i ght s or r e me d i e s t ha t we r e a va i l a b l e pr i or t o t he e nt r y of t he j udgme n t .
W va c a t e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t a nd r e ma nd t he c a s e e
f o r f u r t he r a c t i on c ons i s t e nt wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Cos t s a r e t a x e d t o t h e a ppe l l e e .
_______________________________ _ Don T. M M r a y, J udge c ur
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________________ Ho u s t o n M Godda r d, Pr e s i d i ng J udge .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
W DALE GORDON, . ) SCOTT CI RCUI T ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9702- CV- 0005 4 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l e e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CONRAD TROUTMAN, J R. ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) ROBBYN GORDON, ) J UDGMENT VACATED; ) REM ANDED TO THE TRI AL COURT ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )
JUDGMENT
Thi s a ppe a l c a me o n t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t h e Ci r c u i t Cour t o f Sc o t t Count y a nd br i e f s f i l e d on be ha l f of t h e r e s p e c t i ve pa r t i e s . Upon c ons i d e r a t i on, t hi s Cour t is of t he o p i n i o n t ha t t he r e wa s r e ve r s i bl e e r r or i n t he t r i a l c our t .
W v a c a t e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t a nd r e ma nd t he c a s e e
f o r f u r t he r a c t i on c ons i s t e nt wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Cos t s a r e t a x e d t o t h e a ppe l l e e .