ÿWPCÓ ר©Ý¸ÑåY³+^.„B©)&µ¶dÈlkį-Ñ_¹Gëwåšz¨ÈÈîRéÇMÜÀj> L wýcØŠn‘2"~J` 6o µZÑk-=Ø÷rÍèÊ@ œ~Q;3u.HUï$ƒèøR&[ú0¿æª!U zŠ”8îeOË«ôb MÓ7€ß\WÂï"Œ;Ós(ø³i­ßÈŒèatX—„ЇÏoÇ,S'±ª™j×»/A‰ï()bEröhû=‰tSË%²Îˆ¸%•(ý ³`?²æ\šµ„ÇáÏ’õïs©šì²¶+d}cö–ÌÑS×/-(yÿÍ£ØÐÈv»A´V†Ú†¾ Áí£Š’Ëêµü¯¬Fý¦H?Ò);m¦Rš'KPÄ^)Sã©U/;l âÓpä—|ª3å;Î_”’Ä„¤ûðïü§$ÙO†oK5[!þjù˜ è÷Ä\øÛ½¥Ù#ûOGþ*ÑkøÃ ”~ÆF»±Yµoµ.îЦ¡Ä?0æ=dg¹­¡KKávPA³/9QItg:éÁ¢›S³Ì_š}‘¼iS¯é™L…Êæ•ÿ†Ý–&í9o‡qLMüBšpOb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4Th zwÒñà mÅ #ÉÜ ¥ ÆÃ ƉÆOÆ 0DÛNy!šEž&                       bÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ 0ëÎÎÎÎ B¹¹ 0¤Ö D5z D-¯ 0KÜÜ AS'Æz 0¤@ 0Dä A«(»n¨ž/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regulare²p)/FTB.tm3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Ý ƒR†$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Ýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSince€Hilliardððs€qualifications€were€not€challenged€at€trial,€we€will€not€discuss€his€educational€or€professionalÐ ° Ðbackground.€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó oÝ ƒR†$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Ýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€We€need€not€and€do€not€express€any€opinion€on€whether€the€failure€of€a€Notary€Public€to€administer€an€oath,Ð ° Ðin€and€of€itself,€results€in€the€MDA€not€being€ð ðnotarizedðð€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103.€€ úÝ ƒR†$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Ýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€This€lawsuit€involves€Wifeððs€attempt€to€obtain€a€portion€of€Husbandððs€pension€benefits.€€In€order€to€obtainÐ ° Ðadditional€money,€Wife€expressly€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€altogether€lacked€personal€jurisdiction€over€her.€€ThisÐ tÄ Ðargument€attacks€the€validity€of€the€entire€divorce,€not€just€one€aspect€of€the€marital€property€division.€€Given€the€factÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€both€parties€are€remarried,€we€are€quite€reluctant€to€conclude€that€the€parties€never€were€divorced€and€must€assumeÐ üL Ðthat€Wife€simply€fails€to€realize€the€potential€ramifications€of€her€argument.€ LYMANInman Olin CPHHilliardColvilleBrainerdLoudon JurWerne Hite GMACPublics i]nNatl MgmtA]ppellate- ù-(|G2aF$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôö=ò»»Ô d(|3AU$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3AU$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qm»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Qm»»»ÔÑ8€©XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà  àà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îT4QmÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Qm»îîT4#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€15,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X©X»¼QmÔÌò òÔ#†¼Qm»XX©#ÔPATRICIA€A.€LYMAN€v.€LAWRENCE€A.€JAMESÔ‡X©X»¼QmÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ#†¼Qm»XX©m#ÔÔ€X©X»¼QmÔà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01€C€918€€€€€€W.€Neil€Thomas,€III,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌññFiled€Ô_ÔññññDecember€30,€2003ññÔ_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02859„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aßó óÐ }Í  ÐÓ  ÓÌÌAfter€over€thirty€years€of€marriage,€Patricia€A.€Lyman€(ð ðWifeðð)€left€Lawrence€A.€James€(ð ðHusbandðð)Ð d´ Ðand€moved€to€the€state€of€Washington€and€began€living€with€her€new€boyfriend.€€After€HusbandÐ P  Ðlearned€of€Wifeððs€affair,€the€parties€agreed€to€a€divorce€based€on€irreconcilable€differences€andÐ <Œ Ðentered€into€a€marital€dissolution€agreement€(ð ðMDAðð).€€Both€parties€signed€the€MDA€before€aÐ (x ÐNotary€Public,€but€neither€party€was€administered€an€oath€prior€to€his€or€her€signing.€€The€MDAÐ d Ðprovided€that€Husband€would€receive€the€entire€amount€of€his€pension.€€Over€six€months€after€theÐ P Ðparties€were€granted€a€divorce,€Wife€filed€a€new€lawsuit€claiming€she€gave€up€any€claim€toÐ ì< ÐHusbandððs€pension€because€of€Husbandððs€fraud€and/or€misrepresentations.€€Wife€also€claimed€theÐ Ø( Ðcourt€which€granted€the€divorce€lacked€personal€jurisdiction€to€enter€the€final€divorce€decree€becauseÐ Ä Ðneither€Husband€nor€Wife€were€administered€oaths€prior€to€signing€the€MDA,€which€Wife€claimedÐ ° Ðresulted€in€the€MDA€not€being€properly€notarized.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€the€failure€of€theÐ œì ÐNotary€Publics€to€administer€oaths€did€not€render€the€MDA€invalid.€€The€Trial€Court€also€concludedÐ ˆØ ÐWife€failed€to€meet€her€burden€of€proving€fraud€and/or€misrepresentations€on€the€part€of€Husband.€Ð tÄ ÐWife€appeals,€and€we€affirm.€€Ð `° ÐÌÌò òà@µ µ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ $"t! Ðà@û û ìàCircuit€Court€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.ˆÐ #`" ÐÌÌó óòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€andÐ Ô%$!% ÐòòWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.€J.,óó€joined.Ð À&"& ÐÌÌPhillip€C.€Lawrence,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Patricia€A.€Lyman.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌÌRichard€A.€Schulman€and€R.€Jonathan€Guthrie,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€LawrenceÐ H,˜', ÐA.€James.Ð  4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€and€Husband€were€married€in€March€of€1970.€€Husband€filed€a€complaint€inÐ `° ÐAugust€of€2000€seeking€a€divorce€from€Wife€on€the€basis€of€irreconcilable€differences.€Ð L œ ÐApproximately€two€months€later,€the€Trial€Court€entered€a€Final€Decree€granting€the€parties€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðdivorce€on€the€basis€of€irreconcilable€differences.€€Along€with€the€Final€Decree,€the€Trial€CourtÐ $ t Ðapproved€and€adopted€the€MDA€submitted€and€signed€by€the€parties.€€Husband€and€Wife€had€twoÐ  ` Ðchildren€who€were€no€longer€minors€at€the€time€of€the€divorce.€€The€primary€purpose€of€the€MDAÐ ü L  Ðwas€to€divide€the€marital€property€and€the€marital€debt.€€According€to€the€terms€of€the€MDA,Ð è 8  ÐHusband€retained€all€of€his€retirement€benefits€from€his€employer,€Olin€Corporation,€as€well€as€anyÐ Ô$  ÐIRAs€held€solely€in€his€name.€€Wife€retained€any€IRAs€held€solely€in€her€name.€€When€the€MDA€wasÐ À  Ðapproved,€Wife€was€living€in€the€state€of€Washington.€€Paragraph€fourteen€of€the€MDA€providedÐ ¬ü  Ðthat:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Wife,€Patricia€A.€James,€has€executed€this€MaritalÐ pÀ ÐDissolution€Agreement€in€lieu€of€service€of€process,€being€fully€awareÐ \¬ Ðthat€a€Complaint€for€Divorce€will€be€filed€in€the€State€of€Tennessee,Ð H˜ Ðand€defendant€states€that€she€waives€further€service€in€this€proceedingÐ 4„ Ðand€waives€the€filing€of€an€Answer€to€the€Complaint,€said€waiver€ofÐ  p Ðservice€being€valid€for€a€period€of€one€hundred€twenty€days€from€theÐ  \ Ðdate€the€last€party€signs€this€agreement.€€Defendant€furtherÐ øH Ðacknowledges€that€her€execution€of€this€Marital€DissolutionÐ ä4 ÐAgreement€constitutes€a€general€appearance€and€Answer€before€thisÐ Ð  ÐCourt€giving€said€Court€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€defendant,€andÐ ¼  Ðfurther€constitutes€a€default€judgment€for€the€purpose€of€the€grantingÐ ¨ø Ðof€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences€in€this€case,Ð ”ä Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€ðð€36„4„103(a)(2).€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌThe€MDA€was€signed€and€the€signatures€of€both€parties€seemingly€were€notarized.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àOver€six€months€after€the€Final€Decree€was€entered,€Wife,€who€had€since€remarried,Ð 0"€  Ðhad€second€thoughts€about€not€obtaining€any€of€Husbandððs€retirement€benefits.€€Wife€then€filed€aÐ #l! Ðnew€lawsuit€seeking€to€have€the€Final€Decree€vacated€or€set€aside€for€lack€of€jurisdiction€arising€fromÐ $X" Ðð ðthe€failure€of€the€parties€to€have€their€signatures€to€the€[MDA]€properly€acknowledged€as€requiredÐ ô$D # Ðby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„4„103.ðð€€Wife€also€claimed€the€MDA€should€be€set€aside€becauseÐ à%0!$ Ðof€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect€on€her€part,€and/or€because€of€fraud€andÐ Ì&"% Ðmisrepresentation€by€Husband.€€Finally,€Wife€claimed€the€MDA€should€be€set€aside€because€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðunconscionable€inequityðð€in€the€division€of€the€marital€property.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€answer,€Husband€denied€the€pertinent€allegations€set€forth€in€the€complaint.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐHusband€claimed€Wife€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted€and€asserted,Ð h+¸&* Ðamong€other€things,€that€the€filing€of€a€new€complaint€was€not€the€proper€method€in€which€to€attemptÐ ° Ðto€set€aside€the€Final€Decree,€an€argument€which€Husband€does€not€pursue€on€appeal.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àA€two€day€trial€took€place€in€September€of€2002.€€The€first€witness€was€ClarenceÐ tÄ ÐPatton€Hilliard€(ð ðHilliardðð),€the€owner€and€actuary€of€CPH€Pension€Administrators.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€toÐ `° ÐHilliard,€the€estimated€present€value€of€Husbandððs€retirement€benefits€totaled€$679,817,€assumingÐ L œ ÐHusband€retired€at€age€55€with€monthly€benefits€of€$4,648.82.€€Hilliard€also€testified€that€if€HusbandÐ 8 ˆ Ðwere€to€retire€at€age€65€with€monthly€benefits€of€$5,988.27,€the€present€value€of€those€benefits€wouldÐ $ t Ðbe€$375,185.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€Wife€testified€to€the€various€jobs€she€has€had€and€the€different€places€she€andÐ è 8  ÐHusband€lived€over€the€years.€€According€to€Wife,€they€always€deferred€to€Husbandððs€career€needsÐ Ô$  Ðwhen€deciding€to€move.€€Wife€stated€Husband€handled€all€of€the€major€financial€matters€and€allÐ À  Ðmajor€decisions€within€the€family.€€In€1997,€Husbandððs€job€with€Olin€Corporation€was€restructuredÐ ¬ü  Ðand€he€moved€his€office€into€the€marital€home.€€At€that€time,€Wife€was€working€in€the€real€estateÐ ˜è  Ðbusiness.€€In€1999,€Husband€and€Wife€formed€a€real€estate€partnership€ð ðfor€the€sole€purpose€ofÐ „Ô  Ðselling€real€estate€and€mitigating€taxes.ðð€€Wife€claimed€she€did€not€want€to€go€into€business€withÐ pÀ ÐHusband€and€resisted€the€idea,€but€Husband€prevailed.€€According€to€Wife,€the€only€area€where€sheÐ \¬ Ðwas€considered€to€have€authority€was€in€the€real€estate€business.€€Wife€testified€when€HusbandÐ H˜ Ðmoved€his€office€into€the€home,€he€had€more€free€time€and€began€to€focus€on€telling€Wife€how€toÐ 4„ Ðrun€her€real€estate€business€and€what€she€should€and€should€not€do.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€March€of€2000,€Husband€and€Wife€celebrated€their€30òòthóó€wedding€anniversary.€Ð øH ÐAround€the€same€time,€Wife€attended€a€real€estate€convention€in€San€Francisco.€€Wife€ð ðmetðð€a€manÐ ä4 Ðat€the€convention€and€began€a€relationship€with€him.€€This€is€the€person€to€whom€Wife€is€nowÐ Ð  Ðmarried.€€Wife€visited€her€new€paramour€in€various€places€while€still€married€to€Husband.€€AlthoughÐ ¼  ÐWife€did€not€tell€Husband€about€her€affair,€she€did€express€concerns€to€Husband€about€theirÐ ¨ø Ðmarriage.€€In€particular,€Wife€told€Husband€she€did€not€like€or€love€him€anymore€and€she€ð ðdid€notÐ ”ä Ðfeel€whole.€€There€was€a€big,€huge€piece€of€me€missing.ðð€€Wife€ultimately€left€Husband€in€July€ofÐ €Ð Ð2000.€€Wife€moved€from€TÔ_ÔennesseeÔ_Ô€to€the€state€of€Washington€after€securing€a€real€estate€positionÐ l¼ Ðin€the€town€of€Colville.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€testified€that€she€and€Husband€had€several€conversations€after€they€separatedÐ 0"€  Ðabout€dividing€up€the€marital€property.€€At€trial€Wife€was€shown€a€list€of€the€marital€assets€andÐ #l! Ðacknowledged€she€was€aware€of€the€existence€of€all€these€assets,€including€Husbandððs€pension.€Ð $X" ÐHowever,€Wife€stated€she€was€not€aware€of€the€monetary€value€of€that€pension.€€Wife€testified€thatÐ ô$D # Ðprior€to€her€moving€to€Washington,€she€and€Husband€verbally€agreed€to€split€the€assets€on€a€50/50Ð à%0!$ Ðbasis.€€Notwithstanding€the€foregoing,€Wife€acknowledged€agreeing€to€forego€any€claim€toÐ Ì&"% ÐHusbandððs€pension€in€exchange€for€Husbandððs€paying€her€health€insurance€premiums€for€the€rest€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðher€life.€€Wife€had€purchased€a€1998€Ford€Explorer€and€Husband€also€agreed€to€make€all€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpayments€on€this€vehicle,€which€he€did.€€The€parties€eventually€agreed€the€value€of€the€householdÐ ° Ðfurnishings€was€$30,000.€€Husband€offered€Wife€$12,500€in€cash€for€her€share€of€the€householdÐ œì Ðfurnishings,€and€Wife€accepted€this€offer.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€moved€to€Washington€where€she€began€living€with€her€new€boyfriend.€€SoonÐ `° Ðthereafter,€Wife€received€a€telephone€call€from€Husband€at€which€time€Husband€informed€Wife€thatÐ L œ Ðhe€had€hired€a€private€investigator€and€he€knew€about€her€affair.€€Wife€claims€that€Husband€told€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðduring€this€conversation€that€he€had€divorce€papers€drawn€up€and€not€to€fight€what€she€would€beÐ $ t Ðreceiving€because€she€was€not€entitled€to€half€of€the€assets€since€she€left€Husband€and€was€havingÐ  ` Ðan€affair.€€According€to€Wife,€Husband€stated€he€was€told€by€his€lawyer€that€the€assets€Wife€wouldÐ ü L  Ðbe€receiving€in€the€proposed€settlement€were€more€than€she€would€receive€if€the€case€actually€wentÐ è 8  Ðto€court.€€Wife€testified€she€believed€Husband€was€telling€her€the€truth.€€Wife€also€claimed€HusbandÐ Ô$  Ðtold€her€it€would€be€a€waste€of€time€and€money€for€her€to€retain€a€lawyer.€€Wife€never€did€contact€anÐ À  Ðattorney.€€Soon€after€this€alleged€conversation,€Wife€received€the€divorce€papers€from€Husband,Ð ¬ü  Ðsigned€the€MDA€before€a€Notary€Public,€and€returned€the€documents€to€Husband€via€overnightÐ ˜è  Ðdelivery.€€Wife€eventually€questioned€the€wisdom€of€signing€the€MDA€and€foregoing€any€rights€toÐ „Ô  ÐHusbandððs€pension,€resulting€in€the€present€lawsuit.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€cross„examination,€Wife€admitted€it€was€her€signature€on€the€MDA.€€WifeððsÐ H˜ Ðsignature€on€the€MDA€was€notarized€by€Joanne€Olson€(ð ðOlsonðð),€an€employee€at€a€local€bank€inÐ 4„ ÐWashington€whom€Wife€knew.€€Wife€testified€no€oath€was€administered€when€her€signature€on€theÐ  p ÐMDA€was€notarized.€€Wife€does€not€deny,€however,€that€she€signed€the€MDA€before€a€notary€public.€Ð  \ ÐWife€acknowledged€leaving€Husband€for€a€man€she€had€ð ðonly€known€for€a€few€days.ðð€€WifeÐ øH Ðdiscussed€her€various€jobs€with€law€firms€as€a€secretary€and/or€paralegal.€€Wife€filed€a€lawsuit€forÐ ä4 Ðassault€and€battery€against€a€coworker€several€years€ago€which€she€settled€for€$60,000.€€AccordingÐ Ð  Ðto€Wife,€the€conversation€where€Husband€told€her€she€would€not€do€any€better€if€the€divorce€wentÐ ¼  Ðto€court€occurred€on€only€one€occasion.€€Wife€admitted€it€was€her€decision€to€sign€the€MDA€and€noÐ ¨ø Ðone€ð ðforcedðð€her€to€sign€that€document.€€Wifeððs€boyfriend€even€suggested€she€contact€an€attorney.€Ð ”ä ÐWife€acknowledged€having€no€physical€or€mental€impairment€at€the€time€she€signed€the€MDA.€€WifeÐ €Ð Ðdoes€not€claim€Husband€hid€any€assets€from€her.€€Since€moving€to€Washington,€Wifeððs€financialÐ l¼ Ðcondition€has€ð ðdiminishedðð€and€her€real€estate€business€with€her€current€husband€is€not€doing€veryÐ X ¨ Ðwell.€€The€year€before€leaving€Tennessee,€Wifeððs€gross€income€from€selling€real€estate€was€$127,000.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€deposition€of€Darlene€Brown€(ð ðBrownðð)€was€admitted€into€evidence.€€Brown€isÐ #l! Ðthe€general€manager€of€Realty€Center,€Ô_ÔGMACÔ_Ôððs€East€Brainerd€office€in€Chattanooga.€€Both€HusbandÐ $X" Ðand€Wife€worked€with€Brown,€although€at€different€times.€€Brown€occasionally€socialized€withÐ ô$D # ÐHusband€and€Wife.€€Brown€testified€Wife€told€her€that€she€had€met€someone€and€was€going€to€goÐ à%0!$ Ðto€Washington€for€an€indefinite€period€of€time€to€ð ðsee€if€that€was€something€she€wanted€to€pursue.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐBrown€communicated€with€Wife€via€email€after€Wife€moved€to€Washington.€€In€an€email€dated€JulyÐ ¸'#& Ð28,€2000,€Wife€wrote€to€Brown:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHi.€€Larry€knows,€he€hired€a€PI.€€Papers€being€filed€as€we€speak.€€I€amÐ |*Ì%) Ðstill€very€happy€with€my€decision.€€It€has€cost€me€though.€€The€lawsÐ h+¸&* Ðevidently€hurt€me€since€I€have€been€a€cheating€wife.€€It€is€not€50/50,Ð ° Ðat€least€that€is€what€he€is€threatening€me€with€so€I€get€nothing€of€hisÐ œì Ðpension€nor€his€401.€€I€hope€Mike€loves€me€poor.ð8ð€ÐˆØ` x` x ÐÌIn€another€email€to€Brown,€Wife€stated€that€it€ð ðwill€all€be€over€in€60€days€from€my€signing€the€papersÐ `° Ðwhich€I€am€told€are€on€their€way.€€Based€on€what€I€could€glean,€if€I€had€been€up€front€I€would€haveÐ L œ Ðgotten€screwed€too.€€Oh€well,€nothing€like€motivation€to€make€a€girl€work.ð8ððð€€Brown€testified€sheÐ 8 ˆ Ðtold€Wife€if€she€was€concerned€about€the€property€settlement,€she€should€meet€with€an€attorney.€Ð $ t ÐBrown€suggested€on€several€occasions€that€Wife€meet€with€an€attorney€and€even€gave€Wife€theÐ  ` Ðnames€of€several€divorce€lawyers€she€could€contact.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€Husband€testified€he€was€employed€by€Olin€Corporation€for€thirty„three€yearsÐ Ô$  Ðand€was€the€director€of€corporate€accounts€when€he€retired€on€December€31,€2001.€€HusbandððsÐ À  Ðannual€base€salary€when€he€retired,€excluding€bonuses€and€the€like,€was€approximately€$190,000.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAlthough€retired,€Husband€does€engage€in€some€consulting€and€real€estate€work€from€time€to€time.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€testified€he€suspected€Wife€was€having€an€affair€and€hired€a€privateÐ pÀ Ðinvestigator.€€When€his€suspicions€were€confirmed,€he€confronted€Wife€and€she€admitted€to€theÐ \¬ Ðaffair.€€Thereafter,€Husband€and€Wife€discussed€dividing€the€marital€assets€in€the€manner€as€set€forthÐ H˜ Ðin€the€MDA.€€Wife€did€not€ask€for€any€of€Husbandððs€retirement€benefits.€€Husband€claims€WifeÐ 4„ Ðstated€she€did€not€want€ð ðany€part€of€it.ðð€€Husband€stated€he€did€not€know€what€would€have€happenedÐ  p Ðif€the€divorce€case€had€been€tried€in€court.€€Husband€denied€telling€Wife€that€his€lawyer€said€anythingÐ  \ Ðabout€what€would€happen.€€According€to€Husband,€he€told€Wife€there€were€two€types€of€divorcesÐ øH Ðin€Tennessee,€contested€and€uncontested.€€Husband€claims€Wife€said€she€would€prefer€anÐ ä4 Ðuncontested€divorce€because€she€wanted€to€get€on€with€her€life.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€testified€to€how€he€and€Wife€divided€their€assets.€€The€parties€valued€theirÐ ¨ø Ðhousehold€items€at€$30,000€and€Husband€offered€Wife€$12,500€in€cash€for€her€share€of€theÐ ”ä Ðhousehold€items,€a€sum€which€she€agreed€to€accept.€€The€parties€equally€divided€a€joint€stock€accountÐ €Ð Ðand€each€of€them€received€$66,276.€€Wife€received€the€funds€contained€in€her€SEP€and€IRA€accountsÐ l¼ Ðwhich€totaled€$96,200.€€Husband€assumed€the€liability€for€the€remaining€mortgage€payment€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðmarital€home€as€well€as€the€payments€for€Wifeððs€car.€€According€to€Husband,€the€parties€agreed€onÐ D!” Ðthe€amount€of€equity€in€the€marital€residence€and€Husband€paid€Wife€her€share,€totaling€$52,500.€Ð 0"€  ÐHusband€testified€he€has€complied€with€all€of€his€obligations€under€the€MDA.€€Husband€is€stillÐ #l! Ðpaying€for€Wifeððs€health€insurance€at€the€rate€of€$486€per€month.€€Husband€denied€ever€defraudingÐ $X" ÐWife€into€signing€the€MDA€or€concerning€its€terms.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àHusband€testified€the€net€value€of€his€401(k)€plan€is€$750,040.€€Husband€currentlyÐ Ì&"% Ðreceives€$4,648.82€per€month€in€retirement€benefits.€€Husband€also€has€another€account€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðcontains€funds€which€were€withdrawn€from€his€primary€pension€account.€€The€balance€of€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaccount€is€approximately€$116,476.€€Husband€stated€that€during€the€marriage,€he€and€Wife€went€toÐ )à$( Ðâ âfinancial€planners€to€discuss€their€assets€and€they€both€received€documentation€each€year€setting€forthÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€balance€in€the€various€accounts.€€Husband€signed€the€MDA€before€a€Notary€Public,€although€theÐ ° ÐNotary€did€not€administer€an€oath.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àHusband€testified€to€an€email€he€received€from€Wife€dated€August€7,€2000.€€ThisÐ tÄ Ðemail€states,€òòinter€aliaóó:€€Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àYou€need€to€know€that€my€questions€come€because€I€did€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðconsult€an€attorney.€€I€never€felt€the€need€to€do€so€because€I€wasnððtÐ $ t Ðgoing€to€go€after€anything€that€wasnððt€mine€or€that€I€wasnððt€entitledÐ  ` Ðto.€€I€agreed€not€to€go€after€your€pension€and€I€meant€it.€ð8ð€Iððll€beÐ ü L  Ðsigning€the€papers€today€and€FedEx€them€back.€Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌWife€signed€the€MDA€the€same€day€the€foregoing€email€was€sent€to€Husband.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€partiesðð€son€also€was€called€as€a€witness.€€According€to€the€son,€when€his€motherÐ ˜è  Ðtold€him€that€she€was€moving€to€Washington:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àShe€said€that€she€didnððt€want€to€live€a€material€life,€that€sheÐ \¬ Ðdidnððt€want€her€jewelry,€she€didnððt€want€the€cars€ð8ð€she€wanted€to€goÐ H˜ Ðand€live€in€nature.€€She€said€that€she€wanted€a€change,€that€she€wasÐ 4„ Ðtired€of€being€caught€up€in€a€material€life€ð8ð.€Ð p` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€proof€was€completed,€the€Trial€Court€took€the€case€under€advisement€andÐ øH Ðissued€a€Memorandum€Opinion€(ð ðOpinionðð)€several€weeks€later.€€In€the€Opinion,€the€Trial€CourtÐ ä4 Ðnoted€that€for€both€Husband€and€Wifeððs€signatures€on€the€MDA,€the€signature€and€seal€of€the€NotaryÐ Ð  ÐPublics€were€affixed€under€the€following€statement:€ð ðSworn€to€and€subscribed€to€before€me€this€1òòstóóÐ ¼  Ð(7òòthóó)€day€of€August,€2000."€€According€to€the€Trial€Court,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103(a)(2)€requiresÐ ¨ø Ðan€MDA€to€be€ð ðnotarized,ðð€but€that€term€is€ambiguous.€€The€Trial€Court€then€concluded€that€theÐ ”ä Ðfailure€of€the€Notary€Publics€to€administer€an€oath€or€swear€the€witnesses€was€not€fatal€to€the€validityÐ €Ð Ðof€the€MDA.€€As€to€Wifeððs€allegations€of€fraud€and€the€like,€the€Trial€Court€concluded€the€partiesÐ l¼ Ðwere€in€divorce€proceedings,€which€it€characterized€as€an€ð ðenvironment€of€distrust€and€anger.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐBecause€of€this,€there€was€no€fiduciary€relationship€between€Husband€and€Wife.€€The€Trial€CourtÐ D!” Ðwent€on€to€note€that€Wife€stated€she€did€not€want€any€share€of€Husbandððs€retirement.€€ð ðSubtractingÐ 0"€  Ðthat€amount€results€in€assets€allocated€to€[Husband]€ð8ð€of€$197,296,€compared€with€$253,776€to€ð8ðÐ #l! Ð[Wife].ðð€€The€Trial€Court€then€held€that€Wife€failed€to€meet€her€burden€of€proof€as€to€whetherÐ $X" ÐHusband€acted€fraudulently€or€misrepresented€to€her€that€she€would€not€receive€any€of€HusbandððsÐ ô$D # Ðpension€if€the€case€went€to€court.€€The€Trial€Court€also€made€specific€note€of€the€fact€that€Wife€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðtold€by€several€people€on€numerous€occasions€to€seek€legal€advice,€ð ðand€she€chose€not€to.ðð€€BasedÐ Ì&"% Ðon€the€foregoing€conclusions,€the€Trial€Court€entered€judgment€for€Husband.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àWife€appeals€raising€two€issues,€which€we€quote:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€procedure€for€obtaining€a€waiver€of€service€ofÐ ° Ðâ âprocess€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103€wasÐ œì Ðfollowed€giving€the€Trial€Court€jurisdiction€to€enter€a€finalÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment€when€a€notary€has€administered€no€oath€to€eitherÐ tÄ Ðparty€upon€the€execution€of€the€MDA.Ð`°¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.à0¸ ` x` xàWhether€the€misrepresentations€of€ð8ð€[Husband]€whichÐ 8 ˆ Ðresulted€in€the€gross€inequity€of€the€division€of€the€maritalÐ $ t Ðestate€constitute€grounds€for€relief€from€the€judgment.Ð `¸ x¸ x ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€a€trial€court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ À  Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¬ü  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ ˜è  Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ pÀ ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€statute€upon€which€Wife€relies€to€challenge€the€validity€of€the€MDA€is€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103,€which€provides,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows:€€Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò ò36-4-103.€€Irreconcilable€differences€--€Procedure.€ð!ð€ó ó€€(a)(1)€€In€allÐ øH Ðdivorces€sought€because€of€irreconcilable€differences€between€theÐ è8 Ðparties,€if€the€defendant€is€a€nonresident,€personal€service€may€beÐ Ô$ Ðeffectuated€by€service€upon€the€secretary€of€state€pursuant€to€theÐ À Ðprovisions€of€ðð€20-2-215.€Ð¬ü` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€€In€lieu€of€service€of€process,€the€defendant€may€enter€intoÐ „Ô Ða€written€notarized€marital€dissolution€agreement€with€plaintiff€thatÐ pÀ Ðmakes€specific€reference€to€a€pending€divorce€by€a€court€and€docketÐ \ ¬ Ðnumber,€or€states€that€the€defendant€is€aware€that€one€will€be€filed€inÐ H!˜ Ðthis€state€and€that€the€defendant€waives€further€service€and€waivesÐ 4"„  Ðfiling€an€answer€to€the€complaint.€Such€waiver€of€service€shall€beÐ  #p! Ðvalid€for€a€period€of€one€hundred€eighty€(180)€days€from€the€date€theÐ  $\" Ðlast€party€signs€the€agreement.ð8ð€€The€signing€of€such€an€agreementÐ ø$H # Ðshall€be€in€lieu€of€service€of€process€for€the€period€such€waiver€isÐ ä%4!$ Ðvalid€and€shall€constitute€a€general€appearance€before€the€court€andÐ Ð& "% Ðanswer€which€shall€give€the€court€personal€jurisdiction€over€theÐ ¼' #& Ðdefendant,€and€constitute€a€default€judgment€for€the€purpose€ofÐ ¨(ø#' Ðgranting€a€divorce€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences.ð8ðД)ä$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àà ` àInitially,€we€will€discuss€Wifeððs€argument€that€the€failure€of€the€Notary€Public€toÐ ° Ðâ âadminister€an€oath€to€her€when€she€signed€the€MDA€resulted€in€ineffective€service€of€process,Ð œì Ðthereby€rendering€the€Trial€Court€without€personal€jurisdiction€over€her€to€enter€a€final€judgmentÐ ˆØ Ðagainst€her.€€We€reject€this€argument,€concluding€that€Wife€is€equitably€estopped€from€challengingÐ tÄ Ðthe€validity€of€her€signature.€€In€òòWerne€v.€Sandersonóó,€954€S.W.2d€742€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€thisÐ `° ÐCourt€discussed€the€elements€of€equitable€estoppel€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€essential€elements€of€an€equitable€estoppel€as€related€to€the€partyÐ $ t Ðestopped€are€said€to€be€(1)€Conduct€which€amounts€to€a€falseÐ  ` Ðrepresentation€or€concealment€of€material€facts,€or,€at€least,€which€isÐ ü L  Ðcalculated€to€convey€the€impression€that€the€facts€are€otherwise€than,Ð è 8  Ðand€inconsistent€with,€those€which€the€party€subsequently€attempts€toÐ Ô$  Ðassert;€(2)€Intention,€or€at€least€expectation€that€such€conduct€shall€beÐ À  Ðacted€upon€by€the€other€party;€(3)€Knowledge,€actual€or€constructiveÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€real€facts.€€As€related€to€the€party€claiming€the€estoppel€they€areÐ ˜è  Ð(1)€Lack€of€knowledge€and€of€the€means€of€knowledge€of€the€truth€asÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€facts€in€question;€(2)€Reliance€upon€the€conduct€of€the€partyÐ pÀ Ðestopped;€and€(3)€Action€based€thereon€of€such€a€character€as€toÐ \¬ Ðchange€his€position€prejudicially,€19€Am.€Jur.€Estoppel€ðð€.€42,€pp.Ð H˜ Ð642-643.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌòòWerneóó,€954€S.W.2d€at€745„46€(quoting€òòConsumer€Credit€Union€v.€Hiteóó,€801€S.W.2d€822,€825€(Tenn.Ð  \ ÐCt.€App.€1990)).Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€it€is€undisputed€that€Wife€signed€the€MDA€before€a€Notary€PublicÐ Ð  Ðand€the€Notary€Public€affixed€a€seal€to€the€MDA.€€There€is€nothing€on€the€face€of€the€MDA€itselfÐ ¼  Ðwhich€even€remotely€indicates€that€it€may€not€have€been€properly€notarized.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€a€very€minimumÐ ¨ø Ðthe€signature€and€notary€seal€gave€the€distinct€impression€that€the€MDA€was€properly€signed€andÐ ”ä Ðnotarized.€€It€goes€without€saying€that€Wife€expected€Husband€to€act€upon€a€belief€that€the€MDA€hadÐ €Ð Ðbeen€properly€executed€by€Wife.€€Both€Husband€and€Wife€certainly€thought€the€MDA€was€effectiveÐ l¼ Ðas€demonstrated€by€the€fact€that€they€both€since€have€remarried.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Wife€certainly€was€aware€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðfact€that€no€oath€was€administered€prior€to€her€signing€the€MDA.€€In€short,€we€believe€all€of€theÐ D!” Ðelements€of€equitable€estoppel€are€met€in€this€case€and€Wife€is€estopped€to€challenge€the€validity€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€MDA€simply€because€no€oath€was€administered€to€her€when€she€admittedly€signed€the€documentÐ #l! Ðin€the€presence€of€the€Notary€Public.€€Ð $X" Їà  àà ` àNext,€we€will€discuss€Wifeððs€argument€that€the€failure€of€the€Notary€Public€toÐ ° Ðadminister€an€oath€to€Husband€when€he€signed€the€MDA€resulted€in€the€Trial€Court€having€noÐ œì Ðpersonal€jurisdiction€over€Husband.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„103€provides€the€proceduralÐ ˆØ Ðmechanism€for€service€of€process€on€a€nonresident€defendant€when€a€divorce€is€sought€based€onÐ tÄ Ðirreconcilable€differences.€€The€statute€provides€that€a€written€notarized€MDA€may€be€entered€intoÐ `° Ðbetween€the€parties€and€the€MDA€must€contain€certain€specific€references.€€This€procedure€is€ð ð[i]nÐ L œ Ðlieu€of€service€of€processðð€on€the€nonresident€defendant€and€constitutes€a€general€appearance€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðanswer,€thereby€giving€Ô_ÔaÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€trial€court€personal€jurisdiction€over€that€defendant.€€The€statute€does€notÐ $ t Ðprovide€that€the€signed€and€notarized€signature€of€a€plaintiff€is€necessary€to€give€the€court€personalÐ  ` Ðjurisdiction€over€that€plaintiff.€€Such€a€requirement€is€unnecessary€in€the€present€case€because€theÐ ü L  ÐTrial€Court€had€personal€jurisdiction€over€Husband€once€he€filed€the€lawsuit.€€Even€assuming€WifeÐ è 8  Ðhas€standing€to€challenge€whether€the€Trial€Court€had€personal€jurisdiction€over€Husband,€it€is€clearÐ Ô$  Ðthat€it€did€the€moment€Husband€filed€the€lawsuit€since€all€other€necessary€requirements€such€asÐ À  Ðresidency€were€met.€€Wifeððs€argument€that€the€Trial€Court€lacked€personal€jurisdiction€over€HusbandÐ ¬ü  Ðis€without€merit.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€we€address€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€Wife€failed€to€meet€her€burdenÐ pÀ Ðof€proof€on€her€claim€of€fraud€and/or€misrepresentation.€€Wifeððs€claim€in€this€regard€is€based€solelyÐ \¬ Ðon€one€conversation€wherein€she€claims€Husband€told€her€that,€according€to€Husbandððs€lawyer,€theÐ H˜ Ðproperty€division€in€the€proposed€MDA€was€as€good€if€not€better€than€what€she€would€receive€if€theÐ 4„ Ðcase€went€to€trial.€€Husband€denied€making€these€statements.€€We€agree€with€the€Trial€Court€thatÐ  p Ðthere€was€no€fiduciary€relationship€between€Husband€and€Wife€at€that€point€in€time.€€After€thirtyÐ  \ Ðyears€of€marriage,€Wife€had€left€Husband,€moved€to€Washington,€and€began€living€with€her€nÔ_ÔewÔ_ÔÐ øH Ðboyfriend.€€Husband€learned€of€the€affair€after€hiring€a€private€investigator.€€Clearly,€at€that€time€theÐ ä4 Ðparties€were€in€the€heat€of€battle€and€no€fiduciary€relationship€fairly€could€be€claimed€to€exist.€€TheÐ Ð  ÐTrial€Court€obviously€credited€the€testimony€of€Husband€when€making€its€ultimate€conclusion,€whichÐ ¼  Ðinvolved€purely€a€credibility€determination.€€In€making€this€determination,€the€Trial€Court€heard€theÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony€of€the€various€witnesses,€including€Husband€and€Wife.€€ð ðUnlike€this€Court,€the€trial€courtÐ ”ä Ðobserved€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€and€was€in€the€best€position€to€evaluate€theirÐ €Ð Ðcredibility.ðð€€òòUnion€Planters€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bank€v.€Island€Mgmt.€Auth.,€Inc.óó,€43€S.W.3d€498,€502€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð l¼ ÐApp.€2000).€€The€trial€courtððs€determinations€regarding€credibility€are€accorded€considerableÐ X ¨ Ðdeference€by€this€Court.€€òòId.óó;òò€Davis€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560,€563€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð D!” Ðð ððð[A]ppellate€courts€will€not€re„evaluate€a€trial€judgeððs€assessment€of€witness€credibility€absent€clearÐ 0"€  Ðand€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðððð€òòWells€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€There€is€no€such€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary€in€this€record.€€TheÐ $X" Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€weight€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€and€resultingÐ ô$D # Ðconclusion€that€Wife€failed€to€meet€her€burden€of€proving€fraud€and/or€misrepresentations€byÐ à%0!$ ÐHusband.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€in€this€regard€is,€therefore,€affirmed.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ_Ôò òòòà@  %ìàConclusionóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ tÄ Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€Patricia€A.Ð `° ÐLyman,€and€her€surety.€€Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE€