I mmediately afte r the a g ree ment and its terms wer e announc ed in open court on Februa ry 1 10 , 2 00 5, the tr ia l ju dg e ha d th e fo llo wi ng e xch a ng e wi th the Part ie s:



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE

AT KNOX VILLE Ma y 25, 200 6 S es sio n LI NDA L. EVANS v. AUDREY H. EVANS
Direc t Appeal from the G eneral Sessions Court for Cam pbell Cou nty

No. 12625 Hon. John D. Mc Afee, Judge

No. E2005-01914-COA- R3-CV - F ILED JULY 18, 2006

I n this divorce ac tion, the parties announc ed a pr operty settlement in open court which settlement was made a part of the Divorce Decre e. Def endant filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P . 60 Motion to S et Aside Di vo rc e a ndto r e op e n th e iss ue of the pr op e rty

se ttl e me nt wh ic h the Tria l Cou rt re fu se d. Onapp e a l, we a ff ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he G e ne r al S e ssi ons Co ur t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.
Sc arl e tt B e a ty

L a tham, A lbany , K e ntu c ky , f or a pp e llant.
J ohnny V. Dunaw ay , L aF ollette, Tenne ssee, f or appe llee.

OP IN ION

I n this divorce ac tion, after the parties f iled numerous plea dings and engaged i n a contentious discovery

proce ss, they

appea red in c ourt on Fe bruary 10, 2005 and announced that they had re ache d an ag ree ment settling a ll issue s i n co n t ro v ersy . The terms of this ag ree ment wer e annou n ced in ope n court, a nd the Parties announc ed their c onsent to those terms. On Marc h 18, 1The trial c ourt: Folks, y ou all hear d the announc ements that we re ma d e b y[t he

Plaintiff’s counsel]. Do bot h of y ou ag ree to those announce ments? Do y ou ag ree , m a ’ a m ?
The Plaintiff: I

do.
T h e tr i a l c o u r t : S i r , d o y o u a g r e e ?
The De fendant: Reluctantly

. The trial c ourt: I

understand, but y ou understand this a nnounceme nt is a done dea l h e r e t o d a y ?
The De fendant: Yeah.

-2- 2005, the Trial Court ente red theJ udg ment of Divorc e. Subsequently , the def endant f iled a Motion to Wi thdraw Consent to Announc ement and a M otion to Set Aside Divorce, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil P roce dure 60 and 60.02. Def endant in his Motion arg ued that he did not ag ree to the terms of the a g ree ment as they wer e announc ed in court. He stated his hea ring impairment preve nted him from hearing the terms of the a g ree m ent as itwas announced, and that the Trial Court’s J udg ment exceede d the terms of the ag ree ment. The Plaintiff re sp o n d ed t h at the J udg ment of Di vo rc e a c c ur a te ly re fl e c te d the Part ie s’ a g re e me nt an d tha t th e De fe nd a nt u nd e rs too d a ndha d s o ag ree d. Following a hearing on the i ssue, t he Trial Court denied both of defendant’s motions, and a timely Appea l was per fec ted. The issue pre sented on a

ppeal is whether the Trial Court err ed by ref using to set aside its J udg ment of Divorc e.

When r eviewing a trial court’ s decision to g rant or de ny relief pursuant to Rule 60.02, appellate courts give g reat defe renc e to the trial c ourt. Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co. , 854 S.W .2d 94 , 9 7 ( Te nn . 199 3)

. We w ill no t se t a sid e thetria l c ou rt ’s de c isi on un le ss the c ou rt ha s a bu se d it s discretion. Id. An abuse of discre tion ex ists if the trial court applied an incorre ct leg al standar d or r e a c h e d a n i l l o g i c a l o r

u n r e a s o n ab l e d e c i s i o n t h a tc au s e d i n j u s t i c e t o t h e c o m p l a i n i n g p ar t y. Eldridge v. Eldridge , 42 S.W .3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001). “The abuse of discretion standa

rd does not permit the appe llate court to substitute its judg ment for that of the trial c ourt.” Id. The trial c ourt’s decision will be af

firmed “ ‘so long as rea sonable minds c an disag ree as to propriety of the de cision made.’ ” Id. (q u o t i n g State v. Gilliland , 22 S.W .3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)). The defe ndant ar g ues there is a discrepancy betwee n the Parties’ ag ree ment as announce d in c ourt and the J udg ment of Di vo rc e . A c c or din g to thede fe nd a nt, the dis c re pa nc y is the a nn ou nc e d a g re e me nt c a lle d f or the sa le of “ a house at 890 B utter and Eg g Road in Jacksboro,” but the J udg ment of Divorce called for the sale of “ House & approximately 1.7 acr es of r eal pr operty loca t ed at 890 Butter

& E g g Road,Th e Part ie s’ dis pu te ha d y e t to g o to tria l; the re fo re , th e rewa s n o r e c or d o r f ind ing s a s to 2 what prope rty

was sepa rate and what was marital.

-3- J acksbor o, Tenne ssee” (her einaf ter, the “Ac rea g e Discrepanc y ”). The De fendant arg ues that, whe n he conse nted to the ag ree ment as announc ed in court, he did not believe that the sa le of the “ house” inc lud e d s ell ing bo th t

he ho us e a ndthe 1. 7 a c re s o f r e a l pr op e rty , a ndarg ue s th a t du e to this misunderstanding , the ag ree ment as announc ed, lac ked a “ meeting of t h e m i n d s ”and ha d a “f atal defe ct.”
He a sserts t h at the Judgment wa s based on a fata lly defe ctive ag ree ment, or, in the alternative, the Trial Court should have de leted fr om the J udg ment of Divorc e any ref ere nce to the “appr ox imately

1.7 acr es of r eal pr operty .” Plaintiff arg ues the de fendant waived t h i s i s s ue by not raising it before the Trial Court, and that the Judgment o f Di v o rce ’s re fer ence to the 1.7 acr es, wa s in fact a part of the announce d ag ree ment.

Def endant’ s appellate arg ument rests upon the Ac rea g e Discr epanc y , but defe ndant ne ve r s pe c if

ic a lly me nti on e d th is d isc re pa nc y to the Tria l Co urt. T he De fe nd a nt’ s Mo tio n to With dr a w C on se nt t o A nn ou nc e me nt a rg ue d th a t “ the ann ounc e me nt i s n ot [the De fe nd a nt’ s] ag ree ment, and De fendant h er eb y wi t hdraw s any and all ag ree ments to said announce ment.” The Def endant’ s Motion to S et Aside Divorc e asse rted thre e ar g uments: (1) “ t h e De fendant did not understand the terms and c onditions as announced to the C ourt, but instead under stood that he was ag ree ing to g ive the Plaintiff one ha lf of the a ssets acc umulated during the parties’ marriag e, and not separ ate pr operty ,” (2) “ due to [the Defe ndant’s] hearing impairment he wa s not able t o hear the 2 terms and c o n d it io n s b e in g a n n o u n c e d , ” a n d ( 3 ) “ man y o f th e te r ms a n d c o n d it io n s s e t o u t in the order filed with the Court contain provisions well in excess of what was even discusse d. . . . many of the a ssets . . . wer e not marital prope rty , but were instead [the Defe ndant’s] separate prope rty

. . . .” Ne ither of these motions m akes spe cific r efe renc e to the Ac rea g e Discr epanc y
.

At the hea

ring on the motions before the Trial Court, defen d an t argue d that the J udg ment of Divorc e “e x cee ded what was announced” and that defe ndant “wa s not fully cog nizant of what was being announce d.” Defendant’s counsel further arg ued that the def endant thoug ht that only marital property , not separ ate pr operty , would be sold under the ag ree ment. No mention was made of the Acr eag e Discr epanc y during the ar g uments, and during defe ndant’s testimony , counsel never asked a question reg arding the Acr eag e Discr epanc y or the re al estate on Butter and Eg g Road. Th e on ly ass et sp e c if

ic a lly me nti on e d inc ou ns e l’ s q ue sti on ing wa s a re tir e me nt ann uity

a c c ou nt. Most of counsel’s que stions concerned the de fendant’s inabilityto hear the ag ree m ent as it was a nn ou nc e d inc ou rt

on F e br ua ry 10 , 2 00 5 an d the de fe nd a nt’ s e xpla natio n f or faili ng to w ith dr a w h is c on se nt at a n e arl ie r t ime . T he thr us t of de fe nd a nt’ s a

rg ume nt a t the he ari ng wa s th a t de fe nd a nt d id not understand the a g ree ment beca use he w as unable to hear its announceme nt. Appar ently , defe ndant’s ar g ument was so vag ue that the Tri al C o urt soug htPlaintiff’s counsel dra fted the pr oposed Judgment of Divorc e. 3
-4- clarification from the attorney s. I n an attempt to determine how the Judgment of Divor ce e x cee ded the announc ed ag reement, the trial judg e aske d Plaintiff’s counsel if the Judgme nt of Divorce contained any

provisions in addition to those in the announce d ag ree ment. Plaintiff’s counsel stated 3 that the only

additional provision conce rned the involvement of the Court Clerk i n the prope rty sale. The de fendant made no objec tion to thi s d es cr i ption. I n addition, the defe ndant neve r spec ified w h i c h p r o p e r t y w a s a l l e g e d l y o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t

. R e g ar d i n g t h e r e t i r e m e n ta n n u i t y, the Trial Judge asked the defe nse counse l, “I s that what y ou all wer e trying to ask questions about awhile a g o that y ou claim wer e sepa rate property ? ” Def

ense c ounsel responde d, “Well, I wouldn’t know at all.” B ased on the fore g oing, we conclude the Acr eag e Discr epanc y issue was not an issue prese nted to the Trial Court on the Motion.

“The jurisdiction of t h e Court of Appea ls is appellate only , and it should consider only such matters as we re a cted upon by the trial court.” Fo ley v . D ay ton Ba nk & Tru st , 696 S.W .2d 356, 359 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) (citation omitted). Appellate c ourts decline to c onsider issues “not dealt with in the trial court or properly develope d in the proof.” E. Sev ier C o u n ty Util. Dist. v. W achovia Bank

& Trust C o. , 570 S.W .2d 850, 854 (Tenn. 1978). Be cause defe ndant never called the Trial Court’s attention to the Acr eag e Discre pancy , we cannot pr operly addre ss that issue. The defe ndant, by

his f ailure to r aise the issue befor e the trial court, waived the issue. Ac cording ly , we a ff ir m th e Tria l Co urt’ s Judg me nt d e nying de fe nd a nt’ s Mo tio ns
.

Th e c os t of

the app e a l is a sse sse d to Au dr e y H. Ev a ns
.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.-5-