˙WPCž …# VUNa %¯ 0(ĩbŨw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0rĸ 0| 0† 0 1uĻ U, 0dG U,Ģ U>× B)DC> AMU*Î Bø v~5vĶŗ D3† 0@š AOųÆH 0D D/R B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĀĖĀääĀĀĖ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($ĄĄ- ų-ÅÆeĮDČDÉĘĶ€ÔGav 3|xÔ2 ˙˙0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ˙˙0Indent2ā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ˙˙0Indent3ā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ˙˙0Indent4ā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ˙˙0Indent5ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ˙˙0Indent6ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ˙˙0Indent7ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ˙˙0Indent8ā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āā0 āÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ˙˙?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ˙˙8Mac DefaultMac DefaultĶ ` °šXĶ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cū˙ << G˙˙< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ũ ƒ!ŨŅ  ŅŅ#€d#ŅÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔŨ  ŨÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔĶ  Ķō ōÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔĖĖMay€3,€1996ĖĖCecil€W.€CrowsonĖAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôķ ķPtPtHHÚ(˙á˙âųFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃĐ ĐĐHHĐĐ  ĐĐ2ĐĐ˙˙¸æ$˙ĐĐHHĐĐĐĐĐĐĐĐ  ĐĐ ĐĐ ĐŅŅŅGenevaŅŅ ŅŅ € ŅŅ<Px–ČŅŌŌŌ443!#4ŌŌ$ *$ŌŌ$*$ŌŌ ˙KK ŌŌ  Geneva ŌŌ  Geneva ŌĶ.,ĶĶĶĶ6ĶĶ ĶßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŅMonacoŅŅ ŅŌ  BA Op Monaco ŌŌ  BA Op Monaco Ō%%%%'˙˙dxd("˙˙$ŖŖŌ  ŌŌ  Ō€-‚ƒCū˙<< C˙˙ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ō ōÚ  Ú1Ú  Úķ ķ„„'÷˙ dxdü˙P PdŨ ƒ!ŨÔ . ÔÔ€ÔĶ&€X„d&ĶŅ#€Xd#ŅÔ€ ÔŨ  ŨŌ  ŌŌ „ ŌŅ  ŅŅ\R AØ'\қҀŅŅ7€fXXdėdČ7ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ҜJULIUS›€MICHAEL€HARRIS,ā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āPlaintiff/Appellant,ā āā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā āWilliamson€CircuitĖā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā āNo.€€92421˜VS›.ā āā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā āAppeal€No.Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)ā ā01„A„01„9511„CV„00518ĖŲ€€؜ßL€#&";+'h|æ$` į `€€LߛSUZANNE€œZULIEME›€HARRIS,ā āā ā)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā)Ėā āDefendant/Appellee.ā āā āā ā)ĖĖĖĖĖā@ āIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĖĖā@ āMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEĖĖĖā@ āAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYĖĖā@ āAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEĖĖĖā@ āHONORABLE€LEE€œOFMAN›,€SPECIAL€JUDGEĖĖĖĖĖTHOMAS€F.€BLOOMĖ500€Church€StreetĖFifth€FloorĖNashville,€Tennessee€37219ĖATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTĖĖĖE.€COVINGTON€œJOHNSTON›,€JR.ĖP.O.€Box€1608ĖFranklin,€Tennessee€37065ĖATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEĖĖĖMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDĖĖĖĖā āā āā āā āā āHENRY€F.€TODDĖā āā āā āā āā āPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONĖĖĖĖCONCUR:ĖBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEĖWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEĖĖĖĖĖJULIUS€MICHAEL€HARRIS,ā āā ā€)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)Ėā āPlaintiff/Appellant,ā āā āā ā€)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)ā āWilliamson€CircuitĖā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)ā āNo.€€92421˜VS›.ā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)ā āAppeal€No.Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)ā ā01„A„01„9511„CV„00518ĖSUZANNE€œZULIEME›€HARRIS,ā āā ā€)Ėā āā āā āā āā āā ā€)€Ėā āDefendant/Appellee.ā āā āā ā€)ĖĖā@ āōōO€P€I€N€I€O€NķķĖĖĖĶĶā āThe€plaintiff/ex„husband€has€appealed€from€the€dismissal€of€his€post„divorce€decreeĪpetition€seeking€relief€from€child€support€and€change€of€custody.ĖĖā āThe€record€does€not€reflect€when€these€parties€originally€married.€€However,€it€doesĪappear€that€their€first€child,€Jonathan,€was€born€July€24,€1983.€€The€parties€were€divorced€inĪ1986€and€remarried€on€December€18,€1987.€€A€second€child,€Hamilton,€was€born€onĪNovember€29,€1988.€€On€February€5,€1993,€the€parties€were€again€divorced€by€a€decree€whichĪappears€in€this€record.ĖĖā āThe€latter,€1993,€decree€adopted€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€providing:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 ā1.€€Husband€and€wife€agree€to€share€the€joint€legal€custody€ofĪthe€minor€children€of€the€parties,€Jonathan€Michael€Harris€andĪHamilton€Carter€Harris,€and€they€agree€to€participate€jointly€inĪthe€formulation€of€major€parental€decisions€regarding€said€minorĪchildren.€€The€partes€further€agree€that€wife€shall€be€permitted€toÍindividually€retain€the€primary€physical€custody€and€control€ofĪsaid€minor€children€and€husband€shall€have€reasonable€visitationĪwith€said€minor€children,€including€privileges€on€three€(3)Īweekends€per€month€from€approximately€6:00€p.m.€on€FridayĪevening€until€approximately€12:00€p.m.€on€Sunday€evenings;Īprivileges€during€three€(3)€weeks€during€the€summer€vacationĪperiod,€said€such€privileges€to€be€established€by€agreement€ofĪthe€parties€in€sufficient€time€to€allow€each€of€the€parties€to€planĪtheir€vacations€accordingly;€privileges€for€one„half€(đđ)€of€anyĪlong€vacation€periods;€and€privileges€on€Easter€Day,€MemorialĪDay,€July€œ4th›,€Labor€Day€and€Thanksgiving€Day€on€anĪalternating€basis€from€year€[to€year];€as€well€as€privileges€at€suchĪother€times€as€may€be€mutually€agreed€upon.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā2.€€Commencing€upon€the€execution€of€this€Marital€DissolutionĪAgreement,€husband€agrees€to€pay€to€wife€the€sum€of€$580.00Īper€month€as€child€support€for€the€minor€children€of€the€parties.Ī.€.€.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā3.€€As€additional€child€support,€husband€agrees€that€he€willĪmaintain€major€medical€and€hospitalization€insurance€on€behalfĪof€the€minor€children€of€the€parties€until€each€child€attainsĪmajority€or€marries,€whichever€event€occurs€first.€.€.€.ĖĖĖĶĶā āOn€April€11,€1994,€the€husband€initiated€the€present€proceeding€by€filing€a€đ đPetition€toĪModifyđđ€wherein€he€alleged:ĖĶĶā8 āā0 āā ā€ā8 ā.€.€.€2.€€That€during€the€parties€first€marriage,€on€July€24,€1983,Īrespondent€gave€birth€to€Jonathan€Michael€Harris,€whom€respondentĪrepresented€to€be€the€natural€child€of€the€petitioner.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā3.€€That€the€parties€separated€in€June,€1992.€€Pursuant€to€aĪmutual€agreement,€and€based€upon€affirmativeĪmisrepresentations€as€to€the€true€paternity€of€the€minor€child,Īfrom€June,€1992,€through€March€15,€1994,€the€petitioner€paid€toĪthe€respondent€the€monthly€sum€of€$580.00€per€month€as€childĪsupport€for€the€parties€two€(2)€minor€children.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā.€.€.€4.€€During€the€course€of€the€divorce€proceeding,€theĪrespondent€affirmatively€and€fraudulently€misrepresented€to€bothĪthe€petitioner€and€the€Court€that€the€minor€child,€JonathanĪMichael€Harris,€was€the€natural€child€of€the€petitioner.