Kathaleen Moriarty King v. Hal David King, 2016-01451-COA-R3-CV

Parties divorced in 1997; their settlement (incorporated in the final decree) awarded Wife one-half of 18/21 of Husband’s CSRS annuity as of August 4, 1997; the decree said a separate retirement order would be entered but did not specify treatment of post-1997 salary or COLA adjustments.
In 2008 the trial court entered a “Court Order Acceptable for Processing” referencing 5 C.F.R. part 838 and directing OPM to pay Wife her fractional share; that order expressly stated that when COLAs are applied to Employee’s retirement benefits, the same COLA applies to Former Spouse’s share.
Husband retired in July 2015. OPM initially notified the parties of one benefit split, then recalculated benefits to increase Wife’s share; Husband sought relief in 2016.
Husband moved under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 to amend the 1997 decree (and 2008 order) to exclude post-1997 salary adjustments and certain COLAs from Wife’s share; he later conceded the 2008 order granted COLAs but sought exclusion of post-1997 salary adjustments and some pre-retirement COLAs.
The chancery court granted Husband’s Rule 60.01 motion, modifying the prior orders to exclude post-1997 salary adjustments (and some COLAs) from Wife’s share; Wife appealed.
The Court of Appeals held the Rule 60.01 relief impermissibly modified the parties’ property settlement (not a clerical correction) and vacated the trial court’s July 7, 2016 order, remanding for costs.

Issue	King (Wife) Argument	King (Husband) Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly used Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 to alter prior orders to exclude post-1997 salary and COLA adjustments from Wife’s annuity share	60.01 cannot be used to modify an incorporated property settlement; Wife’s fractional award (and the 2008 order referencing 5 C.F.R. pt. 838) entitles her to salary adjustments and COLAs per federal regulation	The decree’s fixed-accrual date (Aug 4, 1997) shows parties intended to divide only benefits accrued by that date; the court merely corrected/clarified the decree under Rule 60.01	Court of Appeals: Trial court abused Rule 60.01 authority—order impermissibly modified the settlement; vacated 7/7/2016 order
Whether the court abused discretion by granting Rule 60.01 relief without presentation of evidence	Absent evidence of a clerical error or mistake, Rule 60.01 is inappropriate; parties and counsel knew regulatory framework	Sought judicial correction to conform decree to purported parties’ intent; minimal hearing sufficient	Court found no facial clerical error; Rule 60.01 relief improper (abuse of discretion); issue moot after vacatur

Jackman v. Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for Rule 60.01 clerical-correction decisions)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275 (Tenn. 1976) (purpose and limits of Rule 60.01 clerical corrections)
Towner v. Towner, 858 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1993) (property settlement agreements incorporated into divorce decrees are not modifiable)
Bruce v. Bruce, 801 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (treats property settlement as contract to be enforced as written)
Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892 (Tenn. 2001) (divorce decree apportionment of marital property not subject to modification)
Continental Cas. Co. v. Smith, 720 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. 1986) (examples of permissible Rule 60.01 clerical corrections)
Roberts v. Bailey, 470 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. 2015) (presumption that parties and counsel know the law)