Trim v. Trim
| Docket Number: | 2007-CT-01648-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01648-COA ; 2007-CA-01648-COA ; 2007-CT-01648-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2010 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Court of Appeals reversed; Circuit court reinstated and affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Timeliness of modification - Fraud on the court - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-24-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: J. Dewayne Thomas Disposition: George E. Trim and Lisa Mosley Trim obtained an irreconcilable-differences divorce by order of the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County on June 14, 2000. On November 19, 2004, Lisa filed a “Petition to Set Aside the Final Judgment of Divorce and/or Property Settlement Agreement on the Allegation of Fraud.” In the petition, Lisa asserted that George fraudulently had misrepresented the value of his corporate stock, a marital asset, to be $100,000 in his Rule 8.05 financial disclosure statement. The chancellor granted the petition, finding that the elements of fraud were met by clear and convincing evidence and that the actual value of the corporate stock at the time of the divorce had been $694,000. George appealed, arguing that Lisa’s petition had been untimely filed under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and that the chancellor erroneously had found clear and convincing evidence of the elements of fraud. A divided Court of Appeals reversed and rendered, finding that Lisa’s petition had been untimely filed under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Trim v. Trim. The Court of Appeals held that the chancellor erroneously had deemed the petition timely under the catch-all provision in Rule 60(b)(6), under which a motion for relief from a final judgment shall be made within a reasonable time. The Court of Appeals determined that because Lisa’s petition alleged fraud, Rule 60(b)(1) applied and that the petition was untimely under that rule’s six-month deadline. Having so found, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits of the fraud issue. Case Number: G2000-684R/1 |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses a previous Court of Appeals' decision and reinstates and affirms the Trial Court's judgment. See the COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO55330.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | GEORGE E. TRIM |
WILLIAM LEE COLBERT, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | LISA MOSLEY TRIM | KIMBERLY PINE TURNER, RANDALL HARRIS | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Timeliness of modification - Fraud on the court - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2000, George Trim and Lisa Trim obtained an irreconcilable-differences divorce. Lisa was not represented by counsel in the divorce proceeding, and neither party propounded discovery beyond the mandatory Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 financial disclosure statements. In 2004, Lisa filed a “Petition to Set Aside the Final Judgment of Divorce and/or Property Settlement Agreement on the Allegation of Fraud” asserting that George fraudulently had misrepresented the value of his corporate stock, a marital asset, to be $100,000 in his Rule 8.05 financial disclosure statement. The chancellor granted the petition, finding that the elements of fraud were met by clear and convincing evidence and that the actual value of the corporate stock at the time of the divorce had been $694,000. Subtracting the $100,000 that had been equitably distributed in the divorce judgment, the chancellor awarded Lisa twenty-five percent of $594,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. George appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered, finding that Lisa’s petition had been untimely filed under M.R.C.P. 60(b). The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lisa argues that the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the chancellor’s modification of the final judgment of divorce conflicted with its prior decisions and that this case involves broad issues of public importance. The issue in this case is whether the chancellor had authority to modify a final judgment of divorce upon a finding that one party fraudulently had misrepresented the value of an asset in the party’s Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 financial disclosure statement. The first five enumerated clauses of M.R.C.P. 60(b) allow modification of a final judgment in the specific listed circumstances. Rule 60(b)(6) provides a “catch-all” provision under which relief may be granted in exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as for fraud upon the court. While a Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be brought within a reasonable time, a motion made under the first three enumerated clauses must be brought within six months of the entry of the final judgment. Use of Rule 60(b)(6) must be based on some reason other than those listed in the first five enumerated clauses of the rule. The Court of Appeals’ analysis of the chancellor’s ability to modify the final judgment of divorce was limited to determining the court’s authority under Rule 60(b). However, the chancellor did not invoke Rule 60(b)(6) as authority for the modification. Instead, the chancellor opted to use his equitable powers to treat Lisa’s petition as a motion to modify the final judgment, and he modified the equitable distribution of marital property accordingly. The intentional filing of a substantially false Rule 8.05 statement is misconduct that rises above mere nondisclosure of material facts to an adverse party. A Rule 8.05 statement is a mandatory filing with the chancery court that provides that court with accurate financial information to assist in its equitable distribution of the divorcing parties’ assets. Thus, a party’s intentional filing of a substantially false Rule 8.05 financial statement constitutes a fraud on the court. In this case, the chancellor found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that George intentionally had filed a false Rule 8.05 financial disclosure statement that drastically undervalued a major marital asset. However, the chancellor determined that George’s conduct constituted fraud on a party and did not rise to the requisite level of egregiousness for fraud on the court. This finding was manifestly erroneous. By intentionally filing a substantially false Rule 8.05 financial disclosure statement, George committed a fraud upon the court. Therefore, no time limit constrained the chancellor’s ability to modify the divorce judgment to remedy the fraud on the court. Although the Court of Appeals expressed doubt that the elements of fraud had been met, the Court improperly reweighed the evidence before the chancellor to reach this conclusion. The evidence which the Court of Appeals found to cast doubt upon the chancellor’s finding conflicted with other evidence that was before the chancellor. Because the evidence was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation, the issue was for the chancellor as the finder of fact. The evidence before the chancellor was sufficient to support his discretionary findings that George had perpetuated fraud upon Lisa and that this act was egregious. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
