ÿWPCò ©’v¶°YÒ|ýSÀD*髉‰[¿æ¤‘Û1˜ö|¸°YÜ+žDnÈ«7Ôz€£ýOýVî¡—×n @V¾ °,'@óAÕ„4cÇÀY€ùýh†Ýëb™B}Ä>kQ–ÜÓ¬eþ^åuÀ§hƒmÍ€Ñp¨Gû@÷ÅfÝ¢Óhõ¦r[Q½ª²œ‘"/¬>Þ‘í4¯ßiÏùÉKMÛK›±ø$¸6ÙiN]½e\'wÙGw81z“ĬÊ*ú° Å—¸ Í 4„9ç%"1SGh ŠûäG.,ØìP¿à‰YÐLrVzyŠýa¼t1Þ–¿~¾t¹®ô¤Bä!Õ(x~eÚ…¨Òa).Z|"²ŽZwƒE·[ÓºQ€GÖBø‘áMÚƒ˜Œåù@ A£Ö½ux½aŠñd¼ñ6N&H€©ž>qÀ>Fº°×„MQ(­uãA8GƒíM3ðqUg#Hžkí=†K·+’ÈÓÅú v—ûŒû÷»’{\‹Ü¼µßÑl%ëñ<=ý;g‡k–‘Þ'×Í”†Ñ{œ $¯¼ùáh$=²üBZÜÕðåuè)— Xb«qafóùMI¡0!6MÓ$2²ã}Ó%;}9&àG-hb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ N™ Æ› Æa Æ'ÆíU@³NóNõ 0D÷E;UN=Z‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹båååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååå 0ëíííí BØØ 0¤õ D5™ D-Î 0Kûû ASFÆ™ 0¤_ 0D A«G˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» r1 (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular„‚–0\Pê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5&Öd9 Z‹(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  COASchalteggerIntl.EldridgeBallardHerzkeMcKinneyTenn.Ct.AppC.R.R.s]erviceDementToneymovant Keck Sys YerBarbee h]erarguendoWarmathCom'nLedbetterBinswanger ToofBowensHaslip S.W.CulbreathAss'n i]nCoppingerObergFayetteCoakleyHuckabeySpanglerTolerCookevilleLethcoeLewisesSteioff MCNBNatlThrailkill A]ny- ù-(|G2‹™$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y™»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâåò»»Ô d(|3‡‰$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y™»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡‰$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y™»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Y™»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Y™»»»ÔÑ8€ ‘XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î_ÌY™ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Y™»îî_Ì #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJanuary€8,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X ‘X»¼Y™ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Y™»XX ‘ô#ÔPHILLIP€RUSSELL€LEWIS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€JAMES€HOWARD€BOWEN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X ‘X»¼Y™Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€41585€€€€€€Don€R.€Ash,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00985„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV„€Filed€December€1,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Y™»XX ‘#ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼Y™ÔÔ‡X ‘XXX ‘ÔThe€plaintiffs€filed€a€complaint€for€repayment€of€borrowed€money.€€The€defendant,€who€was€livingÐ xÈ  Ðin€Ohio€at€the€time,€did€not€to€respond€to€the€complaint.€€The€plaintiffs€then€filed€a€motion€for€defaultÐ d´ Ðjudgment,€to€which€the€defendant€again€failed€to€respond.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€granted€theÐ P  Ðdefault€judgment.€€The€judgment€was€domesticated€in€Ohio,€and€substantial€monthly€garnishmentsÐ <Œ Ðwere€ordered€from€the€defendantððs€trust€funds€to€satisfy€the€judgment.€€More€than€two€years€after€theÐ (x Ðgarnishments€began,€and€almost€three€years€after€the€default€judgment€was€rendered,€the€defendantÐ d Ðtook€his€first€step€to€contest€the€plaintiffsðð€claim,€by€filing€a€motion€for€relief€from€judgment.€€TheÐ P Ðtrial€court€denied€the€motion.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð ì< ÐÔ#†X ‘XXX ‘ #ÔÔ#†¼Y™»XX ‘ê#ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼Y™ÔÌÓ»ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Y™»àX ‘ #ÔÔ‡X ‘X.¼Y™ÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€and€òòFrankÐ ˆØ ÐG.€Clement,€Jróó.€JJ.òòóó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌEwing€Sellers,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€James€Howard€Bowen,€et€al.Ð L œ ÐÌD.€Russell€Thomas,€Herbert€M.€Schaltegger,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€PhillipÐ $"t! ÐRussell€Lewis,€et€al.Ð #`" ÐÓ® ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Y™»XX ‘Ý #ÔÔ‡X ‘X»¼Y™ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌÔ#†¼Y™»XX ‘ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X ‘X»¼Y™Ôà  àThis€case€began€with€a€complaint€filed€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Rutherford€County€on€AprilÐ À&"& Ð12,€1999.€€The€plaintiffs,€Phillip€and€Debbie€Lewis,€stated€that€they€were€the€owners„operators€ofÐ ¬'ü"' ÐRoadrunnerððs€Pawn€and€Collectibles€in€Murfreesboro.€€They€claimed€that€between€1995€and€1998,Ð ˜(è#( Ðtheir€friends,€defendant€James€Howard€Bowen€and€his€now„deceased€wife,€Gail€Bowen,€approachedÐ „)Ô$) Ðthem€numerous€times€for€loans€and€cash€advances,€and€that€the€plaintiffs€loaned€them€large€sums€ofÐ p*À%* Ðmoney.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€plaintiffs€further€alleged€that€throughout€the€years€in€question,€the€defendants€led€themÐ ° Ðâ âto€believe€that€they€possessed€substantial€financial€assets€and€that,€as€the€debts€mounted,€theÐ œì Ðdefendants€made€repeated€assurances€that€payment€would€be€forthcoming.€€On€the€basis€of€thoseÐ ˆØ Ðassurances€of€repayment,€the€plaintiffs€continued€to€make€further€loans€and€were€deterred€fromÐ tÄ Ðseeking€legal€redress€for€the€money€already€owed.€€The€plaintiffs€submitted€affidavits€and€a€table€ofÐ `° Ðloans€which€documented€loans€in€the€principal€amount€of€$129,775.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€contended€that€the€defendantsðð€conduct€amounted€to€intentional€and€fraudulentÐ $ t Ðmisrepresentations€and€that€they€were€entitled€to€repayment€of€the€loans,€to€interest€on€their€moneyÐ  ` Ðat€the€rate€of€10%€per€annum,€and€to€punitive€damages€in€the€amount€of€$250,000.€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€complaint€stated€ð ðupon€information€and€beliefðð€that€Mr.€Bowen€had€moved€fromÐ Ô$  ÐTennessee€to€somewhere€in€or€near€Lancaster,€Ohio,€and€that€he€received€regular,€routineÐ À  Ðdisbursements€from€a€professionally€administered€trust.€€The€plaintiffs€attempted€to€serve€the€trustee,Ð ¬ü  Ðbut€he€refused€to€accept€service.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€then€served€Mr.€Bowen€by€certified€mail€through€the€Tennessee€Secretary€ofÐ pÀ ÐState.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„2„215€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4B.€€The€certified€mail€was€addressedÐ \¬ Ðto€James€Howard€Bowen,€1366€Sheridan€Street,€Apt.€72,€Lancaster,€Ohio.€€A€signed€return€receiptÐ H˜ Ðindicated€that€the€process€was€received€on€June€7,€1999,€by€Celeste€Bowen,€the€defendantððs€eighteenÐ 4„ Ðyear€old€daughter.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€never€answered€or€responded€in€any€way€to€the€complaint.€€On€July€9,€1999,€theÐ øH Ðplaintiffs€moved€the€court€€for€a€default€judgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55.01.€€The€motionÐ ä4 Ðincluded€a€certificate€of€service€that€recited€that€a€copy€had€been€sent€by€First€Class€U.S.€Mail,Ð Ð  Ðpostage€pre„paid€to€Mr.€Bowen€at€the€same€Ohio€address€as€indicated€above.€€Mr.€Bowen€did€notÐ ¼  Ðrespond€to€the€motion.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€motion€was€heard€on€August€20,€1999,€and€an€order€granting€the€default€judgment€wasÐ €Ð Ðfiled€on€October€29,€1999.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiffs€compensatory€damages€ofÐ l¼ Ð$154,931.92€(which€included€the€requested€interest)€and€punitive€damages€of€$250,000.€€A€copy€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€judgment€was€served€in€the€same€manner€and€at€the€same€address€as€the€motion.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€domesticate€the€judgment€of€the€Tennessee€court,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€Notice€ofÐ #l! ÐForeign€Judgment€in€the€Court€of€Common€Pleas€of€Franklin€County,€Ohio,€on€February€3,€2000.€Ð $X" ÐThe€certificate€of€service€on€the€notice€recited€the€same€address€for€the€defendant,€but€again,€thereÐ ô$D # Ðwas€no€response.€€Mr.€Bowen€was€the€beneficiary€of€a€trust€that€produced€income€of€about€$6,400Ð à%0!$ Ða€month,€and€garnishment€of€that€income€pursuant€to€the€domesticated€order€began€in€June€of€2000Ð Ì&"% Ðand€continued€on€a€monthly€basis.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€first€document€in€the€record€showing€any€recognition€by€Mr.€Bowen€of€the€plaintiffsððÐ )à$( Ðongoing€efforts€to€collect€on€their€debts€is€the€motion€that€started€the€proceedings€herein.€€In€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðmotion,€dated€September€6,€2002,€Mr.€Bowen€asked€to€be€relieved€from€the€judgment€of€theÐ h+¸&* ÐRutherford€County€Circuit€Court.€€By€that€time,€over€$177,000€had€been€garnished€from€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€trust.€€The€primary€ground€for€relief€stated€in€the€motion€was€that€the€court€neverÐ œì Ðobtained€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€defendant€because€his€daughterððs€signature€rather€than€hisÐ ˆØ Ðown€was€on€the€return€receipt€from€the€mailing€of€the€original€complaint.€€To€accompany€his€motion,Ð tÄ ÐMr.€Bowen€filed€an€answer€to€the€complaint€in€which€he€claimed€that€he€had€meritorious€defensesÐ `° Ðto€repayment€of€the€loans.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFurther€pleadings€were€exchanged€between€the€parties,€and€Mr.€Bowenððs€motion€was€heardÐ $ t Ðon€November€13,€2002,€following€which€the€trial€court€announced€its€decision€from€the€bench.€€TheÐ  ` Ðcourt€found€that€service€was€proper€and€that€the€motion€had€to€be€denied€on€that€basis.€€The€courtÐ ü L  Ðfurther€found€that€the€defendant€delayed€unreasonably€in€filing€a€response€to€the€plaintiffsðð€pleadingsÐ è 8  Ðand€had€failed€to€offer€an€explanation€for€that€delay.€€The€court€accordingly€declined€to€vacate€itsÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment€and€taxed€court€costs€against€the€defendant.€€A€subsequent€motion€to€alter€or€amend€wasÐ À  Ðdenied.€€This€appeal€followed.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà@RRìàò òòòI.€€Relief€From€JudgmentóóˆÐ „Ô  Ðó óÌà  àRule€55.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€that€ð ðfor€good€cause€shownÐ \¬ Ðthe€court€may€set€aside€a€judgment€by€default€in€accordance€with€Rule€60.02.ðð€The€latter€rule€allowsÐ H˜ Ðthe€court,€on€the€motion€of€a€party€and€ð ðon€such€terms€as€are€just,ðð€to€relieve€a€party€from€a€finalÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€for€reasons€of€(1)€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise,€or€excusable€neglect,€(2)€fraud,€(3)€theÐ  p Ðjudgment€is€void,€(4)€satisfaction,€relief€or€discharge,€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€fromÐ  \ Ðoperation€of€the€judgment.€€Rule€60.02€requires€that€the€motion€be€made€ð ðwithin€a€reasonable€time,ððÐ øH Ðbut€when€for€reasons€(1)€or€(2),€not€more€that€one€year€after€the€judgment€was€entered€or€taken.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àA€party€seeking€relief€from€a€default€judgment€must€satisfy€the€court€that€he€or€she€is€entitledÐ ¼  Ðto€relief€based€on€one€of€the€grounds€set€out€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€and€also€that€he€or€she€has€aÐ ¨ø Ðmeritorious€defense€to€the€plaintiffððs€action.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55.02;€òòPatterson€v.€Rockwell€Intððl.óó,€665Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€96,€100€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€ex€rel.€Jones€v.€Looperóó,€86€S.W.3d€189,€199€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð €Ð Ð2000).€€Further,€the€party€seeking€relief€from€a€judgment€has€the€burden€of€proving€he€or€she€isÐ l¼ Ðentitled€to€relief.€€òòLooperóó,€86€S.W.3d€at€199„200;€òòNelson€v.€Simpsonóó,€826€S.W.2d€483,€485€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ ÐCt.€App.€1991).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€decision€by€a€trial€court€to€enter€a€default€judgment€or€to€refuse€to€set€aside€a€defaultÐ #l! Ðjudgment€is€reviewed€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòFederated€Ins.€Co.€v.€Lethcoeóó,€18€S.W.3d€621,€624Ð $X" Ð(Tenn.€2000);€òòPattersonóó,€665€S.W.2d€at€100;€òòLooperóó,€86€S.W.3d€at€193;€òòTennessee€State€Bank€v.Ð ô$D # ÐLayóó,€609€S.W.2d€525,€527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€A€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€only€when€itÐ à%0!$ Ðapplies€an€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reaches€a€decision€against€logic€or€reasoning€or€that€causes€anÐ Ì&"% Ðinjustice.€€òòEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€burden€of€establishing€abuseÐ ¸'#& Ðof€discretion€is€on€the€party€seeking€to€overturn€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€appeal.€€òòBallard€v.€Herzkeóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð924€S.W.2d€652,€659€(Tenn.€1996).Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Їà@ìàò òòòII.€€The€Requirement€of€ServiceóóˆÐ ° Ðó óÌà  àIn€his€motion€for€relief€from€judgment,€Mr.€Bowen€argued€the€default€judgment€was€voidÐ ˆØ Ðbased€on€his€assertions€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€personal€jurisdiction€over€him€at€the€time€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€entry€of€the€default€judgment€because€the€attempted€service€of€the€complaint€was€ineffective.€Ð `° ÐThe€standard€for€determining€whether€a€judgment€is€void€is€well€settled:€whether€the€court€hadÐ L œ Ðgeneral€jurisdiction€of€the€subject€matter,€whether€the€judgment€was€wholly€outside€the€pleadings,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€whether€the€court€had€jurisdiction€of€the€parties.€€òòGentry€v.€Gentryóó,€924€S.W.2d€678,€680„81Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€Aòòóó€judgment€òòin€personamóó€rendered€without€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€parties€isÐ  ` Ðvoid.€òò€Idóó.;€€€òòJohnson€v.€McKinney,óó€222€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1948).Ð ü L  ÐÌÔ‡X ‘XXX ‘Ôà  àPersonal€jurisdiction€over€parties€defendant€is€obtained€by€service€of€process€in€conformanceÐ Ô$  Ðwith€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.€€Process,€or€leading€process,€is€the€document,€usually€a€summons,€that€bringsÐ À  Ðthe€defendant€before€the€court,€asserts€the€courtððs€jurisdiction€over€the€case,€and€requires€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€to€respond.€€òòSeeóó€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€4.€€Ô#†X ‘XXX ‘ 2#Ôð ðProcessðð€is€generallyÐ ˜è  Ðdefined€as€ð ðthe€means€of€compelling€the€defendant€in€an€action€to€appear€in€court€.€.€.€,€or€a€meansÐ „Ô  Ðwhereby€a€court€compels€compliance€with€its€demands.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó€1370€(rev.€4thÐ pÀ Ðed.€1968).€€Ô‡X ‘XXX ‘Ôòòóóð ðThe€primary€function€of€[Fed€R.€Civ.€P.]€Rule€4€is€to€provide€a€mechanism€for€bringingÐ \¬ Ðnotice€of€the€commencement€of€any€action€to€the€defendantððs€attention€and€to€provide€a€ritual€thatÐ H˜ Ðmarks€the€courtððs€assertion€of€jurisdiction€over€the€lawsuit.ðð€4€òòC.€Wright,€A.€Milleróó,€òòFederalÐ 4„ ÐPractice€and€Procedureóó€3d€ðð€1063.Ð  p ÐÌÔ#†X ‘XXX ‘Ó5#Ôà  àProper€notice€is€òòóóa€necessary€prerequisite€for€the€exercise€of€personal€jurisdiction€over€aÐ øH Ðdefendant.€€òòDixie€Savings€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Turner,óó€767€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€TheÐ ä4 Ðprovisions€of€Rule€4€were€designed€to€insure€that€process€is€served€in€a€manner€reasonably€calculatedÐ Ð  Ðto€give€a€party€defendant€adequate€notice€of€the€pending€judicial€proceedings.€€òòGarland€v.€SeaboardÐ ¼  ÐC.R.R.,óó€658€S.W.2d€528,€530€(Tenn.€1983).€€Rule€4.04€deals€with€service€upon€defendants€withinÐ ¨ø Ðthe€state.€€Rule€4.05€governs€service€of€process€upon€defendants€outside€this€state€generally€andÐ ”ä Ðallows€service€of€process€to€be€made€ð ðby€any€form€of€service€authorized€for€service€within€this€stateÐ €Ð Ðpursuant€to€Rule€4.04.ðð€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àRule€4B€applies€to€ð ðService€upon€the€Secretary€of€State€as€Agent€for€Service€of€Processðð€andÐ D!” Ðis€available€only€for€service€upon€defendants€outside€the€territorial€limits€of€the€state.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð 0"€  ÐP.€4B(1).€€This€rule€was€added€to€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€in€1997€and€is€based€upon€the€long„Ð #l! Ðarm€statutes€that€provide€for€service€on€the€Secretary€of€State€in€some€circumstances.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ $X" ÐAnn.€ðððð€20„2„211€and€„215.€€ð ðIt€was€added€to€ensure€that€all€general€provisions€for€service€of€processÐ ô$D # Ðare€included€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.ðð€€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€RuleÐ à%0!$ Ð4B.€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€plaintiffs€used€Rule€4B€to€effectuate€service€on€Mr.€Bowen.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àUnder€Rule€4B,€the€plaintiff€must€deliver€the€original€and€one€copy€of€the€process,€dulyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcertified,€to€the€Tennessee€Secretary€of€State,€who€then€sends€it€by€registered€or€certified€returnÐ )à$( Ðreceipt€mail€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4B(2).€€In€pertinent€part,€the€rule€provides:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àAcceptance€of€such€registered€or€certified€mail€by€any€member€of€the€addresseeððsÐ ° Ðfamily,€over€the€age€of€sixteen€(16)€years€and€residing€in€the€same€dwelling€with€him,Ð œì Ðshall€constitute€a€sufficient€delivery€thereof€to€the€addressee.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4B(5).Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€return€receipt€from€the€certified€mail€sent€by€the€Secretary€of€State€was€signed€by€Mr.Ð 8 ˆ ÐBowenððs€daughter.€€Mr.€Bowen€argues€that€the€service€was€defective€because€his€daughter€was€notÐ $ t Ðresiding€with€him€at€the€Sheridan€Drive€address€at€the€time.€€Resolution€of€the€issue€therefore€hingesÐ  ` Ðupon€a€question€of€fact.€€Findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€ofÐ ü L  Ðcorrectness€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€13(d).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€contends€that€he€was€not€getting€along€with€his€daughter€at€the€relevant€time,€butÐ À  Ðhe€acknowledges€that€she€was€in€and€out€of€his€house€all€the€time.€€While€he€claims€she€was€livingÐ ¬ü  Ðsomewhere€else€at€the€time€of€service,€he€is€unable€to€furnish€an€address.€€There€is€no€affidavit€fromÐ ˜è  Ðthe€daughter€stating€she€did€not€reside€at€Mr.€Bowenððs€home€at€the€time€she€signed€the€receipt.€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðrecord€contains€an€abstract€from€the€Ohio€Bureau€of€Motor€Vehicles,€which€reveals€that€an€OhioÐ pÀ ÐDrivers€License€was€issued€to€Celeste€Bowen€on€July€27,€1999€(seven€weeks€after€she€signed€theÐ \¬ Ðreturn€receipt)€with€an€address€of€1366€Sheridan€Drive,€Apt.€72,€Lancaster€OH€43130.€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€implicit€finding€that€CelesteÐ  p ÐBowen,€who€was€eighteen€at€the€time,€was€residing€in€Mr.€Bowenððs€home€with€him€when€sheÐ  \ Ðreceived€and€signed€for€the€summons€and€complaint.€€Consequently,€service€was€effective€under€theÐ øH Ðterms€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4B(5).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€also€argues€that€Rule€4B,€if€applied€to€default€judgments,€conflicts€with€RuleÐ ¼  Ð4.04(10),€which€is€applicable€to€service€on€defendants€outside€the€state€through€Rule€4.05.€€RuleÐ ¨ø Ð4.04(10)€allows€service€by€certified€or€registered€€return€receipt€mail,€but€also€states€that€ð ð[s]erviceÐ ”ä Ðby€mail€shall€not€be€the€basis€for€the€entry€of€a€judgment€by€default€unless€the€record€contains€aÐ €Ð Ðreturn€receipt€showing€personal€acceptance€by€the€defendant€or€by€persons€designated€by€Rule€4.04Ð l¼ Ðor€statute.ðð€€Mr.€Bowen€argues:€this€provision€requires€the€signature€of€the€defendant€or€a€specifiedÐ X ¨ Ðagent;€no€such€signature€was€obtained€herein;€and€this€provision,€being€specific€to€default€judgments,Ð D!” Ðis€not€superceded€by€Rule€4B.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€accurately€points€out€that€of€the€two€statutes€regarding€service€of€process€throughÐ $X" Ðthe€Secretary€of€State,€only€one€contains€language€similar€to€that€in€Rule€4B(5),€and€that€statuteÐ ô$D # Ðapplies€only€to€defendants€who€are€nonresident€motorists.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„2„205(e).€Ð à%0!$ ÐHowever,€that€fact€does€not€in€any€way€limit€the€language€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4B(5).€€It€clearlyÐ Ì&"% Ðapplies€to€service€of€process€on€the€Secretary€of€State€regardless€of€the€type€of€lawsuit€involved.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€20„2„224,€as€long€as€the€exercise€of€personalÐ )à$( Ðjurisdiction€over€out€of€state€defendants€is€authorized,€ð ðservice€may€be€made€outside€this€state€in€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðmanner€provided€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€or€as€otherwise€provided€by€law.ðð€€RuleÐ h+¸&* Ð4B(5)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€authorizes€service€of€process€by€certified€returnÐ ° Ðreceipt€mail€that€is€accepted€by€a€member€of€the€addresseeððs€family€living€in€the€same€dwelling€andÐ œì Ðover€the€age€of€sixteen€(16).€€Mr.€Bowenððs€arguments€regarding€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.04(10)€do€notÐ ˆØ Ðaffect€the€validity€of€service€of€process€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4B(5).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€default€judgment€was€not€void€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction,€and€we€affirm€the€trialÐ L œ Ðcourtððs€refusal€to€set€aside€the€judgment€on€that€ground.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@SS!ìàò òòòIII.€€Other€Groundsó óóóˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àRelief€under€Rule€60.02€is€considered€ð ðan€exceptional€remedy.ðð€€òòNails€v.€Aetna€Ins.€Co.óó,€834Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€275,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€function€of€the€rule€is€ð ðto€strike€a€proper€balance€between€theÐ Ô$  Ðcompeting€principles€of€finality€and€justice.ðð€€òòBanks€v.€Dement€Constr.€Co.,€Incóó.,€817€S.W.2d€16,€18Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€1991)€(quoting€òòJerkins€v.€McKinneyóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€1976)).€€Rule€60.02€actsÐ ¬ü  Ðas€an€ð ðescape€valve€from€possible€inequity€that€might€otherwise€arise€from€the€unrelentingÐ ˜è  Ðimposition€of€the€principle€of€finality€imbedded€in€our€procedural€rules.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€817€S.W.2d€atÐ „Ô  Ð18òò€óó(quoting€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€1991)).€€Because€of€the€importanceÐ pÀ Ðof€finality,€the€ð ðescape€valveðð€should€not€be€easily€opened.€€òòId.óóÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àHowever,€if€any€reasonable€doubt€exists€as€to€whether€the€default€judgment€should€be€setÐ 4„ Ðaside,€the€court€should€grant€relief.€€òòNelsonóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€486;€òòKeck€v.€Nationwide€Sys.,€Incóó.,€499Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€266,€267€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€Thus,€although€the€trial€court€has€discretion€to€deny€aÐ  \ Ðmotion€to€set€aside€a€default€judgment,€that€discretion€should€be€exercised€in€favor€of€setting€asideÐ øH Ðthe€judgment€if€there€is€a€reasonable€question€as€to€the€grounds€for€such€relief,€because€of€the€well„Ð ä4 Ðsettled€preference€for€giving€every€person€a€day€in€court€to€make€his€or€her€defense.€€òòId.óó,€499€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€266„67€(citing€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€86€Tenn.€277,€7€S.€W.€640€(1887);€òòRoberts€v.€Stewartóó,€9€Tenn.Ð ¼  Ð(1€Yer.)€390€(1830);òòóó€òòFidelity„Phoenix€Fire€Ins.€Co.€v.€Oliveróó,€25€Tenn.€App.€114,€152€S.W.2d€254Ð ¨ø Ð(1941)).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€relies€on€this€general€rule€to€argue€the€default€judgment€should€have€been€setÐ l¼ Ðaside.€€He€also€argues€that€the€decision€whether€to€set€aside€a€default€judgment€should€be€based€on€Ð X ¨ Ðthree€generally€relevant€inquiries:€whether€the€failure€to€respond€was€willful;€whether€the€defendantÐ D!” Ðhas€a€meritorious€defense;€and€the€extent€of€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant€if€the€judgment€is€setÐ 0"€  Ðaside.€€òòTennessee€Dept.€of€Human€Services€v.€Barbeeóó,€689€S.W.2d€863€(Tenn.€1985).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWhile€these€are€accurate€statements,€they€do€not€replace€the€requirement€that€the€partyÐ ô$D # Ðseeking€relief€must€show€entitlement€to€such€relief€based€on€the€grounds€set€out€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð à%0!$ Ð60.02.€€Only€where€there€is€a€reasonable€question€as€to€the€grounds€does€the€preference€for€settingÐ Ì&"% Ðaside€a€default€judgment€come€into€play.€€Further,€as€Rule€60.02€states,€a€request€for€relief€fromÐ ¸'#& Ðjudgment€must€be€made€in€a€reasonable€time,€and€the€cases€applying€the€standard€favoring€the€settingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaside€of€default€judgments€all€involve€timely€efforts€to€set€aside€such€judgment€and€litigants€movingÐ )à$( Ðexpeditiously€to€protect€their€rights.€€As€the€trial€court€herein€found,€Mr.€Bowen€did€not€respond€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€litigation€in€a€reasonable€time€and€did€not€explain€that€delay.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àMr.€Bowenððs€claim€that€his€failure€to€file€a€timely€answer€to€the€complaint€was€not€willfulÐ ° Ðis€based€upon€his€allegation€that€his€daughter€never€told€him€that€about€the€complaint.€€He€relies€inÐ œì Ðpart€upon€an€affidavit€signed€by€his€stepson,€stating€that€Celeste€Bowen€told€him€that€she€neverÐ ˆØ Ðinformed€her€father€about€the€documents€she€signed€for,€and€that€ð ð[h]er€reason€for€not€passing€theÐ tÄ Ðdocuments€onto€him€was€that€she€was€mad€at€him.ðð€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€the€motion€for€default€judgment€and€the€default€judgment€itself€were€served€onÐ 8 ˆ Ðhim€by€first€class€mail€at€the€same€address,€in€the€manner€prescribed€by€Rule€5€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€€forÐ $ t Ðdocuments€other€than€leading€process.€€Mr.€Bowen€denied€receiving€either€of€those€documents.€Ð  ` Ðð ðService€by€mail€is€complete€upon€mailing,ðð€and€proof€of€such€mailing€can€be€supplied€by€aÐ ü L  Ðcertificate€of€service€by€a€member€of€the€bar.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€5.02€and€5.03.€€Proof€of€due€mailingÐ è 8  Ðcreates€a€presumption€of€receipt.€€òòWarmath€v.€Payne,óó€3€S.W.3d€487,€492€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);Ð Ô$  ÐòòCard€v.€Tennessee€Civil€Service€Com'n,óó€981€S.W.2d€665€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€òòóóÐ À  ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€claims€that€the€first€time€he€became€aware€of€the€Lewisesðð€suit€against€him€wasÐ ˜è  Ðafter€the€motion€to€domesticate€the€Tennessee€judgment€was€filed€in€the€Ohio€court.€€But,€he€stillÐ „Ô  Ðfailed€to€act€for€almost€two€years,€and€he€does€not€offer€any€explanation€for€his€delay.€€We€mustÐ pÀ Ðtherefore€consider€his€inaction€to€be€willful.€€Additionally,€as€the€trial€court€found,€Mr.€BowenÐ \¬ Ðdelayed€unreasonably€in€seeking€relief€from€the€judgment.€€Consequently,€his€motion€for€relief€wasÐ H˜ Ðnot€made€ð ðwithin€a€reasonable€timeðð€as€is€required€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€also€challenges€the€judgment€for€punitive€damages€on€procedural€and€substantiveÐ  \ Ðgrounds.€€He€argues€that€there€was€no€proof€of€any€action€on€his€part€of€a€character€that€would€justifyÐ øH Ðan€award€of€punitive€damages€under€òòHodges€v.€Toofóó,€833€S.W.2d€896€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€that€case,Ð ä4 Ðour€Supreme€Court€declared€that€punitive€òòóódamages€should€only€be€available€to€a€plaintiff€who€canÐ Ð  Ðprove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€defendant€ð ðhas€acted€either€(1)€intentionally,€(2)Ð ¼  Ðfraudulently,€(3)€maliciously,€or€(4)€recklessly.ðð€833€S.W.2d€at€901.€€Mr.€Bowen€also€argues€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€court€in€this€case€did€not€follow€all€the€procedures€òòóóset€out€in€òòHodgesóó€for€determining€suchÐ ”ä Ðawards.€€He€particularly€objects€to€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€set€out€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÐ €Ð Ðof€law€in€regard€to€its€determination.€€òòSeeóó€833€S.W.2d€at€902.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àMr.€Bowen€does€not€identify€which€of€the€Rule€60.02€grounds€these€objections€relate€to.€€TheÐ D!” Ðfirst€two€grounds€enumerated€in€the€rule€are€not€available€to€Mr.€Bowen€because€he€filed€his€motionÐ 0"€  Ðfor€relief€more€than€one€year€after€the€judgment€was€rendered.€€He€has€not€alleged€the€judgment€hasÐ #l! Ðbeen€satisfied€or€discharged.€€Because€he€does€not,€and€cannot,€argue€that€the€court€entering€theÐ $X" Ðjudgment€was€without€subject€matter€or€personal€jurisdiction€or€that€the€judgment€was€whollyÐ ô$D # Ðoutside€the€pleadings,€he€has€not€alleged€that€the€judgment€was€void€on€the€basis€of€the€punitiveÐ à%0!$ Ðdamages€award.€€òòGentryóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€680„81.€€Absent€such€a€òòprima€facieóó€void€decree,€ð ða€flaw€inÐ Ì&"% Ðprocedureðð€will€not€render€a€decree€void.€€òòIdóó.€at€681.€€Such€an€order€is€merely€voidable€or€is€valid.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThat€leaves€only€one€potential€ground€for€Mr.€Bowenððs€punitive€damages€argument,€Tenn.Ð )à$( ÐR.€Civ.€P.€60.02(5),€which€allows€relief€from€a€final€judgment€for€ð ðany€other€reason€justifying€reliefÐ |*Ì%) Ðfrom€the€operation€of€the€judgment.ðð€€Despite€its€broad€language,€the€rule€has€been€construed€veryÐ h+¸&* Ðnarrowly€by€the€courts€of€this€state.€òò€Lethcoeóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€625;€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.óó,€854Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€94€(Tenn.€1993);òò€Henderson€v.€Kirbyóó,€994€S.W.2d€602€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòSteioff€v.Ð œì ÐSteioffóó,€833€S.W.2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€The€standards€of€Rule€60.02(5)€are€moreÐ ˆØ Ðdemanding€than€those€applicable€to€the€other€grounds€for€relief€under€the€rule.€€òòMCNB€Natððl€BankÐ tÄ Ðof€N.C.€v.€Thrailkillóó,€856€S.W.2d€150,€154€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€In€fact,€relief€under€Rule€60.02(5)Ð `° Ðis€only€appropriate€in€cases€involving€extraordinary€circumstances€or€extreme€hardship.€€òòLethcoeóó,Ð L œ Ð18€S.W.3d€at€624€(citing€òòUnderwoodóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€97).€€ð ððð[A]ny€other€reasonðð€under€Rule€60.02(5)Ð 8 ˆ Ðis€to€be€defined€as€a€reason€of€ððoverriding€importance.ðððð€€òòBanksóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€19.€€This€case€doesÐ $ t Ðnot€present€extraordinary€or€exceptional€circumstances,€òòHenderson€v.€Kirbyóó,€944€S.W.2d€602,€606Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996),€or€issues€of€overriding€importance,€òòBanksóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€19.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Mr.€Bowenððs€motion€for€relief€from€judgment.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€ofÐ „Ô  ÐRutherford€County.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€James€Howard€Bowen.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE