WPC J˫ƇSy,[n2Vd#i++Ҵ1QZ*d Ql+|'ܥB1TGd/-8QA+ QVp5v_:>TzAMZias׮tz < lu;^/˕.wa~ZHEWx=7}z`>.# 􈃰%YuA3\Lp<:Ddio*Rzb8YT(n|A.!8x(_q+2A@+b#\ % ^ # 0/ U#N w 4 z  i x mz  Q 0DiNEUNb 0 B 0 D3e D- 0K ASc 0) 0D AHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0|n]-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],7.1:808 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  R$      2  T  _Thetrialjudgestated:  8  Whencounselannouncedtomethattherewasgoingtobeacrosswaiveronretirement,Itookthat @ tobeanyformofretirement,whetheritsanIRA,whetherornotitsfromthefederalgovernment, X whetherornotitsfromabusiness.Thatwasjustretirement,period,offthetable,resolved.Ifthe   courtofappealswantstountiethisdivorce,theyrewelcometodoso,butImnotgoingtountieit.   ЁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R$      1  T  _Thepartiesonlychildreachedmajoritybeforetheentryofthefinaldivorcedecree.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  e   R$      3  T  _Inhisappellatebrief,HusbandassertsthatthetrialmemorandumsubmittedthedayoftrialnotedHusbands  militarypension.Thetrialmemorandum,however,wasnotincludedintherecordonappeal.Consequently,itcannot x beconsideredbythisCourt.- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  T d(|3"$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3"$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8;XXdd8  O@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON##Ԉ ,   May23,2002Session X X;X #XX;#CAROLYNJOYMORRISONv.CHARLESROYMORRISONX;X   ` @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.159968_R.D._ԀKarenR.Williams,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W200102653_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober29,_2002_ '  AV) ` dE<` A      Thiscaseinvolvesthefinalityofadivorcedecree.Thepartiesweremarriedin1971anddivorced  in2001.Underthedivorce,thepartiesreceived,asseparateproperty,theirrespective bank,  retirementandinvestmentaccountslistedineachspousesname.Thewifenowassertsthatthe  husbandsmilitarypensionwasnotprovidedforinthedivorcedecree,thatthedivorcedecreeis  thereforenotfinal,andthatthetrialcourtshouldequitablydividethefundsthehusbandreceives v fromhismilitarypension.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthepensionwaspartofthe retirementfunds f allocatedasseparateproperty.Onthisbasis,itdeniedthewifesRule59motiontoalter,amend, V orvacatethejudgment.Thewifeappeals.Weaffirm,findingthatthepartiesfinaldivorcedecree F contemplatedthatthepartieswouldretaintheirrespectiveretirementbenefits,includingthemilitary 6 pension. &v    Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  V d #X;~#X;X.HollyK._Lillard_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, 6 andAlanE._Highers_,J.,joined. & BradleyJ._Cordts_,Memphis,Tennessee,forappellantCarolynJoyMorrison. !  LindaF.Teems,Memphis,Tennessee,forappelleeCharlesRoyMorrison #"    OPINION #XX; #X;X v% $ 1    Plaintiff/AppellantCarolynJoyMorrison( Wife)andDefendant/AppelleeCharlesRoy V'"& Morrison( Husband)weremarriedonNovember3,1971. #  1      ׀WifefileddivorceonJuly29,1998, F(#' andHusbandfiledacountercomplaintfordivorceonNovember17,1998.Thetrialwassetseveral 6)$( timesandcontinued,andthepartiesengagedinsettlementnegotiations.Thecasewasagainsetfor &*v%) August22,2001.  +f&* _  Insteadofproceedingtotrial,thepartiescontinuedsettlementnegotiations.Thatafternoon,  thetrialcourtwasnotifiedthatthepartieshadreachedanagreementastoallissues.    Laterthesameday,afinaldecreeofdivorcestatingthetermsofthesettlementagreement  waspreparedbythepartiescounselandenteredbythetrialcourt.Thedivorcedecreeprovidedfor p acrosswaiverof all#XX;j #X;XԀbank,retirementandinvestmentaccounts.Thedecreewassignedbythe `  Husbandsattorney,andWifesattorneyssignaturewasbyHusbandsattorneywithpermission. P    OnSeptember21,2001,withthetrialcourtspermission,Wifesubstitutedherformer  p  counselforhercurrentcounsel.Wifesnewcounselthenmovedtoalter,amend,orvacatethetrial `  courtsjudgment,orforanewtrial.Wifeassertedthatthefinaldivorcedecreewasincomplete P  becauseitdidnotaddressHusbandsmilitarypensionanddidnotincludeaprovisionon @  rehabilitativealimonytowhichthepartieshadagreed.Shortlythereafter,onSeptember25,2001, 0  anamendedfinaldecreeofdivorcewasentered,nuncprotunc,addingtherehabilitativealimony   provision.TheagreedamendeddecreedidnotfurtheraddressHusbandsmilitarypension.    OnOctober5,2001,thetrialcourtheldahearingonWifesmotiontoalteroramend.#XX;\#X;XThe  trialjudgestatedthatsheinterpretedthepartiescrosswaiveronretirementtomeanthatdiscussion  ofanyretirementtypeassets,regardlessofitssource,was offthetable.  #  2      ׀Thus,thetrialcourt  foundthatthefinaldecreeinfactaddressedHusbandsmilitarypension.Onthisbasis,thetrialcourt p deniedWifesmotiontoamend,alter,orvacatejudgment,orforanewtrial.Fromthisorder,Wife ` nowappeals. `   P   Onappeal,Wifearguesthatthedivisionofmaritalpropertyinthiscasewasnotequitable 0 becauseitdidnotincludeHusbandsmilitarypension.Husbandassertsthattheterm retirement  p accountinthefinaldecreeincludedHusbandsmilitarypension,andthereforewasaddressedinthe ` provisioninthepartiesdivorcedecreewhichstipulatedthateachpartywastoretainhisorherown P bank,retirementandinvestmentaccounts. @  X% XXX;  ThedenialofaRule59.04motiontoalter,amend,orvacatethejudgmentisreviewedunder   anabuseofdiscretionstandard. Smithv.Haley ,No.E2000001203COAR3CV,2001Tenn.App. !  LEXIS136,at*14(Tenn.Ct.App.March2,2001); Bradleyv.McLeod ,984S.W.2d929,933 "  (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Atrialcourtabusesitsdiscretionwhenitreachesadecisionagainstlogic #! thatcausesaharmtothecomplainingpartyorwhenthetrialcourtappliesanincorrectlegal $" standard. Eldridgev.Eldridge ,72S.W.3d82,85(Tenn.2001)(citing Statev.Shirley ,6S.W.3d  243,247(Tenn.1999)).Thedecisionofthetrialcourt willbeupheldsolongasreasonableminds  candisagreeastotheproprietyofthedecision[ofthetrialcourt]. Statev.Scott ,33S.W.3d746,  751(Tenn.2000).#X;X XX% ##XX;)#X;X  t   #XX;#X;XOnappeal,Wifeemphasizesthetrialcourtsobligationtoensurethattheproperty L  distributionisequitable.Shearguesthatthereisadifferencebetweena retirementaccountand <  a pension,andthatthereforetheportionofthefinaldecreeprovidingforacrosswaiverofthe , | parties retirementaccountsdoesnotincludeHusbandsmilitarypension.Consequently,because  l thepartiesdivorcedecreedoesnotaddressHusbandsmilitarypension,thetrialcourtfailedto  \  fulfillitsresponsibilityofensuringanequitabledistributionofthecouplesmaritalproperty.Thus,  L  theWifeasserts,thedivorcedecreeisincompleteandshouldbe eithervacatedandremandedtothe <  trialcourt,oralternatively,amendedtoreflecttheequitabledispositionofHusbandsmilitary ,  pension.     UnderTennesseelaw,amotiontoalteroramendunderRule59oftheTennesseeRulesof   CivilProcedurepermitsthetrialcourttorevisitandrectifyerrorsthatweremadewhenthecourt  overlookedorfailedtoconsidercertainmatters. Spencerv.HurdInv.Prop.,Inc. ,No.67,1991  Tenn.App.LEXIS275,at*12(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).#XX;#X;XԀARule59motionmaybegranted when(1) | controllinglawchangesbeforeajudgmentbecomesfinal,(2)whenpreviouslyunavailableevidence l becomesavailable,or(3)when,forsuigenerisreasons,ajudgmentshouldbeamendedtocorrect \ aclearerroroflawortopreventinjustice. Bradleyv.McLeod ,984S.W.2d929,933(Tenn.Ct. L App.1998),overruledinpartonothergroundsby Harrisv.Chern ,33S.W.3d741(Tenn.2000). < #XX;%#X;XARule59motionshouldnotbegrantedwhenthemovantissimplyseekingtorelitigateamatterthat ,| hasalreadybeenadjudicated. Seeid.    l   Wifesargumentonappealispremisedonherassertionthatthefinaldecreedoesnotaddress L theHusbandsmilitarypension.Thecircumstances,however,indicateotherwise.Duringthe < settlementnegotiations,Wifewasrepresentedbycounsel.Shedoesnotdisputethatshewasaware , ofHusbandsmilitarypension. #  3      ׀Thecrosswaiverinthefinaldecreeindicatesclearlythattheparties  intendedforeachpartytoretainthebenefitsthatpertainedtothatparty,andthattheyintendedto   resolveallpropertydivisionissues.Wifesattorneyatthattimereadthefinaldecreeandgave ! counselforHusbandpermissiontosignhisnameapprovingthefinaldecree.Underallofthese "  circumstances,wemustconcludethatthepartiesintendedforthecrosswaivertoincludeHusbands #! militarypension.Thus,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinfindingthatthefinaldecreewas |$" intendedtoaddressthemilitarypension,andconsequentlyweconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnot l% # abuseitsdiscretionindenyingWifesRule59motiontoalteroramend.  \&!$   <(#& O e     Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtotheappellant,CarolynJoy e Morrison,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. U #XX;U(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#___________________________________E (#(#    `     h   HOLLYK.LILLARD,JUDGE