FILED

June 5, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

W. DALE GORDON, ) SCOTT CI RCUI T

 ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9702- CV- 00054

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. CONRAD TROUTMAN, J R.

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

ROBBYN GORDON, ) J UDGMENT VACATED; 

 ) REMANDED TO THE TRI AL COURT

 ) 

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

KEVEN W. SHEPHERD, Ma r yville , for Appe lla nt .

CHARLI E ALLEN, One i da , f or Appe l l e e .

O P I 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 ome s t o us i n a n unus ua l pos t ur e .

The Hus ba nd f i l e d hi s or i gi na l c ompl a i nt on Apr i l 3, 1996. No
2

a ns we r wa s f ile d by the Wi f e . A ma r ita l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt wa s

f ile d on J une 12, 1996. The ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt pr ovi de d

f or 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 owi ng pr ovi s i on:

The pa r t i e s agr e e t ha t t he y ar e equa 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 ge a nd r e s pe c t f ul l y

r e que s t t he 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 cas e wa s hear d i n t he t r i a l cour t and a "Fi na l Decr ee" wa s

s i gne d by the tr i a l judge , the pl a i ntif f ' s a ttor ne y, a nd f ile d with

t he Cour t Cl e r k on J une 12, 1996. On Oc t obe r 12, 1996, a pe t i t i on

t o s e t a s i de the judgme nt wa s f ile d by t he Wi f e . The ba s e s f or t he

pe tition to s e t as i de t he f i na l decr ee we r e t hr eef ol d: ( 1) Tha t

t he Wi f e ' s 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

obt a i ne 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

gr a nt a di vor ce t o ei t he r pa r t y; and ( 3) t ha t t he f i na l decr ee 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 t o c ompl y wi t h Rul e 58,

Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e .

The motion to s e t a s i de the f i na l decr ee wa s hear d by t he

c our t on 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 on

J a nua r y 10, 1997. The Wi 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. On J a nua r y 22, 1997, t he a t t or ne y f or

t he hus ba nd f i l e d a "Ce r t i f i cat e of Se r vi ce" cer t i f yi ng t ha t an

e xact c opy of t he f i na l de c r e e a nd ma r i t a l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt
3

wa s s e r ve d upon t he Wi f e by U. S. ma i l on J a nua r y 12, 1996. No

ot he r or fur t he r or de r s we 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 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 cour t and ma de a pa r t of t he Fi na l Decr ee.

2. The pa r tie s s ha ll s t r i c tly c ompl y with the 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 Collins .

Wi t hout 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

accor da nc e with the ma r ita l di s s ol ut i on a gr e e me nt , howe ve r , t he

f i na l decr ee f a i l e d t o decr ee a di vor ce and, t he r e f or e , t he

va l i di 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 i n

pe r tine nt pa r t a s f ollows :

Ent r y of a j udgme nt or a n or de r of fi na l di s pos ition

i s e f f e c t i ve whe n a j udgme nt c ont a i ni ng one of t he

f ollowi ng i s ma r ke d on the f ace by t he cl e r k as f i l e d f or

e nt r y:

( 1) t he 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 wi t h a cer tif 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 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 , or
4

( 3) t he s i gna t ur e of t he j udge a nd a cer t i f i cat e of t he

c l e r k tha t a copy 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 nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , be f or e t he y a r e

e f f ect i ve l y ent e r e d. Se e St a t e ex r e l Agee v. Cha pma n, 922 S. W. 2d

516 ( Te nn. App. 1995) ; Gr a nt ha m v. Te nne s s ee St a t e Boa r d of

Equa liz a tion, 794 S. W. 2d 751 ( Te nn. App. 1990) ; a nd Ye a r out v.

Tr us t y, 684 S. W. 2d 612 ( Te nn. 1984) . Si nce t he f i na l decr 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 he Hus ba nd, i t cl ear l y wa s not ef f ect i ve l y ent e r e d.

We r e ma nd t he case t o t he t r i a l cour t f or a r econs i de r a t i on of

t he case on r e ma nd as i f a f i na l decr ee ha d not been ent e r e d. I n

s o doi ng, we do not e xpr e s s a ny opi ni on on the me r its of a ny i s s ue .

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 di e s t ha t we r e a va i l a bl e pr i or t o t he e nt r y of t he j udgme nt .

We 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

f or f ur 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 xe d

t o t he appe l l ee.

 ________________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J udge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge
5

___________________________________

Cha 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- 00054

 )

 Pl a i ntif f - Appe lle e )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. CONRAD TROUTMAN, J R.

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

ROBBYN GORDON, ) J UDGMENT VACATED; 

 ) REMANDED TO THE TRI AL COURT

 ) 

 De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt )

JUDGMENT

Thi s a ppe a l came on t o be he a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he

Ci r c ui t Cour t of Sc ot t Count y a nd br i e f s f i l e d on be ha l f of t he

r e s pect i ve pa r t i e s . Upon c ons i de r a t i on, thi s Cour t is of the

opi ni on 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 .

We vacat e t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t and r e ma nd t he case

f or f ur 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 xe d

t o t he appe l l ee.
7

 PER CURI AM