ÿWPCÎ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ýw@ 4Y m n­| ) 1 0l1 0D 0Já 0T+ 0^ 0hÝ 0rE 0|· 0†3 0¹ 1uIU,¾ 0dê BNU,kU>—B)ÕDCþ AMA D3ŽU*Á-ë 0@€Xv~ØvÓV AO)Æx 0D> D/‚ B±˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman (U)E*+D,U-U.î/Ó€;<ò| 3|x<«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8QX@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ!!!!'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òMarch€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒAlthough€we€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€reach€the€issue,€we€note€that€Ms.€Schorr€did€inÏfact€sign€the€parties'€1983€tax€return€in€August,€1984,€less€than€six€months€after€the€SchorrÏdivorce€became€final.€€Ms.€Schorr€testified€that€she€did€not€review€the€contents€of€the€tax€returnÏbefore€signing€it,€stating€that€she€relied€on€Mr.€Schorr€as€the€manager€of€family€finances.€ÏWhile€we€sympathize€with€Ms.€Schorr's€position,€€she€is€nonetheless€held€to€the€same€standardÏas€all€taxpayers,€who€by€signing€their€tax€return€swear€the€following:€€"Under€penalty€ofÏperjury,€I€declare€that€I€have€examined€this€return€and€accompanying€schedules€and€statements,Ïand€to€the€best€of€my€knowledge€and€belief,€they€are€true,€correct,€and€€complete."€€We€realizeÏthat€it€is€common€for€one€party€in€a€marriage€to€manage€the€couple's€finances;€however,€weÏcannot€relieve€a€party€of€responsibility€from€the€contents€of€a€€sworn€document€based€on€aÏclaim€of€ignorance.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ7€sXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òLINDA€ROSS€SCHORR,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€94348„1ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9409„CH„00217ÌÌò òJAMES€LEE€SCHORR,€ó óÌÙ€€ÙßL€),(;+'h|qâ` Å `€€LßÌà àDefendant„AppellantÌ___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTYÏCHANCERY€COURTÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌà@ àDiane€E.€Bell€of€MemphisÌà@ àHayden€Lait€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Plaintiff„AppelleeÌÌà@ àGrady€M.€Garrison€of€MemphisÌà@ àGail€O.€Mathes€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Defendant„AppellantÌÌÌÌà@ àÌÌà@ àòòò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌà@ àóóOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌ›Ñ7€sXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€a€suit€that€essentially€seeks€to€set€asideÏand/or€modify€a€final€decree€of€divorce.€€Defendant,€James€Lee€Schorr,Ïappeals€from€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€awarding€plaintiff,ÏLinda€Schorr,€monetary€recovery€as€an€addition€to€the€division€ofÏmarital€property,€plus€attorney€fees€and€costs.Ìà àMs.€Schorrððs€complaint€in€this€independent€action€filed€March€24,Ï1987,€alleges,€as€subsequently€amended,€that€the€parties€were€divorcedÏby€decree€of€the€chancery€court€entered€February€23,€1984,€and€that€theÏdecree€incorporated€a€property€settlement€agreement€entered€into€byÏthe€parties€on€February€16,€1984.€€Ms.€Schorr€avers€that€the€settlementÍagreement:€(p.€320€of€r.,€para.€7,€4th€line)€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[W]as€agreed€to€by€Mrs.€Schorr€based€upon€theÏrepresentations€made€by€Mr.€Schorr€that€hisÏtotal€assets€as€of€November€1,€1983,€wereÏ$608,528.00,€and€based€upon€that€fact,€at€noÏtime€between€November€1,€1983,€and€the€time€ofÏthe€execution€of€said€document,€February€16,Ï1984,€and€the€date€it€became€final,€March€25,Ï1984,€did€defendant€supplement€or€alter€hisÏalleged€statement€of€net€worth.€€Mrs.€Schorr,€inÏreliance€upon€Mr.€Schorrððs€financial€statementÏwhich€was€sworn€to€November€28,€1983,€andÏincorporated€within€his€answers€toÏinterrogatories€filed€in€this€cause€on€NovemberÏ2,€1983,€felt€that€said€settlement€agreementÏwas€a€fair€and€equitable€division€of€the€partiesððÏassets€and€the€said€agreement€representedÏapproximately€fifty€percent€of€the€total€assetsÏof€marital€property.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€complaint€further€avers€that€the€representations€made€underÏoath€were€further€manifested€by€defendantððs€silence€and€willful€failureÏto€fully€disclose€essential€information€regarding€ownership€of€variousÏassets.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€defendantððs€fraud€induced€her€toÏagree€to€the€property€settlement€agreement€which€ultimately€wasÏincorporated€into€the€final€decree€of€œcourt.€€She›€seeks,€òòinter€alia,óó€ð ðaÏfair€and€equitable€division€of€marital€property€based€upon€the€truthfulÏdisclosure€and€an€accurate€total€of€the€partiesðð€assets€as€of€the€date€ofÍthe€divorce€plus€all€interest,€and€attorneyððs€fees€and€expenses€as€actualÏand€compensatory€damages.ðð€€(p.€325€of€t.r.)Ìà àDefendantððs€answer€joins€issue€on€the€material€allegations€of€theÏcomplaint€and€further€avers€that€all€of€the€issues€were€resolved€œin€the›Ïdivorce€œsuit.€€Defendant€also€avers€that›€the€doctrine€of€res€judicataÏœapplies,›€that€plaintiff€did€not€avail€herself€of€the€remedy€provided€byÏRule€60,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.,€and€œthat›€there€was€no€extrinsic€fraud€that€wouldÏallow€the€final€decree€of€divorce€to€be€set€aside.Ìà àThe€record€reveals€that€in€the€divorce€œcase›€both€parties€wereÏrepresented€by€very€able€œlawyers›€and€the€discovery€provisions€ofÏTenn.R.Civ.P.€were€extensively€utilized.€€€œAlthough›€the€parties'€divorceÏcase€did€not€culminate€in€a€trial,€there€was€ample€discovery€and€theÏparties,€apparently€satisfied€with€the€information€revealed,€enteredÏinto€a€mutual€agreement€regarding€division€of€assets.€€Pursuant€to€theÏterms€of€the€œproperty›€œsettlement›€œagreement,›€Mr.€and€Ms.€Schorr€eachÏreceived€what€œthey€considered›€to€be€an€equitable€division€of€theÏmarital€assets.€Ìà àIn€August€of€1986,€Ms.€Schorr€discovered€the€parties'€1983€jointÏtax€return.€€This€return,€which€the€parties€signed€in€August€of€1984,Ístated€that€Mr.€Schorr's€1983€income€as€president€of€the€Holiday€Inn'sÏHotel€Group€was€$841,284.00.€€Although€Ms.€Schorr€signed€the€return€inÏAugust,€1984,€she€testified€that€she€did€not€review€the€return€at€thatÏtime.€€In€1986,€when€Ms.€Schorr€noticed€the€parties€1983€income€asÏstated€on€their€tax€return,€she€became€suspicious€that€there€had€notÏbeen€an€equitable€division€of€marital€assets€and€after€obtaining€counselÏfiled€this€suit.€Ìà àIn€€August€of€1989,€the€trial€court€granted€Ms.€Schorr's€Motion€forÏSummary€Judgment,€finding€Mr.€Schorr€liable€for€fraudulentÏconcealment€of€assets€during€the€divorce€proceedings,€and€in€March€ofÏ1991,€the€court€entered€a€judgment€in€favor€of€Ms.€Schorr€in€the€amountÏof€$485,000.00.€€Upon€appeal€to€this€Court,€this€Court,€considering€onlyÏthe€issue€concerning€the€correctness€of€summary€judgment,€reversedÏthe€trial€court's€decision€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€trial.Ìà àTrial€of€this€case€began€on€January€11,€1994.€€At€the€close€of€theÏproof,€the€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€Schorr€fraudulently€œconcealed›Ïassets€œworth€$521,858.00€from›€Ms.€Schorr€prior€to€entry€of€the€finalÏœdecree.›€€The€court€awarded€Ms.€Schorr€one„half€the€value€of€theseÏœassets›€plus€pre„judgment€œinterest,›€for€a€total€award€of€$613,000.00,Íattorney's€fees€and€expenses€of€$170,586.15,€and€punitive€damages€ofÏ$10,000.00.€€The€court€later€reduced€the€punitive€damages€award€toÏ$500.00.€€Mr.€Schorr€thereafter€perfected€the€present€appeal,€andÏpresents€four€issues€for€review.€€However,€we€perceive€the€dispositiveÏissue€to€be€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€essentially€setting€aside€orÏmodifying€the€final€decree.Ìà àIn€an€action€to€set€aside€a€final€judgment,€a€litigant€may€pursueÏthe€options€set€forth€in€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02€or,€as€preserved€by€theÏruleððs€savings€clause,€the€party€may€bring€an€independent€action.€Ïòòò òJerkins€v.€McKinneyó óóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€1976).€€Ms.€SchorrÏchose€the€latter€alternative€to€bring€the€present€œsuit,€presumably›Ïbecause€a€Rule€60€proceeding€was€time€barred.€€Generally,€a€party€mayÏfile€an€independent€action€to€set€aside€a€judgment€only€under€unusualÏand€€exceptional€circumstances,€and€then€only€where€no€other€remedy€isÏavailable€or€adequate.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€281.€€In€the€instant€case,€Ms.€SchorrððsÏallegations€for€relief€are€limited€to€fraud.Ìà àIn€an€independent€action€to€set€aside€a€judgment€on€the€basis€ofÏfraud,€the€complaining€party€must€prove€extrinsic,€as€opposed€toÏintrinsic,€fraud.€€òòò òNew€York€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€Nashville€Trust€Co.ó óóó,Í200€Tenn.€513,€517„21,€292€S.W.2d€749,€751„53€(1956);€òòò òMedlock€v.ÏFerrarió óóó,€602€S.W.2d€241,€245„46€(Tenn.€App.€1979)òòò ò€Noll€v.ÏChattanooga€Co.ó óóó,€38€S.W.€287,€290„91€(Tenn.€Ch.€App.€1896),€aff'dÏorally€Oct.€28,€1986.€€The€distinction€between€intrinsic€and€extrinsicÏfraud€existedòò€óóat€common€law,€òòò òidó óóó.,€and€is€maintained€today€both€underÏthe€rules€of€civil€procedure€and€in€case€law.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02€(MichieÏ1995);€òòò òStacks€v.€Saundersó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€App.€1990);Ïòòò òBrown€v.€Rainesó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€€Ìà àPrior€to€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€aÏparty€seeking€to€set€aside€a€judgment€on€the€basis€of€intrinsic€fraudÏwas€required€to€prove€the€fraud€either€at€trial,€in€a€motion€for€a€newÏtrial,€or€on€appeal.€€òòò òNolló óóó,€28€S.W.€at€290„91.€€Upon€completion€of€theÏappellate€process,€a€party€could€no€longer€seek€to€set€aside€a€judgmentÏof€the€basis€of€intrinsic€fraud:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€trial€is€his€opportunity€for€making€the€truthÏappear.€€If,€unfortunately,€he€fails,€beingÏoverborne€by€perjured€testimony,€and€if€heÏlikewise€fails€to€show€the€injustice€that€hasÏbeen€done€him€on€motion€for€a€new€trial,€and€theÏjudgment€is€affirmed€on€appeal,€he€is€withoutÏremedy.€ÌÌÓÓòòò òIdó óóó.€at€291.€€€This€rationale€is€consistent€with€fundamental€principles€ofÍjurisprudence,€which€state:€€"Material€facts€or€questions€which€were€inÏissue€in€a€former€action€and€were€there€admitted€or€judiciallyÏdetermined,€are€conclusively€settled€by€a€judgment€rendered€therein,Ïand€such€facts€or€questions€become€res€judicata€and€may€not€again€beÏlitigated€in€a€subsequent€action€brought€between€the€same€parties€orÏtheir€privies."€€ò òòòMedlockó óóó,€602€S.W.2d€at€246.€€Ìà àWhen€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€were€adopted,€theÏrequirement€that€proof€of€intrinsic€fraud€be€raised€during€trial€orÏappeal€was€softened.€€Under€the€current€rule,€a€party€may€seek€to€setÏaside€a€former€judgment€on€the€basis€of€intrinsic€fraud€during€the€firstÏyear€following€entry€of€the€final€judgment.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02(2).€€à àÌà àProof€of€extrinsic€fraud,€on€the€other€hand,€is€not€now€required,Ïnor€has€it€ever€been€required,€to€be€proven€during€the€initial€trial€orÏappeal€of€the€case.€€€Although€the€characteristics€of€intrinsic€andÏextrinsic€fraud€are€somewhat€amorphous,€it€is€generally€held€thatÏextrinsic€fraud€"consists€of€conduct€that€is€extrinsic€or€collateral€toÏthe€issues€examined€and€determined€in€the€action,"€òòò òThomas€v.ÏDockeryó óóó,€33€Tenn.€App.€695,€702,€232€S.W.2d€594,€598€(1950),€whileÏintrinsic€fraud€is€fraud€within€the€€subject€matter€of€the€litigation,Ísuch€as€forged€documents€produced€at€trial€or€perjury€by€a€witness.€€òòò òIdó óóó.Ïat€702,€598.€€In€òòò òNolló óóó,€the€court€further€examined€the€distinctionsÏbetween€these€different€types€of€€fraud:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhat,€then,€is€an€extrinsic€or€collateral€fraud,Ïwithin€the€meaning€of€this€rule?€€Among€theÏinstances€given€in€the€books€are€such€as€these:€ÏKeeping€the€unsuccessful€party€away€from€theÏcourt€by€a€false€promise€of€a€compromise,€orÏpurposely€keeping€him€in€ignorance€of€the€suit;Ïor€where€an€attorney€fraudulently€pretends€toÏrepresent€a€party,€and€connives€at€his€defeat;€or,Ïbeing€regularly€employed,€corruptly€sells€out€hisÏclient's€interests.€€U.S.€v.€Throckmorton,€98€U.S.Ï65,€66,€and€authorities€cited.ÌÌÓÓòòò òIdó óóó.€at€291(quoting€òòò òPico€v.€Cohnó óóó,€91€Cal.€129,133,€25€Pac.€970,€271,27ÏPac.€537€œ(1891))›€€€In€ò òòòNoles€v.€Earhartó óóó,€769€S.W.2d€868,€œ874›€(Tenn.Ï1988),€this€Court€stated€ð ðextrinsic€fraud€involves€deception€as€toÏmatters€òònotóó€at€issue€in€the€case€which€prevented€the€defrauded€partyÏfrom€œreceiving›€a€fair€hearing.ðð€€(Emphasis€œsupplied).€€òòò òSee€alsoó óóó,€òòò òKeithÏv.€Algeró óóó,€114€Tenn€(6€Cates)€1,€24„25€(1904);€òòò òStacksó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€atÏ592;€òòò òBrownó óóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€597;€òòò òThomasó óóó,€33€Tenn.€App.€at€702„03,€232ÏS.W.2d€at€598€(1950).›Ìà àThe€reason€for€the€common€law€distinction€between€intrinsic€andÏextrinsic€fraud,€and€the€reason€that€the€distinction€is€maintained€inÍTenn.R.Civ.P.€60,€is€grounded€in€the€need€for€finality€of€judgments:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€wrong€[caused€by€intrinsic€fraud]€in€such€aÏcase€is,€of€course,€a€most€grievous€one;€and€noÏdoubt€the€legislature€and€the€courts€would€beÏglad€to€redress€it€if€a€rule€could€be€devised€thatÏwould€remedy€the€evil€without€producingÏmischief€far€worse€that€the€evil€being€remedied.€ÏEndless€litigation,€in€which€nothing€was€everÏfinally€determined,€would€be€worse€thanÏoccasional€miscarriages€of€justice;€and€so€theÏrule€is€that€a€final€judgment€cannot€be€overruledÏmerely€because€it€can€be€show€to€have€beenÏbased€on€perjured€testimony,€for€if€this€could€beÏdone€once,€it€could€be€done€again€and€again,€adÏinfinitum.€òòÌÌòòò òóóNolló óóó,€38€S.W.€at€291.€€ÓÓWe€emphasize€that,€although€the€purpose€ofÏTenn.R.Civ.P.€60€is€to€"alleviate€the€effect€of€an€oppressive€or€onerousÏfinal€judgment,"€òòò òKillion€v.€Tennessee€Department€of€HumanÏServicesó óóó,€845€S.W.2d€212,€213€(Tenn.€1992),€the€rule€is€equally€aimedÏat€striking€a€balance€between€the€competing€interests€of€justice€andÏfinality.€€òòò òBanks€v.€Dement€Constr.€Co.€Inc.ó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.Ïœ1991)›œ.›€Ìà àWith€the€aforementioned€principles€in€mind,€we€now€turn€to€theÏfacts€of€the€present€case.€€€During€their€marriage€of€approximatelyÏnineteen€years,€€James€and€Linda€Schorr€enjoyed€a€high€standard€ofÍliving.€€€In€1979,€James€Schorr€was€named€president€of€Holiday€Inn'sÏHotel€Group.€€Ms.€Schorr€worked€inside€the€home,€raising€the€couples'Ïfour€sons.€€Ms.€Schorr€testified€that,€throughout€the€parties'€marriage,ÏMr.€Schorr€handled€the€family€finances.€€Ms.€Schorr€stated€that€bothÏduring€her€marriage€to€Mr.€Schorr€and€while€their€divorce€was€pending,Ïshe€relied€on€Mr.€Schorr€with€regard€to€financial€matters.€€Ìà àIn€the€present€suit,€Ms.€Schorr€alleges€that€Mr.€SchorrÏintentionally€failed€to€disclose€his€interest€in€the€following€assets:€Ïshares€of€Holiday€Inn€stock€and€cash€awards€from€the€Restricted€StockÏIncentive€Plan,€Holiday€Inn€stock€options,€bonus€awards,€and€benefitsÏfrom€Holiday€Inn's€Long€Term€Performance€Plan.€€Ms.€Schorr€alleges€thatÏas€a€result€of€Mr.€Schorr's€fraudulent€acts€of€concealment,€she€wasÏdenied€a€fair€and€equitable€division€of€the€marital€property.Ìà àPrior€to€the€development€and€execution€of€their€œproperty›Ïœsettlement›€œagreement,›€Ms.€Schorr's€attorneys,€Frank€Glankler,€Jr.,ÏMichael€Robinson,€Barry€€Ward,€and€Joseph€Wilcox,€conducted€extensiveÏdiscovery€of€Mr.€Schorr's€assets.€€On€May€18,€1993,€Ms.€Schorr'sÏattorneys€filed€Plaintiff's€Request€for€Production€of€Documents.€€TheÏRequest€asked€Mr.€Schorr€to€produce€earnings€records,€income€taxÍreturns,€statements€of€accounts€in€financial€institutions,€stockÏcertificates€in€which€Mr.€Schorr€had€any€legal€or€beneficial€interest,Ïrecords€of€cash€now€on€hand€or€being€held€by€others€for€Mr.€Schorr'sÏbenefit,€€and€"documents€showing€any€other€assets€or€sources€ofÏincome."€€Mr.€Schorr's€attorneys,€James€Manire€and€James€Reed,Ïresponded€by€producing€Mr.€Schorr's€statements€of€income,€net€worth,Ïbonuses,€employee€benefits€package,€and€prior€state€and€federal€incomeÏtax€returns.€€Ìà àOn€June€27,€1983,€Mr.€Glankler€wrote€to€James€Manire€seeking,Ïòòinter€aliaóó,€information€regarding€the€following€items:€€"(1)€The€numberÏof€H.I.A.€[Holiday€Inn]€shares€Mr.€Schorr€owns;€(2)€Stock€OptionÏAgreement€provides€[sic]€he€has€entitlement€to€18,000€shares;€.€.€.€(6)ÏSchorr's€current€earning€statement;€.€.€.€(9)€Description€of€currentÏstocks,€bonds€and€securities€held€by€Mr.€Schorr."€€In€response€to€Mr.ÏManier's€request€that€he€provide€the€additional€information€requestedÏby€Mr.€Glankler,€Mr.€Schorr€stated€that€he€did€not€own€any€Holiday€InnÏstock,€but€that€he€held€an€option€on€350€shares.€€Mr.€Schorr€representedÏthat€œhe€sold›€all€of€his€Holiday€Inn€stock€to€pay€his€1982€taxes.€€Mr.ÏSchorr€further€stated:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€feel€the€net€worth€and€income€statementÏpreviously€prepared€for€Frank€[Glankler]€(byÏArthur€Anderson€at€considerable€expense)€fullyÏand€completely€reported€my€financial€positions.€ÏCandidly,€I€resent€the€òòattitudeóó€of€this€furtherÏinquiry€which€produces€no€new€information€forÏFrank,€takes€my€time€in€response,€and€no€doubtÏwill€give€somebody€a€lot€of€redundant€paper€toÏread€(emphasis€in€original).ÌÌÓÓà àIn€a€letter€dated€August€18,€1983,€Mr.€Glankler€asked€Mr.€ManireÏand€Mr.€Reed€to€provide€a€further€explanation€of€Mr.€Schorr's€use€of€theÏproceeds€from€his€sale€of€Holiday€Inn€stock.€€Apparently€dissatisfiedÏwith€Mr.€Schorr's€responses€€regarding€stock€ownership,€Ms.€SchorrÏfiled€Interrogatories€on€October€24,€1983,€requesting€the€followingÏinformation€from€Mr.€Schorr:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDescribe€the€amount€of€Holiday€Inn€stock€ownedÏby€you€individually€or€jointly€with€theÏPlaintiff/Counter„Defendant€prior€to€JanuaryÏ1983€.€.€.€.€Describe€in€detail€whatÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff€has€done€with€saidÏHoliday€Inn€stock€since€January€1983.€€PleaseÏprovide€canceled€checks€indicating€theÏdisposition€of€stock€.€.€.€.€Describe€listing€theÏname,€issuer,€if€applicable,€account€number€andÏlocation€of€all€stocks,€bonds,€securities,€realÏestate,€cash,€bank€accounts,€and€Certificates€ofÏDeposit€in€the€name€of€Defendant/Counter„Plaintiff€or€being€held€for€or€on€behalf€ofÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff.€€ÌÌÓÓMr.€Schorr's€Answers€to€these€Interrogatories€indicated€that€he€ownedÏ5,748€shares€of€Holiday€Inn€Stock€prior€to€January,€1983.€€Mr.€SchorrÏresponded€that€he€sold€all€of€his€shares€and€placed€the€proceeds,€someÏ$190,012.61,€in€a€capital€preservation€fund.€€Mr.€Schorr€did€not€indicateÏthat€he€owned,€actually€or€beneficially,€any€other€stock,€or€that€sameÏwas€being€held€for€his€benefit.€€€In€reliance€upon€Mr.€Schorr's€swornÏfinancial€statements€and€his€responses€to€sworn€interrogatories,€Ms.ÏSchorr€agreed€to€the€parties'€œproperty›€œsettlement›€œagreement,›€executedÏFebruary€16,€1984.€€The€œproperty›€œsettlement›€œagreement›€wasÏincorporated€into€the€Final€Decree€of€Divorce,€entered€on€February€23,Ï1984,€and€made€final€March€25,€1984.€€à àÌà àAs€discussed€òòsupraóó,€in€order€to€bring€an€independent€action€to€setÏaside€a€judgment,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€extrinsic€fraud,€or€fraudÏcollateral€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€litigation.€€Counsel€for€Ms.ÏSchorr€argues€that€Mr.€Schorr's€false€promises€of€compromise€kept€Ms.ÏSchorr€from€pursuing€litigation€in€the€parties'€divorce;€constitutingÏextrinsic€fraud.€€We€do€not€agree.€€There€is€no€proof€of€any€collateralÏaction€taken€by€Mr.€Schorr€that€kept€Ms.€Schorr€from€pursuing€litigation.ÍWhile€it€is€true€that€œthe€divorce€case€was€not€tried,›€œnevertheless,›€anyÏalleged€fraud€by€Mr.€Schorr€occurred€during€the€discovery€process€andÏthus€was€entirely€internal€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€parties'Ïlitigation.Ìà àA€detailed€examination€of€the€record,€particularly€the€discoveryÏproceedings,€€reveals€that€James€Schorr€was€a€sophisticatedÏbusinessman.€€He€held€a€high€position€at€a€large€corporation€and€wasÏfamiliar€œwith›€business€transactions.€€During€discovery€proceedingsÏprior€to€the€parties'€divorce,€Mr.€Schorr€was€asked€by€his€wife'sÏattorneys€as€well€as€his€own€attorneys€to€reveal€the€extent€of€hisÏrather€large€portfolio€of€assets.€€According€to€Ms.€Schorr,€he€failed€toÏdo€so.€€In€determining€the€result€of€this€failure,€we€find€instructive€aÏstatement€made€by€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Chancery€Appeals:ÓÓà8 àÌÌà8 àà8 àIt€is€averred,€and€we€think€sufficiently€shown,Ïthat,€upon€proof€of€these€facts,€there€is€aÏreasonable€certainty€that€plaintiff,€upon€anotherÏtrial,€would€gain€his€cause.€€Such€being€the€case,Ïis€plaintiff€entitled€to€a€decree€vacating€andÏannulling€the€former€decree,€on€the€ground€thatÏit€was€procured€by€fraud?€€After€a€careful€andÏextended€examination€of€the€authorities,€we€areÏconstrained€to€answer€this€question€in€theÏnegative.€€That€a€former€judgment€or€decree€mayÏbe€set€aside€and€annulled€for€some€frauds€thereÍcan€be€no€question,€but€it€must€be€a€fraudÏextrinsic€or€collateral€to€the€questionsÏexamined€and€determined€in€the€action.€€And€weÏthink€it€is€settled€beyond€controversy€that€aÏdecree€will€not€be€vacated€merely€because€itÏwas€obtained€by€forged€documents€or€perjuredÏtestimony.€€The€reason€of€this€rule€is€that€thereÏmust€be€an€end€of€litigation;€and€when€partiesÏhave€once€submitted€a€matter,€or€have€had€theÏopportunity€of€submitting€it,€for€investigationÏand€determination,€and€when€they€haveÏexhausted€every€means€for€reviewing€suchÏdetermination€it€the€same€proceeding,€it€must€beÏregarded€as€final€and€conclusive,€unless€it€canÏbe€shown€that€jurisdiction€of€the€court€has€beenÏimposed€upon,€or€that€the€prevailing€party€has,Ïby€some€extrinsic€or€collateral€fraud,€preventedÏa€fair€submission€of€the€controversy.ÌÌÓÓòòò òNolló óóó,€38€S.W.€at€290„91.Ìà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€parties€had€an€opportunity€to€conduct,€andÏdid€conduct,€ample€discovery€and€investigation€to€determine€the€extentÏof€the€parties'€marital€assets.€€The€fact€that€the€investigation€ended€atÏthe€close€of€discovery,€rather€than€after€trial,€does€not€change€the€factÏthat€the€matter€was€pursued€to€finality.€€œIn€all€probability,€Mr.€SchorrððsÏtestimony€at€trial€would€have€been€the€same€as€the€responses›€he€gaveÏduring€discovery€and€the€result€in€this€case€would€have€been€the€same.€ÏRegardless,€œMs.›€œSchorrððs€attorney›€was€apparently€satisfied€with€Mr.ÍSchorr's€€responses€during€discovery,€and€therefore€advised€Ms.€SchorrÏto€sign€the€œproperty›€œsettlement›€œagreement›€without€a€trial,€finalizingÏthe€matter.€€€€€Ìà àThe€œtrial€court›€œfound€Mr.€Schorr€guilty€of€fraudulent€conduct;›Ïhowever,€we€find€no€proof€to€support€Ms.€Schorr's€allegations€ofÏextrinsic€fraud.€€Even€if€we€take€as€true€all€of€the€allegations€made€byÏMs.€Schorr€concerning€Mr.€Schorr's€fraudulent€concealment€of€assets,€asÏwell€as€the€supporting€documents€and€trial€testimony,€we€areÏnonetheless€constrained€to€hold€that€the€fraud€in€this€case€wasÏcompletely€intertwined€with€the€subject€matter€of€the€litigation;€òòtoÏwitóó,€the€division€of€the€parties'€marital€assets.€€Such€fraud€is€intrinsic.€ÏFinding€no€proof€of€extrinsic€fraud,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏmodifying€the€1984€final€decree.€€Ìà àMs.€Schorr€also€apparently€contends€that€this€Court€should€setÏaside€the€œparties'€property›€œsettlement›€œagreement›€pursuant€to€theÏprovisions€of€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02(2)€and€(5).€€Although€the€present€caseÏis€not€a€proceeding€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02,€we€will€briefly€address€theÏpoints€involved.€€€Rule€60.02€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€theÍcourt€may€relieve€a€party€or€his€legalÏrepresentative€from€a€final€judgment,€order€orÏproceeding€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)Ïmistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusableÏneglect;€(2)€fraud€(whether€heretoforeÏdenominated€intrinsic€or€extrinsic),Ïmisrepresentation€or€other€misconduct€of€anÏadverse€party;€.€.€.€(5)€any€other€reason€justifyingÏrelief€from€the€operation€of€the€judgment.€€TheÏmotion€shall€be€made€within€a€reasonable€time,Ïand€for€reasons€(1)€and€(2)€not€more€than€oneÏyear€after€the€judgment,€order€or€proceedingÏwas€entered€or€taken.€€A€motion€under€this€RuleÏ60.02€does€not€affect€the€finality€of€€a€judgmentÏor€suspend€its€operation€.€.€.€.€This€rule€does€notÏlimit€the€power€of€a€court€to€entertain€anÏindependent€action€to€relieve€a€party€from€aÏjudgment,€order€or€proceeding,€or€to€set€aside€aÏjudgment€for€fraud€upon€the€court.€€ÓÓÌà àWe€first€address€Ms.€Schorr's€argument€that€the€judgment€may€beÏset€aside€under€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02(2).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€finalÏdecree€was€entered€in€February€of€1984€and€became€final€on€March€25,Ï1984.€€Ms.€Schorr€did€not€bring€an€action€to€set€aside€the€œpartiesðð›Ïproperty€settlement€agreement€until€March€of€1987,€three€years€later.€ÏRule€60.02(2)€states€that€actions€to€set€aside€a€prior€judgment€basedÏon€fraud,€either€intrinsic€or€extrinsic,€must€be€filed€within€one€year€ofÏthe€entry€of€the€judgment€or€order€in€question.€€Although€the€veryÍnature€of€fraud€is€such€that€it€is€often€concealed€from€the€defraudedÏparty,€the€rule€clearly€sets€forth€a€one€year€limitation.€€We€cannotÏagree€with€the€argument€of€Ms.€Schorr's€counsel€that€the€one€yearÏperiod€set€forth€in€Rule€60.02€was€tolled€because€Mr.€Schorr€concealedÏhis€fraudulent€actions.× ƒ. ××  ×€€A€finding€that€the€limitations€period€is€tolledÏbecause€of€fraudulent€concealment€would€not€only€nullify€the€one€yearÏlimit€set€forth€in€the€rule,€it€would€ignore€long€established€policiesÏsupporting€finality€of€litigation.€€òòò òSee,€œe.gó óóó.›€€ò òòòJerkinsó óóó,€533€S.W.2d€atÏ281;€òòò òBanksó óóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€18;òòò ò€Nolló óóó,€38€S.W.€at€291.€€€Ms.€Schorr's€suit,Ïbrought€in€1987,€to€set€aside€a€œfinal€decree€entered›€in€1984,€wasÏbarred€under€the€terms€of€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02(2).€€€Ìà àMs.€Schorr's€contention€that€she€is€entitled€to€relief€underÏTenn.R.Civ.P.€60.02€(5)€is€similarly€without€merit.€€Under€Rule€60.02(5),Ïthis€Court€may€set€aside€a€final€judgment€that€does€not€fall€within€theÍother€provisions€of€Rule€60.02€for€"any€other€reason"€the€Court€deemsÏjust.€€Ìà àCourts€in€this€State€have€interpreted€Rule€60.02(5)€narrowly,Ïfinding€that€relief€under€sub„part€œfive€is›€only€available€in€cases€ofÏ"overriding€importance"€or€Ì"extraordinary€hardship."€òòò ò€Underwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€854€S.W.2dÏ94,€97€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€do€not€find€this€to€be€such€a€case.€€€Moreover,Ïrelief€under€Rule€60.02(5)€is€not€to€be€sought€as€a€fall€back€position;Ïrather,€relief€under€that€provision€is€limited€to€claims€that€do€notÏotherwise€come€within€other€clauses€of€Rule€60.02.€€ò òòòSee€Duncan€v.ÏDuncanó óóó,€789€S.W.2d€557,€564€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€In€the€present€suit,Ïthe€remedies€set€forth€in€œ60.02(2),€until€time€barred,›€were€available€toÏMs.€Schorr.€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed,€and€the€case€isÏremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary.€€Costs€ofÏappeal€are€assessed€against€appellee.€€The€remaining€issues€areÏpretermitted.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌœÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌò òÌ›Ìó ó_________________________________Ìò òHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌÔ€ÔÔ€Ôœ