CourtListener opinion 1066991

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
 AT KNOXVILLE
 March 31, 2003 Session

 ALICE KAYE BEASON v. C.A. BEASON

 Consolidated Appeals from the Chancery Courts for Knox County
 No. 124417-2 Daryl Fansler, Chancellor
 No. 96068-2 Sharon Bell, Chancellor
 FILED MAY 2, 2003

 No. E2002-01425-COA-R3-CV

These appeals involve an equitable distribution of the Tier II railroad retirement benefits of C.A.
Beason ("Husband"). When Alice Beason ("Wife") and Husband were divorced the first time in
1989, Wife admittedly made no claim for any of Husband's Tier II benefits and was awarded none.
The parties then remarried in 1992 and were divorced for the second time in 1996. A Qualified
Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") eventually was entered in the second divorce which awarded
Wife 100% of Husband's Tier II benefits. After Husband became disabled, Wife began receiving
all of his Tier II benefits which had accumulated during Husband's 31 years of employment with the
railroad. Husband claims he then realized for the first time the true effect of the QDRO and filed
a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(5) motion seeking relief from the judgment. Husband's Rule 60.02(5)
motion was granted and the Trial Court entered a new QDRO awarding Wife only 100% of the Tier
II benefits which had accrued during the second marriage. Wife then sought relief by Rule 60.02(5)
from the judgment entered in the first divorce in 1989, asking that Trial Court to award her an
equitable distribution of the Tier II benefits which had accrued during the first marriage. Wife's
motion was denied. Wife appeals both decisions. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Court's decision
to grant Husband relief from the judgment in the second divorce, and we also affirm the Trial Court's
refusal to grant Wife relief from the judgment in the first divorce.

 Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeals as of Right; Judgments of the
 Chancery Courts Affirmed; Cases Remanded.

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J.,
and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., joined.

J. Mikel Dixon, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant Alice Kaye Beason.

Brent R. Watson and Suzanne N. Price, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee C.A. Beason.
 OPINION

 Background

 These consolidated appeals concern the division of Husband's Tier II pension benefits
under the federal Railroad Retirement Act and applicable Tennessee law. At the outset, a brief
description of how the Railroad Retirement Act operates is in order. In Norton v. Norton, No.
02A01-9609-CV-00222, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 666 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 1997), appeal granted
and remanded, this Court stated the following with regard to the defendant/husband's retirement
benefits at issue in that case:

 Retirement benefits for railroad employees are governed by
 federal statute. As a railroad employee the defendant, upon
 retirement, is entitled to benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act
 of 1974, (hereinafter the \Act\") 45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq. The Act's