€.€.€.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā5.€€That€in€February,€1994,€petitioner€subjected€himself€and€theĪpartiesđđ€oldest€child,€Jonathan€Michael€Harris,€to€DNA€tests€toĪestablish€the€true€paternity€of€the€child.€€The€results€of€said€DNAÍtests€established€that€petitioner€is€excluded€as€the€biologicalĪfather€of€the€child,€Jonathan€Michael€Harris,€by€DNA€probeĪtechnology.ĖĖĖĶĶā āThe€petition€prayed:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 ā2.€€That€at€a€hearing€of€this€cause,€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce€beĪaltered€or€otherwise€modified€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02,€TennesseeĪRules€of€Civil€Procedure,€to€strike€therefrom€any€and€allĪprovisions€requiring€the€respondent€to€contribute€in€any€manner,Īfinancially€or€otherwise,€to€the€support€and€maintenance€of€theĪminor€child,€Jonathan€Michael€Harris.ĖĖĖĶĶā āThe€wife€answered€denying€any€misrepresentation€of€the€parentage€of€Jonathan€andĪasserting€her€belief€that€the€petitioner€was€his€father.€€The€answer€further€denied€that€there€wasĪany€legal€basis€for€modifying€child€support,€and€asserted€that€the€time€for€retroactiveĪmodification€had€passed€and€that€retroactive€modification€would€not€be€for€the€best€interest€ofĪthe€child.ĖĖā āBy€counter„petition,€as€amended,€the€wife€asserted€that€the€husband€had€reduced€childĪsupport€payments€without€authorization;€had€failed€to€exercise€visitation€as€authorized;€and€hadĪfailed€to€provide€health€care€insurance€ordered.€€The€counter„petition€prayed€for€enforcement€ofĪarrears€support€and€insurance€requirements€by€judgment€and€contempt,€and€for€sole€custodyĪand€control€of€both€children.ĖĖā āOn€October€25,€1994,€the€parties€filed€the€following€stipulation:ĖĶĶā8 āā8  It€is€hereby€stipulated€by€and€between€counsel€for€theĪrespective€parties€that€the€written€report€of€the€DNA€test€resultsĪby€Genetic€Design,€Inc.,€concerning€the€paternity€of€JonathanĪMichael€Harris€is€admissible€without€the€need€for€anyĪfoundation,€testimony€or€other€proof€of€the€authenticity.ĖĖĖĶĶā āOn€November€7,€1994,€the€husband€filed€a€response€to€the€wifeđđs€counter„petition€andĪan€đ đAmended€Petition€to€Modify€or€Set€Asideđđ€alleging€that€the€wife€shared€a€residence€withĪher€boyfriend,€had€neglected€the€cleanliness€and€health€of€the€children,€and€had€permitted€herĪboyfriend€to€corporally€punish€the€children.ĖĖā āThe€wifeđđs€answer€asserted€that€her€residence€facilities€were€adequate€and€denied€abuseĪof€the€children€by€her€boyfriend.ĖĖā āOn€November€22,€1994,€the€Trial€Judge€heard€the€cause€without€a€jury.€€On€June€14,Ī1995,€the€Trial€Judge€entered€an€order€containing€the€following:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 ā.€.€.€[œT]he›€Court€finds€that€the€child€born€during€marriageĪpresumption€continues€and€has€continued€through€two€(2)Īdivorce€cases€involving€these€parties;€that€the€DNA€test€itselfĪwas€not€put€into€evidence€and€that€the€petitionerđđs€opinion€of€theĪtest€is€not€creditable;€that€no€fraud€was€committed€on€the€part€ofĪrespondent,€hereinafter€referred€to€as€Ms.€Harris,€.€.€.€[œT]hat›€noĪproof€was€shown€that€change€of€custody€is€warranted;€that€theĪproof€shows€Ms.€Harris€to€be€a€good€mother;€that€the€CourtĪfeels€the€two€(2)€children€should€remain€together€and€custodyĪshould€remain€as€it€was€with€the€parties€having€joint€custody€ofĪthe€minor€children;€that€the€parties€should€work€together€in€theĪbest€interests€of€the€two€(2)€children;€that€Mr.€Harris€should€payĪthe€child€support€arrearage€owing;€.€.€.€€1.€€A€directed€verdict€isĪhereby€granted€on€the€issue€of€modification€of€the€previous€finalĪorder€entered€in€this€cause€.€.€.€€.€€2.€€Mr.€Harrisđđ€petition€forĪchange€of€custody€of€the€partiesđđ€youngest€child€is€herebyĪdenied.€€3.€€Custody€of€the€partiesđđ€two€(2)€minor€children€shallĪremain€as€it€was€with€the€parties€having€joint€custody€of€theĪminor€children.€€4.€€Mrs.€Harris€is€hereby€awarded€judgmentĪagainst€Mr.€Harris€for€the€child€support€existing€in€arrears€andĪMr.€Harris€should€continue€paying€child€support€as€previouslyĪordered.ĖĖĖĶĶā āOn€July€14,€1995,€the€petitioner„husband€moved€to€alter€or€amend€or€grant€a€new€trialĪon€the€following€grounds:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 āI.€€€The€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€allow€petitioner€to€reopenĪhis€proof€based€upon€the€Courtđđs€misunderstanding€that€it€wasĪwithout€authority€to€do€so€after€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€hadĪbeen€made€by€respondent.ĖĖā8 āā8 āII.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€in€applying€T.C.A.€đđ36„2„207€andĪfinding€that€the€presumption€of€legitimacy€continued€pursuant€toĪsaid€section.ĖĖĖĶĶā āOn€the€same€date,€the€Trial€Clerk€again€filed€the€above€quoted€stipulation.ĖĖā āFollowing€the€stipulation€filed€on€July€14,€1995€in€the€technical€record€is€a€laboratoryĪreport€which€is€not€marked€filed€or€made€an€exhibit€to€the€stipulation.€€There€is€no€evidence€thatĪthe€stipulation€or€the€report€was€presented€to€the€Trial€Court€during€the€trial€on€November€22,Ī1994.€€ĖĖā āThe€transcript€contains€the€following€discussion:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€Yes€sir,€to€deny€a€modification€of€the€1993€order.€ĪThere€is€no€proof€in€this€record€to€justify€that,€if€it€please€theĪCourt,€at€this€point€in€time.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€So€youđđre€asking€for€a€directed€verdict€on€denyingĪchange€of€custody€and€modification€of€the€February€đđ93€order?ĖĖā8 āā8 ā.€.€.€.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Would€you€address€those€issues?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Yes,€sir,€Iđđd€like€to.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā.€.€.€.ĖĖā8 āā8 āAs€far€as€there€being€no€basis€for€a€modification,€we€submittedĪthe€deposition€of€a€Ph.D.€wherein€she€determines€that€itđđsĪbiologically€impossible€for€this€man€to€be€the€father€of€the€child.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Is€that€in€this€Court?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Yes,€Your€Honor,€itđđs€right€there.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€That€wasnđđt€put€into€the€proof,€was€it?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€It€was€submitted€for€the€Court;€itđđs€in€the€record.€€WeĪhave€stipulated€to€the€test.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well,€you€stipulated€to€the€test,€but€did€you€stipulateĪ„„ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€We€did€not€stipulate€to€the€admissibility,€if€it€pleaseĪthe€Court;€it€hasnđđt€been€put€in€the€proof.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Itđđs€been€filed€„„€the€notice€of€filing€was€sent€to€Mr.ĪYoung€as€part€of€the€record.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well,€I€know€itđđs€been€filed,€but€„„ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€Itđđs€filed€with€the€clerk,€but€itđđs€not€part€of€theĪrecord.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€You€havenđđt€put€it€into€evidence,€have€you?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€And€closed€his€proof.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Well,€if€itđđs€the€Courtđđs€position€that€the€filing€of€thatĪand€the€notice€to€the€other€party,€that€it€was€filed€with€the€CourtĪto€be€considered€by€the€Court€is€not€part€of€the€proof,€then€IĪwould€move€the€Court€to€open€my€proof.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Wait,€wait,€wait.€€Now,€you€correct€me€if€IđđmĪwrong,€but€the€filing€of€documents€doesnđđt€constituteĪadmissibility€of€evidence;€does€it€„„ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€No,€sir.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€€„„€Mr.€Brent;€I€mean,€do€you€agree€with€that?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Well,€it€was€filed€with€the€Court€for€the€purposes€ofĪbeing€admitted€and€Mr.€Young€was€put€on€notice.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€But€you€didnđđt€admit€it.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Well,€if€that€be€the€case,€then€I€would€respectfullyĪmove€the€Court€to€reopen€my€proof€to€admit€it.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well€now,€we€have€got€a€directed€verdict€youđđreĪfaced€with€and€I€canđđt€reopen€the€proof€now€that€heđđs€raised€it.€€IĪwould€have€done€that€gladly€prior€to€that.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Thatđđs€okay,€Iđđll€back€up€then.€€We€have€stipulated€toĪthe€admissibility€of€the€DNA€test;€that€has€been€done.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€The€admissibility?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Yes,€Your€Honor.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Is€that€right,€Mr.€Young?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€No,€sir.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€To€the€authenticity€of€it,€so€„„ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Young:€Without€the€need€for€a€foundation€testimony€ofĪproof€of€the€authenticity.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Heđđs€correct,€Your€Honor,€we€submitted€it€only€forĪauthenticity,€so€thatđđs€part€of€the€record.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well,€that€just€says€the€document€is€what€it€says€it€is.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€That€the€document€says€that€heđđs€not€the€father.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well,€that€doesnđđt€mean€itđđs€true.ĖĖā8 āā8 ā.€.€.€.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€You€understand€„„€or€at€least€itđđs€my€position„„€and€IĪmay€be€wrong€about€this,€Mr.€Brent„„but€on€motions€forĪsummary€judgment€or€directed€verdict,€once€that€motion€is€madeĪyou€canđđt€go€back€and€reopen€the€proof.ĖĖā8 āā8 āNow,€theređđs€some€things€that€you€can€allow€to€be€done€onĪcertain€motions€where€you€can€reopen€the€proof,€but€I€think€onĪmotions€for€summary€judgment€and€directed€verdict,€and€theyĪboth€have€the€same€standards,€I€donđđt€think€you€can€reopenĪproof.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Well,€I€would€just€submit€„„€my€understanding€wasĪwe€could,€of€course,€move€for€a€non„suit€at€the€time€that€heĪmakes€that€„„€after€he€makes€his€case.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well,€you€canđđt€do€that€either.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Which€we€havenđđt€done€as€far€as€to€reopening€theĪproof.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Show€me€some€authority€that€says€I€can€do€it€and€IđđllĪdo€it.ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€I€donđđt€have€that€and€Iđđm€not€possessed€with€thatĪauthority€right€now.ĖĖā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€I€donđđt€know€of€any€law,€but€if€Iđđm€wrong€Iđđll€beĪglad€to€let€you€reopen€your€case.€.€.€.ĖĖĖĶĶā āThe€brief€of€appellant€contains€the€following:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 ā€.€.€.€In€fact,€the€DNA€Report€itself€was€not€attached€to€theĪstipulation€because€the€wifeđđs€attorney€filed€the€stipulation€and,Īcontrary€to€the€husbandđđs€attorneyđđs€instructions,€by€mistake€orĪotherwise,€failed€to€attach€the€Report.€€(œTr›.€At€153,€L.€3„17).ĖĖĖĶĶā āThe€cited€portion€of€the€transcript€states:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 āThe€Court:€Well,€are€you€done?ĖĖā8 āā8 āMr.€Brent:€Well,€just€again,€just€for€the€record,€our€position€wasĪthat€the€parties€had€stipulated€to€„„€and€just€for€record,€just€forĪclarification€purposes,€because€Mr.€Young€is€correct;€we€did€„„€IĪwrote€him€the€stipulation,€he€wrote€me€back€identifying€whatĪhad€to€be€deleted€from€the€stipulation.€€He€did€not€prepare€it;€heĪwrote€me€back€saying€what€had€to€be€from€the€stipulation€for€theĪreport€to€be€admissible€or€authenticated.ĖĖā8 āā8  I€corrected€the€stipulation€and€mailed€it€back€to€him€with€a€copyĪof€the€test;€I€received€it€back€signed€by€him€indicating€it€was€aĪcopy€and€my€instructions€to€him€in€the€letter€was€file€this€withĪthe€Court.ĖĖĖĶĶā āThe€record€is€unclear€as€to€whether€the€laboratory€report€was€ever€filed.€€It€is€not€soĪmarked.ĖĖā āThe€husband„appellant€has€presented€two€issues€on€appeal,€of€which€the€first€is:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 ā1.€€Whether€the€Special€Judge€erroneously€held€that€a€Court€isĪwithout€authority€to€allow€a€reopening€of€proof€after€theĪopposing€party€has€filed€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.ĖĖĖĶĶā āA€motion€for€directed€verdict€has€no€place€in€a€non„jury€proceeding,€for€there€is€no€juryĪto€receive€such€a€direction€or€to€render€such€a€verdict.ĖĖā āIf,€in€a€non„jury€trial,€at€the€conclusion€of€his€evidence,€a€plaintiff€has€failed€to€presentĪevidence€required€to€support€his€claim,€the€proper€motion€is€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€œT.R.C.P.›ĪRule€41.02(2);€ōōCity€of€Columbia€v.€œCFW›€œConstr›.€Co.,€ķķTenn.€1977,€557€œS.W.2d›€734.ĖĖā āThe€reopening€of€proof€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€Trial€Judge;€ōōSimpson€v.ĪFrontier€Communications,€ķķTenn.€1991,€810€œS.W.2d›€147.ĖĖā āA€Trial€Judge€has€discretion€to€permit€a€plaintiff€to€introduce€further€evidence€after€theĪdefendant€has€moved€for€a€directed€verdict.€€ōōœBellisomi›€v.€Kenny,€ķķ185€Tenn.€551,€206€œS.W.2d›Ī787€(1948);€ōōœNash›€v.€Love,€ķķ59€Tenn.€App.€273,€440€œS.W.2d›€593€(1969).ĖĖā āHowever,€it€is€error€for€a€Trial€Judge€to€reopen€the€proof€and€continue€the€case€toĪpermit€a€party€to€call€a€witness€who€was€available€on€the€trial€date.€€ōōœHiggins›€v.€Stride,€ķķ47€Tenn.ĪApp.€42,€335€œS.W.2d›€533.ĖĖā āIn€response€to€the€first€issue,€this€Court€holds€that€the€Trial€Judge€erroneously€held€thatĪhe€was€without€authority€to€reopen€the€plaintiffđđs€proof€after€a€defendantđđs€motion€forĪdismissal.ĖĖā āAppellantđđs€second€issue€is:ĖĶĶā8 āā8 ā2.€€Whether€the€Special€Judge€erroneously€held€that€a€plaintiffĪcannot€take€a€voluntary€nonsuit€after€the€defendant€files€a€motionĪfor€directed€verdict.ĖĖĖĶĶā āIn€a€non„jury€case,€the€plaintiff€has€the€right€of€voluntary€dismissal€until€the€case€isĪfinally€submitted€to€the€Court€for€consideration.€€T.R.C.P.€Rule€41.01;€ōōœWeedman›€v.€œSearcy›,ĪķķTenn.€1989,€781€œS.W.2d›€855.ĖĖā āThus,€the€Trial€Judge€was€in€error€in€holding€that€plaintiff€could€not€take€a€voluntaryĪdismissal€because€a€đ đmotion€for€directed€verdictđđ€had€been€made.€€However,€it€does€not€appearĪthat€petitioner€actually€filed€or€announced€a€non„suit,€and€no€official€action€was€taken€to€nullifyĪsuch€a€filing,€or€announcement.ĖĖā āThe€foregoing€disposes€of€the€issues€presented€by€appellant,€but€is€not€dispositive€ofĪthe€primary€issue€of€whether€the€Trial€Judge€should€have€dismissed€the€petition.ĖĖā āEssentially,€the€husband€sued€to€set€aside€two€divorce€decrees,€(one€included€in€thisĪrecord€and€one€omitted).€€The€1993€decree€in€this€record,€and€the€agreement€of€the€partiesĪincluded€therein,€recognized€the€parties€as€the€parents€of€the€subject€child.€€It€must€be€presumedĪthat€the€1986€decree€which€is€not€in€this€record€recognized€the€same€fact.ĖĖā āT.R.C.P.€Rule€60.02€(1)€and€(2)€authorizes€relief€from€final€judgments€for€mistakes€orĪfraud€if€brought€within€one€year€after€the€judgment.€€This€suit€was€not€brought€within€one€yearĪafter€the€latest,€1993,€judgment.ĖĖā āThe€same€rule€preserves€œexisting›€right€to€relief€for€đ đfraud€upon€the€Court.đđ€€However,Īthis€Court€does€not€find€that€the€circumstances€of€the€present€case€justify€retroactive€relief€fromĪthe€former€decrees,€for€đ đfraud€upon€the€Courtđđ€or€any€other€ground,€even€if€non„parentageĪshould€be€conclusively€shown€by€competent€evidence.ĖĖā āRule€60.02(5)€provides€for€actions€đ đfor€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€from€theĪoperation€of€the€judgment.đđ€€The€one€year€limitation€does€not€apply€to€this€ground€of€relief.€ĪHowever,€this€subsection€has€been€narrowly€construed€to€provide€relief€in€only€extraordinaryĪcircumstances.€€ōōTyler€v.€Tyler,€ķķTenn.€App.€1984,€671€œS.W.2d›€492.ĖĖā āRule€60.02(4)€authorizes€relief€if€đ đit€is€no€longer€equitable€that€a€judgment€should€haveĪprospective€application.đđ€€The€period€of€limitation€for€claims€under€this€section€is€đ đwithin€aĪreasonable€time.đđ€€This€Court€cannot€find€as€a€matter€of€law€that€plaintiffđđs€claim€underΜsubsection›€(4)€is€barred€by€lapse€of€đ đa€reasonable€time.đđ€€ĖĖā āAlthough€the€refusal€to€reopen€the€proof€was€harmless€as€to€the€effort€of€petitioner€toĪalter€the€previous€judgments,€it€was€prejudicial€and€reversible€as€to€limited€relief€from€furtherĪpayment€of€support€for€the€subject€child€on€the€ground€that€such€relief€was€justified€by€the€factsĪwhich€petitioner€proposed€to€prove€if€permitted€to€do€so.ĖĖā āThe€appellee€presents€no€issue€as€to€the€disposition€of€her€petition.ĖĖā āThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€modified€to€reopen€the€proof€to€hear€competentĪevidence€as€to€whether€or€not€petitioner€is€the€natural€father€of€the€subject€child€and€whether€theÍclaim€under€Rule€60.02(4)€was€brought€within€a€reasonable€time,€for€the€sole€purpose€ofĪdetermining€whether€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€the€judgment€should€have€prospectiveĪapplication,€i.e.,€whether€plaintiff€€should€be€required€to€pay€further€child€support€for€saidĪchild.€€ĖĖā āAs€modified,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedĪequally€to€the€parties.€€That€is,€each€party€is€required€to€pay€one„half€of€the€costs€of€this€appeal.€ĪThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings.ĖĖā āModified,€Affirmed€and€Remanded.ā āĖĶĶĖā āā āā āā āā āā ā_______________________________________Ėā āā āā āā āā āā āHENRY€F.€TODDĖā āā āā āā āā āā āPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONĖĖĖĖCONCUR:ĖĖĖ_____________________________________ĖBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEĖĖĖ_____________________________________ĖWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE