Linda Jane Parimore v. Gerald David Parimore, W2016-01188-COA-R3-CV

Linda and Gerald Parimore divorced in 2011; the decree incorporated a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA). Disputes over asset division led to mediation on Nov. 23, 2015, where Gerald (Husband) signed a handwritten settlement requiring him to pay Linda (Wife) $80,000 within 14 days and Wife to relinquish a timeshare.
Shortly after mediation Husband revoked consent; his then-attorney refused to sign the consent order, and Wife moved to enforce the mediated agreement. At a Jan. 7, 2016 hearing the trial court found the mediated settlement a valid contract and ordered Husband to pay $80,000.
On Feb. 22, 2016 Husband filed a sworn Rule 60.02 motion seeking relief for fraud/misrepresentation, alleging Wife failed to disclose a military pension before mediation and that the omission caused an unfair property allocation.
Wife denied fraud, moved for contempt and fees, and submitted an affidavit from her counsel saying both attorneys had discussed the parties’ pensions and agreed pensions would not be included in calculations; Husband admitted attorneys "might have discussed" pensions but said he was not told.
The trial court denied Husband’s Rule 60.02 motion, ordered release of funds to Wife, and awarded Wife $1,800 in attorney’s fees related to the May 5, 2016 proceedings; Husband appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wife)	Defendant's Argument (Husband)	Held
Whether trial court erred denying Rule 60.02 relief for alleged nondisclosure of Wife's military pension	Settlement valid; no fraud—attorneys discussed pensions and agreed not to include them	Wife concealed post-divorce military pension; nondisclosure entitles him to relief from judgment	Affirmed: Husband failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence; attorney knowledge imputed to client and record insufficient to show intentional concealment
Whether trial court properly awarded Wife attorney's fees as sanctions (contempt)	Fees appropriate to punish Husband's attempts to delay payment	Fees improper absent proper contempt finding and required findings/hearing	Reversed: Record lacks clear contempt finding, findings of willfulness, or evidentiary hearing to support fee award
Whether Wife is entitled to damages for a frivolous appeal	Appeal frivolous; request damages	Appeal not frivolous; Husband prevailed on at least one issue	Denied: Court declines to award appellate damages because Husband prevailed on an issue

Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94 (Tenn. 1993) (Rule 60 disposition left to trial court discretion)
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and review guidance)
Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 60.02 standards; clear-and-convincing burden for fraud claims)
Duncan v. Duncan, 789 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (fraud under Rule 60 requires clear and convincing proof)
Smith v. Petkoff, 919 S.W.2d 595 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (client is charged with knowledge of attorney's knowledge)
Boote v. Shivers, 198 S.W.3d 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (constructive notice via attorney cannot be rebutted by lack of actual communication)
Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (distinction between civil and criminal contempt; civil contempt may support attorney's fees)
House v. Estate of Edmondson, 245 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. 2008) (American Rule: fees awarded only by contract or statute)