This new opinion from the Tennessee Court of Appeals sets up a nightmare scenario for a prevailing party.
In that case (Reliant Bank v. Kelly D. Bush, No. M2018-00510-COA-R3-CV, Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2018), the Bank won a post-foreclosure deficiency judgment in 2014, after competing experts testified about the fair market value of the property under Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-118. The former homeowners appealed the ruling, which was affirmed in 2016, and remanded. But, on remand, a new Chancery Court Judge was on the bench, and the new Chancellor had a different analysis and partially aside the judgment under Rule 60.02.
On the second appeal, the Judgment was upheld, but talk about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat (or vice versa).
Aside from being a great lesson about the uncertainty and risks of litigation, the 2018 opinion provides some good reminders about Rule 60.02. The Court noted, in part, the following:
Relief under Rule 60.02 is “an exceptional remedy.” Nails v. Aetna Ins. Co., 834
S.W.2d 289, 294 (Tenn. 1992). The rule is intended “to alleviate the effect of an
oppressive or onerous final judgment.” Spence v. Helton, No. M2005-02527-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1202407, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2007). It “acts as an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principal of finality embedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 798 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Tenn. 1990). The movant has the burden of proving the grounds for relief. Spence, 2007 WL 1202407 at *3.
Under Rule 60.02(1), the court may set aside a final judgment for reasons of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. Under Rule 60.02(2), additional reasons for a court to set aside a final judgment are “fraud … misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” Id. But motions based on Rule 60.02(1) or (2) must be filed within a reasonable time, not more than one year after the order was entered. Id.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found the new Motion to be untimely.
Because the motion was untimely, the chancery court should not have entertained it. See Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114, 131 (Tenn. 2013) (concluding that “relief [wa]s not available under Rule 60.02(1)” because the petition seeking relief “was not timely filed”); cf. Rogers v. Estate of Russell, 50 S.W.3d 441, 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (“[M]otions under Rule 60.02(1) and (2) must be filed both within a reasonable time and within one year after the judgment or order was entered.”).