W. Dale Gordon v. Robbyn Gordon - Concurring
This text of W. Dale Gordon v. Robbyn Gordon - Concurring (W. Dale Gordon v. Robbyn Gordon - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
2 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 ( 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 .
4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge
5 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 . PER CURI AM
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
W. Dale Gordon v. Robbyn Gordon - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-dale-gordon-v-robbyn-gordon-concurring-tennctapp-1997.