I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 1 6 4 8 - S CT G E O R G E E . T R IM
v. L ISA M O S

L E Y T R IM ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 24/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. J
. DE W AYNE T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: W I LL I AM LE E COL BER T, J R. ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: KI M BERLY PI NE TU RN ER R A N D A L L H A R R IS NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D, AND T HE J UDG M ENT OF T HE CHANCERY COURT OF HI NDS CO UNT Y I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A FFIRM E D - 04/ 29/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. G eor ge E. T r i m and Li s a M os l ey Tri m obt ai ned an i rr econc i l abl e- di f f er ence s di vor ce by or derof

the C hance ry C our tf

orthe Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ou nty on J une 14, 2 0 0 0 . L isa w a s n o t re p re se n ted b y c o u n se l in th e d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g , an d n e ith e r p a rty pr opounded di s covery beyond the m andat ory U ni f or m C hance ry C our tR ul e 8. 05 f i nanci al di s cl os ur e s t at ement s . O n N ovember19, 2004, Li s a f i l ed a “Pet i t i on t o SetA s i de the Fi nal

### 2

J u d g m e n t o f D iv o rc e a n d /o r P ro p e rt y S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t o n th e A lle g a tio n o f F ra u d .” In th e p e titio n , L isa a ss e rte d th a t G e o rg e fra u d u len tly h a d m isre p re se n ted th e v a lu e o f h is
co rpo rate stoc k , a m arit al asse t, to b e $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 in h is R u le 8.05 fi n an cial disclosu re
s t at ement . T he cha ncel l orgr ant ed t he pet i t i on, f i ndi ng thatthe el ement s of f r aud w er e met b y c l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e a n d th a tth e a c tu a l v a l u e o f th e c o rp o r a t e s t o c k a tth e t i me
o f th e d iv o rc e h a d b e e n $ 6 9 4 ,0 0 0 . S u b tra c tin g th e $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 th a t h a d b e e n e q u itab ly di s tr i but ed i n the di vor ce j udgm ent , the cha ncel l oraw ar ded Li s a tw enty- f i ve per centof $5 94 , 00 0 u nd er Fer

guson v. Fer

guson , 639 So. 2d 921 ( M i s s . 1994) , pl us att orneys ’ f ees and cos t s . G eorge appeal ed, ar gui ng thatL i s a’ s pet i t i on had bee n unt i m el y f i l ed under M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) and thatthe cha ncel l orerr oneous l y had f ound cl earand convi nci ng evi dence of the el ement s of

f r aud. T hi s C our tas s i gned the ca s e t o the C ou rtof A pp eal s. ¶2. A di vi ded C our t of A pp eal s rever s ed and r ender ed, f i ndi ng that L i s a’ s pet i t i on had b e e n u n tim e ly fi le d u n d e r M is s is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 6 0 (b ). T rim v. T rim , 2009 W L 1058630, at*5 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. A pr . 21, 2009)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s hel d thatthe
c h a n c e llo r er ro n e o u sly h a d d e e m e d the p e tit io n ti m e ly u n d e r th e c a tch -a ll p ro v isio n in R u le 60( b) ( 6) , underw hi ch a mot i on f orr el i ef f r om a f i nal j udgm entshal l be made w i thi n a
r eas onabl e t i m e. T he C our tof A ppeal s de t erm i ned thatbeca us e Li s a’ s pet i t i on al l eged f r aud, R ul e 60 (b) (1) app l i ed an d thatthe p et i t i on w as unti m el y u nd er that rule’ s si x-m on th deadl i ne. H avi ng so f

ound, t he C our tof A ppeal s decl i ned t o re ach the mer i t s of the f r aud i s s ue. A f

t er the C our tof

A ppeal s deni ed Li s a’ s m ot i on f orr ehear i ng , L i sa f

i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof
cert i or ar i , w hi ch thi s C our tgr ant ed. L i s a r ai s es tw o i s s ues f ordeci s i on on cert i or ar i : ( 1)

### 3

w h e th e r th e d e c isio n re n d e re d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o n flicts w ith p rio r C o u rt o f A p p e a ls deci s i ons and w i th deci s i ons of thi s C our t , and ( 2) w hetherthi s cas e i nvol ves f undament al i s s u e s o f b r o a d p u b l i c i mp o r t a n c e r e q u i r i n g o u rr e v i e w. ¶3. T hi s C our t i s conf r ont ed w i th a f

i ndi ng by the chanc ery court that a party t o di vor ce li ti g ati o n inten ti o n all y su b m itted a su b stan ti all y false R u le 8.05 fi n an cial disclosu re st at em ent. T he ch ancell or det erm i ned that this m i scond uct const i tuted f raud on an ad verse party. W e t ake thi s opp ortun i ty to hold that a p arty’s i ntent i on al fi l i ng o f a subst anti al l y fal se R u le 8 .0 5 fin a n c ial d isc lo su re sta tem e n t co n stitu tes a fra u d o n th e c o u rt, fo r w h ich th e re is
n o li m it ati o n o f t im e re str ict ing the c o u rtfrom affo rdin g a re m ed y . M iss. R
. C iv. P. 60 (b). T her ef or e, i tw as w i thi n the cha ncel l or ’ s author i ty t o m odi f y t he f i nal j udgm entof

di vor ce. T h e jud g m en t of th e C o u rtof A p p ea ls is rev erse d , an d th e jud g m en t of th e C h an ce ry C o u rt of H i nds C ounty i s r ei ns t at ed and a f f i r m ed. FACTS ¶4. T he C our tof

A ppeal s pr ovi ded a thor ough r eci t at i on of the f act s , w hi ch w e r es t at e: O n N ovember16, 199 0, G eor ge and Li s a w er e mar r i ed i n H i nds C ou nty, M i ssi ssi pp i
. N o ch i l dren w ere born t o the m arr i age. O ver the co urse of thei rm arr i age, L i s a w or ked as a s al es r epr es ent at i ve f orthe B erry C om pany s el l i ng yel l ow page adv ert i s ement s , and G eor ge w as s el f
- empl oyed i n a c o m p u te rn e tw o rk in g a n d c a b lin g b u s in e s s , B u s in e s s C o m m u n ic a tio n s , In c ., (B C I). In 1 9 9 3 , G eo rge an d T o n y B a il ey (B ail ey ) pa rtn ere d to fo rm (B C I), w hi ch i s a cl os el y- hel d s ubchapt erS f orpr of i tcorporat i on. B ai l ey ow ned f i f ty- one per centof

t he s t ock, w i th G eor ge ow ni ng a mi nor i ty s har e of fo rty -n in e p e rc e n t. G e o rg e a n d L isa c o n tin u e d to liv e a s h u sb a n d a n d w ife u n til th e ir s epar at i on i n Sept ember1999. A r ound the t i m e o f thei rs epar at i on, G eor ge a n d L isa d isc u ss e d th e ir fin a n c ial sta tu s. G e o rg e th o u g h t th a t th e v a lu e o f h is s t ock i n B C I w as w or th $100, 000, and Li s a ow ned a r et i r ementacc ountval ued at$120, 000. T he equi ty i n G eor ge and Li s a' s h om e w as $30, 000. G eor ge

### 4

pr opos ed thatL i s a kee p herr et i r ementacc ount ; he kee p hi s B C I st ock and thei rhom e; and he pay L i s a $5, 000 t o make up the di f f er ence . I n es s ence , the coupl e di vi ded thei rm ar i t al as s et s equal l y. A f t ert hi s , on Sept ember24, 1999, L i s a s i gned a pr operty s ett l ementagr eementr ef l ect i ng the coupl e' s deci s i on. Ge o r g e a n d L i s a d i d n o tf i l e f o rd i v o r c e u n t i l s e v e n mo n th s l a t e r . On A p ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , G e o rg e a n d L isa filed a Jo in t C o m p lain t an d C o n se n t to D i vorc e bas ed on i rr econc i l abl e di f f er ence s . T hey al s o att ache d the above p rop erty se tt lem en t agre em en t t o their co m p lai n t. P u rsua n t t o U n if o rm C hance ry C our tR ul e 8. 05 ( her ei naf t er8. 05) , eac h party s ubm i t t ed a f i nanci al sta tem e n t o f th e ir a ss e ts a n d li a b ili ties to th e c o u rt. In h is 8 .0 5 sta tem e n t, G eor ge aga i n l i s t ed the val ue of hi s B C I s t ock at$100, 000. O n J une 14, 2000, the H i nds C ounty C hance ry C our tent er ed a f i nal j udgm entgra nt i ng a di vor ce to G e o rg e a n d L isa a n d ra tified th e p ro p e rty s e ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t atta c h e d in th e d iv o rc e c o m p lain t. Fol l ow i ng the di vor ce, i n 2001, the bus i nes s r el at i onshi p bet w een G eorge an d B ai l ey b egan t o d et eri orat e. In J uly 2001 , ata bo ard of di rect ors' m eet i ng, B ai l ey and a t hir d di r ect orvot ed t o f i r e G eor ge as pr es i dentof the c o m p a n y a n d re d u c e h is m a n a g e m e n t re sp o n sib ili ties a n d s a lar y . A s a re su lt of bei ng “s queez ed out ” of the company, G eor ge f i l ed s ui tagai ns tB ai l ey and B C I al l eging b reach o f f i du ci ary duty and w rongful breach o f m i no ri ty ri gh t s. H e soug ht t o hav e the com pan y dis sol ved
. Pu rs uan tt o st atutory requir em ents , the M adi s on C ounty C hance ry C our thel d a hea r i ng t o det erm i ne t he val ue of G eor ge' s B C I s t ock, and the courtdet erm i ned thatthe bett erre s ul t , r atherthan t o di s s ol ve the company, w as t o have BC I pay G eor ge f orhi s st ock and f

or G eor ge t o r el i nqui s h any r i ght s i n B C I
. T he s t ock val uat i ons pr es ent ed i n that hear i ng s purr ed the pr es entl i t i gat i on betw een Li s a and G eor ge. D ur i ng the l i t i gat i on betw een G eor ge and B ai l ey, each party pr es ent ed expertt es t i m ony t o det erm i ne the val ue of G eor ge' s s t ock, a nd the cha ncel l or adopt ed G eor ge' s expert ' s f i ndi ng thatthe s t ock w as w or th $1, 186, 000 as of A ugus t14, 2001. D ur i ng the T r im v. B ailey l i t i gat i on, the cha ncel l or e x p re ss e d d iss a tisfa c tio n w ith th e d e ter m in e d v a lu e s b e c a u se o f th e d isp a rity of f i nd i ng s bet w een the p art i es' exp ert s. H ow ever, du e t o the part i es' unw i l l i ngnes s t o hi r e a thi r d expert , h e fel tbound t o choos e one of the a m o u n ts, so h e ch o se the high er va lue. Iti s clear th at diff iculty ex ist e d in p lacing a d efinit ive m o n etary v alue o n the stoc k
. R athe r, de term ination s w ere b a se d o n n u m e ro u s fa c to rs th a t w e re n o t ea sily d isc e rn ib le a n d re su lted in vast l y d i ff

erentvaluat i on s. L i s a w ai t ed unt i l N ovember19, 20 04 , t o f i l e s ui tagai ns tG eor ge cl ai m i ng thathe had fr audul ent l y m i s r epr es ent ed t he val ue of hi s s t ock w hen

### Af

te r Lis a le ar

ned of thehi gher

st ock va luati on in 2002, shesought repre se ntati on 1 

### from t wo suc ce ss iveatt orne ys who fai le d to takeany action in t he c as e; shefinal ly ret ained a third attor

ney who f

il ed the inst ant

lawsui t on Nove mbe r 19, 2004. 5 they w ere d iscu ssing their pro p erty sett lem en t agre em en t ov er five y ea rs ear l i eri n Sept ember1999. [ ] I n the T rim v. T rim li ti g ati o n , L isa h ir ed a third 1 e x p e r t , w h i c h p r e s e n t e d y e ta n o th e ro p i n i o n c o n c e rn i n g th e v a l u e o f G e o r g e 's s t ock. L i s a' s expertval ued G eor ge' s s t ock at$694, 000 atthe t i m e of G eor ge and L i s a' s di vor ce. T he chanc el l ora cce pt ed thi s opi ni on a nd a w arded L i sa 2 5 % o f th is am o u n t [l ess the $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 th at ha d alr ea d y be en subjected to equi t abl e di s tr i but i on i n the di vor ce j udgm ent ]
. I n otherw or ds , L i s a r ece i ved an addi t i onal $148, 000 pl us at t orneys ' fe es and cos t s . T he j udgm entf r om that lit ig a tio n is n o w th e su b jec t o f th is a p p e a l. T rim , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 0 5 8 6 3 0 , at *1 -2 (fo o tno tes o m itted). S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶5
. T hi s C our tr evi ew s j udgm ent s i n dom es t i c r e l a t i on s c as es undert he f ami l i ar

“ s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e /m a n if e s t e rr o r” ru le
. Evans v. Evans , 99 4 S o. 2d 76 5, 76 8 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 ). W e w ill n o t d istu rb th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g s u n les s th o se fin d in g s w e re m a n ife stly
w ro n g , c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s , o r t h e c h a n c e llo r a p p lie d a n in c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd
. I d. A N A L Y S IS ¶6
. O n certi o rari, L isa argu es tha t the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ re v e rsa l o f th e ch an ce ll o r’s
m o d ifica tio n o f th e fin a l ju d g m e n t o f d iv o rc e c o n flicte d w ith its p rio r d e c isio n s a n d th a t th is
cas e i nvol ves broa d i s s ues of publ i c i m por t ance . T hi s cas e r equi r es the C our tt o det erm i ne
w hethert he chanc el l orhad author i ty t o m odi f y a f i nal j udgm entof

di vor ce upon a f

i ndi ng that o n e p arty frau d u lently ha d m isr ep rese n ted the va lue o f an asse t i n the p arty’s U n if o rm C h a n c e ry C o u rt R u le 8 .0 5 fin a n c ial d isc lo su re sta tem e n t. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 6 0 p ro v id e s, in p a rt:

### 6

( b) M i s t akes ; I nadvert ence; N ew l y D i s cover ed Evi dence; Fraud, et c. On m o tio n a n d u p o n su c h ter m s a s a re ju st, th e c o u rt m a y re liev e a p a rty o r h is l egal r epr es ent at i ve f

r om a f i nal j udg m ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng f orthe fol l ow i ng reas on s: (1) fr aud , m i sr epresent at i on , o r ot her m i scond uct of an ad verse party; ( 2) acc i dentorm i s t ake; ( 3) new l y di s cover ed evi dence w hi ch by due di l i gence coul d not h a v e b e e n d isc o v e re d in ti m e to m o v e fo r a n e w tri a l un d e r R u le 5 9 (b); ( 4) the j udgm enti s voi d; ( 5) the j udgm entha s be en s at i s f i ed, r el eas ed, ordi s char ged, or a pr i orj udgm entupon w hi ch i ti s b ased h as be en r ever s ed or otherw i s e vac at ed, ori ti s no l ongerequi t abl e thatthe j udgm ent s houl d have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on; (6 ) a n y o th e r re a so n ju stify in g re lief f ro m th e ju d g m e n t. T he mot i on s hal l be made w i thi n a r eas onabl e t i m e, and forre as ons ( 1) , ( 2) and ( 3) notm or e than s i x m onths af t erthe j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng w as e n ter e d o r tak e n . A m o tio n u n d e r th is s u b d iv isio n d o e s n o t af fe c t th e fin a lity of a j udgm entors us pend i t s ope r at i on. Leave t o make the mot i on need notbe obt ai ned f

r om the appe l l at e courtunl es s the r ecor d has bee n t r ans m i t t ed t o the a p p e lla te c o u rt a n d th e a c tio n re m a in s p e n d in g th e re in
. T h is r u le d o e s n o t li m it the pow erof

a cour tt o ent er tai n an i ndepende ntact i on t o r el i eve a par t y f r om a j udgm ent

, o rder, orpr ocee di ng, orto s et as i de a j udgm ent

f orf r aud upon th e c o u r t. W r i t s of

cor am nobi s , co r am vobi s , audi t a quer el a, and bi l l s of rev iew an d b il ls i n the n ature o f a bil l o f r ev iew , are ab o li sh ed
. T h e p roc ed u re fo r o b tain in g a n y re lief f ro m a ju d g m e n t sh a ll b e b y m o tio n a s p re sc rib e d in thes e rul es orby an i ndepende ntact i on and nototherw i s e. M iss. R
. C iv. P. 60 (b) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶7. T he deci si on to m od i fy a p ri or or derunderR ul e 60( b) i s a mat t erw i thi n the tr i al
c o u rt ’s s o u n d d is c re tio n . A ccr edited Sur. and Cas . Co. v. B ol les , 53 5 S o. 2d 56 , 58 (M i ss. 1988)
. T he f

i r s tf i ve enumer at ed cl aus es of R ul e 60( b) al l ow m od i f i cat i on of

a f i nal

### 7

j udgm enti n the s peci f

i c l i s t ed ci r cumst ance s . M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 60( b) ( 1- 5)
. R ul e 60( b) ( 6) pr ovi des a “c at ch- al l ” pr ovi s i on underw hi ch re l i ef m ay be gr ant ed i n exce pt i onal and
c o m p e lli n g c irc u m sta n c e s, su c h a s fo r fra u d u p o n th e c o u rt. M iss . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ); T ir ouda
v. S ta te , 919 So. 2d 211, 214 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005). W hi l e a Rul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on m us tbe br oughtw i thi n a r eas onabl e t i m e, a mot i on m ade unde rthe f i r s tthr ee e num er at ed cl aus es
m u st be b rou g h t w ith in six m o n ths o f th e e n try o f th e fina l j u d g m en t. M iss. R
. C iv. P. 60 (b). T his C ou rthas h el d that use o f R ule 60(b)( 6) m ustb e b ased o n som e reas on otherthan tho se lis te d in th e f

ir s t f iv e e n u m e ra te d c la u s e s o f t h e ru le
. A m . S ta tes In s. Co . v. R og ill io , 10 So. 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). A
. The chance l l or ’s decis i on ¶8. T he chanc el l or det erm i ned that G eor ge f r audul ent l y had m i s r epr es ent ed the val ue of hi s corpor at e s t ock t o be $100, 000 i n hi s R ul e 8. 05 fi nanci al di s cl os ur e st at ement , w hi ch w as i ncorpor at ed i nt o the f

i nal j udgm entof

di vor ce on J une 14, 2000. I n m aki ng thi s f i ndi ng, the chanc el l orr el i ed upon the undi s put ed evi dence that , i n D ece m ber1 99 9, G eor ge had
s ubm i t t ed a pe r s onal f i nanci al s t at em ent t o St at e B ank and Trus tval ui ng the s t ock at $1, 100, 000, and i n D ece m ber2000, he had subm i t t ed anotherst at ementt o S t at e B ank and T rus tval ui ng t he st ock at$1, 837, 500. T he chanc el l ordet erm i ned t hatG eor ge’ s s ubm i s s i on of a f al se R ule 8. 05 st at em ent con st i tuted pe rj ury o f a s i ng l e w i tness; theref ore, i tdid not r i se to th e le v e l o f f

ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt . ¶ 9
. T h e c h a n c e llo r fu rth e r fo u n d th a t L isa c o u ld n o t h a v e d isc o v e re d G e o rg e ’s f ra u d u n til
a fte r th e e x p ira tio n o f th e six -m o n th tim e lim it u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(1 ). A d d re ss in g th e R u le 60( b) ( 1) t i m e l i m i t , the cha ncel l ors t at ed:

### 8 [ G eor ge] ar gues t hatt hi s cour ti s pre cl uded f r om any ac t i on bas ed upon the C our tof

A ppeal s rul i ng i n B r ow n v. E s tate of Johnson , 822 So. 2d 1072 ( M i s s . A pp. 2002)
. T hi s courthas r evi ew ed Br o wn rep ea tedly a n d is aw are of the f i ndi ng that“mer e per

j ury i s no tg round forcol l at er al att ack on a j udgm entof

di vor ce. ” B r ow n v. Estate of Joh n s on , 822 So. 2d 1072, 1073 ( M i s s . A pp. 2002) ( ci t i ng Ki rby v. Kent , 1 6 0 S o . 5 6 9 , 5 7 2 (M iss. 1 9 3 5 )). H ow ever , thi s courtf

i nds thatequi ty demands that[ G eor ge] notbe r ew ar ded for h is de ce it ful b eh av ior. ¶10. T he cha ncel l orci t ed K al m an v. K al m an , i n w hi ch the C our t of A ppeal s had al l ow ed the c o n side rati o n o f a m o ti o n to m o d ify a fi n al j u d g m en t of d ivo rce m o re tha n three y ea rs
a ft e r e n tr y o f j u d g m e n t b a s e d u p o n th e h u s b a n d ’s n o n d is c lo su re o f lo tte ry w in n in g s . K al m an
v. K al m an , 905 So. 2d 760, 763- 64 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004)
. The C our tof A ppeal s i n K

al m an
s t at ed thatthe hus band’ s ar gum entpert ai ni ng t o hi s f ai l ur e t o dis cl os e ac cur at e f i nanci al in fo rm a tio n w a s a n a tte m p t to ju s ti f y a f r a u d o n th e c o u rt . I

d. at 76 4
. C it ing the c o u rt ’s equi t abl e pow er s , the cha ncel l orher e dee m ed Li s a’ s “ Pet i t i on t o SetA s i de a Fi nal J udgm ent of D i vor ce a nd/ orPr operty Set t l ement ” t o be a “ M ot i on t o M odi f y the Fi nal J udgm entof D i vor ce a nd/ orPr operty Set t l em ent . ” Ess ent i al l y, the cha ncel l ordet erm i ned that , w hen pr es ent ed w i th egr egi ous ci r cumst ance s s i m i l art o thos e i n K al m an , the chanc ery c our thas the equi t abl e pow ert o ent ert ai n a mot i on t o m odi f y a f i nal j udgm entof

di vor ce f

i l ed out s i de the s ix-m o n th ti m e li m itin R u le 60 (b)(1 ). B
. The C our tof

Appeal s ’opi ni ons ¶11. B ef

or e the C our tof A ppeal s , G eor ge ar gued t hatt he chanc el l or ’ s fi ndi ng of f r aud w as
an ab u se o f discre ti o n , an d th at L isa’s petit ion w as u n ti m ely u n d er R u le 60 (b)(1 ). T h e C o u rt of A ppeal s conduct ed a l engthy anal ys i s of the evi dence of

f r aud thatw as bef

or e the cha nc e l l ora nd de t e r mi ne d tha t“ the f a c t s pl a c e ge nu i ne do ub tup on a l e gi t i mat e f r aud

### 9

cl ai m [
. ] ” T

rim , 20 09 W L 105 86 30 , a t*5
. I n p a r t i c ul a r , the Cour tof A pp e a l s e xp r es s ed doubtthatG eor ge i nt ent i onal l y had m i s r epr es ent ed the val ue of the s t ock. H ow ever , the C our tof A ppeal s f

ound i tunnece s s ary t o deci de w het her the cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ng of f r aud
w as a n ab u se o f discre ti o n , b ec au se itfou n d the d eterm inative issu e to b e w h ethe r L isa’s pet i t i on w as unt i m el y f i l ed un der R ul e 60( b) ( 1)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatthe chanc el l orer roneou sl y had r el i ed upon R ul e 60( b) ( 6) i n deci di ng the ca s e. T he C our tof A ppeal s s t at ed: T h e c h a n c e llo r’s ru lin g re latin g to L isa ’s f ra u d c laim d o e s n o t p re e m p t R u le 6 0 (b )(1 ). R u le 6 0 (b )(1 ) c lea rly re q u ire s th a t a n y c laim o f fra u d u p o n a p a rty t o l i t i gat i on m us tbe br oughtw i thi n s i x m onths af t erthe j udgm ent , and s uch a c laim d o e s n o t fa ll w ith in th e “ c a tc h -a ll” R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ). A s s tate d in T ir ouda , “thi s C our ti s w i thouta uthor i ty w her e R ul e 60( b) ( 1) , ( 2) , or( 3) i s the b a s is fo r a n a c tio n a n d th e m o tio n is b ro u g h t b e y o n d th e s ix -m o n th lim ita tio n .” T ir ouda , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d at 21 4 (¶8 ). T rim , 2009 W L 1058630, at*7. ¶12. T he C ou rto f A pp eal s dis t i ngui s hed i t s pr i ordeci s i on i n K al m an , i n w hi ch i t had al l ow ed cons i der at i on of a mot i on t o m odi f

y m ade thr ee ye ar s af

t erentry of

the f i nal di vor ce j udgm ent , f

i ndi ng that“ the i ns t antmat t erdoe s notde al w i th s om ethi ng as bi zarr e as a l i t i gant
w i nni ng the l ot t ery one mont h pr i ort o di vor ce and hi di ng hi s w i nni ngs f r om the s pous e and the court . ” T

rim , 2009 W L 1058630, at* 6. T he C ou rtof A ppeal s ci t ed Li s a’ s t es t i m ony th a t sh e w a s in v o lv e d in G e o rg e ’s b u sin e ss , fro m w h ich it co n c lu d e d th a t L isa e a sily c o u ld h a v e d isc o v e re d th e tru e sto c k v a lu e p rio r to th e d iv o rc e ju d g m e n t. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls al s o s t at ed thata property s ett l ementagr eementi ncorpor at ed i nt o a di vor ce de cr ee i s not
s ubj ectt o m odi f

i cat i on.

### 10

¶1 3
. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls co n clud ed that, alth o u g h th e re su lt w a s a h arsh o n e, L isa’s pet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed underR ul e 60( b) ( 1)
. A ccor di ngl y, t he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed and r ender ed a j udgm entf orG eor ge. I n di s s ent , f

ourj udges a r gued thats uf f i ci entevi dence
su p p o rte d th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g o f fra u d , a n d tha t th e ch a n c e llo r p o ss e ss e d d isc re tio n to
e n ter tain L isa ’s p e tit io n p u rsu a n t to the “g ra n d res e rv o ir o f e q u itab le p o w e r to d o ju stic e in
a p a rticu lar ca se ” aff

o rd e d b y R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ). T rim , 20 09 W L 10 58 63 0, at*8 -10 (M yers, P. J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. T he di s s enta r gued that , beca us e Li s a coul d nothave di s cover ed the val ue of the s t ock w i thi n the s i x- m onth t i m e l i m i t at i on, thi s w as a n e xtr aor di nary s i tuat i on i n w hi ch eq u it ab le princ iples justi fi ed the a p p li ca ti o n o f R u le 60 (b)(6 ) rather tha n R u le 60 (b)(1 ). F u rth e r, th e d iss e n t ar g u e d th a t, alth o u g h L isa d id n o t file th e p e tit io n u n til a p p ro x im a tely tw o year s af

t erherdi s covery of

t he m i s r epr es ent at i on, t he evi dence of di l at ory conductby L i s a’ s att orneys w oul d have per m i t t ed a f i ndi ng thats he had br oughtthe pet i t i on w i thi n a
r eas onabl e t i m e. C
. D is cus s i on ¶14. T he C our tof

A ppeal s ’ anal ys i s of

the cha ncel l or ’ s abi l i ty t o modi f y the f i na l j udgm ent of di vor ce w as l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng the cour t ’ s author i ty underR ul e 60( b)
. B oth the
m a jo rity a n d th e d iss e n tin g o p in io n s fo u n d th a t th e c h a n c e llo r h a d u se d R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) to
m o d if y th e jud g m en t; th e m ajority an d th e d issen t disag ree d ab o u t w h ethe r th e c h an ce ll o r’s
us e of R ul e 60( b) ( 6) w as perm i s s i bl e. T hi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of the cha ncel l or ’ s opi ni on
r evea l s thatthe cha ncel l ordi d noti nv ok e R ul e 60( b) ( 6) as author i ty f orthe modi f

i cat i on. I ns t ead, the cha ncel l oropt ed t o use hi s equi t abl e pow er s t o t r eatL i s a’ s pet i t i on as a mot i on

### 11

to m o d ify th e fin a l j u d g m e n t, a n d h e m o d ified the eq u itab le d istrib u tio n o f m a rital p ro p e rty
acc or di ngl y. ¶15. R ul e 60( b) pr ovi des that the rul e does no t l i m i t the court ’ s pow er t o “t o s et as i de a j udgm entf

orf r aud upon the court . ” M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 60( b). “R el i ef bas ed on ‘ f

r aud upon the court ’ i s r es erved f

oronl y the mostegr egi ous m i s conduct , and r equi r es a s how i ng of ‘ an
u n c o n sc io n a b le p lan o r sc h e m e w h ich is d e sig n e d to im p ro p e rly in flu e n c e th e c o u rt in its deci s i on. ’ ” W

il s on v. Johns-Manvil

le Sales Cor

p. , 873 F. 2d 8 69, 872 ( 5th C i r . 1989) ( quot i ng R oz ierv. For d MotorCo. , 5 7 3 F
. 2 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 8 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 7 8 )). F rau d o n the c o u rt “sh o u ld ‘em b rac e o n ly the sp ec ies o f fr au d w h ich d o es o r att em p ts t o , d efil e the co u rtit self,
o r i s a frau d p erp etrated b y o ffi ce rs o f the co u rtso that the ju d ici al m ac h inery ca n n o t perfo rm in th e u su al m an n er i ts im p arti al t ask of ad jud g ing case s th at are pre sen ted fo r ad jud icati o n . ’” I d. ( quot i ng K

er w it Med. P r ods . , I

nc. v. N & H In str um ent

s, I nc. , 6 1 6 F .2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 6 n .8 ( 5th C i r . 1980) )
. “Fra ud vi t i at es a j udgm entcaus ed by t he act i ve agenc y of s om e par ty t o the p ro c e e d in g , as th e c o u rt is m isle d a n d d e c e iv e d a s to th e fa c ts u p o n w h ic h it a ttem p ts to
a d m in is te r t h e la w , a n d m is ta k e is e q u a lly e ff ic a c io u s in p ro c u ri n g a w ro n g . . . . B r ow n v. W es s on , 1 1 4 M is s . 2 1 6 , 7 4 S o . 8 3 1 , 8 3 4 (1 9 1 7 ). ¶16. I tha s be en r ecogni zed that“ [ t ] he m er e nondi s cl os ur e t o an adve r s e party and t o the
courtof f act s pert i nentt o a c ontr over s y be f or e the courtdoes notadd up t o ‘ f r aud upon the
court ’ forpurpos es of vac at i ng a j udgm entunderR ul e 60( b)
. ” K erw it Med. P rods. , 61 6 F. 2 d a t 8 3 7 . W e fin d th a t th e in ten tio n a l filin g o f a su b sta n tially fa lse R u le 8 .0 5 sta tem e n t is
m isc o n d u c t th a t rise s a b o v e m e re n o n d isc lo su re o f m a ter ial fa c ts to a n a d v e rse p a rty . A R u le 8 .0 5 sta tem e n t is a m a n d a to ry f ilin g w ith th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt th a t p ro v id e s th a t co u rt w ith

### 12

accurat e fi nan ci al i nform at i on t o assi sti n it s equit able di stri bu t i on o f the d i vo rci ng part i es’
a ss e ts. M iss . U n if. C h . R . 8 .0 5 . In m a n y d iv o rc e c a se s, a c h a n c e llo r u n d e rta k in g e q u itab le di s tr i but i on has the pow ert o c ontr ol vi r tual l y e very a s s etthe part i es pos s es s . I ti s vi t al t o the ef f ect i ve admi ni s tr at i on of j us t i ce i n the dom es t i c r el at i ons ar ena thatchanc el l or s undert ake thi s t as k w hi l e i n pos s es s i on of acc ur at e f

i nanci al i nf

or m at i on. T o thatef

f ect , ourrul es pr ovi de thatthe f

ai l ur e t o s ubm i ta R ul e 8. 05 s t at ementw i thoutj ustcause c ons t i tut es cont empt of

court . M i s s . U ni f

. C h. R
. 8. 05. ¶17. W e hol d that a part y’s i nt ent i onal f i l i ng of a s ubs t ant i al l y f al s e R ul e 8. 05 f

i nanci al
s t at ementcons t i tut es a f r aud on the court . I n thi s c as e, the cha ncel l orf ound thatcl earand convi nci ng evi dence demonstr at ed thatG eor ge i nt ent i onal l y had f i l ed a f al s e R ul e 8. 05 fi n an cial disclosu re statem en t th at dra sti ca ll y u n d erv alue d a m ajor m arit al a sset. H o w ev er, the ch ancell or det erm i ned that G eorge’s con du ctconst i tuted f raud on a party an d d i d n ot r i se to th e re q u isite le v e l o f e g re g io u sn e ss fo r fra u d o n th e c o u rt. T h is f in d in g w a s m a n ife stly
err oneous . W e hol d that , by int enti onal l y f i l i ng a s ubs t ant i al l y f

al s e R ul e 8. 05 f

i nanci al d isc lo su re sta tem e n t, G e o rg e c o m m itt e d a fra u d u p o n th e c o u rt. T h e re fo re , n o tim e lim it
cons tr ai ned the cha ncel l or ’ s abi l i ty t o m odi f y the di vor ce j udgm entt o r emedy t he f r aud on th e c o u rt . M is s . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). ¶18. T he C our tof

A ppeal s ci t ed To wns e nd v. Townse nd , 8 5 9 S o . 2 d 3 7 0, 37 6 (M i ss. 2003) , f orthe pr opos i t i on thata pr operty s ett l ementa gr eementi s nots ubj ectt o m odi f i cat i on. H o w e v e r, Townse nd

c lar ifies tha t a p ro p e rty se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t i s lik e an y o th e r c o n tra c t,
a n d m a y b e ref

o rm e d o n the b a sis o f m u tu a l m ista k e , o r a m ista k e b y o n e p a rty c o u p led w ith fr a u d o r i n e q u ita b le c o n d u c t b y th e o th e r p a rt y . Townse nd , 85 9 So
. 2d a t37 6 ( qu ot i ng

### 13

Johnson v. Consol

. A m . L i f e I ns. Co. , 2 4 4 S o . 2 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 2 ( M is s. 1 9 7 1 ); s ee N or ton v. N or ton , 742 So. 2d 126, 129 ( M i s s . 1999) ( s t at i ng t hat “abs entf r aud ora contr actual pr ov i si on s t at i ng otherw i s e, nei thera pr operty s ett l ementnorl um p s um al i m ony m ay be
m o d if ied” ). ¶1 9. W e f

ur t hero bs e r ve tha t , a l tho ug h the C our tof A ppeal s expr es s ed doubt t hat t he el ement s of

f r aud had be en met , thatcourti m pr oper l y r ew ei ghed the evi dence be for e t he chanc el l ort o r eac h thi s concl us i on. T he el eme nts o f an i nt ent i onal orf r audul ent
r epr es ent at i on, w hi ch mustbe pr oven by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , ar e: ( 1 ) a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , ( 2 ) i t s f a l s i ty , ( 3 ) i t s m a t e r i a l i ty , ( 4 ) th e s p e a k e r 's know l edge of

i t s f al s i ty ori gnor ance of

i t s truth, ( 5) hi s i nt entthati ts houl d be ac t e d on b y the h e a r e ra nd i n the man ne rr e a s on a bl y c on t e mpl a t e d, ( 6) t he h e a re r' s ig n o ra n c e o f its fa lsity , (7 ) h is r e lian c e o n its tru th , (8 ) h is r ig h t to re ly th e re o n , a n d (9 ) h is c o n s e q u e n t a n d p ro x im a te in ju ry . McCor d v. Heal

thcar e R ecov er ies, I

nc. , 960 So. 2d 39 9, 4 06 (M i s s . 2007)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s obs erved thatthe chanc el l orha d “s eemed t o pl ace gr eate m phas i s ” on the f actthat G eor ge had r epr es ent ed i n a f i nanci al s t at ementt o St at e B ank and Trus ti n D ece m ber1999 th a t the v alue of his st o ck i n B C I w as $ 1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , bu t rep rese n ted in h is 8
. 0 5 st atem en t in A pr i l 2000 thati tw as w or th onl y $100, 000. T he cha ncel l oral s o had r el i ed on the f actthat G eor ge had r epr es ent ed i n a f i nanci al s t at ementt o St at e B ank and Trus ti n D ece m ber2000 thathi s s t ock w as w or th $1, 186, 000. B as ed upon G eor ge’ s t es t i m ony that : ( 1) the f i nanci al sta tem e n ts w e re n o t co m p lete d b y h im , b u t o n ly sig n e d b y h im ; (2 ) h e w a s re lativ e ly unedu cat ed and had qui ts chool atthe age of s i xt een; ( 3) he di d notbel i eve the s t ock w as
w or th $1, 100, 000 w hen he di s cus s ed the di vor ce s ett l ementw i th Li s a i n Sept ember1999 and
s ubm i t t ed the R ul e 8. 05 s t at ementi n A pr i l 2000; and ( 4) hi s ow n experti n the T r im v. B ailey

### 14

l i t i ga t i on ha d v a l ue d the s t oc k a t$1 11 , 00 0, the Cour tof A pp e a l s f

ou nd the e vi de nc e unconvi nci ng thatG eor ge i nt ent i onal l y had perpetr at ed f r aud upon Li s a. M or eover , the C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatL i s a’ s r el i ance on G eor ge’ s val uat i on w as nai ve due t o her tes tim o n y th a t sh e h a d p e rfo rm e d w o rk fo r B C I o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls sta ted : “O n o n e h a n d , sh e c laim e d to w o rk a t an d b e v e ry in v o lv e d w ith th e c o m p a n y ; w h ile on the otherha nd, s he cl ai m ed t o bar el y know G eor ge’ s partnerorany det ai l s s urr oundi ng the cl os el y- hel d c om pany. I ti s unc l earw her e the truth l i es . ” T rim , 2009 W L 1058630, at *4. T he C our tof

A ppeal s al s o st at ed that , i f L i s a had ha rbor ed doubt s aboutthe s t ock val uat i on atthe t i m e of

the di vor ce, she c oul d have r ef us ed t o exec ut e the pr operty s ett l ement ag ree m en t, req u ested G eo rge ’s a g ree m en t t o a n a p p raisal o f the stoc k , o r de m an d ed B C I’s fi n a n c ia l r e c o rd s . I

d. ¶2 0. “The cr edi bi l i t y of the w i tne s s e s a nd the w e i gh tof the i rt e s t i mony, a s w e l l a s the interpre tat ion o f ev iden ce w h ere i t is ca p ab le of m o re th an on e rea so n ab le i n terpretati o n , are pr i m ar i l y fort he cha ncel l oras the tr i erof f act s . ” Cham blee v. Cham blee , 637 So. 2d 850, 860 ( M i s s . 1994) ( quot i ng P o lkv P o lk , 559 So. 2d 1048, 1049 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. W e obs erve th a t th e e v ide n ce w h ich th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls f o u n d to ca st do u b t up o n the c h an ce ll o r’s fin d in g c o n flicte d w ith o th e r e v id e n c e th a t w a s b e fo re th e c h a n c e llo r. C e rta in ly , rea so n a b le
m i nd s could di ff

er on w hetherthe elem ents of f raud w ere m eti n this case. N on et heles s, beca us e the evi dence w as capa bl e of m or e than one r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on, the i s s ue w as f orthe cha ncel l oras the f i nderof f act . I tw as w i thi n the cha ncel l or ’ s di s cr et i on t o w ei gh the
cr edi bi l i ty of

the conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony and t o choose bet w een c om pet i ng i nt erpr et at i ons of

### 15

the e v iden ce . T h e e v iden ce b efo re the ch an ce ll o r w as su ffi cien t t o su p p o rth is discreti o n ary fi n d in g s th a t G e o rg e h a d p e rp e tu a te d fr a u d u p o n L is a a n d th a t th is a c t w a s e g re g io u s . CO NC L US I ON ¶2 1. W e f

i nd t ha tGeor ge ’ s s ub mi s s i on of a s ubs t ant i al l y f

al s e R ul e 8. 05 f

i nanci al di s cl os ur e s t at ementcons t i tut ed a f r aud on the cour t , and no t i m e l i m i tw as appl i cabl e t o the
court ’ s abi l i ty t o r emedy t he f r aud by m odi f

yi ng the f

i nal j udgm entof

di vor ce. T her ef

or e,
w e r ever s e the j udgm entof the C our tof

A ppeal s and r ei ns t at e and a f f i r m the j udgm entof

the C hance ry C our tof

H i nds C ounty. ¶ 2 2
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D, AN D T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE CH ANC ERY CO UR T O F H I ND S CO UNTY I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.