Melissa Ann (Letner) Grayson v. Elmer Wayne Grayson
E2020-01339-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 3, 2021Background
- Parties divorced in 2011; trial court awarded Wife one-half of Husband’s military retirement described as the portion "accumulated during the term of the marriage."
- DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) refused to pay Wife in 2018, explaining that military retired pay is determined by rank and years of service at retirement and that the 2011 order lacked a DoD-compliant method to calculate the marital portion.
- Wife filed a petition to enforce and submitted a Military Retired Pay Division Order (MRPDO) awarding 50% of Husband’s disposable retired pay, alleging Husband was E7 with 29 years of creditable service as of the divorce; Husband refused to sign and contested the factual premises and jurisdiction.
- Trial court entered an August 6, 2019 clarifying order (asserting its intent that Wife receive 50% based on pay grade and creditable service as of the divorce) and signed MRPDOs in Sept. and Nov. 2020; Husband appealed.
- Court of Appeals held the trial court had jurisdiction under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 to correct/clarify wording to comply with DoD regulations, but vacated the clarifying order and MRPDOs as ambiguous and lacking required factual findings and DoD-compliant formula/hypothetical-retired-pay language; remanded with instructions to use DoD Figure 29-1 language and to make specific findings of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court have subject-matter jurisdiction to alter/clarify the 2011 order? | Wife: Court may clarify/correct wording under Rule 60.01 to effectuate original award and comply with DFAS requirements. | Husband: Petition was in substance a Rule 59.04 motion filed after the 30‑day limit, so court lacked jurisdiction to change the final judgment. | Held: Court retained jurisdiction under Rule 60.01 to correct/clarify clerical/oversight errors to make the award DoD‑compliant; not treated as a Rule 59.04 amendment. |
| 2. Did the MRPDO correctly implement the court’s intended award and comply with DoD regulations? | Wife: MRPDO reflected intended 50% award based on Husband’s rank and creditable service as of the divorce (E7, 29 years). | Husband: MRPDO improperly would give Wife 50% of entire post‑divorce retirement (including later promotions/years); also factual assertions (E7, 29 years) are incorrect. | Held: MRPDO ambiguous and inconsistent with the 2011 intent; vacated. Court directed use of DoD‑compliant formula or hypothetical retired‑pay language and remand for specific findings. |
| 3. Should Wife be barred by unclean hands for collecting alimony while cohabitating? | Wife: Not directly argued as basis to deny clarification; sought only clarification to enforce original award. | Husband: Wife lived with another man while receiving alimony; equity should deny her relief. | Held: Doctrine of unclean hands applies only where fraud/deceit on the court is alleged; Husband did not show such conduct, so argument fails (harmless if omitted). |
Key Cases Cited
- First Am. Trust Co. v. Franklin-Murray Dev. Co., L.P., 59 S.W.3d 135 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders orders void)
- Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn.) (principles for assessing subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Word v. Metro Air Servs., Inc., 377 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn.) (identify gravamen and source of court’s power when jurisdiction challenged)
- Dunlap v. Dunlap, 996 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (substance over form in characterizing post-trial motions)
- Vaccarella v. Vaccarella, 49 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (circumstances warranting Rule 59.04 relief)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn.) (remand or de novo review when findings are insufficient)
- Jackman v. Jackman, 373 S.W.3d 535 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (Rule 60.01 appropriate to correct judgments that do not accurately reflect court’s ruling)
- Battleson v. Battleson, 223 S.W.3d 278 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (trial court may clarify/interpret prior order under Rule 60.01)
- Burris v. Burris, 512 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (appellate court may raise insufficiency of findings sua sponte)