WPC l @8;Ĝ2*>U7ݱEYYlpȹgCgOaEr>ӛ$,bbL$ ?(ғ&!OD; ^KBc*\e%MO;[ibbJ"qT ;6m 01Θ*c2#KOWL}M *6y!Y*F]iSs_]&պ+z8Hˑ]`ͯK ,M%e39`$lMC< 5WAM}t5qn?FrRA2*V+XaP}˭H7dQ *vȯGA]ӄ~+4Үh~/6q)Կ8RJ4@,1^8$P#@zԀӠ`|!3t mlg;A7=(sOj5 to Gp)# >UNI % 0(w@4(0 0l 0DbD  tU:{{P AQ BV 0Ds 0D 0D D/?? Bn D3HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLB0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ @UABCDEFGHӀRn~<$oU3|xRLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ !      0  (#$  0     $    2    Eveniftheawardcouldbecharacterizedasalimony infuturo ,thetrialcourtsauthority  tomodifytheawardterminatedontheeffectivedateoftheHusbandsretirementfromtheMarineCorps. SeeWaddeyv.Waddey ,No.01S019811CV00198,slipop.at9(Tenn.Sept.7,  1999).TheWifehasnotsuggestedthatthepurposeofthealimonywasrehabilitative,inwhichcasetheawardofalimonywouldhaveremainedinthecourtscontrolforthedurationoftheaward. See T.C.A.36-5-101(d)(2)(1996).   $    3    Courtssometimesrefertorule60.02(5)asthe catchallprovisionbecauseitenables  thetrialcourttorelieveapartyfromafinaljudgmentwhensuchreliefisjustifiedby anyotherreason, i.e. areasonnotsetforthinrules60.02(1)through60.02(4). See,e.g. , Nailsv.Aetna  Ins.Co. ,834S.W.2d289,294(Tenn.1992); Thompsonv.FiremensFundIns.Co. ,798  S.W.2d235,238(Tenn.1990); Duncanv.Duncan ,789S.W.2d557,564(Tenn.App.1990).   $    4    Alternatively,theexspousesinterestinthemilitaryspousesretirementbenefitsmay  vestasofadatespecifiedinthefinaldecree, see  InreMarriageofGaddis ,957P.2d1010,1013  (Ariz.Ct.App.1997), cert.denied ,119S.Ct.73(1998),or,attheverylatest,whentheparties  beginreceivingthebenefits. See Dexterv.Dexter ,661A.2d171,17374(Md.Ct.Spec.App.),   cert.denied ,668A.2d36(Md.1995). !"  XXXX XX   Ad FILEDXX   September14,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,yAZ"Arial Regular F  $    1    Asweexplainedthere,  8  8`   [i]nordertopreventdoubledipping,amilitaryretireemayreceivedisabilitybenefitsonlytotheextentthathewaivesacorrespondingamountofhismilitaryretirementpay.[38U.S.C.3105(1982ed.&Supp.V)].Becausedisabilitybenefitsareexemptfromfederal,state,andlocaltaxation,[38U.S.C.3101(a)(1982ed.&Supp.V)],militaryretireeswhowaivetheirretirementpayinfavorofdisabilitybenefitsincreasetheiraftertaxincome.Notsurprisingly,waiversofretirementpayarecommon. ` x` x  Gillilandv.Stanley ,1997WL180587,at*1n.1(quoting Mansellv.Mansell ,490U.S.581, P  58384(1989)). !"#%C<< C d(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxdP Pd 'dxd !  H??HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T',XXX' RHr(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx0 rHRRRRHHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@K K INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,RR@jj%ATJACKSON   RR@. . _______________________________________________________RRRR  ) Rt(>.*jx&` `@E ` ttx0& tߛRWILLIEJEANCHERRYJOHNSON ,  )  ShelbyCountyCircuitCourt  d   )  No.150843R.D.  J ЀPlaintiff/Appellant.  )  0   )VS.  )  C.A.No.02A019901CV00015      ) JAMESFRANKLINJOHNSON ,  ) x    )̀Defendant/Appellee.  ) D    )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofShelbyCountyatMemphis. HonorableRobertL.Childers,Judge    RonaldD.Krelstein ,Memphis,Tennessee Z AttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellant. DennisJ.Sossaman ,Memphis,Tennessee B AttorneyforDefendant/Appellee.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  <#"   FARMER,J.  %>!%  CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) ' #'  LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)@ (#( @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@BA3,X` X,XX3ABCB6,X` X,XX6BCDC6,X` XX,XX6CDD0,X` X,XX0DE  EFӜFG ` PlaintiffWillieJeanCherryJohnson(Wife)appealsthetrialcourtsjudgment :5< denyingherpetitiontomodifyafinaldivorcedecreepreviouslyenteredbythecourtinDecember1996.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentbaseduponourconclusionthatthedispositionofthiscaseiscontrolledbythiscourtsdecisionin Gillilandv.Stanley ,No.02A01-9603-GS-00056,1997 H WL180587(Tenn.App.Apr.16,1997)( noperm.app.filed ).  d  ` Thepartiesweremarriedin1967andwereseparatedin1994aftertwentysevenyearsofmarriage.Throughoutthistime,Defendant/AppelleeJamesFranklinJohnson(Husband)wasonactivedutywiththeUnitedStatesMarineCorps.Aftertheirseparation,thepartiesenteredintoamaritaldissolutionagreement(MDA)whichpurportedtodividetheHusbandsmilitaryretirementbenefits.Aspertinent,theMDAprovidedthat8 `  HusbandagreesthatWifeshallreceivethesumof$1,845.00permonthassupportcommencingMay1,1996,andcontinuinguntilFebruary1,1997,atwhichtimeHusbandwillbeginreceivinghismilitaryretirement.IntheeventthatHusbandsmilitaryretirementcommencessoonerthanFebruary1,1997,supportpaymentswillstopasofthatdate.IntheeventthatretirementdoesnotbecomeeffectiveuntilafterFebruary1,1997,thenalimonywillcontinueuntilthefirstofthemonthfollowingtheeffectivedateofretirement.Uponretirement,Wifeshallreceiveonehalfofallmilitaryretirement&  benefitsduetheHusband. ` x` x 8 `  ....'  ` x` x 8 `  HusbandfurtheragreesthathewillprovidepropernoticetotheappropriatemilitarypaydisbursementofficeofWifesentitlementtoreceiveonehalfofallretirementbenefitsHusbandreceiveseffectivewithhisretirementfromtheactivedutywiththeUnitedStatesMarineCorps.AcopyofthelettermakingthedesignationshallbeforwardedtoWifewithin14daysafterthenoticehasbeengiventotheappropriatedisbursementoffice.HusbandagreesthatWifeshallbeentitledtoprovidethedisbursementofficewithacopyofthe[MDA]oranyotherappropriateorder,includingaQualifiedDomesticRelationsOrder.HusbandagreestoexecuteaQualifiedDomesticRelationsOrderforentryinthiscauseandagreestoprovideappropriateinformationtocounselforWife. ` x` x  ` Inenteringthefinaldivorcedecree,thetrialcourtadopted,approvedasequitable,andincorporatedbyreferencethetermsandprovisionsofthepartiesMDA.Indoingso,thetrialcourtspecificallyreferredtotheMDAsprovisionsdividingtheHusbandsmilitaryretirementbenefits:8 ` TheCourtspecificallyapprovesthatportionofthe[MDA]whichprovidesthat[theWife]shallbeentitledtoreceive50%ofallmilitaryretirementbenefitsdueto[theHusband]uponhisretirementfromactivedutywiththeUnitedStatesMarineCorps.~;6=` x` x  ` ThetrialcourtalsosetforthcertainordersinthefinaldivorcedecreethatweredesignedtoensurecompliancewiththeMDAsprovisionsdividingtheHusbandsmilitaryretirementbenefits.Thetrialcourtordered8 ` thattheClerkoftheCourtprovide[theWife]withacertifiedcopyoftheFinalDecreeinaccordancewiththeUniformedServicesFormerSpousesProtectionAct,10U.S.C.1408,sothat[theWife]maycomplywithFormDD2293andreceivehershareoftheretirementbenefitsdueandowingto[theHusband]. ` x` x Thetrialcourtalsoordered thatupontheretirementof[theHusband]fromactiveduty,[theWife]shallreceive50%ofallretirementbenefitsdue[theHusband].Finally,thetrialcourtindicatedthatitwasretaining jurisdictionoverthismatterinordertoenforceallrightsandremedieswhichmaybeavailablepursuanttotheUniformedServicesFormerSpousesProtectionAct,10U.S.C.1408. ` TheWifeinitiatedthepresentproceedinginMay1998whenshefiledapetitiontomodifythefinaldivorcedecree.Asgroundsformodification,theWifespetitioncontainedthefollowingallegations:8 `  Inaccordancewiththe[MDA]andtheFinalDecreeofDivorce,once[theHusband]retiredfromactiveduty,[theWife]beganreceivinghershareof[theHusbands]retirementbenefits.[TheWife]received$1,446.00monthlyrepresenting50%of[theHusbands]retirementbenefits. ` x` x 8 `  Sometimeinlate1997,[theHusband]decidedtoacceptpartofhisretirementpayasserviceconnecteddisabilitybenefits.Thesebenefitsarereceivedby[theHusband]taxfree. ` x` x 8 `  However,federallawdoesnottreatdisabilitybenefitsasmaritalpropertyforthepurposesofbeingdividedasaportionofthemaritalestate.Asaresult,theamountsnowbeingreceivedby[theHusband]asdisability,$399.00permonth,aresubtractedfromhistotalgrossretirementpayof$2,929.00.[TheWifes]shareof[theHusbands]retirementbenefitshasdroppedfrom$1,446.00to$1,265.00. ` x` x   p504  ` Inthepresentcase,theWifeaskedthetrialcourttomodifythealimonyprovisionsofthefinaldivorcedecreeratherthanthedecreespropertyprovisions.Nevertheless,weconclude ;`6: thatthesameprinciplesapplyandthat Gillilandv.Stanley requiresthiscourttoaffirmthetrial  courtsjudgmentdenyingtheWifespetitiontomodify.Likethedivisionofproperty,anawardofalimony insolido (asopposedtoanawardofalimony infuturo )isnotsubjecttomodificationonce p adivorcedecreebecomesfinal. Selfv.Self ,861S.W.2d360,363(Tenn.1993); Dayv.Day ,931 P  S.W.2d936,939(Tenn.App.1996); Brewerv.Brewer ,869S.W.2d928,935(Tenn.App.1993). 0  Inourview,thealimonyawardedbythetrialcourtinthiscasecouldonlybecharacterizedasanawardofalimony insolido . See  Self ,861S.W.2dat36263.   #  2      ׀Assuch,thealimonyawardwasnot @  subjecttomodificationbythetrialcourtafterthedivorcedecreebecamefinal. ` Inaccordancewith Gillilandv.Stanley ,wefurtherconcludethattheWifewasnot  entitledtorelieffromthefinaldivorcedecreepursuanttorule60.02(5)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,whichauthorizesthetrialcourttorelieveapartyfromafinaljudgmentfor anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.T.R.C.P.60.02(5).In Gillilandv. 0 Stanley ,weobservedthat Tennesseelawdoesnotappeartoaffordrelieffromjudgmentunderthe ` circumstancesofthiscase. Gillilandv.Stanley ,1997WL180587,at*5.Inmakingthis @ observation,wecited Duncanv.Duncan ,789S.W.2d557,564(Tenn.App.1990),whereinthis   courtexplainedthat,despiteitsbroadlanguage,thecatchall 0  #  3      ׀provisionofrule60.02(5) "  8 ` hasbeennarrowlyconstrued. Tylerv.Tyler ,671S.W.2d492,495 p&!$ (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Itisintendedtoprovidepostjudgmentreliefonlyinthemostunique,exceptional,orextraordinarycircumstances. Jerkinsv.McKinney ,533S.W.2d275,280(Tenn.1976); Tylerv. @)$' Tyler ,671S.W.2d492,495(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).0*%(` x` x 8 `  [Rule]60.02(5)sstandardsaremoredemandingthanthoseapplicabletotheothergroundsfor[rule]60.02relief. Tennessee -P(+ DeptofHuman[Servs.]v.Barbee ,689S.W.2d863,866(Tenn. -@), 1985).Itis,asageneralrule,applicabletosituationsthatarenot .0*- coveredbytheotherclausesin[rule]60.02ortocasesofextremehardship. See 7J.Moore,J.Lucas&G.Grotheer, MooresFederal  Practice 60.27[2](2ded.1989);11C.Wright&A.Miller, Federal  &  PracticeandProcedure 2864,at216(1973).` x` x 'L ` Onappeal,theWifenowsuggeststhatsheactuallywasaskingthetrialcourtto @  enforcethepartiesMDAregardingthedivisionofretirementbenefits,andshecontendsthattheterm militaryretirementbenefitsusedintheMDAwasbroadenoughtoincludebothretiredpayanddisabilitypay.Wedisagree.Veteransdisabilitypaymentsdonotconstitutemilitaryretirementbenefits.In Mansell ,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexplainedthatretirementbenefitsarepaid  tomembersoftheArmedForceswhohaveservedtheminimumspecifiedperiodoftime,andthepaymentsarecalculatedaccordingtothemembersrankandthenumberofyearsserved. Mansellv.  Mansell ,490U.S.581,583(1989)(citing10U.S.C.3926,3991,63256327,8929(1982ed.and ` Supp.V)).Disabilitybenefits,ontheotherhand,arepaidtoveteranswhohavebecomedisabledasaresultofmilitaryservice,andthesepaymentsarecalculatedaccordingto theseriousnessofthedisabilityandthedegreetowhichtheveteransabilitytoearnalivinghasbeenimpaired. Mansell , P 490U.S.at583(citing38U.S.C.310,314,331,355).TheSupremeCourtsholdingin Mansell  0 makesclearthat,asamatteroflaw,themilitaryretirementbenefitssubjecttodistributionbyastatecourtdonotincludeveteransdisabilitypayments,nordotheyincluderetiredpaythathasbeenwaivedinordertoreceivedisabilitypay. Mansell ,490U.S.at58889. % #  ` TheWifealsoattemptstodistinguishthiscourtsholdingin Gillilandv.Stanley by @)$' pointingoutthat,inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtretainedjurisdictiontoenforcethepartiesMDAregardingthedivisionofretirementbenefits.Webelievethatthisargumentmischaracterizesthetrialcourtsretentionofjurisdictioninthiscase.Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtdidnotretainjurisdictionforthespecificpurposeofenforcingthepartiesagreementregardingthedivisionoftheHusbandsmilitaryretirementbenefits. Cf . InreMarriageofKrempin ,83Cal.Rptr.2d134,136, 2-1 142(Cal.Ct.App.1999)(reachingdifferentresultwherepartiesMDAspecifiedthattrialcourtwould reservejurisdictiontomakesuchordersrelatingtotheseretirementbenefitsasarenecessarytocarryoutthisagreement); McHughv.McHugh ,861P.2d113,114(IdahoCt.App.1993) @837 (whereinsettlementagreementspecifiedthattrialcourtwouldretainjurisdictiontomodifywordingoforder soastosatisfyanyrequirementthattheNavymayhavewhichisnecessarytoeffectuate