Opinion ID: 1058261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Allegations of Coercion

Text: Finally, the Wife argues that the complaint alleged a cause of action for coercion and that the Chancellor erred in dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals determined that when viewed in a light most favorable to the Wife, the substance of the complaint amounted to an independent action under the savings provision of Rule 60.02 to set aside the final divorce decree based on coercion and duress. We agree. For example, the complaint alleged that the Husband, a practicing lawyer, knew the Wife was under the influence of alcohol when the MDA was executed on September 13, 2000. The complaint also alleged that the Husband threatened to prosecute the Wife for child abuse and told her she would incur legal fees, receive nothing, and have to pay child support. The complaint further asserted that the Wife signed the MDA due to the capacity and willingness of the [Husband] to carry out his threats. In short, the Wife's allegations of coercion relate to the MDA executed by the parties on September 13, 2000, which was incorporated into the final divorce decree entered on December 12, 2000. As stated earlier, an independent action to set aside a judgment may be filed under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure only under unusual and exceptional circumstances and ... where no other remedy is available or adequate. Whitaker, 32 S.W.3d at 229-30. Here, the Wife's complaint does not establish an independent action for setting aside the judgment based on coercion under the savings provision in Rule 60.02. The complaint was filed over two years after the MDA was executed by the parties and incorporated into the final divorce decree that was entered by the circuit court. Moreover, the complaint makes no allegations of coercion with respect to the amended MDA, which was executed by the parties only two months after the MDA and which ratified the provisions of the MDA. In short, the Wife's complaint failed to establish an independent action for setting aside the divorce decree under Rule 60.02. In addition, even if viewed as a common law action for coercion and a request for damages separate from Rule 60.02, the Wife's complaint fails to state a claim. As noted above, the complaint was filed over two years after the MDA was executed by the parties and incorporated into the final divorce decree. More importantly, the complaint makes no allegations of coercion with respect to the amended MDA, which was executed by the parties only two months after the MDA and which reiterated and ratified the provisions of the MDA. Indeed, the amended MDA reaffirmed the provision stating that the MDA was not the result of any fraud, duress, or any undue influence exercised by either party herein upon the other.... Accordingly, the Wife is not entitled to relief on the basis of coercion and duress because the complaint failed to allege a sufficient basis for relief under either Rule 60.02 or the common law.