ÿWPC| ÓglAdhIszsåÞòbIs\åwCxÍáú†¼Út[(ÖzU‰»W6/­èˆªkZ•”ÊšÑÍPN||9Ìê…5ô›À©§ŽåÞÂZP¹.“)e…Ýv¨bÁbl$w¸át¯†¤°»ù¯”0xãÉ 3@p½ ªÀþÜû4¹% ü~ÏIMíêàýÍñO븥|½p¬·M.;‰“šå5‹`›]p.B…§Èƒ–8I{íÁp ¥bgkêW†ªˆßàð>Î^¸­-ÁËX)WgòmëèiÖ~BVÞ‚›tÔ–»DTï]zÛká,‘‡½ŒÐËåÜi˧égÉî"¤ï»Þeˆø"ËTE¾@¬/O°ˆª êb¬B!ì;wŒ`³XFHØ“B+]—é%$(Ð ¼ÜVÍ CqÞz–léxn¹šW•&;ž@YÃhÅ©¥tœͱƒ†¤D,ÔPíAUî²¥.æŽÆM S¨ã  ±< …tÊÞ|“soMÑ]‚Oœ#§àÄŽ?ØqmDxVøƒHó­f¿(@}AJêqg]ž€”{¡_p+/Tªy=åÎßeC]qàÂHV¹Gæ «T~LÕû~å>2<øL3j瀹…†jb %\UNb 0ˆ°UN8^ †w’4– zªÒ$ ö * / 0D1ÆuÆ;ÆÆÇ mN¤#ɦ¦Eoooooooooooooooooooooooobqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq 0ëyyyy Bdd 0¤ D3% D-X 0K…… ASÐÆ# 0¤é 0D A«Ñ»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularŽO/Ï o=/ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©Eò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSee,€e.g.,€Hoyle€v.€Wilsonóó,€746€S.W.2d€665,€671€(Tenn.€1988)€(ð ðThe€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€hasÐ ° Ðcontinuing€jurisdiction€over€custody,€support,€contempt€and€other€collateral€matters€that€may€arise€subsequent€to€aÐ tÄ Ðdivorce€decree€entered€in€that€court.ðð);€òòKane€v.€Kaneóó,€547€S.W.2d€559,€560€(Tenn.€1977)€(ð ðA€court€in€which€an€actionÐ 8ˆ Ðis€brought€and€which€renders€a€decree€respecting€the€care,€custody€and€support€of€minor€children€continues€to€haveÐ üL Ðjurisdiction€of€such€matters€until€the€children€reach€majority.ðð);€òòMorrissey€v.€Morrisseyóó,€377€S.W.2d€944,€945€(Tenn.Ð À Ð1964)€(ð ð[I]n€this€State,€every€divorce€decree,€wherein€an€order€is€made€for€the€support€and€maintenance€of€the€wife€andÐ „Ô Ðchildren,€by€statute€remains€in€the€court€wherein€the€divorce€decree€was€granted.ðð).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0- ù-(|G2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô©Eò»»Ô d(|3E$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3E$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼}»»»ÔÑ8€XqXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î4}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼}»îî4 #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€19,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XXqX»¼}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼}»XXXqó#ÔETHAN€JAMES€RIDER,€a€minor€by€next€friend€and€mother,€ANNE€LEEÐ úJ ÐRIDERòòóó€v.€LAURIE€LYNN€RIDERòòóóÔ‡XXqX»¼}Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€28142€€€€€€Russ€Heldman,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00556„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€15,€2003Ð ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XXqXXXXqÔThis€appeal,€from€a€grant€of€summary€judgment,€involves€the€imposition€of€a€constructive€trust€onÐ ŒÜ Ðlife€insurance€proceeds.€€The€lower€court€imposed€the€constructive€trust,€for€the€benefit€of€FatherððsÐ xÈ Ðson€from€his€first€marriage,€on€proceeds€distributed€to€Fatherððs€second€wife.€€The€basis€for€theÐ d´ Ðconstructive€trust€arose€from€Fatherððs€obligation,€under€the€decree€of€divorce€dissolving€his€firstÐ P  Ðmarriage,€to€maintain€life€insurance€benefitting€his€minor€son.€€For€the€following€reasons,€we€reverseÐ <Œ Ðthe€ruling€of€the€lower€court.Ð (x ÐÔ#†XXqXXXXqè#ÔÔ#†¼}»XXXq²#ÔÔ‡XXqX»¼}ÔÌÓÜÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Vacated€andÐ ì< ÐRemandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼}»àXXqá#ÔÔ‡XXqX.¼}ÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.,óóÐ ° Ðand€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌJames€Robin€Ô_ÔMcKinneyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ t Ä ÐÌAlan€T.€Ô_ÔFisterÔ_Ô,€Brentwood,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ L"œ! ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼}»XXXqÏ#ÔÔ‡XXqX»¼}ÔÐ $$t# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼}»XXXqÖ #ÔÔ‡XXqX»¼}ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡XXqXXXXqÔà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ ü%L!% ÐÌà  àó óSteven€Mark€Rider€(ð ðFatherðð)€and€Anna€Rider€(ð ðMotherðð)€were€granted€a€divorce€by€theÐ Ô'$#' ÐFourth€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€Tennessee€on€September€28,€1999.€€One€of€the€clausesÐ À($( Ðin€the€final€decree€of€divorce€addresses€the€maintenance€of€a€life€insurance€policy€for€the€benefit€ofÐ ¬)ü$) Ðthe€coupleððs€minor€son,€Ethan€James€Rider€(ð ðSonðð).€Specifically,€the€clause€provides:Ð ˜*è%* ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓBoth€parties€presently€carry€in€full€force€and€effect€a€life€insurance€policy,€with€aÐ p,À', Ðbenefit€value€in€the€event€of€either€partyððs€death€of€One€Hundred€Fifty€ThousandÐ \-¬(-ýV ÐÔ_ÔDollars€($150,000).€€The€parties€hereby€agree€to€continue€said€life€insurance€policyÐ ° Ðin€full€force€and€effect,€and€the€premiums€will€be€paid€by€each€party,€with€the€WifeÐ œì Ðbeing€solely€responsible€for€submitting€the€insurance€premiums.€€The€minor€childÐ ˆØ Ðshall€be€the€beneficiary,€with€a€trustee€being€established,€until€said€minor€childÐ tÄ Ðreaches€age€of€majority€or€otherwise€becomes€emancipated.Ð `° ÐÓ Xº ÓÓ X¬ ÓÌDespite€the€language€of€this€provision,€no€such€policy€was€actually€in€existence€at€the€time€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdivorce€decree€was€entered.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àApproximately€two€months€after€the€divorce,€Father€married€Laurie€Lynn€Rider€(ð ðWifeðð),Ð ü L  Ðthen€a€resident€of€Williamson€County,€Tennessee.€€Father€subsequently€relocated€with€Wife€toÐ è 8  ÐDallas,€Texas,€where€Father€worked€for€a€radio€station.€€Through€his€employer,€Father€obtained€aÐ Ô$  Ð$40,000€benefit€value€life€insurance€policy€from€Aetna€Life€Insurance€Company€(ð ðAetnaðð).€€WifeÐ À  Ðwas€listed€as€beneficiary€on€the€policy.€€Father€died€in€July€2001€with€only€the€single€Aetna€lifeÐ ¬ü  Ðinsurance€policy€in€effect.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€August€2,€2001,€Son€obtained€a€temporary€restraining€order€from€the€Chancery€Court€forÐ pÀ ÐWilliamson€County,€Tennessee€that€prohibited€Aetna€from€disbursing€the€proceeds€of€Fatherððs€policyÐ \¬ Ðto€Wife.€€Son€then€obtained€a€temporary€injunction€on€August€13,€2001€that€made€this€prohibitionÐ H˜ Ðeffective€until€final€disposition€of€the€cause.€€Wife€subsequently€moved€to€dismiss€the€action€for€lackÐ 4„ Ðof€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€Wife€maintained€that€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  p Ðretained€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€the€matter,€because€it€involved€interpretation€and€enforcementÐ  \ Ðof€the€divorce€decree€entered€by€said€court.€€The€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€County€denied€theÐ øH Ðmotion€to€dismiss,€noting€that€Wife€was€not€a€party€to€the€divorce€decree€entered€in€DavidsonÐ ä4 ÐCounty.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€September€28,€2001,€Son€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Wife€responded€withÐ ¨ø Ða€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€Aetna€filed€itsÐ ”ä Ðanswer€on€November€1,€2001,€asserting€several€affirmative€defenses€involving€the€EmployeeÐ €Ð ÐRetirement€Income€Security€Act€(ð ðERISAðð).€€Son€subsequently€agreed€to€let€Aetna€pay€the€disputedÐ l¼ Ðproceeds€into€a€special€account€in€the€name€of€Wife,€to€be€held€in€trust€pending€resolution€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðaction.€€Aetna€was€then€granted€a€voluntary€non„suit.€€The€lower€court€next€issued€a€temporaryÐ D!” Ðinjunction€that€prohibited€Wife€from€withdrawing€or€otherwise€using€the€proceeds€of€the€lifeÐ 0"€  Ðinsurance€policy.€€On€December€3,€while€the€motions€for€summary€judgment€and€dismissal€were€stillÐ #l! Ðpending,€Wife€filed€an€amended€answer€incorporating€many€of€the€ERISA€defenses€initially€used€byÐ $X" ÐAetna.€€Finally,€on€February€14,€2002,€the€lower€court€ruled€on€the€various€motions€submitted€byÐ ô$D # Ðboth€parties.€€The€court€denied€Wifeððs€motion€for€transfer€to€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€of€DavidsonÐ à%0!$ ÐCounty,€denied€Wifeððs€motion€to€dismiss,€and€granted€Sonððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€€Ð Ì&"% ÐThereafter,€Wife€timely€filed€this€appeal€and€raises€the€following€issues,€as€we€perceive€them,€forÐ ¸'#& Ðour€review.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ìì'ìàò òIssuesó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àI.à0 ` àWhether€the€lower€court€erred€in€denying€Wifeððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€ofÐ ˆØ Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction.ÐtÄ` (#` (# Ðà  àII.à0 ` àWhether€the€lower€court€erred€in€granting€Sonððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ð`°` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà@žž!ìàò òStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€issues€on€appeal€involve€subject€matter€jurisdiction€and€summary€judgment.€€Both€issuesÐ  ` Ðraise€only€questions€of€law.€€As€such,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€before€the€Court,€with€noÐ ü L  Ðpresumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment.€€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/€CentralÐ è 8  ÐSouthóó,€816€S.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991)(citing€òòHill€v.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€533€S.W.2d€311,€312Ð Ô$  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975));€òòNorthland€Ins.€Co.€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€33€S.W.3d€727,€729€(Tenn.€2000).Ð À  ÐÌà@ðð"ìàò òLaw€and€Analysisó óˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€the€first€issue€raised€on€appeal,€Wife€argues€that€the€lower€court€erred€in€its€denial€of€herÐ pÀ Ðmotion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€Specifically,€Wife€contends€that€this€action,Ð \¬ Ðfor€the€enforcement€of€a€child€support€provision,€may€only€be€brought€in€the€court€that€originallyÐ H˜ Ðissued€said€provision.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€TennesseeÐ 4„ Ðissued€the€relevant€provision,€while€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€County,€Tennessee€heardÐ  p Ðthe€matter€now€on€appeal.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àSubject€matter€jurisdiction€involves€the€nature€of€the€cause€of€action€and€the€relief€sought€andÐ ä4 Ðcan€only€be€conferred€by€constitutional€or€legislative€act.€€òòNorthland€Ins.€Co.€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,Ð Ð  Ð33€S.W.3d€727,€729€(Tenn.€2000).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„103€(2002)€provides€that€ð ð[t]heÐ ¼  Ðchancery€court€has€exclusive€original€jurisdiction€of€all€cases€of€an€equitable€nature,€where€the€debtÐ ¨ø Ðor€demand€exceeds€fifty€dollars€($50.00),€unless€otherwise€provided€by€this€Code.ðð€€In€the€presentÐ ”ä Ðmatter,€Son€seeks€an€equitable€remedy,€in€the€form€of€a€constructive€trust,€that€meets€the€statutoryÐ €Ð Ðamount.€€Accordingly,€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€was€vested€with€subject€matterÐ l¼ Ðjurisdiction,€absent€a€contrary€provision€in€the€Code.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)€(2002),€which€deals€with€alimony€and€child€support€orders,Ð 0"€  Ðconstitutes€such€a€contrary€provision.€€It€provides€that€Ð #l! ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓ[w]hether€the€marriage€is€dissolved€absolutely,€or€a€perpetual€or€temporary€separationÐ ô$D # Ðis€decreed,€the€court€may€make€an€order€and€decree€for€the€suitable€support€andÐ à%0!$ Ðmaintenance€.€.€.€of€the€children€.€.€.€by€either€spouse€or€out€of€such€spouseððs€property,Ð Ì&"% Ðaccording€to€the€nature€of€the€case€and€circumstances€of€the€parties,€òòthe€order€orÐ ¸'#& Ðdecree€to€remain€in€the€courtððs€controlóó.€(emphasis€added)Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÓ X…)ÓÓ Xw)ÓÐ )à$( ÐIt€is€well€settled€that€this€statute€vests€continuing€and€exclusive€jurisdiction€for€the€modification€orÐ ° Ðenforcement€of€support€orders,€made€pursuant€to€a€divorce€decree,€with€the€original€issuing€court.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòóó€Ð œì Ðâ âFurther,€the€issuing€court€is€not€divested€of€this€continuing€jurisdiction€by€the€death€of€a€party.€€òòJarvisÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Jarvisóó,€664€S.W.2d€694,€696€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€case€before€us€falls€within€the€ambit€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a).€€Son€seeks€toÐ L œ Ðenforce,€by€way€of€constructive€trust,€a€child€support€provision€included€in€his€parentsðð€divorceÐ 8 ˆ Ðdecree.€€The€provision€states€in€relevant€part:Ð $ t ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€parties€presently€carry€in€full€force€and€effect,€a€life€insurance€policy€with€theÐ ü L  Ðbenefit€value€in€the€event€of€either€partyððs€death€of€One€Hundred€Fifty€ThousandÐ è 8  ÐDollars€($150,000)€.€.€.€The€minor€child,€Ethan€Rider,€shall€be€the€beneficiary,€withÐ Ô$  Ða€trustee€being€established€until€said€minor€child€reaches€the€age€of€majority€orÐ À  Ðotherwise€becomes€emancipated.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ XG/ÓÓ X9/ÓThis€clause€clearly€constitutes€a€provision€for€the€support€of€the€child.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð „Ô  Ð101(g)€(2002)€explicitly€authorizes€a€court,€in€crafting€child€support€provisions,€to€direct€either€orÐ pÀ Ðboth€parties€to€a€divorce€to€maintain€life€insurance€policies€benefitting€the€children€of€the€marriage.€Ð \¬ ÐAccordingly,€the€life€insurance€provision€at€issue€is€a€valid,€enforceable€clause€of€the€divorce€decree.€Ð H˜ ÐEnforcement€of€Sonððs€rights€under€the€life€insurance€provision,€therefore,€depends€on€enforcementÐ 4„ Ðof€the€divorce€decree€itself.€€This€triggers€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a),€and€vests€the€FourthÐ  p ÐCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County,€Tennessee€with€continuing€and€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€theÐ  \ Ðmatter.€€As€such,€the€lower€court€erred€in€denying€Wifeððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€subject€matterÐ øH Ðjurisdiction.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àSon€makes€several€arguments€to€the€contrary,€though€all€are€ultimately€without€merit.€€First,Ð ¼  Ðhe€maintains€that€the€gravamen€of€this€action€is€to€impose€a€constructive€trust€rather€than€to€enforceÐ ¨ø Ða€provision€in€the€divorce€decree,€thereby€taking€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101€out€of€consideration.€Ð ”ä ÐThis€argument,€however,€misapprehends€the€fundamental€nature€of€a€constructive€trust.€€AÐ €Ð Ðconstructive€trust€is€merely€a€remedy€used€by€courts€to€enforce€substantive€rights;€it€is€not€itself€aÐ l¼ Ðsubstantive€right.€€òòHowell€Petroleum€Corp.€v.€Samson€Resources€Co.óó,€903€F.2d€778,€780€(10òòthóó€Cir.Ð X ¨ Ð1990).€€Sonððs€substantive€right€in€this€case,€which€underlies€his€demand€for€a€constructive€trust,Ð D!” Ðarises€from€the€child€support€provision€in€the€divorce€decree.€€As€such,€the€continuing€and€exclusiveÐ 0"€  Ðjurisdiction€of€the€court€rendering€the€decree€is€once€again€implicated.Ð #l! Ðâ âÐ $X" Ðà  àSon€also€maintains€that€there€are€several€Tennessee€cases€which€stand€for€the€proposition€thatÐ ° Ðâ âthe€court€enforcing€a€divorce€decree,€by€way€of€a€constructive€trust,€need€not€be€the€rendering€court.€Ð œì ÐEach€of€these€cases€can€be€distinguished.€€Son€first€cites€cases€in€which€Tennessee€courts€enforcedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€child€support€provisions€of€divorce€decrees€issued€in€other€states.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerally€Herrington€v.Ð tÄ ÐBoatrightóó,€633€S.W.2d€781€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982);€òòGoodrich€v.€Mass.€Mut.€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€240€S.W.2dÐ `° Ð263€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1951)òòóó.€€The€discussion€of€jurisdiction€in€these€cases,€however,€focuses€on€theÐ L œ ÐFull€Faith€and€Credit€Clause€of€the€Constitution€and€on€principles€of€comity€among€states.€€ThereÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€no€discussion€of€the€statute€at€issue€in€this€case,€nor€is€there€even€an€indication€that€the€renderingÐ $ t Ðstates€had€similar€statutes€concerning€the€continuing€jurisdiction€of€courts€issuing€divorce€decrees.€Ð  ` ÐSon€then€turns€to€a€pair€of€cases€in€which€Tennessee€courts€imposed€constructive€trusts€to€enforceÐ ü L  Ðchild€support€provisions€that€were€issued€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€òòSee€generally€Holt€v.€Holtóó,€995Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€68€(Tenn.€1999);€òòReed€v.€Reedóó,€No.€03A01„9703„CV„00075,€1997€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€520,Ð Ô$  Ðat€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€Although€these€cases€involve€Tennessee€rendering€courts,€they€are€stillÐ À  Ðnot€on€point.€€This€is€because€neither€case€gives€any€indication€that€the€rendering€court€and€theÐ ¬ü  Ðenforcing€court€are€not€the€same;€indeed,€they€contain€€no€discussion€of€jurisdiction,€whatsoever.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àNext,€Son€looks€to€òòHull€v.€Hullóó,€No.€95„081,€2001€WL€483422,€at€*1(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),Ð pÀ Ðfor€support.€€This€case€involves€a€Tennessee€rendering€court€and€does€contain€some€discussion€ofÐ \¬ Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction.€€However,€this€discussion€focuses€on€whether€the€life€insurance€provisionÐ H˜ Ðgives€rise€to€a€claim€at€all,€rather€than€on€the€jurisdictional€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„Ð 4„ Ð101(a).€€òòIdóó.€at€*2.€€We€also€note€that€there€was€again€no€indication€that€the€rendering€and€enforcingÐ  p Ðcourts€were€different.€€The€final€case€relied€upon€by€Son,€òòBell€v.€Bellóó,€896€S.W.2d€559€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  \ ÐApp.€1994),€actually€involves€the€imposition€of€a€constructive€trust€by€a€Tennessee€court€other€thanÐ øH Ðthe€court€entertaining€the€divorce.€€There€is€a€critical€factor€in€òòBellóó,€however,€that€differentiates€itÐ ä4 Ðfrom€the€case€before€us.€€In€òòBellóó,€the€insured€party€died€before€the€divorce€itself€was€ever€complete.€Ð Ð  ÐòòIdóó.€at€560.€€Without€a€final€divorce€decree,€the€continuous€and€exclusive€jurisdiction€enumerated€inÐ ¼  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)€was€never€triggered.€€The€òòBellóó€decision,€therefore,€never€addressedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€jurisdictional€issue€presently€before€us.€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€all€the€authorityÐ ”ä Ðcited€by€Son€is€inapposite,€and€we€hold€that€the€lower€court€erred€in€denying€Wifeððs€motion€toÐ €Ð Ðdismiss€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àJudgments€entered€by€courts€without€subject€matter€jurisdiction€are€void.€€òòDishmon€v.€ShelbyÐ D!” ÐState€Cmty.€Coll.óó,€15€S.W.3d€477,€480€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citations€omitted).òòóó€€Thus,€when€anÐ 0"€  Ðappellate€court€finds€that€a€lower€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€it€must€vacate€the€judgmentÐ #l! Ðand€dismiss€the€case€without€reaching€the€merits€of€the€appeal.€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòJ.W.€Kelly€&€Co.€v.Ð $X" ÐConneróó,€123€S.W.€622,€637€(1909)).€€Accordingly,€we€need€not€address€the€remaining€issues€raisedÐ ô$D # Ðon€appeal€by€Wife.Ð à%0!$ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@  %ìàò òConclusionó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àWe€believe€this€is€a€proper€case€for€transfer€to€the€court€having€jurisdiction.€€We€vacate€theÐ ˆØ Ðlower€courtððs€judgment€and€remand€the€case€with€directions€that€the€lower€court€transfer€the€matterÐ tÄ Ðto€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€16„1„116.€€The€costs€of€thisÐ `° Ðappeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellee,€Ethan€James€Rider,€by€his€next€friend€and€mother,€Anne€Lee€Rider.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` à€€€€€€€à ¸ àÐ „Ô  ÐÔ#†XXqXXXXqb #ÔÔ#†¼}»XXXq4 #ÔÔ€XXqX»¼}ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE