APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellants to this action are either current or retired firemen for the Division of Fire Services of Memphis, Tennessee (Division).1 They appeal from a judgment of the trial court in favor of Appellees, City of Memphis, Tennessee (City), the Division, Dr. W. W. Herenton, Mayor, Westelle Florez, Director of the Division of Personnel, and Charles Smith, Director of the Division, on their action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the appellees’ method of computing pension benefits for those firefighters employed by the City for 30 or more years. After review of the record, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We set forth our reasons below.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion filed by Appellant, Eastera Bell Porter, individually and as surviving spouse and next friend of Jasper D. Porter, deceased, under Rule 60 T.R.C.P., to set aside the summary judgments entered in favor of the appellees, Jesse McGee, M.D. and Methodist Hospitals of Memphis (Methodist). After review of the record, we find an absence of abuse by the trial court in this regard and affirm. We set forth our reasons below.

Claude D. Williams (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony to be paid to Monica R. Williams (Wife) at $500 per month for eighteen months. This was a marriage of approximately five years duration. Wife was a junior in college attending school full-time and working two part-time jobs. She testified that her net income was $880 and her expenses $1,507 per month. Husband has an engineering degree and earns approximately $38,000 annually. No children were born to the marriage. Wife was granted the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.

In this divorce action, the trial court awarded Marilyn Green (the “Wife”) a divorce from Carlos Green (the “Husband”) upon the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. Pursuant to a property settlement agreement, the parties agreed to sell the marital home by auction, pay the remaining indebtedness on the home and divide the proceeds equally. The parties agreed that the Wife would receive a Mercury automobile, a Ford Thunderbird automobile, the furniture, household furnishings and real estate located in the Eaton community. The parties agreed that the Husband would receive the farming equipment, guns, saddles and two pickup trucks. The trial court divided the remainder of the parties’ property and awarded the wife a one-half interest in the Husband’s retirement income and awarded the Husband a one-half interest in the Wife’s retirement income. The court further awarded each party a one-fourth interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and awarded each party a one-sixth interest in twenty acres of corn planted as of the date of the final divorce hearing. The court further ordered that the livestock owned by the parties be sold and the proceeds divided equally. The Husband has appealed the judgment of the trial court arguing that the trial court’s division of property was improper. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the Wife’s interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and affirm as to the Wife’s interest in twenty acres of planted corn.

This appeal concerns whether the appellant, Jerry Finchum (“Finchum” or “Father”), should be legally required to pay retroactive child support for his child, Elizabeth Jane Hickerson, born February 16, 1983 to the appellee, Karen Hickerson (“Hickerson” or “Mother”). The juvenile court awarded such support, in the amount of $31,080, and Finchum has appealed. For reasons set forth below, we affirm.