ÿWPCª …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š ™ B¡ 0Jã 0T- 0^ 0hß 0rG 0|¹ 0†5 0» 1uK 0dÀ U>$U*bB)ŒDCµ AMøßE B$v~AvÓ¿ D3’ 0@Å AOÆT 0D D/^ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLLÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Dg îUg Ó€% DÒ 7L3|x%C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJuly€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(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€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€âXXdædÈ7ÑœÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌCORAZON€R.€JENKINS,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€Coffee€Circuit€No.€1419„DÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9609„CV„00399ÌÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|M£` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌT.€ARTHUR€JENKINS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€COFFEE€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MANCHESTER,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€W.€ROLLINS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òT.€Arthur€Jenkins,€pro€seÌó óManchester,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌò òHollynn€L.€HewgleyÌó óShelbyville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€J.ó ó›à àœÌÓÓà àIn›€this€divorce€case,€T.€Arthur€Jenkins€(ð ðHusbandðð)€appeals€from€an€order€of€theÏtrial€Ñ7€âXXdæXXdæ7Ñcourt€which€denied€his€motion€to€set€aside€a€divorce€decree€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€60.02(2)€and€60.02(5)€and€ordered€him€to€pay€$637.50€to€Corazon€JenkinsÏ(ð ðWifeðð)€as€payment€for€Wifeððs€attorney€fees€arising€from€Husbandððs€filing€of€the€motion.€ÏHusband€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€his€motion€to€set€aside€the€divorce€decree.€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.€€ÌÌà@ àò òPROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óÌÌà àThe€trial€court€awarded€œWife›€a€decree€of€absolute€divorce€œfrom€Husband€and›Ïdismissed€Husbandððs€œcounter„complaint›€for€divorce.€€The€trial€court€held€œthat€the€house›Ïin€the€Phillippines€œwas€Wifeððs›€separate€property€and€awarded€Wife€$2,982.06,€theÏvalue€of€œthe€insurance›€œproceeds›€issued€to€Husband€and€Wife€to€repair€Wifeððs€carÏwhich€œHusband€had›€appropriated.€€œThe›€trial€court€awarded€both€parties€their€separateÍvehicles,€assessed€costs€of€the€action€against€Husband,€and€denied€Husbandððs€claimÏfor€alimony€and€attorney€fees.€ÌÌà àHusband€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€decree€of€divorce€to€this€Court,€and€thisÏCourt€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€œHusband›€then€appealed€the€decision€ofÏthis€Court€to€the€supreme€court,€and€the€supreme€court€denied€Husband€permission€toÏappeal.€ÌÌà àHusband€next€filed€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€to€set€aside€the€decree€of€divorceÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(2)€and€60.02(5).€€œIn›€response€to€Husbandððs€motionÏto€set€aside€the€divorce€decree,€Wife€filed€a€motion€for€sanctions€against€HusbandÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02€and€11.03,€arguing€that€Husbandððs€motion€was€filedÏto€harass,€to€unnecessarily€delay€and/or€to€needlessly€increase€the€cost€of€litigation.€ÏœThe›€trial€court€denied€Husbandððs€motion€to€set€aside€the€divorce€decree€and€grantedÏWifeððs€motion€for€Rule€11€œsanctions€against€Husband,›€ordering€Husband€to€payÏ$637.50€to€Wife€as€payment€for€Wifeððs€attorney€fees€which€arose€from€Husbandððs€filingÏof€the€motion.€ÌÌà àHusband€now€appeals€to€this€Court€arguing€that€the€divorce€decree€was€basedÏupon€fraudulent€allegations€of€Wife€and€that€such€decree€should€be€set€aside€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(2)€and€60.02(5).ÌÌà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àHusband€raises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:Ìà à1)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Husbandððs€motion€to€set€aside€theÏdivorce€decree€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(2)€and€60.02(5);Ìà à2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€Rule€11€sanctions€against€Husband;ÏandÌà à3)€Whether€the€trial€œcourt€erred€in›€œdividing›€the€partiesðð€marital€property.ÌÌà àRule€60.02€provides€in€part€as€follows:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àœà8 àOn›€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€mayÏrelieve€a€party€or€the€party's€legal€representative€from€a€finalÏjudgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:€Ï(1)€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect;€Ï(2)€fraud€(whether€heretofore€denominated€intrinsic€orÏextrinsic),€misrepresentation,€or€other€misconduct€of€anÏadverse€party;€€(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€€(4)€the€judgmentÏhas€been€satisfied,€released€or€discharged,€or€a€priorÏjudgment€upon€which€it€is€based€has€been€reversed€orÏotherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€aÏjudgment€should€have€prospective€application;€€or€(5)€anyÏother€reason€justifying€relief€from€the€operation€of€theÏjudgment.€€The€motion€shall€be€made€within€a€reasonableÏtime,€and€for€reasons€(1)€and€(2)€not€more€than€one€yearÏafter€the€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€was€entered€orÏtaken.€€ÌÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àA€motion€for€relief€from€a€judgment€based€upon€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02Ïaddresses€€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.óó,€854ÏS.W.2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€1993);€òòHopkins€v.€Hopkinsóó,€572€S.W.2d€639,€640€(Tenn.€1978);ÍòòEllison€v.€Alleyóó,€902€S.W.2d€415,€418€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Our€scope€of€review€onÏappeal€is€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòUnderwoodóó,€854ÏS.W.2d€at€97;€òòBanks€v.€Dement€Const.€Co.,€Inc.óó,€817€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.€1991);ÏòòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€S.W.2d€145,€147€(Tenn.€1991);€òòTravis€v.€City€ofÏMurfreesboroóó,€686€S.W.2d€68,€70€(Tenn.€1985);€òòJohn€Barb,€Inc.€v.€Underwriterððs€atÏLloydððs€of€Londonóó,€653€S.W.2d€422,€424€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àRule€60.02€ð ðwas€designed€to€strike€a€proper€balance€between€the€competingÏprinciples€of€finality€and€justice.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€18;€òòJerkins€v.€McKinneyóó,€533ÏS.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€1976).€€Regarding€the€purpose€of€this€rule,€the€supreme€courtÏin€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àRule›€60.02€is€not€meant€to€be€used€in€every€case€in€whichÏthe€circumstances€of€a€party€change€after€the€entry€of€aÏjudgment€or€order.€€€Nor€is€the€rule€a€mechanism€for€use€byÏa€party€who€is€merely€dissatisfied€with€the€result€of€aÏparticular€case.€€€Rule€60.02€is€meant€to€be€used€only€inÏthose€few€cases€that€meet€one€or€more€of€the€criteria€stated.€€ÏAs€recently€stated€by€this€Court,€"Rule€60.02€acts€as€anÏescape€valve€from€possible€inequity€that€might€otherwiseÏarise€from€the€unrelenting€imposition€of€the€principle€ofÏfinality€imbedded€in€our€procedural€rules."€€òòThompson€v.ÏFiremen's€Fund€Ins.€Co.óó,€798€S.W.2d€235,€238€(Tenn.1990).€ÏBecause€of€the€importance€of€this€"principle€of€finality,"€theÏ"escape€valve"€should€not€be€easily€opened.€€€ÌÌòòToneyóó,€810€S.W.2d€at€146.ÌÌÌÓÓà àTo€set€aside€a€judgment€under€Rule€60.02,€the€burden€of€proof€is€cast€upon€theÏmovant,€and€there€must€be€proof€of€the€basis€on€which€relief€is€sought.€€œòòBanksóó,›€817ÏS.W.2d€œ€at›€œ18;€òòTrice€v.€Moyersóó,€561€S.W.2d€153,€156€(Tenn.€1978);€òòHopkinsóó,€572ÍS.W.2d€at€640;›€òòBrumlow€v.€Brumlowóó,€729€S.W.2d€103,€106€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986);ÏòòJefferson€v.€Pneumo€Servs.€Corp.óó,€699€S.W.2d€181,€186€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985);€òòRheaÏv.€Meadowview€Elderly€Apartments,€Ltd.óó,€676€S.W.2d€œ94,€95›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€ÏHusband€œdid€not€set›€forth€facts€and€circumstances€sufficient€to€justify€invocation€of€theÏextraordinary€relief€afforded€by€Rule€œ60.02€either€in€his€motion€for€relief€from€theÏjudgment€or€in€his€accompanying€affidavit.›€€The€trial€judge€considered€the€argumentsÏof€counsel,€taking€into€account€the€affidavit€submitted€in€support€of€the€motion€and€theÏentire€record,€and€found€that€Rule€60.02€relief€was€not€merited€under€theÏcircumstances.€€Because€the€record€does€not€œsupport›€Husbandððs€claim€that€denial€ofÏthe€motion€was€an€abuse€of€discretion,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€denyingÏHusbandððs€motion€to€set€aside€the€divorce€decree.ÌÌà àRule€11€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€requires€that€every€pleading,Ïwritten€motion€or€other€paper€be€signed€by€at€least€one€attorney€of€record,€or,€if€theÏparty€is€not€represented€by€an€attorney,€signature€of€the€party€is€required.€€TheÏsignature€of€the€attorney€or€party€certifies€thatÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à(1)›€it€is€not€being€presented€for€any€improper€purpose,€suchÏas€to€harass€or€to€cause€unnecessary€delay€or€needlessÏincrease€in€the€cost€of€litigation;Ìà8 àœà8 à(2)›€the€claims,€defenses,€and€other€legal€contentions€thereinÏare€warranted€by€existing€law€or€by€a€nonfrivolous€argumentÏfor€the€extension,€modification,€or€reversal€of€existing€law€orÏthe€establishment€of€new€law;Ìà8 àœà8 à(3)›€the€allegations€and€other€factual€contentions€haveÏevidentiary€support€or,€if€specifically€so€identified,€are€likelyÏto€have€evidentiary€support€after€a€reasonable€opportunityÏfor€further€investigation€or€discovery;€€andÌà8 àœà8 à(4)›€the€denial€of€factual€contentions€are€warranted€on€theÏevidence€or,€if€specifically€so€identified,€are€reasonablyÍbased€on€a€lack€of€information€or€belief.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.02.€ÌÌà àThe€certification€which€results€from€the€attorneyððs€signature€on€a€motion,Ïpleading€or€other€document€is€directed€at€the€three€substantive€prongs€of€Rule€11:€itsÏfactual€basis,€its€legal€basis€and€its€legitimate€purpose.€€òòAndrews€v.€Bibleóó,€812€S.W.2dÏ284,€287€(Tenn.€1991).€€A€signature€signifies€to€the€court€that€the€signer€has€read€theÏpleading,€has€conducted€a€reasonable€inquiry€into€the€facts€and€the€law,€is€satisfiedÏthat€the€document€is€well„grounded€in€both,€and€is€acting€without€any€improper€motive.€ÏòòIdóó.€€Ìà àÌà àIf€a€pleading€is€signed€in€violation€of€Rule€11.02,€the€court€may€impose€anÏappropriate€sanction€upon€the€attorney,€law€firm,€party€that€has€violated€the€rule,€or€thatÏperson€responsible€for€the€violation.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.03.€€The€sanction€imposed€forÏviolation€of€this€rule€shall€be€limited€to€what€is€sufficient€to€deter€repetition€of€suchÏconduct€or€comparable€conduct€by€others€similarly€situated.€€òòIdóó.€€The€amount€of€theÏsanction€must€be€supported€by€proof€in€the€record€as€to€the€basis€for€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination.€€òòWright€v.€Quillenóó,€909€S.W.2d€804,€815€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àIn€deciding€whether€an€attorneyððs€conduct€is€sanctionable,€the€test€to€be€appliedÏis€one€of€objective€reasonableness€under€all€the€circumstances,€and€theÏreasonableness€of€the€attorneyððs€belief€must€be€assessed€in€light€of€the€circumstancesÏexisting€at€the€time€the€document€in€question€was€signed.€€òòAndrewsóó,€812€S.W.2d€atÍ288;€òòKrug€v.€Krugóó,€838€S.W.2d€œ197,€205›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBusinessÏGuides€v.€Chromatic€Communications€Ent.óó,€111€S.Ct.€922,€929€(1991);€òòCooter€&€Gell€v.ÏHart€Marx€Corp.óó,€110€S.Ct.€2447,€2454€(1990).€€œÌ›Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€Rule€11Ïsanctions€€against€Husband€for€his€filing€of€the€motion€and€affidavit€in€support€of€settingÏaside€the€œdivorce›€œdecree€pursuant›€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€and€60.02(5).€€HusbandððsÏaffidavit€in€support€of€the€motion€includes€irrelevant,€specious€and€debasingÏallegations€against€Wife€which€provide€no€material€support€for€the€motion.€€BecauseÏthe€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€sanctions€against€Husband€was€reasonable€under€all€theÏcircumstances,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order.ÌÌà àFinally,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dividing€the€partiesðð€maritalÏproperty.€€Specifically,€Husband€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€theÏhouse€in€the€Phillippines€was€Wifeððs€separate€property.€€In€support€of€his€motion€to€setÏaside€the€divorce€decree,€Husband€submitted€the€affidavit€of€Elizabeth€Cassion,€aÏformer€œwife›€of€Husband,€which€stated€that€Wife€purchased€the€house€in€the€PhillippinesÏduring€the€partiesðð€marriage.€€ÌÌà àThe€principle€of€finality€is€a€principle€of€law€deeply€ingrained€in€the€holdings€ofÏour€Court.€€This€principle€has€been€repeated€in€numerous€cases€where€we€haveÏaddressed€the€issue€of€the€justification€of€a€new€trial€based€upon€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€€To€justify€a€new€trial€based€upon€newly€discovered€evidence€it€must€beÍshown€that€the€new€evidence€was€not€known€to€the€moving€party€prior€to€or€during€trialÏand€that€it€could€not€have€been€known€to€him€through€the€exercise€of€reasonableÏdiligence.€€œòòChicago›€Guar.€Fund€Life€Soc'y€v.€Fordóó,€58€S.W.€œ239,€240›€œ(Tenn.€1900);›ÏòòMartin€v.€Nanceóó,€40€Tenn.€649€(1859);€òòSeay€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€654€S.W.2d€397,€399Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983);€òòFrazier€v.€McFerrenóó,€402€S.W.2d€œ467,€471„72›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1964);€òòMonday€v.€Millsapsóó,€264€S.W.2d€œ6,€23›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€œ1953);›€òòBean€v.ÏCommercial€œSec.›€Co.óó,€156€S.W.2d€œ338,€347›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1941);€€òòBlue€BirdÏCoaches,€Inc.€v.€McGregoróó,€14€Tenn.App.€23€(1931);€œòòWilkerson›€v.€Joyce„Watkins€Co.óó,€5ÏTenn.App.€356€(1927);€€òòTennessee€Eastern€Elec.€Co.€v.€Linkóó,€6€Tenn.App.€617€œ(1926).€›ÏœThus,›€an€attorney€has€a€duty€to€investigate€prior€to€œtrial,€€€òòDemonbreun€v.€Walkeróó,€63ÏTenn.€199€(1874);€òòTabler€v.€Connoróó,€60€Tenn.€195€(1873);›€òòTipton€v.€Smithóó,€593€S.W.2dÏœ298,€302›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1979);€òòBrown€v.€University€Nursing€Home,€Inc.óó,€496€S.W.2dÏœ503,€510›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1972);€œòòCity›€of€Knoxville€v.€Ryanóó,€13€Tenn.App.€186€œ(1929),›€toÏcall€appropriate€witnesses€at€trial,€òòZirkle€v.€Stegallóó,€43€S.W.2d€œ192,€193›€(Tenn.€1931);ÏœòòWare€v.€Stateóó,€67€S.W.€853€(Tenn.€1902);›€òòWilson€v.€Nashville,€C.€&€St.€L.€Ry.óó,€65ÏS.W.2d€œ637,€644›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1933);€€òòStafford€v.€Staffordóó,€1€Tenn.App.€477€œ(1926),›Ïto€fully€examine€all€witnesses,€òòNoel€v.€McCroryóó,€47€Tenn.€623€œ(1868);€òòLuna›€v.ÏEdmistonóó,€37€Tenn.€159€(1857);€òòDarnell€v.€McNicholsóó,€122€S.W.2d€œ808,€816›€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1938),€and€to€secure€evidence€of€which€counsel€becomes€aware€at€trial.€ÏòòBradshaw€v.€Holtóó,€292€S.W.2d€œ30,€35›€(Tenn.€œ1956);€òòSouthwestern›€Transp.€Co.€v.ÏWatersóó,€79€S.W.2d€œ1028,€1031›€(Tenn.€1935);€€òòWhitfield€v.€Lovelessóó,€1€Tenn.App.€377Ï(1925).€€€The€client€is€also€under€a€duty€to€act€with€due€diligence€in€securing€evidenceÏfor€trial.€€òòHayes€v.€Cheathamóó,€74€Tenn.€1€(1880);€€òòHarbour€v.€Rayburnóó,€15€Tenn.€432Í(1835);€œòòPuckett›€v.€œLasteróó,›€405€S.W.2d€œ35,€41›€œ(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1965);›€òòSpence€v.€Carneóó,Ï292€S.W.2d€œ438,€454›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1954).ÌÌà àBecause€œprior€to€trial€Husband›€could€have€discoveredœ€the€date€Wife€purchasedÏthe€house›€in€the€œPhillippines›€and€because€œprior€to€trial€Husband€knew€the›€witnessÏwhose€œaffidavit€he›€attached€to€his€motion€to€set€aside€the€divorce€œdecree,›€we€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€division€and€labeling€of€the€partiesðð€marital€and€separate€property.Ìà àÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏthe€Appellant€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌKOCH,€J.›à àà àà àà àà àà àà à