WPC~. f}^a"U[@I%62Tlct7$z'IGY&WcwT†̡JǏ]" J'=AL􇭝Vv%uF+qnn']ޢi A}os_2Hd8g{⒫X+AW+$)? ~ǗM6U Ok!!oRout(|d/MRoy"eNS..-ʡRQ7VSFV V7$ukOW?S0E14Eu"9/:b %\^ b 0nU&NwD4H\ zk m # 0U   r 8 0N 0 0E 0 0| 0S 0' 0 0C 0  0 0 0s 0; 0 0 0 0@; 0{ 0I 0 0 0 0c 0"! 0!b""U J% 0D%$&UN,&,&,&,&,&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z&z& 0{){){){) Bf*f* 0* D3'+ D-Z+ 0K++ AS+%, 0, 0D- A-p,s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],rtyBar83|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  - -  R$      1    _ԀNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutes0 # 0翠#Ԁ5016.11provides:  Ifafinaljudgmentisenteredinanyactiondenyingalimonybecausenoneofthegrounds L specifiedin_G.S._Ԁ5016.2exists,uponmotionbythesupportingspouse,thecourtshallentera d judgmentagainstthespousetowhomthepaymentsweremadefortheamountofallalimony , paidbythesupportingspousetothatspousependingafinaldispositionofthecase..\  `2Times New Roman Greek(#$  0   (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  R$      2    _ԀNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutes0 # 0翠#Ԁ5016.11wasrepealedonOctober1,1995.However,therepeal [did]  notapplytopendinglitigation,ortofuturemotionsinthecauseseekingtomodifyordersorjudgmentsineffecton  October1,1995.1995N.C.Sess.Laws319,0 # 0#Ԁ1(emphasisadded).Therefore,therepealofthestatutedoesnotaffect L thisappeal.XX#XX#(|G2$ !.8dd8         0   d(|33$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|33$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ OINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#O #Ԉ ,   February19,2002Session X XX #XX#TRENTWRIGHTMARCUSv.LORRAINEBURTONSPIERSMARCUSXX   ` @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.3057816TDGeorgeH.Brown,Jr.,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200100906_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly30,_2002_ '  AV) ` dE<` A      Thiscaseinvolvesapetitiontoenrollaforeignjudgment.ThepartiesweremarriedinTennessee  andlatermovedtoNorthCarolina.WhilelivinginNorthCarolina,thepartiesseparatedandthe  husbandfiledfordivorceinNorthCarolina.ThewifefiledacounterclaimfordivorceinNorth  Carolina,seekingpermanentandpendentelitealimony.TheNorthCarolinacourtorderedthe  husbandtopaypendentelitealimony.WhiletheNorthCarolinaproceedingswerepending,husband v movedtoArkansasandobtainedadivorceinArkansas.InlightoftheArkansasdivorce,thewife f filedavoluntarydismissalofherNorthCarolinacounterclaim.Thehusbandthenfiledamotionin V NorthCarolinaunderaNorthCarolinastatute,seekingreimbursementofthependentelitealimony F hehadpaidtothewife. TheNorthCarolinacourtenteredajudgmentorderingthewifetoreimburse 6 thehusbandforthealimonypayments.ThewifedidnotfileanappealinNorthCarolina.The &v husbandthenfiledapetitiontoenrolltheNorthCarolinajudgmentinTennessee.TheTennessee f trialcourtenrolledtheNorthCarolinajudgment.Thewifenowappeals.Weaffirm,findingthatthe V NorthCarolinacourthadsubjectmatterjurisdictionunderitsstatutestoenterthejudgmentandthat F theNorthCarolinajudgmentwasnotcontrarytoTennesseepublicpolicy.#XXz#XX 6    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #XR #XX.HollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., "! W.S.,andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. #" EdwardM.Bearman,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,LorraineBurtonSpiersMarcus. v% $ DanielLoydTaylorandJohnN.Bean,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TrentWrightMarcus. V'"&    OPINION #XX2 #XX 6)$(  #XX.#XX   Plaintiff/appelleeTrentWrightMarcus( Husband)anddefendant/appellantLorraineBurton +f&* SpiersMarcus( Wife)weremarriedinMemphisinDecember1990.InJuly1991,theparties ,V'+ movedtoWinstonSalem,NorthCarolina.Inthefallof1992,thepartiesseparatedandHusband ,F(, filedadivorcecomplaintinNorthCarolinaseekingcustodyofthepartiesminorchild,child -6)- support,anddistributionofthemaritalproperty.WifecounterclaimedinNorthCarolina,also  seekingcustodyandsupportoftheminorchildanddistributionofthepartiesmaritalpropertyand,  inaddition,permanentandpendentelitealimony.OnMarch16,1993,theNorthCarolinacourt  enteredanorderrequiringHusbandtopay$500permonthtoWifeinpendentelitealimony.On  November22,1994,theamountofpendentelitealimonywasmodifiedto$1000permonth. p   HusbandlaterrelocatedtoArkansasandfiledfordivorceinArkansas.TheNorthCarolina P  proceedingsremainedpending.TheArkansasChanceryCourtgrantedadivorcetothepartieson @  December21,1994.Inlightofthis,onApril19,1995,Wifefiledavoluntarydismissalofher 0  counterclaimfordivorceintheNorthCarolinaproceeding.  p    Subsequently,intheNorthCarolinacourt,HusbandfiledamotionpursuanttoNorth P  CarolinaGeneralStatutes0X[ XXX#XX X0X[S#Ԁ5016.11./ 1#  1      ׀Thisstatuteprovidesthat,inadivorceproceeding,ifafinal @  judgmentisenteredwhichdeniesalimonybecausenoneofthegroundsforalimonyexist,thepayor @  spousemayobtainreimbursementfromthepayeespouseofalimonypaymentsmade.Wifeasserts 0  thatshesubmittedaproseresponsetoHusbandsmotion;howevershedidnotappearforthe   hearingonthemotion. TheNorthCarolinacourtfoundthatithad jurisdictionoverthepartiesand  thesubjectmatterinthisactionandthatWifesvoluntarydismissalwassufficienttoestablishthat  noneofthegroundsforalimonyexisted.8L 1#  2      ׀OnApril19,1996,theNorthCarolinatrialcourtentered  judgment,grantingHusbandsmotionandorderingWifetoreimburseHusband$23,000foralimony  paidunderthecourtspreviousorder.WifedidnotfileanappealofthisjudgmentinNorth  Carolina. p   OnDecember3,1999,HusbandfiledapetitioninTennesseeCircuitCourttoenrollthe P NorthCarolinajudgment.InherresponsetotheTennesseepetition,WifeassertedthattheNorth @ Carolinacourtlackedbothpersonalandsubjectmatterjurisdictionandthat,therefore,theNorth 0 Carolinajudgmentwasnotvalid.OnOctober24,2000,theTennesseetrialcourtconducteda  p hearingonthepetitionandenteredanorderenrollingtheNorthCarolinajudgmentinTennessee. ` Wifethenfiledamotiontoalteroramendthejudgment.ThiswasdeniedbyorderdatedMarch20, P 2001.Fromthisorder,Wifenowappeals. @  !    Onappeal,WifearguesthattheTennesseetrialcourterredbyenrollingtheNorthCarolina  judgment.WifecontendsthattheNorthCarolinacourtwaswithoutsubjectmatterjurisdictionand  thatthestatutewhichisthebasisforthejudgmentiscontrarytoTennesseepublicpolicy.In  addition,WifearguesthatHusbandshouldbebarredfromenrollingtheNorthCarolinajudgment  basedonthedoctrineof uncleanhands.  p   3X[ XXXSincetheissuespresentedbythiscasearepurelyquestionsoflaw,ourreviewisdenovo P  upontherecordbeforethisCourtwithnopresumptionofcorrectness. _Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.Parsons <  Co. ,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).#XX X3X[#  ( x   WifefirstarguesthatthedivorcedecreeenteredinArkansasdeprivedtheNorthCarolina P  courtofsubjectmatterjurisdictiontoorderreimbursement.WifecontendsthattheArkansasdivorce @  decreesupersededtheNorthCarolinaorderforpendentelitealimonyand,thus,thealimonymatter 0  wasnolongerpendingwhenHusbandfiledhismotionseekingreimbursement.     TheprocedurefordomesticatingaforeignjudgmentissetforthintheUniformEnforcement  ofForeignJudgmentsAct,TennesseeCodeAnnotated0X[ XXX#XX X0X[$#0X[ XXX#XX X0X[L$#Ԁ266101thru107(2000)( TheAct).  TennesseeCodeAnnotated0X[ XXX#XX X0X[$#Ԁ266104provides:  r!(a)Acopyofanyforeignjudgmentauthenticatedinaccordancewiththeactsof  congressorthestatutesofthisstatemaybefiledintheofficeoftheclerkofany  circuitorchancerycourtofthisstate.  (b)Theclerkshalltreattheforeignjudgmentinthesamemannerasajudgmentof ` acourtofrecordofthisstate. P (c)Ajudgmentsofiledhasthesameeffectandissubjecttothesameprocedures, 0 defensesandproceedingsforreopening,vacating,orstayingasajudgmentofacourt  p ofrecordofthisstateandmaybeenforcedorsatisfiedinlikemanner. ` Thus, [u]nderthetermsof[theAct],thecourtsofthisStatewillpresume,absentproperproofto  @ thecontrary,thatthedecreesofthecourtsofrecordofanysisterstatesarevalid. FourSeasons !0 Gardening&Landscaping,Inc.v.Crouch ,688S.W.2d439,441442(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).The "   partychallengingthevalidityofaforeignjudgmentfacesa sternandheavyburdeninshowingthat #! theforeignjudgmentisnotentitledtofullfaithandcredit. Dementv.Kitts ,777S.W.2d33,36 $ " (Tenn.Ct.App.1989).In BiogenDistrib.,Inc.v.Tanner ,thisCourtheld: % # P(ForeignjudgmentsareordinarilyentitledtofullfaithandcreditinTennessees '"% courts.However,Tenn.CodeAnn.0X[ XXX#XX X0X[,#Ԁ266104(c)statesthattheyaresubjecttothe p(#& samedefensesandmaybevacatedorreopenedonthesamegroundsandprocedures p)$'  usedtovacateorreopenTennesseejudgments.Thus,thegroundsandprocedures `*%( forvacatingorreopeningforeignjudgmentsarethosecontainedinTenn.R.Civ.P.  60.02.   Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(3)statesthatafinaljudgmentmaybesetasideifitisvoid. `  Therefore,notsurprisingly,thetwomostcommoncircumstanceswhencourtswill P  refusetogivefullfaithandcredittoaforeignjudgmentarewhenthecourtentering @  theforeignjudgmenthadnopersonalorsubjectmatterjurisdictionandwhen 0  enforcingthejudgmentwouldbecontrarytoTennesseespublicpolicy.  p   BiogenDistrib.,Inc.v.Tanner ,842S.W.2d253,256(Tenn.Ct.App.1992)(citationsomitted). P    Apartyseekingtochallengethejurisdictionofaforeigncourt mustdemonstratethatthe 0  foreigncourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionunderthelawofthestatewherethejudgmentwas   obtained. Id. Inthiscase,theNorthCarolinacourtrecognizedthatafinaldivorcehadbeengranted  inArkansas,butneverthelessfoundthatithadjurisdictiontoorderreimbursementofthependent  litealimonyunderNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutes0X[ XXX#XX X0X[2#Ԁ5016.11.ThelanguageofNorthCarolina  GeneralStatutes0X[ XXX#XX X0X[D3#Ԁ5016.11doesnotindicatethatafinaldivorcedecreeenteredbyanotherstate  deprivestheNorthCarolinacourtofsubjectmatterjurisdictiontoorderreimbursementofpendente  litealimonypaidunderaNorthCarolinacourtorder.WemustconcludethatWifehasfailedtomeet  her sternandheavyburdenofestablishingthattheNorthCarolinacourtlackedsubjectmatter  jurisdictiontoenterthejudgmentwhichHusbandnowseekstoenrollinTennessee. p   WifealsocontendsthattheNorthCarolinacourtdidnothavesubjectmatterjurisdiction P underNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutes0X[ XXX#XX X0X[q6#Ԁ5016.11becausetheArkansasdivorcedecree,asthefinal @ judgment,doesnot deny[]alimonybecausenoneofthegroundsspecifiedinG.S.5016.12exists. @ TheNorthCarolinareimbursementorderindicatesthatthebasisoftheorderwasWifesvoluntary 0 dismissalofherNorthCarolinacounterclaim,ratherthantheArkansasdivorcedecree.TheNorth  p CarolinaorderindicatesthatWifesvoluntarydismissalwasthe finaljudgment...denyingalimony  ` becausenoneofthegroundsspecifiedinG.S.5016.2exists. SeeRivierev.Riviere ,517S.E.2d !P 673,675676(N.C.Ct.App.1999) (rejectingdefendantwifesargumentthat avoluntarydismissal !@ wasnotafinaljudgmentsincetherewasnodeterminationofwhetheranyofthefaultgroundsstated "0  inNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutessection5016existed). ThefactthatWifesvoluntarydismissal # ! ofhercounterclaimwasthebasisforthereimbursementorderdoesnotindicatethattheNorth $ " Carolinacourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdiction. %!#   WifenextarguesthattheNorthCarolinajudgmentviolatedTennesseepublicpolicyinthat '"%  Tennesseehasnopublicpolicyallowingforreimbursementofalimonypendenteliteundersuch (#& circumstancesasexistinthiscase.Ananalogoussituationwaspresentedin Francisv.Francis , p)$' 945S.W.2d752(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).In Francis ,theCourtaddressedwhetheraTennesseecourt `*%( shouldenforceaNorthCarolinajudgmentbasedonthecommonlawtortofalienationofaffections, P+&) atortwhichhadbeenabolishedinTennesseebyboththeTennesseeGeneralAssemblyandthe  TennesseeSupremeCourt. Francis ,945S.W.2dat753.Citingthecaseof HotelRamadaof  Nevada,Inc.v.Thakkar ,1991WL135471(Tenn.Ct.App.July25,1991)(holdingthataforeign  judgmenttoenforcegamblingdebtswasentitledtofullfaithandcreditinTennessee),the Francis   Courtheld: p WhilethereisacleardifferencebetweenthesubstantivelawsofTenneesseeand P  NorthCarolina,therewasnoexpressionofapublicpolicybyeitherthelegislature @  ortheSupremeCourt,intheactorcaseabolishingthecauseofaction,proscribing 0  theenforcementofasisterstatesjudgmentbasedonthistort...Accordingly,we  p  conclude:themerefactthatthisjurisdictionhasabolishedthecauseofactionbased `  uponalienationofaffectionsisnotabasistodenyfullfaithandcredittoajudgment P  ofasisterstatebaseduponthatcauseofaction. @  G@ Francis ,945S.W.2dat753(citationsomitted). SeealsoFourSeasonsGardening&Landscaping,   Inc. ,688S.W.2dat445( [T]hejudgmentofthecourtofanotherstatedoesnotnecessarilyviolate  thepublicpolicyofthisStatemerelybecausethelawuponwhichitisbasedisdifferentfromour  law.).Tennesseedoesnothavesimilarprocedureforreimbursingpendentelitealimony.However,  wecannotconcludethattheNorthCarolinastatuteisrepugnanttoTennesseepublicpolicy.    WifearguesthatenforcingtheforeignjudgmentwouldcauseWifetobecomeapubliccharge p asaresultofthepartiesdivorceandthatthisiscontrarytoTennesseepublicpolicy. SeeCaryv. ` Cary ,937S.W.2d777,782(Tenn.1996)(holdingthataprovisioninanantenuptialagreement P waivingalimonyisnotvoidascontrarytoTennesseepublicpolicyunlessenforcementofthe @ provisionwouldrenderthewaivingspouseapubliccharge).Therecordinthiscaseincludesno 0 evidencetosupportWifesassertion.Thisargumentiswithoutmerit.  p   WifenextcontendsthatHusband hasbeenlessthancandidwiththeNorthCarolinaCourt P and,thus,heshouldbebarredfromenrollingtheNorthCarolinajudgmentbasedonthedoctrineof @  uncleanhands.ThisargumentmayhavebeenpertinenthadWifechosentoappearbeforethe 0 NorthCarolinatrialcourtorappealthejudgmentinNorthCarolina.However,Wifechosenotto   doso.ThisargumentissimplynotpertinenttowhethertheTennesseecourtshouldgivefullfaith ! andcredittotheNorthCarolinajudgment.WhiletheNorthCarolinajudgmentinthiscaseseems "  harshandevenunfair,weareconstrainedtoconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinaccordingfull #! faithandcredittotheNorthCarolinajudgment. $"   Lastly,Husbandrequestsattorneysfees,assertingthat theissuesraisedinthisappealare p&!$ withoutmerit.Thisrequestisdenied. `'"%   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant, @)$' LorraineBurtonSpiersMarcus,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary. 0*%(   ,`'* Ї   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE