WPC0B iw܆xKwCڀll4NY_bZAAuwdӶН^]OA.)𦒒>H.N%(eQ2 gO,{[(*F7<b ~x%jFxz/pCL=P7l)hSca o+oK!\16S֤|YL1{-tu:`F:'ݱS[޸V|6b߼d)^$L6t֪Uu~ZEC49pR%M}N|Rg;`ꌆ4CQ:[w3(tsM~S´PHůLg]zw6J&hNj$+5+QTcT6gA4i\(Z.F)f:Wb̪bU' vV`q4zY&[FVzMQ 0~F 0x 0k< 0k 0 0~ 0* 0 0 0 0 | 0 01 0C 0V 0n 0= 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0;UB %  0z& 0 1y 0~ b 0=s 0F 0P 1F 0 ! 0O%Ec% 0}e% 0x% 0Z& 0j& 0eQ' 0W' 0W ( 0d( 0j( 0R) 0 * 0* 0g+ 0H, 0<- 0C. 0-]/ 0@0 01 02 03 03 0N4 04 05 0\6 06 1x7/8n?8 048 B 94=9 0Q9^9 0JL::;/< 0D=!9>UFZ? D3?U:?U> @w@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@K@ AO@@@ 0DA D/A BBV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xX <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dRC&$(G.2٠$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0   VANNLASLEYPINCHAKMcDONALDLUFKINFRIERSON MACK  I٠$  XX     1    ItisnotclearfromtherecordwhenMs.Sluderchangedherlastname `  toChaney;norisitclearifsheispresentlymarried.  I$  XX     2    Althoughthislegalargumentmayhavemerit,itwouldhavebeenthe `  propersubjectforanappeal,notaRule60Motiontenyearsaftertrial.Rule60wasnotdesignedtobypasstheregularappealsprocess.Thus,inOurdeterminationWewillonlyconsiderthenewevidencethatheisinfactnotthefather.(3$ F!   SX;XXXS"XSX;   Ad FILEDSS"   February3,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.SSAppellateCourt  Clerk <09Z .Courier New RegularGGGG'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular<( 9Z &Courier Regular O P Q R eS PT EU V DW DX ӀOC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd FT!   R R R R   7XXdXXd7TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T`   XTXXXXX rPR<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"H` rߛX @LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLELINDACHANEY@*@@*)  HAMILTONCOUNTY x  x    `     h   )  03A019803JV00107 @   PlaintiffAppellee@*) h    @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.SUZANNEBAILEY, `  @*)  JUDGE (  @*)ROBERTDICKINSON@*)   Ѐ@*)       DefendantAppellant@*)S   S S REVERSEDANDS T S ES T U REMANDEDU  H  LISAM.MACKOFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLANTJOHNKNOXWALKUP,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter,andTAMMYL.KENNEDY,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,OFNASHVILLE,FORAPPELLEE   `    OPINION !8    `     h      p   QXXXTXGoddard,P.J. % $    ` RobertLeeDickinson,Jr.,appealstherulingoftheJuvenileCourtofHamiltonCounty,TennesseeatChattanooga,insistingthattheJuvenileCourterredinitsdeterminationofMr.DickinsonsTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure60.02motionforrelieffromchildsupportpaymentsbaseduponevidencethatheisnotthefatherofthechildhehasbeensupporting.TheJuvenileCourtruledthatMr.Dickinsonsmotionwasbarredbyresjudicata;therefore,Mr.Dickinsonisstillobligatedtopaycurrentandpastduechildsupportpayments. W     ̛W    ` I.Facts: 900<    ` OnJune17,1982,Ms.LindaFayeSluderM K   1      ׀(Chaney)gave `   birthoutofwedlocktoachildnamedR R CarmonR R MirandaSluder.Ms.ChaneyfiledapetitiontoestablishpaternityonAugust3,1982,andinitshenamedMr.Dickinsonasthebiologicalfather.FromtherecorditappearsthatMs.ChaneyandMr.Dickinsonhadgoneonseveraldatestogether;yet,attrialMr.Dickinsondeniedthattherehadeverbeensexualcontactbetweenthetwo.Additionally,Mr.Dickinsonandhisfather,Mr.Dickinson,Sr.,bothofferedtestimonythatMr.DickinsonwasimpotentatthetimeheandMs.Chaneyhaddated.   ` AttrialMr.Dickinsonrequestedtheopportunitytoobtainabloodtesttodetermineparentage.Thecourtgrantedthisrequest.Atthattime,however,itwasthepracticeofthecourtstomaketherequestingpartypayforthebloodtest;therefore,thecourtorderedMr.Dickinsontopaythe$400feeforthetestonMarch22,1983.Mr.Dickinsonclaimedhecouldnotaffordthe$400testandsoitwasneverobtainedbyeitherparty.   ` Despitehisdenialsofparentage,onSeptember12,1983,theJuvenileCourtenteredanorderR R adjudgingR 񛜛R CarmonMirandaSludertobeR R theR 񛜛R childofMr.Dickinson.ThecourtalsoorderedMirandaSluderssurnamechangedtoR R Dickinson.Childsupportpaymentsweresetat$15perweek.Mr.DickinsondidnotappealtherulingoftheJuvenileCourt.  4x+4    ` In1993,almosttenyearsaftertheJuvenileCourts Order,Mr.Dickinsondecidedtopursuethebloodtestinghecouldnotaffordatthetimeoftrial.BothMs.ChaneyandMirandaconsentedtothetesting.ThepaternitytestresultsconcludedthatMr.DickinsonwasnotthebiologicalfatherofMiranda.Armedwiththisnewevidence,Mr.DickinsonfiledapetitionwiththeCourtonMay17,1994,requestingthattheJuvenileCourtreverseits1983decision.   ` OnAugust10,1994,Mr.DickinsonfiledtheRule60.02Motionforrelieffromjudgmentthatisthesubjectofthisappeal.Inthemotion,Mr.Dickinsonmovedthecourttoconsidertherecentbloodtestexcludinghimfromparentageasgroundsforrelief.Specifically,Mr.DickinsonrequestedajudgmentfromthecourtdeclaringhimnotthefatherofMirandaDickinson.Mr.Dickinsonalsomovedforreliefongroundsthathewasdenieddue processoflawunderthe14thR R AmendmentsoftheUnitedStates 4 +. ConstitutionandtheTennesseeConstitutionbecausehewasorderedtopayforthebloodtesting.N K   2      ׀ @      ` TheJuvenileCourtRefereeenteredFindingsandRecommendationsdenyingMr.DickinsonsrequestforreliefonMay24,1995,R R findingthatR R hisclaimwasbarredbyresjudicata.TheJuvenileCourtagreedwiththerefereeanddeniedMr.DickinsonsRule60.02motiononMarch6,1996,onthesameR R basis.Subsequenttotwootherhearingsforchildsupportmatters,Mr.DickinsonfiledhisnoticeofappealonFebruary10,1997.   ` AtthetimeMr.Dickinsonappealedthedenialofhismotion,theJuvenileCourthadorderedhimtopay$134.33permonthinchildsupportplus$43.33permonthforbackchildsupportowedonanarrearageof$4,634.Thus,Mr.Dickinsonspresenttotalchildsupportpaymentsare$177.66permonth.Currently,Mr.Dickinsonisselfemployedasasellerofcarfloormats.Hisaveragegrossincomepermonthbeforetaxesandbusinessexpensesis$750.   ` Mr.Dickinsonhashadaphysicalimpairmentwithhisrightarmsincehewasnineyearsold.Thisarmwasoperatedonwhenhewas13,butasofthelastseveralyearshehaslostmobilityofhisfingers,elbow,andshoulder.Thereistestimony 4 +. intherecordthathisrightarmsuffersfrom70%disability.Additionally,Mr.Dickinsonhashadanongoingbackailment.ThesephysicalproblemshavelimitedMr.Dickinsoninthetypeofworkthathecanperform.   ` II. Law `     ` Mr.Dickinsonarguesthateventhoughcourtsmustrespectthedoctrineofresjudicataandupholdthefinalityofjudgments,exceptionalcasesdoexist.Theexceptionalcasewillrequireareexaminationofthejudgmentinordertoinsurethatjusticeprevails.ThereissupportforMr.DickinsonsargumentinTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureRule60.02andinthecaselawthatinterpretstherule.InDuncanv.Duncan,789S.W.2d  557(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),theMiddleSectionoftheTennesseeCourtofAppealswrote:8  Thereislittledisagreementthatthetraditionalpreferenceforfinalitybringsdisputestoanendandpromotesjudicialeconomy.However,asbeneficialasitis,finalityisrelativeandcontextual.Ourcourts'interestinmakingcorrectdecisionsineachcasedictatescautioninplacingerrorsbeyondcorrection.    8   ` Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02itselfstrikesabalancebetweenthecompetingdesiresforfinalityandforcorrectness.    ,Duncan,789S.W.2dat562,563(citationsomitted).  0`'*    `    ` Yet,Rule60.02willnotbeavailableforeveryparty.Onlyrarecaseswillmeritreliefunderthestrictrequirements ofRule60.02 . TheSupremeCourtofTennesseeaffirmsthis @8.2 strictinterpretationofRule60.02inToneyv.MuellerCo.,810 `  S.W.2d145(Tenn.1991).InthatcasetheCourtwrote :  @    8  Rule60.02isnotmeanttobeusedineverycasein @  whichthecircumstancesofapartychangeaftertheentryofajudgmentororder.Noristheruleamechanismforusebyapartywhoismerelydissatisfiedwiththeresultofaparticularcase.Rule60.02ismeanttobeusedonlyinthosefewcasesthatmeetoneormoreofthecriteriastated.AsrecentlystatedbythisCourt,"Rule60.02actsasanescapevalvefrompossibleinequitythatmightotherwisearisefromtheunrelentingimpositionoftheprincipleoffinalityimbeddedinourproceduralrules."Thompsonv. @  Firemen'sFundIns.Co.,798S.W.2d235,238 0 (Tenn.1990).Becauseoftheimportanceofthis"principleoffinality,"the"escapevalve"shouldnotbeeasilyopened.    i"Toney,810S.W.2dat146. 0    ` AmotionforreliefbasedonRule60.02groundsaddressesitselftothesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.Thescopeofreviewofanappellatecourtistodetermineifthediscretionwasabused.Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2d &0 94,97(Tenn.1993)(citingBanksv.DementConstr.Co.,Inc.,817 p(! S.W.2d16,18(Tenn.1991);Toneyv.MuellerCo.,810S.W.2d145, P* # 147(Tenn.1991)).   `    ` Rule60.02readsinpertinentpart:8  Onmotionanduponsuchtermsasarejust,thecourtmayrelieveapartyorthepartyslegalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderorproceedingforthefollowingreasons:(1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;(2)fraud(whetherheretoforedenominatedintrinsicorextrinsic),misrepresentation,orothermisconductofanadverseparty;...(5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.Themotionshallbemadewithinareasonabletime,andforreasons(1)and(2)notmore @:04 thanoneyearafterthejudgment,orderorproceedingwasenteredortaken.    `(BecausemorethanoneyearhaspassedbetweenthefinaljudgmentinthecaseandthefilingoftheRule60.02motion,Mr.Dickinsonmaynotproceedunder60.02(1)or(2).Thus,theonlyalternativeavailableforMr.DickinsonistoproceedunderRule60.02(5).     ` WhilethelanguageofRule60.02(5)isindeedopentobroadinterpretation,Tennesseecourtshavechoseninfavorofanarrowinterpretationoftherule.ThestandardsforapplicationofRule60.02(5)areinfactmoredemandingthantheothersubsectionsofRule60.02.NCNBNatlBankofNorthCarolinav.  Thrailkill,856S.W.2d150,154(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Rule !` 60.02(5)isonlytobeinvokedincasesofoverwhelmingimportance,orthoseinvolvingextraordinarycircumstancesorextremehardship.Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2d94,97 `'  (Tenn.1993).Additionally,Rule60.02(5)wasnotdesignedtorelieveapartyfromfree,calculated,anddeliberatechoices.NCNB,856S.W.2dat154(citingMagnavoxCo.ofTennesseev. -#& Boles&HiteConstr.Co.,583S.W.2d611,613 .%( (Tenn.Ct.App.1979)).   ` WebelievethefactsofthiscasewarrantMr.DickinsonreliefunderRule60.02(5).Notonlyishiscaseentirely exceptional,itisalsoofoverwhelmingimportanceforthecourts @8.2 ofthisstatetoacknowledgelegallywhatscienceprovidesconclusively.    ` InJohnsonv.Johnson,anunreporteddecisionofthe  WesternSectionoftheCourtofAppeals,filedinJacksononJanuary7,1997,theCourtwasfacedwithasimilarsituation.TheappellantinJohnsoncontestedaconsentorderthathehad @  signedonFebruary26,1991,acknowledginghimselfasthefatherofthechildinquestion.In1995,paternitytestingestablishedthatanothermanwasinfactthefatherofthechild.Despitethe4yearhiatusandtheappellantsfailuretoobtainabloodtestduringtheoriginalpaternityaction,theCourtofAppealsruledinfavoroftheappellantsRule60.02(5)motion.InitsdecisiontheCourtwrote:8  WearenotpersuadedbyMothersargumentthatsomethingsinlifesimplyarenotfairorthatAppellantisestoppedtodenypaternitybecauseofhisexecutionoftheconsentorder.Therecorddoesnotshowthattheappellantknewhewasnotthischildsbiologicalfatheratthattime.WebelievethecircumstancesshownheretoexistarethoseforwhichRule60.02wasclearlydesigned.    4Johnson. -#&    ` WelikewiseagreethatthecircumstancesofMr.DickinsonscaseareclearlythoseforwhichRule60.02wasdesigned.ThefactualsituationinJohnsonisdifferentfromthe 4 +. presentcase,however,theapplicationofjusticeshouldnotbe.Mr.DickinsonisnotthebiologicalfatherofMiranda,norhasheevermaintainedarelationshipwithher.Hiscontacthasbeen  :04 purelyofafinancialnature.BecauseofMr.Dickinsonsobviousphysicaldisabilitiesandlowmonthlyincome,theburdenofchildsupportpaymentsmustappearenormousifnotinsurmountable.BecauseRule60.02(5)wasdevelopedinordertoalleviatecasesinvolvingextremehardship,seeUnderwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854  S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.1993),thisCourtwillapplyRule60.02(5)toMr.Dickinsonssituationandgrantthereliefrequested.   ` ThepublicpolicythatpromotesthedecisioninJohnson ` isthesameonethatpromotesthisdecisiontodaycourtsshouldrespectscientificevidencethatresolvesbeyonddoubtquestionsofpaternity.TheCourtinJohnsonrelieduponTCA247112  notingthat itisofoverridingimportancetothefather,themother,andthestate,aswell,thatoneconclusivelyestablishedinlawnottobethefatherofachildbenotdeclaredasthefatherofthatchild.TCA247112operatestoprovideacourtbothproceduralandsubstantiverulesduringapaternityaction.TCA247112(b)(1),asquotedinJohnson,mandated: Ifthe @)" resultsofthetestsandcomparisonsexcludethedefendantasthefatherofthechild,thisevidenceshallbeconclusiveevidenceofnonpaternityandthecourtshalldismisstheproceeding.   `    ` TCA247112(b)(1)wasamendedbythelegislatureinJuly1997.Thenewversionreads: Iftheresultsofthefirsttestexcludepaternityandthesecondtestalsoexcludepaternity,or,iftheinitialtestresultsarenegativeontheissueofpaternityestablishmentandnosecondtestisrequested,  :04 thisshallbeconclusiveevidenceofnonpaternityandtheactionshallbedismissed.TCA247112(b)(1)(B)(i).Theamendmenttothestatutewasdesignedtohandlethecomplicatedsituationoftwopaternityteststhatindicatedifferentoutcomesorprobabilities.SeeTCA247112(b)(1)(B)(ii)&(iii).Thefacts  ofthiscasedonotwarrantaconcernforthepossibilityofadifferenttestresult.Instead,thebasicunderstandingofTCA247112thatwasquotedinJohnsonremains.Anegativetest   resultisconclusiveevidenceofnonpaternity.   `    ` TheGeneralAssembly,throughTCA247112,hasseenfittolegislativelyacknowledgethelegitimacyandaccuracyscienceprovidestoquestionsofparentage.WebelievethatarespectforestablishedscienceisamatterofoverwhelmingimportancetothecourtsofthisstateandthusaproperconsiderationinthisRule60.02(5)motion.SeeUnderwoodv. %  ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.1993).EventhoughMr. `'  Dickinsonsmotiondoesnotariseduringtheoriginalpaternityactionasrequiredfor247112toapply,thisaloneshouldnotprecludetheJuvenileCourtfromrecognizingwhatMr.Dickinson,Ms.Chaney,andMirandaalreadyknowaboutthetruenatureofthiscase.   ` Intheinterestofjustice,thisCourtmaynotturnablindeyetothefactthatMr.DickinsonisnotthefatherofMiranda.Whileitistruethatresjudicatapromotesthefinalityofjudgments,itshouldnotbeinterpretedinamanner  :04 thatsustainsludicrouslegalresultsthatflyinthefaceofreality.   ` ThedecisionoftheJuvenileCourtisreversed.ThecaseisremandedforanordergrantingN theN reliefO thatMr.DickinsonseeksO P O .O consistentwiththisopinion.P Q .Costsofthisappeal,asarecostsbelow,areadjudgedagainstMs.Chaney.Q ̜V ̛V    `     h   XjXXQX=C_______________________________ `    `     h   HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.#QX=CXXXjJG#