ÿWPCL Qd‡Y3“^–˜¸„é¥ìÀƒàðV€Ï6ÉÚ‰N’fá6I10aØ!çéW´eRrJÑ)÷ô±ãO'…L”Ê)ûØ­Áe§·Cº©jú¦É_e_㙕a”ÃúÑ 0rܯçւͬÏ*g¡ ¥ìé\ÓSD©¯×ìÛ‰nöµVuØVªÓ™ð¬Ü™ŸBmBŦ9pfe‡yg½!FÜ)g–+AÒ_qˆ§*(ÎÆ×¹ß¿iùº o¦Q4\¤•ày¡÷ÊÒM¢^ü5xƵý÷·Mù¡BÑ‹\£òqß°÷5´Ù™h£¬È±i›eÜc\Tži*PH,qb%Îñ”Z½ýMŸ †D€ö eæÍĤ9-¤ZhN!žöm ‚IhÀBq³O¸]W»oýÕÃV]/µš*4ÆIYQñß«à/T× %…J^Õé•\×CûïãàDOU¶ßq¶U«ÐZŒô³Œè­³V„åíèû|d“%OÏK˜{‰‰x¹ælr*½,©Ð÷SšÃÌnp>…í: ;þ ݰAâÅgô|Ñõ˜\âIŽLnŠºN€=öíõ b–ñ§É“ö|¿ãý>™ɶР'-c¦69 ´¼äb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ß‘ Æp Æ6 Æü ÆÂ 0DˆNÌÎèEþ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,b???????????????????????????????????? 0ëGGGG B22 0¤O D5ó D-( 0KUU AS Æó 0¤¹ 0D] A«¡»Nžz-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 ÕÝ ƒRö9$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFather€does€not€raise€the€issue€of€credit€for€property€deeded€to€Mother€on€this€appeal.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$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Herzke Ñ ° Ñ "Ý ƒRö9$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€divorce€judgment€was€signed€by€Motherððs€counsel.€€It€does€not€contain€a€certificate€of€service€on€Father.€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€58. Ý ƒRö9$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRule€58€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà  àà8 ` àEntry€of€a€judgment€or€an€order€of€final€disposition€is€effective€when€a€judgmentÐ 8ˆ Ðcontaining€one€of€the€following€is€marked€on€the€face€by€the€clerk€as€filed€for€entry:ÐüL` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(1)€the€signatures€of€the€judge€and€all€parties€or€counsel,€orЄÔ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(2)€the€signatures€of€the€judge€and€one€party€or€counsel€with€a€certificate€of€counselÐ  \ Ðthat€a€copy€of€the€proposed€order€has€been€served€on€all€other€parties€or€counsel,€orÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(3)€the€signature€of€the€judge€and€a€certificate€of€the€clerk€that€a€copy€has€beenÐ X ¨  Ðserved€on€all€other€parties€or€counsel.Ð l ` x` x ÐÌà@ÌÌ%ìà*€€€€*€€€€*- ù-(|G2ö9$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô°}ò»»Ô d(|3?_$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?_$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼%»»»ÔÑ8€T™XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€OYÑà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îd%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼%»îîd#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€27,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XT™X»¼%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%»XXT™#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòex€relóó.€DOROTHY€ELLEN€PHILLIPSòòóó€v.€Ð úJ ÐJAMES€DANIEL€PHILLIPSòòóóÔ‡XT™X»¼%Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Scott€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€6818€€€€€€Billy€Joe€White,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌFILED€NOVEMBER€26,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ Ò"  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02081„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€post„divorce€case€involving€child€support€issues.€€James€Daniel€Phillips€(ð ðFatherðð)€appealsÐ ŒÜ Ðthe€order€below,€in€which€the€trial€court€held€that€it€lacked€the€authority€to€reduce€the€child€supportÐ xÈ Ðarrearage€due€Fatherððs€former€spouse,€Dorothy€Ellen€Phillips€(ð ðMotherðð).€€Father€argued€below€thatÐ d´ Ðhe€had€recently€discovered€that€one€of€his€ð ðchildrenðð€is€not€actually€his€Ô#†¼%»XXT™¿#ÔÔ‡XT™X»¼%Ôbiological€child.€€He€contendsÐ P  Ðthat€this€entitles€him€to€the€requested€relief.€€Father€further€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÐ <Œ Ðdeclare€his€1990€divorce€judgment€invalid€on€the€ground€that€it€was€not€signed€by€Father€who€wasÐ (x Ðthen€proceeding€òòpro€seóó.€€We€affirm.€€Ð d ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ì< ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼%»àXT™#ÔÔ‡XT™X.¼%ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óóand€òòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌJanette€Lay€Taylor,€Oneida,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€Daniel€Phillips.Ð t Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€and€Stuart€F.€Wilson„Patton€and€Warren€Jasper,Ð L"œ! ÐAssistant€Attorneys€General,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee€òòex€rel.Ð 8#ˆ" ÐóóDorothy€Ellen€Phillips.Ô#†¼%»XXT™d #ÔÔ‡XT™X»¼%ÔÐ $$t# ÐÔ#†¼%»XXT™. #ÔÔ‡XT™X»¼%ÔÌÓ5 ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼%»XXT™… #ÔÔ‡XT™X»¼%ÔÐ è&8"& ÐÌI.Ð À($( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼%»XXT™æ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XT™X»¼%Ôà  àMother€and€Father€were€married€on€February€14,€1983.€€On€October€3,€1984,€Mother€gaveÐ ˜*è%* Ðbirth€to€James€Ô_ÔErmonÔ_Ô€Phillips€(ð ðJamesðð).€€On€March€30,€1988,€Mother€gave€birth€to€another€child,Ð „+Ô&+ ÐJack€Daniel€Phillips€(ð ðJack€Danielðð).€€On€March€23,€1990,€Mother€was€granted€an€uncontestedÐ p,À', Ðdivorce€on€the€ground€of€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment.€€Father€had€answered€the€complaint€òòpro€seóó.€Ð \-¬(-ýÿ ÐHe€filed€what€was€denominated€an€ð ðAnswer€&€Waiverðð€in€which€he€ð ðÔ_Ôwaive[dÔ_Ô]€notice€of€hearing...,Ð ° Ðand€Ô_Ôagree[dÔ_Ô]€for€[Mother]€to€secure€a€divorce.ðð€€Father€was€never€represented€by€counsel€in€theÐ œì Ðdivorce€case,€and€he€did€not€sign€the€judgment€granting€the€divorce.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€the€judgment,Ð ˆØ ÐMother€was€granted€custody€of€both€children.€€Father€was€ordered€to€pay€$300€per€month€as€supportÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€children.€€Between€1990€and€1998,€custody€of€the€children€changed€back€and€forth€betweenÐ `° Ðthe€parties.€€While€the€children€were€in€Motherððs€custody,€Father€was€to€pay€child€support.€€DuringÐ L œ Ðthis€period,€Father€rarely€kept€his€payments€current,€paying€less€than€$1,500€òòin€totoóó.€€By€1998,€FatherÐ 8 ˆ Ðhad€accumulated€an€arrearage€totaling€more€than€$24,000.€€Several€orders€were€enteredÐ $ t Ðmemorializing€the€ever„increasing€arrearage€and€Father€was€cited€for€contempt€on€a€number€ofÐ  ` Ðoccasions.€€Father€was€present€for€some€of€the€proceedings€and€absent€for€others.€€Since€1998,€FatherÐ ü L  Ðhas€had€primary€custody€of€James€at€his€home€in€Florida,€where€the€child€attends€school.€€MotherÐ è 8  Ðhas€had€exclusive€custody€of€Jack€Daniel€at€her€home€in€Tennessee.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOn€March€16,€2000,€the€trial€court€entered€another€order€addressing€Fatherððs€child€supportÐ ¬ü  Ðarrearage.€€The€order€was€in€response€to€a€petition€filed€by€the€Scott€County€Attorney€General.€Ð ˜è  ÐShortly€thereafter,€on€April€18,€2000,€Father€filed€a€motion€for€ð ðtemporary€reliefðð€from€the€most„Ð „Ô  Ðrecent€court€order.€€Father,€who€was€then€represented€by€counsel,€alleged€that€the€payments€recently„Ð pÀ Ðordered€by€the€court€($150€per€month€for€Jack€Daniel,€plus€additional€court„ordered€payments€towardÐ \¬ Ðthe€arrearage)€were€excessive€in€that€they€amounted€to€more€than€50%€of€his€income.€€Father€alsoÐ H˜ Ðcontended€that€he€had€deeded€real€property€to€Mother€in€full€satisfaction€of€the€arrearage€for€whichÐ 4„ Ðhe€received€no€credit€under€the€order.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€In€addition,€Father€asserted€that€it€would€be€inequitable€toÐ  p Ðrequire€him€to€pay€the€arrearage€for€Jack€Daniel€because€a€paternity€test€had€revealed€that€he€was€notÐ  \ Ðthis€childððs€biological€father.€€Father€asked€for€prospective€relief€from€paying€any€future€childÐ øH Ðsupport€for€this€child€and€retrospective€relief€from€the€accumulated€arrearage€with€respect€to€him.€Ð ä4 ÐFather€also€argued€that€the€judgment€granting€the€divorce€and€initially€establishing€the€level€of€childÐ Ð  Ðsupport€is€void€because€neither€he€nor€any€counsel€acting€on€his€behalf€signed€it.€€Under€his€theory,Ð ¼  ÐFather€asked€that€the€support€levels€set€out€in€the€divorce€judgment€be€set€aside€and€that€the€courtÐ ¨ø Ðprospectively€and€retrospectively€recalculate€his€child€support€obligation€under€the€child€supportÐ ”ä Ðguidelines.€€By€amendment€to€his€motion,€Father€relied€upon€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€He€madeÐ €Ð Ðspecific€allegations€that€seem€to€bring€into€play€Rule€60.02€(3)€&€(4),€which€provisions€provide€asÐ l¼ Ðfollows:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€aÐ 0"€  Ðparty€or€the€partyððs€legal€representative€from€a€final€judgment,€orderÐ #l! Ðor€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:...(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€Ð $X" Ð(4)€the€judgment€has€been€satisfied,€released€or€discharged,€or€a€priorÐ ô$D # Ðâ âjudgment€upon€which€it€is€based€has€been€reversed€or€otherwiseÐ à%0!$ Ðvacated,€or€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€a€judgment€should€haveÐ ° Ðprospective€Ô_Ôapplication;....Ô_ÔМì` x` x Ðâ âà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÓ  ÓII.Ð tÄ ÐÌA.Ð L œ ÐÌÓü Óà  àA€petition€for€relief€under€Rule€60.02€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ $ t Ðcourt.€€ò òòòRogers€v.€Estate€of€Russelló óóó,€50€S.W.3d€441,€445€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Accordingly,€weÐ  ` Ðreview€such€decisions€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€We€have€addressed€this€standardÐ ü L  Ðof€review€Ô_ÔthuslyÔ_Ô:Ð è 8  ÐÌÒ¸ °ÒÒ` °ÒDiscretionary€decisions€must€take€applicable€law€into€accountÐ À  Ðand€must€be€consistent€with€the€facts€before€the€court.€òòSeeÐ ¬ü  Ðò òÔ_ÔBallardÔ_Ô€v.€Herzkeó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€652,€661€(Tenn.€1996)Ð ˜è  Ð(holding€that€the€trial€court€must€give€due€consideration€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðapplicable€law€and€facts).€Thus,€the€appellate€courts€will€setÐ pÀ Ðaside€a€trial€courtððs€discretionary€decision€only€when€theÐ \¬ Ðdecision€is€based€on€a€misapplication€of€the€controlling€legalÐ H˜ Ðprinciples€or€on€a€clearly€erroneous€assessment€of€theÐ 4„ Ðevidence.Ð  p ÐÌÒ°` #ÒÒ°¸ #Òò òòòÔ_ÔOverstreetÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔShoneyÔ_Ôððs,€Inc.ó óóó,€4€S.W.3d€694,€709€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓB.Ð Ð  ÐÓÈ&ÓÌà  àFather€contends€that€since€he€has€shown€that€he€is€not€the€natural€father€of€Jack€Daniel,€heÐ ¨ø Ðis€entitled€to€have€his€outstanding€child€support€arrearage€forgiven€insofar€as€it€relates€to€JackÐ ”ä ÐDanielððs€support.€€Unfortunately€for€Father,€there€is€a€statute€that€clearly€precludes€the€relief€heÐ €Ð Ðseeks:€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒAny€order€for€child€support€shall€be€a€judgment€entitled€to€beÐ D!” Ðenforced€as€any€other€judgment€of€a€court€of€this€state€and€shall€beÐ 0"€  Ðentitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€in€this€state€and€in€any€other€state.€Ð #l! ÐSuch€judgment€shall€not€be€subject€to€modification€as€to€any€timeÐ $X" Ðperiod€or€any€amounts€due€prior€to€the€date€that€an€action€forÐ ô$D # Ðmodification€is€filed....Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÒ°` ˜(ÒÒ°` Š(ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(5)€(Supp.€2002).€€The€trial€court€did€grant€Father€some€relief.€€ItÐ ¸'#& Ðdecreed€that€he€would€not€be€responsible€for€Jack€Danielððs€future€support.€€However,€the€above„Ð ¤(ô#' Ðquoted€statutory€language€explicitly€precludes€the€retrospective€modification€of€the€child€supportÐ )à$( Ðarrearage.€€The€statute€provides€no€exception€for€a€case€such€as€the€one€now€before€us€on€this€appeal.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThe€Supreme€Court€stated€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔRutledgeÔ_Ô€v.€Barrettó óóó,€802€S.W.2d€604,€606„07€(Tenn.€1991):Ð h+¸&* ЇÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[The€former]€ðð€36„5„101€permitted€reduction€of€Ô_ÔarrearagesÔ_Ô€when€theÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€was€ð ðunable€to€pay€through€no€fault€of€his€ownðð€and€whenÐ œì Ðretroactive€modification€was€necessary€ð ðto€meet€the€ends€of€justice.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌThose€provisions€are€conspicuously€absent€from€the€provision€in€ððÐ `° Ð36-5-101(a)(5),€which€now€controls€this€case.€€The€1987€amendmentÐ L œ Ðspecifically€bars€retroactive€modification€and€puts€the€burden€on€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐÔ_ÔobligorÔ_Ô€to€come€into€court€and€seek€any€current€or€prospective€reliefÐ $ t Ðto€which€he€may€be€entitled,€by€means€of€a€formal€court€order.€€ToÐ  ` Ðpermit€the€interposition€of€traditional€equitable€defenses€to€theÐ ü L  Ðenforcement€of€child€support€orders€would€obviously€defeat€the€veryÐ è 8  Ðpurpose€of€the€amendment,€by€creating€a€situation€where€exceptionsÐ Ô$  Ðcould€easily€swallow€up€the€rule.Ð À  ÐÌÒ°` 3-ÒÒ°` %-ÒThe€1987€revision€to€the€statute€bars€courts€from€using€equity€to€retrospectively€modify€child€supportÐ ˜è  Ðawards.€€We€are€without€authority€to€relieve€Father€of€his€child€support€arrearage€with€respect€to€JackÐ „Ô  ÐDaniel.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  ÓC.Ð H˜ ÐÓå2ÓÌà  àAs€an€alternative€ground€for€relief,€Father€asserts€that€the€judgment€imposing€the€obligationÐ  p Ðof€support€is€void€because€it€fails€to€comply€with€the€mandate€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€58.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€rule€setsÐ  \ Ðforth€certain€requirements€for€signatures€on€judgments.€€Father€asserts€that€the€divorce€judgment€isÐ øH Ðnot€effective€to€impose€an€obligation€upon€him.€€Furthermore,€he€asserts€that€all€subsequent€orders,Ð ä4 Ðbeing€based€upon€the€initial€judgment,€are€also€without€force.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€divorceÐ Ð  Ðjudgment€was€not€void.€€Instead,€the€court€found€that€it€was€merely€voidable,€and€declined€toÐ ¼  Ðinvalidate€it.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€quoted€some€treatise€language€regarding€the€criteriaÐ ¨ø Ðfor€determining€whether€a€judgment€is€void:Ð ”ä Ðâ âÐ €Ð Ðà  àà8 ` àThe€Chancery€Court€is€a€Superior€Court€of€general€EquityÐ ° Ðâ âjurisdiction,€and€all€of€its€decrees€are€presumed€to€be€valid[...]unlessÐ œì Ðit€affirmatively€appears,€on€the€face€of€the€record€itself:€(1)€that€theÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€had€no€general€jurisdiction€of€the€subject€matter€of€theÐ tÄ Ðlitigation;€or€(2)€that€the€decree€itself€is€wholly€outside€of€theÐ `° Ðpleadings,€and€no€binding€consent€thereto€is€shown€in€the€record;€orÐ L œ Ð(3)€that€the€Court€had€no€jurisdiction€of€the€party€complaining,€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðperson€or€by€representation€of€interest;€in€which€case€it€is€void€onlyÐ $ t Ðas€to€such€party,€or€his€privies.€Ð `` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àA€decree€is€absolutely€void€if€it€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record€itselfÐ è 8  Ðeither€that€the€Court€had€no€general€jurisdiction€of€the€subject€matter,Ð Ô$  Ðor€that€the€decree€is€wholly€outside€of€the€pleadings,€and€no€consentÐ À  Ðthereto€appears.€A€decree€is€void€as€to€any€person€shown€by€theÐ ¬ü  Ðrecord€itself€not€to€have€been€before€the€Court€in€person,€or€byÐ ˜è  Ðrepresentation.€A€decree€not€òòprima€facie€óóvoid€is€valid€and€binding,Ð „Ô  Ðuntil€it€is€either€(1)€reversed€by€the€Supreme€Court,€or€by€the€Court€ofÐ pÀ ÐAppeals;€or€(2)€is€set€aside€on€a€complaint€filed€to€impeach€it.€Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌÓ  Ó*€€€*€€€*Ð 4„ ÐÓ0=Ó€€Ð  p Ðòòò òGentry€v.€Gentryó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€from€William€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€GibsonððsÐ  \ ÐSuits€in€Chancery€ðð€228€at€219-20€(7th€ed.€1988)).€€In€the€1990€divorce€case,€the€court€had€properÐ øH Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€to€adjudicate€this€matter.€€The€judgment€granted€a€divorce€and€was€clearlyÐ ä4 Ðwithin€the€scope€of€the€pleadings.€€The€court€had€personal€jurisdiction€over€Father,€and€FatherÐ Ð  Ðreceived€proper€service€of€process.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€is€not€void€and€cannot€be€attacked€underÐ ¼  Ða€rule€that€provides€for€relief€from€a€ð ðvoidðð€judgment.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àEven€were€we€to€hold€that€the€divorce€judgment€falls€within€the€Supreme€Courtððs€definitionÐ €Ð Ðof€Ô_ÔvoidnessÔ_Ô,€we€would€still€hold€that€Fatherððs€petition€comes€too€late.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02Ð l¼ Ðrequires€that€petitions€for€relief€from€void€judgments€be€made€ð ðwithin€a€reasonable€time.ðð€€Ten€yearsÐ X ¨ Ðelapsed€between€the€date€of€entry€of€the€divorce€judgment€and€the€filing€of€Fatherððs€petition.€Ð D!” ÐObviously,€ten€years€is€not€a€reasonable€period€of€time€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òSmith€v.Ð 0"€  ÐArgonaut€Ins.ó óóó,€No.€01S01-9504-CV-00059,€1996€Tenn.€LEXIS€181,€at€*2-*3€(Tenn.€Sp.€WorkersððÐ #l! ÐComp.€Panel€M.S.,€filed€March€22,€1996)€(upholding€trial€courtððs€determination€that€two€years€afterÐ $X" Ðentry€of€order€not€reasonable);€òòò òState€ex€rel.€Cox€v.€Jonesó óóó,€1989€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€679,€at€*5€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCt.€App.€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,€filed€October€18,€1989)€(stating€that€a€petition€filed€almost€eight€years€after€entry€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgment€obviously€not€timely).€€Father€has€appeared€at€previous€hearings€regarding€the€enforcementÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€divorce€judgment€and€never€raised€the€validity€of€that€document€as€a€defense.€€Based€on€theseÐ ¸'#& Ðfacts,€the€trial€court€indicated€that€this€petition€was€not€brought€within€a€reasonable€period€of€time.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€reaching€this€conclusion,€which€conclusion€is€entirelyÐ )à$( Ðconsistent€with€applicable€law.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ  h+¸&* ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÓ  ÓIII.Ð ° ÐÓtGÓÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€James€Daniel€Phillips.€Ð ˆØ ÐThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€enforcement€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€and€for€collectionÐ tÄ Ðof€costs€assessed€below,€all€in€accordance€with€applicable€law.Ð `° ÐÌÌà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE