Facts: Husband and Wife divorced in 2010. Their final divorce decree incorporated a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) requiring Husband to pay Wife $40,000 in alimony in solido. The MDA also provided that each party waived any interest in the other party’s retirement funds or pensions, disclaimed reliance on representations outside the agreement, and waived claims to the other party’s existing assets.

Wife later had difficulty collecting the alimony and pursued contempt proceedings and wage garnishment. In discovery responses produced in 2022, Husband disclosed a pension connected to employment he left more than 20 years before the divorce. Wife amended her fifth contempt petition to allege that Husband fraudulently concealed the pension and to claim 75% of it despite the MDA’s waivers.

The trial court found no clear and convincing evidence that Husband intentionally concealed the pension. Husband testified that he had forgotten about the plan, and the trial court credited his explanation. The trial court also ruled that the MDA’s retirement-benefit waivers and res judicata barred Wife’s claim.

The trial court declined to value the pension because Wife relied on her own projections based on historical stock market returns, no reliable plan records were produced, and the MDA foreclosed her claim. It also rejected Wife’s attempt to obtain relief through default judgment because her fraud allegations were conclusory. The trial court later denied Wife’s remaining requests for post-judgment interest, additional contempt sanctions, and other enforcement measures.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

In Tennessee, a spouse alleging fraud in the execution of an MDA must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Tennessee distinguishes intrinsic fraud, which includes nondisclosure or concealment of marital assets, from extrinsic fraud, which prevents a fair hearing.

Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(2) allows relief for intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, but a claim based on intrinsic fraud must be filed within one year after the judgment. Although Rule 60.02 preserves an independent action to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court, that remedy requires extrinsic fraud. An untimely claim that a spouse concealed a marital asset does not become extrinsic fraud merely because the claimant describes it that way. Separately, res judicata bars later claims to marital assets disposed of through an MDA, and asset valuation remains within the trial court’s discretion.

Because the alleged concealment of Husband’s pension was intrinsic fraud, Wife did not seek Rule 60.02 relief within one year, the proof did not establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence, and the MDA expressly waived claims to retirement benefits, the Court of Appeals held:

[A] motion to set aside a judgment for fraud under section 2 of Rule 60.02 may be based on intrinsic or extrinsic fraud. However, “claims under Rule 60.02 for intrinsic fraud must be brought within a year from the judgment in question.” Although Rule 60.02 “contains a ‘savings’ provision, which clarifies that the rule ‘does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court,’” such action requires extrinsic fraud. Wife appears to recognize that intrinsic fraud cannot reopen the MDA years after the fact. She therefore precedes as though Husband’s nondisclosure amounted to extrinsic fraud. Even so, the conduct she identifies is Husband’s alleged concealment of a marital asset, and Tennessee law squarely classifies that type of nondisclosure as intrinsic fraud. Because Wife’s allegations amount to intrinsic fraud and she did not file a timely motion for Rule 60.02 relief, the MDA’s express waivers and its finality provisions control.

*     *     *     *     *

Wife voluntarily waived any interest in Husband’s retirement plans or pensions, and it does not follow that her agreement becomes invalid simply because a pension she did not know about later came to light. The record shows she entered into the MDA freely, and her present dissatisfaction with its terms does not provide a basis for reopening it.

*     *     *     *     *

In any event, the MDA’s express waivers foreclose any claim to Husband’s retirement benefits, so there was no basis for valuing the pension even if adequate evidence existed. Given the limited information and the controlling effect of the MDA, the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to assign a value.

*     *     *     *     *

In sum, Wife did not prove fraud by the requisite clear and convincing evidence, and she failed to allege any form of extrinsic fraud that could support reopening the MDA. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to assign a value to Husband’s pension. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Wife’s pension-related claims.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

K.O.’s Comment: A hidden asset does not necessarily establish extrinsic fraud. Tennessee classifies the nondisclosure or concealment of a marital asset as intrinsic fraud, which makes Rule 60.02’s one-year deadline critical. A lawyer who learns of an omitted asset should immediately identify the judgment date, preserve the evidence showing when and how the asset was discovered, and determine whether Rule 60.02 relief remains available.

The MDA language did real work here. Wife waived any interest in Husband’s retirement plans or pensions, disclaimed reliance on outside representations, and waived claims to his existing assets. Lawyers negotiating an MDA should explicitly decide whether a broad waiver is intended to cover unknown or undisclosed assets, and whether the agreement should instead condition the waiver on complete financial disclosure. Parties should understand that a general retirement waiver may remain enforceable even when an unknown pension later surfaces.

Source: Smith v. Smith (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, September 1, 2026).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.