Opinion ID: 1060536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: In 1996, the marriage of James Franklin Johnson, then an active-duty member of the United States Marine Corps, and Willie Jean Cherry Johnson was dissolved. Pursuant to their divorce, the parties entered into a written MDA. Under a heading entitled, “Alimony and Division of Marital Estate,” the MDA provided that Mr. Johnson would pay to Ms. Johnson the sum of $1,845.00 per month as support commencing May 1, 1996, and continuing until February 1, 1997, at which time Husband will begin receiving his military retirement . . . . Upon retirement, Wife shall receive one-half of all military retirement benefits due the Husband. The Final Decree of Divorce, entered on December 11, 1996, incorporated the provisions of the MDA. Upon Mr. Johnson’s retirement, the MDA was implemented without incident. Mr. Johnson’s military retired pay was $2,892.00. Ms. Johnson was paid one half of that amount in monthly installments for nearly one year. Mr. Johnson later elected, pursuant to federal law, to receive a portion of his retirement pay in the form of tax-free disability benefits. His retirement pay was reduced by the amount of those disability benefits to avoid double payment to Mr. Johnson. See 38 U.S.C. § 5305. As a result of these actions, payments to Ms. Johnson were reduced from $1,446.00 to $1,265.00, or by $181.00 per month. Ms. Johnson petitioned the court to modify the Final Decree of Divorce. She contended that Mr. Johnson should be ordered to pay $181.00 per month in alimony in order to avoid frustration of the final decree and impairment of her rights under the MDA. In an amended petition, Ms. Johnson alternatively moved for relief from judgment pursuant to the catchall provision of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(5). The circuit court denied Ms. Johnson’s petition to modify on grounds that Gilliland v. Stanley, No. 3258, 1997 WL 180587 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 16, 1997), an unreported case of the Court of Appeals, controlled. In a comprehensive examination of relevant case law, the Court of Appeals agreed. We granted review. As this case involves only the trial court’s conclusions of law, our review is de novo on the record with no presumption of correctness. See Nutt v. Champion Int’l. Corp., 980 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tenn. 1998). -2-