ÿWPCë" …# VU:a %› 0û¡w@œ 4Ü ð ÿ 0J 0?O 0DŽ 0TÒ & 0^& 0h„ 0rì 0|^ 0†Ú 0` 1uð 0deU*ÉB)óDC AM_£¬ BO½lò)gv~‚vÓ D3Ó 0@! AOF!Æ•! 0D[" D/Ÿ" BÎ"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ÓGƒ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÔ€Xm²XXXÔÑ7€ÅXXdìXXdæ7Ñ ö÷øùúEûüÊýþÊÿÓ€R¦"3|x H2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(ï(2"$¤¤Ý ƒGƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÒH°ÒÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Xš¥XXXÔÑ7€š¥XXdæXXdð7ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ13,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó d ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€Rabbi€Trust,€so€called.€€An€earlier€such€trust,€with€assets€of€$200,000.00Ïwas€apportioned€by€the€MDA,€and€is€not€questioned.Ì èÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€60.02€provides€that€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€from€a€final€judgmentÏfor€reasons€of€intrinsic€or€extrinsic€fraud,€misrepresentation€or€other€misconduct€ofÏan€adverse€party.Ì ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝConcerning€which€Wife€raises€no€question.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ H ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÓÓò òÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßR€"#!A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓÓBETH€ANN€GONZENBACH,à àà à)à àHAMILTON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àPlaintiff/Appelleeà àà àà à)à àNO.€€03A01„9609„CV„00314Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€L.€MARIE€WILLIAMS,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌDAVID€SCOTT€GONZENBACH,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àVACATED€and€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌGeorge€M.€Derryberry,€Chattanooga,€for€AppellantÌLeslie€B.€McWilliams,€Chattanooga,€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òIÌó óà àThese€parties€were€divorced€by€a€final€decree€entered€on€February€28,€1994Ïwhich€approved€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€(MDA).Ìà àOn€September€13,€1994,€Mrs.€Gonzenbach€(Wife)€filed€a€petition€for€Rule€60Ïrelief,€or€for€contempt€or€modification€of€the€decree€on€the€ground€that€husband€hadÍdeliberately€concealed€information€about€future€bonus€or€incentive€income.Ìà àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€March€11,€1996€on€the€bifurcated€issueÏof€whether€the€final€decree€of€divorce€(which€incorporated€the€MDA)€should€be€setÏaside.€€The€successor€trial€judge€found€that€husband€"either€by€inadvertence€orÏintent"€misled€wife€or€her€attorney€by€failing€to€make€full€disclosure€of€"the€incentiveÏcompensation€he€was€negotiating€at€the€time€the€MDA€was€entered€into,"€and€setÏaside€the€final€decree€in€its€entirety.Ìà àThis€is€a€Rule€9(b)€interlocutory€appeal€which€we€granted€October€25,€1996.ÏOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€that€theÏfindings€of€fact€Ñ  Ñof€the€trial€court€are€correct€unless€the€evidence€otherwiseÏpreponderates.€€òòRule€13óó(d),€òòTenn.€R.€App.€Póó.€€There€is€no€presumption€of€correctnessÏwith€regard€to€the€trial€court's€determination€of€questions€of€law.€€òòNCNB€v.€Thrailkill,Ïóó856€S.W.2d€250,€153€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€Following€a€careful€study€of€the€record€weÏare€respectfully€constrained€to€disagree€with€the€judgment€which€is€accordinglyÏvacated.Ìà@ àò òIIÌó óà àAt€the€outset€we€observe€that€there€is€no€evidence€whatever€in€this€record€toÏjustify€the€voidance€of€the€entire€judgment€and€accordingly€we€shall€focus€on€theÏissue€of€whether€the€MDA€portion€of€the€judgment€should€be€held€for€naught€underÏthe€evidence€presented.Ìà@ àò òIIIÌó óà àThe€MDA€provided,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€husband€would€pay€(1)€$3,000.00€monthlyÏsupport€for€three€children€notwithstanding€their€future€attainment€of€majority,€(2)Í$2,500.00€monthly€alimony€to€wife€with€monthly€increases€of€$250.00€on€each€AprilÏ14€until€the€youngest€child€reaches€majority€or€graduates€from€high€school,€whenÏthe€alimony€would€be€reduced€to€$1,500.00€monthly,€(3)€all€college€costs€for€eachÏchild,€and€(4)€one„half€of€all€future€salary€increases€and€bonuses€into€a€createdÏeducational€trust.€€Substantial€financial€assets€were€apportioned.Ìà àThis€agreement€was€hammered€out€through€intense€negotiations€over€aÏperiod€of€six€months.€€Each€party€was€represented€by€experienced€counsel.€ÏHusband€was€employed€as€a€tax€attorney€by€The€Lupton€Company,€earning€aÏsubstantial€salary;€wife€was€not€gainfully€employed€outside€the€home.Ìà@ àò òIVÌà àó óAs€we€deduced€from€the€record,€six€months€after€the€decree€was€entered€TheÏLupton€Company€established€a€separate€deferred€compensation€plan€benefittingÏhusband€if€it€eventually€vested€over€a€period€of€years,€and€which€was€ultimatelyÏworth€$2.5€million.€€It€is€inferable€that€this€prospect€generated€an€interest€on€the€partÏof€wife€which€was€not€previously€extant,€notwithstanding€the€remarkable€òòstipulationóóÏthat€(1)€husband€was€unaware€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€that€he€would€be€given€thisÏperquisite× ƒ% ××  ×€and€(2)€that€it€was€unrelated€to€any€claim€of€fraud.Ìà@ àò òVÌó óà àThe€claim€of€Rule€60.02€fraud× ƒ& ××  ×€must€be€proved€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.€€òòDuncan€v.€Duncan,óó€789€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€We€review€theÏevidence€against€this€standard.Ìà àAs€we€have€seen,€the€evidence€reveals€that€oral€and€written€negotiationsÏbetween€the€parties€transpired€over€a€period€of€six€months.€€They€enjoyed€anÏupscale€lifestyle;€after€the€divorce€complaint€was€filed€they€continued€to€see€eachÏother€frequently,€and€discussed€financial€matters.€€At€intervals€their€respectiveÏattorneys€assumed€the€requisite€negotiations.€€The€issue€of€Husband's€presentÏcompensation€was€discussed,× ƒ' ××  ×€as€was€the€equally€important€issue€of€future€income,Ïparticularly€any€prospect€of€a€bonus€or€incentive€compensation.€€These€discussionsÏoccurred€not€only€between€counsel,€but€between€the€parties€in€the€absence€ofÏcounsel.Ìà àWife€testified€that€she€and€husband€were€"together€constantly"€throughoutÏDecember,€1993,€and€that€husband€told€her€he€hoped€to€get€some€form€of€incentiveÏcompensation€in€the€future€based€upon€a€percentage€of€Lupton€investments,€andÏthat€while€nothing€had€been€decided€he€believed€that€he€would€probably€get€2%€ofÏsome€undescribed€assets.€€Appropo€of€this,€in€September,€1993,€Husband,€throughÏhis€attorney,€offered,.€in€writing,€a€òòpercentage€of€any€bonusóó€Husband€might€receiveÏduring€the€next€two€years.€€Wife's€then€counsel€counter„proposed,€by€demandingÍone„half€of€"all€assets€accumulated€by€husband€during€his€past,€present,€and€futureÏemployment€with€The€Lupton€Company€and€John€T.€Lupton,€his€employer."€€ThisÏdemand€defined€"assets"€to€include€"bonuses,€other€property,"€and€Rabbi€TrustÏagreements,€and€was€rejected€by€Husband.Ìà àOn€December€20,€1993,€a€meeting€was€attended€by€Jack€Lupton,€Husband,Ïand€attorney€Joel€Richardson€who€represented€The€Lupton€Company.€€TheÏappellant€says€that€the€depositional€testimony€he€gave€about€this€meeting€providedÏthe€'main€thrust'€of€Wife's€argument€that€he€perpetrated€a€fraud,€justifying€the€settingÏaside€of€the€MDA,€which€he€denies.Ìà àThe€issue€of€incentive€pay€for€Husband€was€discussed€at€this€meeting,Ïincluding€the€granting€to€him€of€a€one€percent€partnership€interest€in€each€realÏestate€investment.€€No€conclusions€were€reached€and€according€to€òòWife,óó€theÏ"parties€agreed€to€reflect€on€the€matters€discussed€and€meet€again€in€order€toÏproceed€to€work€through€the€terms€of€the€definitive€agreement,"€which€would€trackÏthe€provisions€of€the€arrangements€between€Lupton€and€one€Charles€Chitty,€theÏHusband's€precedessor€in€corporate€office,€who€received€compensation€basedÏupon€the€appreciated€value€of€the€assets€for€which€he€had€managerialÏresponsibility.€€No€definitive€agreement€was€reached€at€this€meeting.Ìà àSignificantly,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Lupton€intended€to€bind€himself€or€hisÏcompany;€he€stated,€"the€parties€will€have€to€feel€their€own€way,€and€any€type€ofÏarrangement€established€now€will€be€subject€to€change€as€the€facts€change€fromÏtime€to€time."Ìà àDuring€the€negotiatory€period,€Wife€believed€that€Husband,€an€apparentlyÏtalented€tax€lawyer,€would€be€awarded€incentive€compensation€òòin€futuro.óó€€HisÏimmediate€supervisor,€Charles€Chitty,€received€such€compensation,€and€there€wasÏno€reason€to€believe€that€Husband,€slated€to€succeed€Chitty,€would€not€also€receiveÏsuch€future€compensation.€€This€fact€seems€to€have€been€assumed,€and€wasÏconfirmed€by€Chitty€in€a€surreptitious€call€to€Wife€after€he€had€retired.Ìà àOn€November€2,€1993,€Husband€responded€to€an€interrogatory€that€he€hadÏno€employment€contract€with€Lupton,€and€hence€produced€no€documentation€withÏrespect€to€its€terms.€€As€we€have€noted,€in€December,€1993,€the€parties€wereÏtogether€frequently.€€òòAccording€to€Wife,óó€Husband€told€her€that€he€would€be€receivingÏthe€same€compensation€package€as€Chitty,€but€for€a€lesser€amount,€and€that€theÏpackage€was€being€negotiated.€€He€thought€the€percentage€of€investments€wouldÏbe€two€percent.€€òòAll€of€this€information€was€reported€to€Wife's€attorney.óóÌà àOn€December€28,€1993,€at€his€deposition,€Husband€was€asked€.€.€.€ÌÓÓà àà0 àà àQ:à0 àWill€you€also€receive€any€merit€or€incentive€pay€or€bonus€pay€inÏaddition€to€your€salary?ÌÌÓÓà àA:à0 àà àà0 àYes.Ìà àQ:à0 àTell€me€about€that.Ìà àA:à0 àIt€would€be€no€different€than€the€past€on€merit€pay.Ìà àHusband's€testimony€continued€that€he€and€Lupton€'talked€about'€theÏpossibility€of€a€bonus,€and€that€"I€would€say€that€it's€possible€that€[it]€could€come€intoÏplay€in€1994,"€but€that€the€decision€'will€be€made€by€Mr.€Lupton."Ìà àThe€parties€had€a€settlement€conference€on€January€28,€1994€at€the€office€ofÏHusband's€attorney.€€A€proposed€MDA€was€presented.€€Wife€refused€to€sign€itÏbecause€"òòyou€told€me€that€you're€getting€a€percentage€of€investments."€€óóHusbandÏresponded,€"òòBeth,€this€is€the€best€you're€going€to€get.€€Take€it."Ìà àóóWife's€attorney€advised€her€to€accept€the€proposed€MDA,€because€in€herÏprofessional€opinion€the€compensation€agreement€did€not€exist.€€Wife€now€says€thatÏshe€"did€not€want€to€sign€the€agreement,"€because€"I€know€he's€lying."Ìà àWife€concedes€the€evidence€is€confusing.€€It€is€easy€to€concur€in€thisÏobservation,€since€we€think€the€evidence€falls€far€short€of€proving€fraud€on€the€partÏof€òòHusband.óó€€In€fact,€some€aspects€of€òòWife'sóó€arguments€are€baffling,€because€notÏonly€was€she€apprised€by€Chitty€of€the€likelihood€her€husband€would€receive€theÏbonus€or€incentive€pay,€but€her€Husband€testified,€on€discovery,€that€he€mightÏreceive€"merit€or€incentive€or€bonus€pay."€€There€is€no€evidence€in€this€record€that€aÏcontract€for€such€pay€existed€as€of€the€hearing€date,€and€it€cannot€rationally€beÏextracted€from€this€record€exactly€what€Husband€was€"lying€about."€€Months€later,Ïthe€employer€awarded€Husband€with€incentive€pay€along€the€lines€Husband€andÏWife€had€frequently€discussed,€but€this€fact€forms€no€basis€for€the€accusationsÏlevelled€at€him.€€òòWifeóó€had€the€clear€option€of€proceeding€to€trial€and€thereby€castingÏupon€the€trial€judge€the€onus€of€determining€from€the€evidence€presented€whetherÏfuture€incentive€compensation€was€a€viable€issue.Ìà àIn€òòDuncan,óó€òòsupra,€óóthe€husband€was€a€partner€in€a€security€and€alarmÏbusiness.€€His€proof€at€trial€was€that€the€value€of€his€share€of€the€business€wasÏbetween€$250,000.00€and€$400,000.00.€€The€plaintiff€wife's€CPA€testified€at€trial€thatÍthe€value€of€the€defendant's€share€of€the€business€was€$1.2€million.€€The€trial€courtÏawarded€the€wife€$790,000.00€as€marital€property€and€alimony€òòin€solido.óó€€TheÏhusband€was€awarded€the€rest€of€the€marital€estate,€some€$675,000.00,€basedÏupon€a€finding€by€the€court€that€his€share€of€the€security€business€was€worthÏ$400,000.00.Ìà àWhile€the€wife's€appeal€was€pending,€the€husband€and€his€partner€sold€theÏbusiness€for€$5.5€million,€from€which€the€husband€received€approximately€$2.5Ïmillion.€€The€wife,€òòinter€alia,óó€filed€a€Rule€60€motion€to€set€aside€the€original€decreeÏon€the€basis€of€the€valuation€of€the€husband's€business.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏrelief,€and€on€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed.Ìà àWe€pointed€out€that€the€party€seeking€Rule€60.02(2)€relief€must€show€byÏ"clear€and€convincing€evidence"€that€post€judgment€relief€was€warranted.òòÌÓÓà8 àóóPost€judgment€[Rule€60.02(2)]€relief€is€warranted€where€the€movingÏparty€proves€with€clear€and€convincing€evidence€the€existence€ofÏconduct€amounting€to:ÌÌà8 àà8 àan€intentional€contrivance€by€a€party€to€keep€complainantÏand€the€Court€in€ignorance€of€the€true€facts€touching€theÏmatter€in€litigation,€whereby€a€wrong€conclusion€wasÏreached,€and€positive€wrong€done€to€the€complainant'sÏrights.ÌÌà àThe€Court€further€stated:ÌÌà8 àBoth€withholding€evidence€and€the€knowing€use€of€perjured€testimonyÏcan€provide€grounds€for€granting€post€judgment€relief€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(2).ÌÌà àThe€following€sequence€of€events€were€described:ÌÌà0 àà àà8 à(a)€€At€the€time€the€divorce€trial€began€in€May,€1982,€the€defendant€and€theÏco„owner€of€his€business€decided€they€would€consider€selling€the€companyÏbecause€of€the€co„owner's€health.ÌÌà8 à(b)€€In€July,€1982,€the€defendant€contacted€a€business€acquaintanceÏwho€had€previously€expressed€an€interest€in€buying€the€company.ÌÌà8 à(c)€€In€August€of€1982,€the€defendant€responded€to€the€prospect'sÏquestionnaire€used€by€him€in€considering€the€acquisition€of€aÏbusiness.ÌÌà8 à(d)€€A€final€decree€was€entered€in€the€divorce€case€during€September,Ï1982.ÌÌà8 à(e)€€In€November,€1982,€the€defendant€began€"eyeball€to€eyeball"Ïnegotiations€with€another€potential€purchaser,€Honeywell.€€TheseÏnegotiations€were€unsuccessful.ÌÌà0 àà àà8 à(f)€€The€defendant€next€negotiated€with€a€third€potential€purchaser,€AlliedÏSecurity,€which€made€a€$4€million€to€$5€million€offer€to€purchase€theÏbusiness€in€January,€1983.€€The€offer€was€not€accepted.ÌÌà8 à(g)€€In€April,€1983,€defendant€and€his€co„worker€agreed€to€sell€theÏproperty€to€the€original€inquirer€for€$5.5€million.ÌòòÌóóà àThe€court€summarized€the€foregoing€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€proof€shows€that€Mr.€Duncan€had€òòpreliminaryÏconversations€during€the€trialóó€with€a€professionalÏassociate€which€eventually€led€to€the€negotiationsÏresulting€in€the€sale€of€the€alarm€business€for€$5.5Ïmillion.€€However,€Mrs.€Duncan€failed€to€prove€by€clearÏand€convincing€evidence€that,€at€the€time€of€the€divorceÏtrial,€Mr.€Duncan€knew€or€possessed€information€that€hisÏshare€of€the€business€was€worth€more€than€$400,000.00.ÌÌà àThe€court€further€stated:ÌÌà8 àà8 àWe€recognize€Mrs.€Duncan's€skepticism€concerning€theÏtrial€court's€evaluation€of€her€husband's€business.€ÏHowever,€skepticism€alone€is€not€sufficient€to€set€asideÏan€otherwise€final€judgment.€€To€do€so,€a€party€must€meetÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02's€requirements.€€There€is€no€directÏproof€in€this€case€that€Mr.€Duncan€perjured€himself€or€thatÍhe€withheld€information€òòin€his€possession€at€the€time€ofÏtrialóó€.€.€.€ÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòBrown€v.€Brown,€óó863€S.W.2d€432€(Tenn.€App.€1993),€the€trial€court€hadÏentered€on€January€29,€1991€a€decree€approving€and€incorporating€a€maritalÏdissolution€agreement€between€the€parties.€€On€January€13,€1992,€the€defendantÏwife€moved€to€set€aside€the€decree,€asserting,€òòinter€alia,óó€that€the€plaintiff€husbandÏhad€not€disclosed€his€true€financial€worth€to€her,€so€that€the€divorce€decree€shouldÏbe€set€aside.€€In€fact,€the€wife€alleged€that€she€had€received€$150,000.00€under€theÏdivorce€decree,€while€the€husband€had€received€$3€million.Ìà àThe€trial€court€denied€relief€under€Rule€60„02(2),€and€this€Court€affirmed.Ìà àThe€wife€had€asserted€as€a€basis€for€relief€that€her€husband€had€told€her€thatÏ"his€financial€condition€was€€bad,"€and€that€"€.€.€.€she€would€receive€all€that€he€couldÏafford."Ìà àWe€pointed€out€that€"all€I€can€afford"€is€a€mere€expression€of€opinion,€whichÏwas€not€sufficient€to€form€the€basis€of€an€accusation€of€fraud.€€The€court€also€pointedÏout€that€the€wife's€employment€with€her€husband,€and€familiarity€with€his€variousÏbusiness€interests,€helped€to€defeat€her€claim€of€fraudulent€concealment.€€The€CourtÏfurther€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€only€complaint€is€that€plaintiff€did€not,€without€request,€furnish€fullÏand€exact€details€of€the€value€of€such€properties€and€interests.€€WithÏthe€defendant's€general€knowledge€of€the€assets€and€her€failure€toÏdemand€financial€details,€there€was€no€fraudulent€concealment.ÌÌÓÓà àWe€think€that€the€case€at€hand€is€substantially€weaker€than€either€òòDuncanóó€orÏòòBrown.óó€€Husband€testified,€as€did€Wife,€that€he€refused€to€agree€to€provide€herÏdirectly€with€any€share€of€any€bonus,€in€light€of€the€apparently€generous€support€andÍalimony€payments,€bearing€in€mind€that€the€MDA€required€him€to€òòpay€over€to€theÏchildren's€educational€trust€one„half,€net€of€taxes,€of€any€bonus€income.óóÌà àFor€all€of€which€the€judgment€vitiating€the€final€decree€in€its€entirety€is€vacatedÏand€Ô% € Ôthe€case€is€remanded€for€all€appropriate€purposes,€with€costs€assessed€to€theÏappellee.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÌