WPC ,IAgPnmFOsQ{4f:j9lxa)t]6oAkRo /K0| ZNI֋rvgzunT43_c3&|vHwU2?XgI`+6MlH|㗼cVv Xhm[d!z"ސIOX 0LJ#T#(ġ hxDC[EyHodZ> Z v>1W\ NHG +.W_ϓ-GaI IU+^l^E+ 5yV][C HLlo31)+9mFµm4h.z͗wܭhM|؎55 )3 7Tni &g 0m !0\b>6FҾLҏii95cgJ߀ ׶.fgb %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #    w = 0DN   Eb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K ASK 0d 0D AL!l]-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|&-"'gBackup3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 40500  R$      1  u  _ԀTherecordshowsthatJudgeWilliamJenkinswassittingbyinterchangeasthepresidingjudgeofthiscase  atthetimeofdivorce.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   R$      2  u  _Therecorddoesnotrevealthevalueofthepensionfundatissueinthisappeal.- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  u d(|3n$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3n$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8AXXdd8  р@ \INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#\#Ԉ &   September30,2002Session L XAX #XXA#FLOYDMICHAELWOODYv.JOYDARLENEWOODYXAX  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Hamblen_ԀCounty  J @@No.92179ThomasR._Frierson_,II,Chancellor  6 FILEDOCTOBER29,_2002_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102078COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     InthiscasefromtheChanceryCourtof_Hamblen_ԀCountytheAppellant,FloydMichaelWoody x  contendsthattheTrialCourterredinamendingafinaljudgmentfordivorcetoincludeonehalfof d hispensionfundaspartofthemaritalpropertytobeawardedtheAppellee,JoyDarleneWoody. P ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedasmodified. <  _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed as d Modified ; CauseRemanded  T   #XAh#XAX.HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand 0 CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  P.Richard_Talley_,_Dandridge_,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,FloydMichaelWoody  PaulWhetstone,_Mosheim_,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,JoyDarleneWoody |  OPINION #XXA# T  XAX    InthisdivorcecasefromtheChanceryCourtfor_Hamblen_ԀCountytheAppellant,Floyd ,"|! MichaelWoody,raisesoneissueforourreviewwhichwerestateasfollows: #h"   DidtheTrialCourterrinamendingthefinaldecreeofdivorcebetweentheAppellant,Floyd $@ $ MichaelWoody,andtheAppellee,JoyDarleneWoody,toincludeonehalfofMr.Woody'spension %,!% fundasaportionofthemaritalpropertyawardedtoMs.Woody? &"&   ThepartiestothisappealweredivorcedbyjudgmentoftheTrialCourt  #  1      ׀enteredonJuly20, (#( 1993,whichprovidedforthedistributionofmaritalpropertyandincludedthefollowing: )$)  x*%* 4.ThepartiesaretoequallydivideallstockinMr.Woody'sRoadwayServices,  Incorporated,StockRetirementIncomePlan,asofApril20,1993.Thetotal  numberofsharestobedividedis3,168.Eachpartywillreceive1,584shares.  TheseshareswillbedistributedaspertheQualifiedDomesticRelationsOrder t whichwillissuefromthisCourtandbefullyadoptedasiffullysetforthherein. `   Thereafter,inaccordwiththeaboveprovision,theTrialCourtenteredaqualifieddomestic 8  relationsorder(hereinafter _QDRO_)whichordersdistributiontoMs.Woodyofherdesignated $ t shareofthestockintheabovereferencedstockretirementincomeplan,whichthe_QDRO_Ԁdescribed  ` asthe"StockBonusPlan,StockSavingsandRetirementIncomePlan,andEmployeeStock  L  OwnershipPlan."  8    OnJanuary21,2000,Ms.Woodyfiledapetitionfordeclaratoryreliefwhereinsherequested   thattheCourtdeclareherrightsunderthefinaldivorcedecreeofJuly20,1993,andthesubsequent   qualifieddomesticrelationsorder,"toincludeonehalf(1/2)ofMr.Woody'sentireretirement   package,includingpension #  2      ."#XXA #XAX     Ms.Woody'spetitionwasheardbytheCourtonApril26,2001,andtheCourtenteredan \ amendedfinaljudgmentofdivorcewhichdecreed: H 1.TherecordrevealsthattheTrialJudge,WilliamJenkins,expressedthatthe  p RoadwayPensionPlanwastobeincludedintheentireretirementfundwhichto  \ Ms.Woodywastoreceivehalf. H 2.Accordingly,itishereby ORDERED,ADJUDGED and DECREED thatthe   FinalJudgmentofDivorcebeamendedtoreflectthatDarleneWoodywillreceive  notonlyheralternatePayee'sshareofthestocksavingsplanfromRoadway  Express,butthatsheshouldalsoreceiveonehalfofthePensionFund,whichwas  aseparateaccount,thevalueofwhichshallbedecidedasofthedateofdivorce.    OnAugust22,2001,Mr.WoodyfiledamotiontoalteroramendtheTrialCourt'sjudgment \  ofApril26,2001;however,thismotionwasdeniedbytheCourt'sorderandmemorandumopinion H! enteredonApril2,2002. 4"    Ourreviewofacasesuchasthisisdenovouponthetrialcourtrecordwithapresumption  $\" thatthetrialcourt'sfactualfindingsarecorrectunlesstheevidencepreponderatestothecontrary. $H # _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ13(d).Thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourt'sconclusionsof %4!$ law.Campbellv.FloridaSteel.,919S.W.2d26(Tenn.1996). & "%   AlthoughMs.Woody'spetitionfordeclaratoryreliefpromptedtheTrialCourttoreexamine (#' theprovisionsoftheoriginaldivorcedecree,theCourt'sdecisiontoamendthatdecreeisnotbased )$( upontheDeclaratoryJudgmentsAct,butratherupon_T.R.C.P._Ԁ60.01whichprovidesinpertinentpart  asfollows:  Clericalmistakesinjudgments,ordersorotherpartsoftherecord,anderrors t thereinarisingfromoversightoromissions,maybecorrectedbythecourtatany ` timeonitsowninitiativeoronmotionofanypartyandaftersuchnotice,ifany, L  asthecourtorders. 8    ThetranscriptofthebenchopinionrenderedbytheTrialCourtwhenthedivorcewasgranted  ` in1993notesthatthereweretwomajorassetsinthiscasethemaritalresidenceand"thepension  L  fund".Afterrecognizingthepartiesagreementtoanequaldivisionoftheproceedsrealizedfrom  8  saleoftheresidence,theCourtstatedasfollowswithrespecttothepensionfund: $   Theothermajorasset,pensionfund,thatMr.Woodyowns,hasavalueof   abouttwohundredthousanddollars($200,000.00)andMrs.Woodywillgethalf   ofthat,andofthatshe'sgoingtorealizeaboutonehundredthousanddollars   ($100,000.00)fromthat.Twomainassets. p   Itisourdetermination,afterreviewingtheabovepassageandtherecordasawhole,thatthe H words"pensionfund"areusedbytheCourtinageneralsensewiththeintentthatallcomponents 4 ofMr.Woody'spensionfund,whetherstocksavingsplanorseparatepensionfundaccount,#XXA9#XAXԀshould  p beincludedandequallydividedbetweentheparties.Inanaffidavitattachedtohismotiontoalter  \ oramendfiledonApril26,2000,Mr.WoodyatteststhatheandMs.Woodyagreedthatshewould H receiveonehalfofthestocksavingsplanandthatasaresultshereceived$120,000.00.Mr.Woody 4 arguesthattheTrialCourtsstatementinitsbenchopinionthatMs.Woodywould realizeabout   onehundredthousanddollarsshowsthattheCourtmusthavehadspecificretirementassetsinmind   whendesignatingthatMs.Woodywouldgethalf.Itisourdeterminationthat,althoughtheCourt  mayhaveunderestimatedthetotalvalueofthepensionfundandmisapprehendeditscontents,the  Courtintendedthatthewholepensionfund,whateveritmightconsistof,bedividedequallybetween  theparties.Thefactthattheoriginaldivorcedecreeonlyaddresseddivisionoftheretirementstock l savingswasclearlyanunintentionalomissionwhichwasappropriatelycorrectedbytheamended X  finaljudgmentofdivorceenteredonApril26,2001.Mr.Woody'sargumenttothecontraryis D! withoutmerit.Althoughtheoriginaldivorcedecreewasenteredseveralyearsbeforeitsamendment, 0"  _T.R.C.P._Ԁ60.01specificallyallowsacourttocorrectanerrorinajudgment_sua_Ԁ_sponte_atanytime. #l! AsnotedbytheSupremeCourtofthisstate"Rule60,_Tenn.R.Civ.P._,likeitsfederalcounterpart, $X" wasdesignedtostrikeaproperbalancebetweenthecompetingprinciplesoffinalityandjustice." $D # Jerkinsv._McKinney_,533S.W.2d275(Tenn.1976) %0!$   The_QDRO_Ԁenteredinthiscasein1993inaccordancewiththeoriginaldivorcedecree '#& providedthat"[_t]he_ԀCourtshallretainjurisdictiontoamendthisOrderonlyforpurposesof (#' establishingormaintainingitsqualificationasaqualifieddomesticrelationsorderunder_ERISA_Ԁand )$( theCode..."However,theamendedfinaljudgmentofdivorceprovidesthat"[_i]f_Ԁanamendmentof |*%) theQualifiedDomesticRelationsOrderislikewiseneeded,it,tooshallbeamendedtoreflectthis h+&* ruling"Inviewofthelimitationonretentionofjurisdictiontoamendsetforthintheoriginal  _QDRO_,weconcludethattheamendedfinaljudgmentgrantingMs.Woodyonehalfoftheseparate  pensionfundaccountshouldbeimplementedbyissuanceofanadditional_QDRO_Ԁpertainingsolely  tothatassetratherthanbyamendmentoftheoriginal_QDRO_. t   FortheforegoingreasonstheamendedfinaljudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedas L  modifiedandthecauseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessary.Costs 8  ofappealareadjudgedagainstFloydMichaelWoodyandhissurety. $ t    `     h   _________________________________________ $     `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE   #XXA##XAX