# FILED June 5, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N THECOUR

TOFAPPEALS

W . DALEGOR

DON, ) S CO TTCI RCU

I T ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9702- C

V - 00054 ) Pl a i ntif f - A p p e lle e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CONR AD TR OUTM AN, J R. ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) R OBBYN GOR

DON, ) J UDGM ENTVAC

ATED; ) R EM ANDED TO THETR

I ALCOUR

T ) D

e f e nda nt - A

ppe l l a nt )

K EV EN W . S H EPH ER D , M a r y v ille , for A

p p e lla nt . C HAR LI EALLEN, On e i d a , f o r Ap p e l l e e .

O PI N I O N Mc Mur r a y , J . Thi s i s a di vor c e c a s e t ha t c om e s t o us i n a n unus ua l pos t ur e . Th e H us ba nd f i l e d hi s or i gi na l c om pl a i n t on A

pr i l 3, 1996. N o2

a n s w e r w a s f ile db yth e W

i f e . A

m a r ita l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e m e nt w a s f ile don J une 12, 1996. The m a r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e m e nt pr ovi de d f o r t he 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 he f ol l ow i ng pr ovi s i on: Th e p a r t i e s ag r e e t h a t t h e yar e equ a l l yr e s pons i bl e f o r t he br e a kdow n of t he m

a 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 w a r di ng a di vor c e t o e i t he r pa r t y a l one . Th e cas e w

a s h ear di nt h e t r i a l co ur t an da "Fi n a l D ecr ee" w

a s s i gne db yth e tr i a l ju d g e , th e p l a i ntif f ' s a ttor n e y , a n df ile dw ith t h e C our t C l e r k onJ une 12, 1996. O nO c t obe r 12, 1996, a pe t i t i on t os e t a s i d e th e ju d g m e nt w a s f ile dby t he W

i f e . The ba s e s f or t he p e titio nto s e t as i d e t h e f i n a l d ecr ee w e r e t hr eef o l d : ( 1 ) Th a t t h e W i f e ' s s i gna t ur e on t he m a r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e m e nt w a s obt a i ne dby 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 gr a nt a di v o r ce t oei t h e r p a r t y ; an d( 3 ) t h a t t h e f i n a l d ecr ee w a 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 t o c om pl y w i t h R ul e 58, Te nne s s e e R

ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e . Th e m o tio ntos e t a s i d e th e f i n a l d ecr ee w a s h ear db yt h e c our t on D

e c e m be r 19t h, 1996, a nd ove r r ul e d by or de r e nt e r e d on J a nua r y10, 1997. The W i f e f i l e d he r not i c e of a ppe a l t o t hi s c our t on J a nua r y 21, 1997. O n J a nua r y 22, 1997, t he a t t or ne y f or t h e hus ba nd f i l e da "Ce r t i f i cat e o f S e r v i ce" cer t i f y i n gt h a t an e x act c opy of t he f i na l de c r e e a nd m a r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e m e nt3

wa s s e r ve d upon t he W i f e by U

. S . m a i l on J a nua r y 12, 1996. N o o t h e r o r fur t h e r o r d e r s w e r e fi l e d . The f i na l de c r e e pr ovi de d a s f ol l ow s : 1. Th e m

a r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e m e nt i s a ppr ove d by t h e co ur t an dm

a de a p a r t o f t h e Fi n a l D ecr ee. 2. Th e p a r tie s s h a ll s t r i c tlyc o m p l yw ithth e pr ovi - s i ons of t he m

a r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e m e 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 m e r n a m e C o llin s . W i t hout que s t i on t he c our t i nt e nde d t o a w a r d a di vor c e i n accor d a n c e w

ithth e m

a r ita l di s s o l ut i on a gr e e m e nt , how

e ve r , t he f i n a l d ecr ee f a i l e dt od ecr ee a di v o r ce and , t h e r e f o r e , t h e va l i di t y of t he di vor c e i s de ba t a bl e . Ru l e 58, Te nne s s e e R ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e , pr ovi de s i n p e r tin e nt p a r t a s f o llo w s : Ent r yof a j udgm

e nt or a no r d e r o f fi n a l di s p o s itio n i s e f f e c t i ve w

he n a j udgm

e nt c ont a i ni n g on e of t he f o llo w i n gi s m

a r ke d onth e f ace b yt h e cl e r kas f i l e df o r e nt r y: ( 1 ) t h e s i gna t ur e s of t he j udge a nd a l 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 ouns e l w i t ha cer tif i c a t e of c ouns e l t ha t a c opy of t h e pr opos e d or de r 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 , or4

( 3 ) t h e s i gna t ur e of t he j udge a nda cer t i f i cat e o f t h e c l e r kth a t a co 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 m a nda t or y t ha t j udgm e nt s c om

pl y w i t h Ru l e 58, Te nne s s e e R ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e , be f or e t he y a r e e f f ect i v e l yent e r e d . Se e St a t e exr e l A g ee v . C

h a p m a n , 922 S . W

. 2d 516( Te nn. A

pp. 1995) ; G

r a nt h a m

v . Te nn e s s ee St a t e Bo a r do f Equ a liz a tio n , 794 S . W . 2d 751 ( Te nn. A pp. 1990) ; a nd Y e a r out v. Tr u s t y , 684 S . W

. 2d 612 ( Te nn. 1984) . Si n ce t h e f i n a l d ecr ee i n t hi s cas e c ont a i ne d onl y t he s i gna t ur e of t he j udge a nd c ouns e l f or t h e H u s b a n d , i t cl ear l yw a s n o t ef f ect i v e l yent e r e d . We r e m a n dt h e case t ot h e t r i a l co ur t f o r a r eco n s i d e r a t i o nof t h e case onr e m

a n das i f a f i n a l d ecr ee h a dn o t b eenent e r e d . I n s odoi ng, w

e do not e xpr e s s a ny opi ni on onth e m e r its o f a ny i s s ue . Onr e m a 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 m e di e s t ha t w

e r e a va i l a bl e pr i or t o t he e nt r y of t he j udgm e nt . We va c a t e t he j udgm e nt of t he t r i a l c our t a nd r e m a nd t he c a s e f or f ur t he r a c t i on c ons i s t e nt w i t h t hi s opi ni on. C os t s a r e t a xe d t ot h e app e l l ee.

________________________________ D on T. M

c M ur r a y, J udge CONC UR:

___________________________________ H ous t on M

. G odda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge5

___________________________________ C ha r l e s D

. Sus a no, J r . , J udgeI N THECOUR TOFAPPEALS

W . DALEGOR

DON, ) S CO TTCI RCU

I T ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9702- C

V - 00054 ) Pl a i ntif f - A p p e lle e ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CONR AD TR OUTM AN, J R. ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) R OBBYN GOR

DON, ) J UDGM ENTVAC

ATED; ) R EM ANDED TO THETR

I ALCOUR

T ) D

e f e nda nt - A

ppe l l a nt )

J UDG M E NT Thi s a ppe a l cam

e o nt o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he C i r c u i t C

our t of S c ot t C

ount y a nd br i e f s f i l e d on be ha l f of t he r e s p ect i v e pa r t i e s . U pon c ons i d e r a t i o n , th i s C o ur t is o f th e opi ni on t ha t t he r e w a 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 . We v acat e t he j udgm e nt of t he t r i a l c our t an dr e m a n dt h e case f or f ur t he r a c t i on c ons i s t e nt w i t h t hi s opi ni on. C os t s a r e t a xe d t ot h e app e l l ee.7

PER CU RI A M