ÿWPCs …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ 0hw 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã U,X 0d„ U,è U> U6R B)ˆ DC± AMô U*A>kv~© B'vÓD D3 0@J AOŠÆÙ 0DŸ 0Dã D/' BV˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus/4M PlusHPPCL5E,,,,0ÙP wAÆß:·^I×´I (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c`…3|xà2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJanuary€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ P ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€UqXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌSHARON€TRALECE€JA'ANINI,à àà à€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9509„CV„00320ÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|Y` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€HAMILTONÏCOUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)€HONORABLEÏSAMUEL€H.€PAYNE,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)ÌMICHAEL€ZAKARIA€JA'ANINI,à à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àDefendant„Appellant.€)€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌPHILLIP€C.€LAWRENCE€of€POOLE,€LAWRENCE,€THORNBURY,€STANLEY€&ÏMORGAN,€Chattanooga,€for€AppellantÌÌJAY€KU,€Chattanooga,€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€is€a€divorce€case.€€The€appellant€challenges€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€order€after€the€finalÏdivorce€judgment€was€entered€on€January€24,€1995.€€He€apparentlyÏcontends€that€relief€was€not€appropriate€under€either€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€59€or€60.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€had€jurisdictionÏunder€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€to€grant€the€relief€attacked€on€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€before€us€is€skimpy.€€It€is€confined€to€theÏpleadings€and€orders€that€we€will€mention€later€in€this€opinion;Ïbut€there€is€a€sufficient€record€to€reach€the€issue€raised€by€theÏappellant.ÌÌà àà àOn€April€11,€1994,€the€trial€court€entered€a€judgmentÏdivorcing€the€parties,€granting€other€relief€not€pertinent€on€thisÏappeal,€and€referring€this€matter€to€a€special€master€"toÏdetermine€the€assets€that€the€parties€own,€the€liabilities€thatÏthe€parties€owe,€the€value€of€the€assets,€and€a€proposed€divisionÏof€said€assets€and€liabilities."€€On€January€24,€1995,€and€afterÏthe€special€master€had€filed€his€report,€the€trial€court€enteredÏits€"Final€Judgment"€in€which,€among€other€things,€it€awarded€theÏappellant€a€subdivision€lot€in€Hamilton€County.€€This€piece€ofÍproperty€was€apparently€the€site€of€the€parties'€maritalÏresidence.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€17,€1995,€and€within€30€days€of€the€entry€ofÏthe€final€judgment,€the€appellee,€plaintiff€below,€filed€aÏpleading€that€she€denominated€"Motion€for€Reimbursement."€€In€herÏmotion,€the€appellee€sought€reimbursement€from€the€appellant€forÏ"monies€.€.€.€borrowed€to€keep€the€residence€from€going€intoÏforeclosure."ÌÌà àà àBefore€an€order€was€entered€on€the€appellee's€"MotionÏfor€Reimbursement,"€she€filed€another€motion€she€designated€as€aÏ"Motion€for€Equitable€Relief."€€This€second€motion€was€filed€onÏMarch€7,€1995.€€It€cited€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€as€authority€forÏits€filing€and€asked€for€the€identical€relief€sought€by€theÏ"Motion€for€Reimbursement."ÌÌà àà àOn€March€17,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏdenying€the€"Motion€for€Reimbursement";€but€on€May€15,€1995,€itÏentered€an€order€"on€[appellee's]€Motion€for€Equitable€Relief"€andÏawarded€the€appellee€$2,088.€€In€the€preamble€to€the€latter€orderÏthe€court€noted€"that€[appellant]€has€failed€to€keep€the€mortgageÍcurrent€on€the€parties'€real€estate€and€[appellee]€has€paid€theÏsum€of€$2,088€to€bring€the€said€payments€current€and€to€preventÏforeclosure."ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€"Motion€for€EquitableÏRelief"€is€not€a€proper€motion€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.€€We€doÏÑ ` ÑÑ „ Ñnot€find€it€necessary€to€reach€this€issue,€because€we€agree€withÏthe€appellant's€statement€in€his€brief€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[t]he€"Motion€for€Equitable€Relief"€is€anÏobvious€attempt€to€obtain€an€alteration€orÏamendment€of€the€final€judgment€of€divorce,Ìà àà à.€.€.ÌÌÌÌÓÓIn€other€words,€the€appellee€sought,€by€her€"Motion€for€EquitableÏRelief,"€to€alter€or€amend€the€final€judgment,€i.e.,€she€asked€forÏrelief€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04.ÌÌà àà àWithin€30€days€of€the€entry€of€the€final€divorceÏjudgment,€the€appellee€filed€what€amounted€to€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€The€fact€that€she€denominated€itÏas€a€"Motion€for€Reimbursement"€and€did€not€specifically€refer€toÏRule€59.04€is€immaterial.€€In€determining€the€true€nature€ofÏpleadings,€courts€look€to€their€substance€and€not€their€form.€€òòCfóó.Ïòòò òAaron€v.€Aaronó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€408,€412€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà àBefore€the€appellee's€Rule€59.04€motion€was€formallyÏacted€upon€by€the€order€entered€March€17,€1995,€the€appellee€filedÏher€motion€styled€"Motion€for€Equitable€Relief."€€The€fact€thatÏthe€latter€motion€referred€to€Rule€60.02€is€also€immaterial.€€ItÏwas€within€the€prerogative€of€the€trial€court€to€focus€on€theÏrelief€sought€and€ignore€the€procedural€rule€relied€upon€by€theÏappellee.€€We€cannot€be€sure€that€this€is€what€the€trial€judgeÏdid.€€He€may€have€thought€that€Rule€60.02€was€a€proper€proceduralÏfoundation€for€the€relief€that€he€found€to€be€appropriate.€€WhatÏthe€trial€court€thought€in€this€regard€is€also€essentiallyÏimmaterial;€what€is€important€is€that€when€the€"Motion€forÏEquitable€Relief"€was€filed,€the€trial€court€still€hadÏjurisdiction€of€this€matter€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.€€He€had€notÏthen€formally€acted€on€the€first€motion€by€the€entry€of€an€order.€ÏThis€matter€was€then€still€within€the€"bosom"€of€the€court.€€TheÏtrial€court€could€properly€treat€the€second€motion€as€merely€anÏamendment€or€extension€of€the€first€motion,€which€first€motion€wasÏclearly€filed€in€a€timely€manner.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€not€clear€from€the€record€before€us€why€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€"Motion€for€Reimbursement"€and€subsequentlyÏgranted€the€"Motion€for€Equitable€Relief,"€since€they€both€soughtÍthe€same€relief.€€Each€of€the€parties€argues€facts€that€are€not€inÏthe€record€before€us€touching€on€this€question;€but€we€are€limitedÏto€the€record€in€our€consideration€of€this€matter.€€ò òòòState€v.ÏBennettóóó ó,€798€S.W.2d€783,€789€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1990).€€The€onlyÏreal€issue€before€us€is€whether€the€court€had€jurisdiction,€underÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59,€to€entertain€the€motion€on€which€relief€wasÏgranted.€€We€hold€that€it€did.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€suchÏfurther€action€as€may€be€appropriate€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.