ÿWPCŠ >¼LGþs“­8TVËÜîOÃy“¯8ó;âØÀO¾fê„ZŸÏä!ºRá;gþZ:é¶Vä+6+wt–n¤M™ºê²|àï¡àpÎLCmÕôv|‡—s¬Å9(ñ¸–’îÒÊÒN±Ô)ß»EŽü¯ñ-Q䤩Æå¥O(+ÇþèÝ ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÔòXXÔThe€reasons€under€subsection€(1)€of€Rule€60.02,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€are€ð ðmistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€orÐ ° Ðexcusable€neglect.ððÔ#†XòˆXòôÔe#Ô\Opinion Summary?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.4810 dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÑ8€òˆXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  Ñó óÔ‡XòˆXXXÔÔ‡¼[Ý»XXòˆÔÌà@ü ü ìàÔ#†XòˆX»¼[ݧ#ÔÔ‡îT¤îXXòˆÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@NN$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†XòˆXîîT¤ü#ÔÔ‡¼[Ý»XXòˆÔ€ˆÐ è8 ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†XòˆX»¼[Ý–#ÔÔ‡¼[Ý»XXòˆÔOctober€8,€2003€SessionÐ ^ ÐÔ#†XòˆX»¼[Ýû#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼[Ý»XXòˆÔTHOMAS€K.€BOWERS€€v.€GUTTERGUARD€OF€TENNESSEE,€INC.Ô#†XòˆX»¼[Ým#ÔÔ‡¼[Ý»XXòˆÔó óÐ  \ ÐÌÔ#†XòˆX»¼[Ýâ#ÔAppeal€from€the€Ô% ‡ ÔCircuit€Court€Ô%†MÔfor€Davidson€CountyÐ 2 ‚ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02C„2175€€€€€€€€Hamilton€V.€Garden,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ  n ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<á` AßÐ â2  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔM2002„02877„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÔ%†#{Ô€„€Filed€December€17,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ Ý-  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<´` AßÐ µ ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓÔ%†uÔÔ#†XòˆXXXòˆˆ#ÔThe€defendant€challenges€the€Circuit€Courtððs€dismissal€of€an€appeal€from€General€Sessions€CourtÐ ° Ðfor€failure€to€comply€with€Davidson€County€Local€Rule€of€Practice€20(b).€€The€Local€Rule€requiredÐ œì Ðthe€appealing€party€to€set€the€matter€for€trial€no€more€than€45€days€following€the€Circuit€CourtÐ ˆØ ÐClerkððs€receipt€of€the€appeal.€€Though€the€defendant€had€filed€a€motion€to€set,€an€order€setting€theÐ tÄ Ðmatter€for€trial€had€not€been€entered€when€the€Circuit€Judge€dismissed€the€appeal€and€made€theÐ `° Ðjudgment€of€the€General€Sessions€Court€the€final€judgment.€€The€defendant/appellant€sought€RuleÐ Lœ Ð60.02(1)€relief,€claiming€excusable€neglect,€which€was€denied.€€Based€upon€recent€authority,Ð 8ˆ Ðdetermination€of€ð ðexcusable€neglectðð€for€Rule€60€purposes€now€requires€an€evaluation€of€threeÐ $t Ðfactors:€whether€the€defaulting€partyððs€conduct€was€willful,€whether€there€exists€a€meritoriousÐ ` Ðdefense,€and€whether€Ô‡XòˆXXXòˆÔthe€non„defaulting€party€has€been€€prejudiced.€€We€find€the€defendantððsÐ üL Ðnegligence€was€not€willful€and€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€no€prejudice;€however,€the€record€is€silentÐ è8 Ðconcerning€whether€the€defendant€has€a€meritorious€defense.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtÐ Ô$ Ðand€remand€the€matter€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€ruling.Ð À ÐÓ‚ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€right;€Judgment€of€the€Ô% ‡% ÔCircuit€Court€Ð ˜ è ÐReversed€and€Remandedó óÔ%†%+ ÔÐ „!Ô  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€Ð \#¬" ÐPJ,€M.S.,óó€and€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrellóó,€J.,€joined.Ð H$˜# ÐÌÔ% ‡ ÔMichael€D.€Fitzgerald,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ô%†q Ô€Gutterguard€of€Tennessee,€Inc.Ð  &p!% ÐÌW.€H.€(Steve)€Stephenson,€II,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Thomas€K.€Bowers.Ð ø'H#' ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ Ð) %) ÐÔ#†XòˆXXXòˆü #ÔÌÓ  Óà  àThe€issue€presented€is€whether€the€Circuit€Court€abused€its€discretion€by€denyingÐ ¨+ø&+ ÐAppellant/Gutterguard€relief€under€Ô_ÔTenn.R.Civ.P.Ô_Ô€60.02(1)€and€dismissing€its€case€for€failure€toÐ ”,ä', Ðcomply€with€Davidson€County€Local€Rule€Of€Practice€20(b).€€Specifically,€Appellant€argues€that€itÐ €-Ð(-ÿ ÐÔ_Ôfiled€its€Motion€to€Set€Trial€while€the€matter€was€active€on€the€docket,€that€no€delay€resulted€fromÐ ° Ðthe€noncompliance,€and€Appellee€suffered€no€prejudice€from€the€delay.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€procedural€history€of€the€case€is€brief.€Appellee,€Thomas€Bowers,€sued€Gutterguard€ofÐ tÄ ÐTennessee,€Inc.,€Appellant,€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€of€Davidson€County€alleging€thatÐ `° ÐGutterguard€had€breached€its€contract€and€had€damaged€his€lawn.€The€General€Sessions€CourtÐ L œ Ðawarded€judgment€against€Gutterguard€in€the€amount€of€$6,000,€and€Gutterguard€appealed€to€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDavidson€County€Circuit€Court.€Ð $ t ЀÌà  àOn€July€25,€2002,€Gutterguard€filed€its€appeal€bond€and,€on€the€same€date,€the€attorney€forÐ ü L  ÐGutterguard€signed€a€document€entitled€ð ðNotice€to€the€Appellantðð€which€succinctly€states€in€boldÐ è 8  Ðprint,€ð ðAs€the€Appellant,€it€is€your€responsibility€to€take€the€necessary€steps€to€have€this€case€set€onÐ Ô$  Ðthe€docket€within€45€days€of€its€arrival€in€Circuit€Court.ðð€€In€a€letter€to€Bowersðð€attorney,€datedÐ À  ÐAugust€2,€2002,€the€Circuit€Court€Clerk€advised€that€the€appeal€had€been€received€by€the€ClerkððsÐ ¬ü  Ðoffice€on€August€1,€2002,€that€the€appeal€had€been€assigned€to€the€First€Circuit€Court,€and€thatÐ ˜è  Ðð ðPursuant€to€Local€Rule€20(b),€the€case€shall€be€set€for€trial€within€forty„five€(45)€days€from€the€dateÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Circuit€Court€Clerk€files€the€appealed€warrant.ðð€€In€its€letter€the€Clerk€further€advised,€ð ðIf€the€caseÐ pÀ Ðis€not€set€within€45€days,€an€order€will€be€entered€making€the€judgment€of€the€General€SessionsÐ \¬ ÐCourt€the€judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€with€costs€taxed€to€the€appellant.ðð€This€notice€from€theÐ H˜ ÐClerk€was€received€by€Bowersðð€attorney€on€August€6,€2002;€however,€Gutterguardððs€attorney€did€notÐ 4„ Ðreceive€the€notice.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àTwo€pertinent€motions€were€filed€46€and€47€days,€respectively,€following€the€ð ðarrivalðð€of€theÐ øH Ðappeal€in€Circuit€Court.€€On€September€17,€2002,€Bowers€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€appealÐ ä4 Ðpursuant€to€Local€Rule€20(b)€and€to€have€the€judgment€of€the€General€Sessions€Court€entered€as€theÐ Ð  Ðjudgment€of€the€Circuit€Court.€€The€following€day,€Gutterguard€filed€a€motion€to€set€the€matter€forÐ ¼  Ðtrial.€€Neither€motion€was€heard€until€October€4,€2002.€€At€the€hearing,€the€Circuit€Court€deniedÐ ¨ø ÐGutterguardððs€motion€to€set€the€matter€for€trial€and€granted€Bowersðð€motion€awarding€judgment€ofÐ ”ä Ð$6,000€against€Gutterguard.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àGutterguard€promptly€filed€a€motion€seeking€relief€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1).€Ð X ¨ ÐGutterguardððs€motion€for€Rule€60€relief€was€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€its€attorney,€Michael€Ð D!” ÐFitzgerald,€who€testified€that€he€did€not€receive€a€copy€of€the€August€2,€2002€letter€from€the€Clerk,Ð 0"€  Ðwhich€had€been€sent€to€Bowersðð€attorney.€€Thus,€he€asserts€he€did€not€know€when€the€45„day€timeÐ #l! Ðperiod€began€to€run.€Fitzgerald€further€testified€that€he€contacted€the€Clerkððs€office€on€SeptemberÐ $X" Ð13,€2002€€to€obtain€available€trial€dates€and€that€he€filed€a€€motion€to€set€the€case€for€trial€while€theÐ ô$D # Ðcase€was€still€active.€€Furthermore,€Fitzgerald€stated€that€the€available€trial€dates€provided€by€theÐ à%0!$ ÐClerk€were€not€until€January,€2003.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àBowers€filed€a€response€in€opposition€to€Gutterguardððs€Rule€60€motion€supported€by€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmemorandum€of€law€and€facts.€€The€facts€Bowers€relied€on€were€limited€to€the€procedural€history€Ð )à$( Ðset€forth€in€the€courtððs€record.€€Bowers€did€not€file€affidavits,€nor€did€he€provide€any€evidence€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðopposition€to€the€Rule€60€motion.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àGutterguardððs€Rule€60€motion€was€heard€on€November€1,€2002€and€was€denied€by€the€CircuitÐ ° ÐCourt.€€The€order€denying€Gutterguardððs€motion€does€not€set€forth€findings€of€fact;€it€merely€statesÐ œì Ðthat€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€Gutterguardððs€motion€is€not€well€taken€and€should€be€denied.€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àGutterguard€asserts€that€the€Circuit€Court€committed€reversible€error€when€it€denied€itsÐ `° Ðmotion€seeking€relief€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1).€€€It€relies€on€three€primary€facts:€€(1)€the€caseÐ L œ Ðwas€active€when€it€filed€the€motion€to€set,€(2)€no€delay€resulted€from€the€noncompliance€for€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðmatter€could€not€be€heard€until€January,€2003€at€the€earliest,€and€(3)€Bowers€suffered€no€prejudice.Ð $ t ÐÌà@žž!ìàò òStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àAppellate€Courts€review€decisions€dealing€with€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€under€an€abuse€ofÐ Ô$  Ðdiscretion€standard€since€these€requests€for€relief€are€ð ðaddressed€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretion.ððÐ À  ÐòòMcCracken€v.€Brentwood€United€Methodist€Churchóó,€958€S.W.€2d€792,€795€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€give€great€deference€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€or€deny€relief€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02.Ð ˜è  ÐòòHenry€v.€Goinsóó,€104€S.W.€3d€475,€479€(Tenn.€2003);€òòSee€Underwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.óó,€854€S.W.Ð „Ô  Ð2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€1993).€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€will€not€be€set€aside€unless€it€has€abusedÐ pÀ Ðits€discretion.€€òòHenryóó€at€479;€òòSee€Underwoodóó€at€97.€€An€appellate€court€is€not€permitted€to€substituteÐ \¬ Ðits€judgment€for€that€of€the€trial€court€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€òòHenryóó€at€479;€òòSeeÐ H˜ ÐEldridge€v.€Eldridgeóó,€42€S.W.€3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001).€€Only€when€a€trial€court€has€ð ð€ððapplied€anÐ 4„ Ðincorrect€legal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€anÐ  p Ðinjustice€to€the€party€complainingðððð€is€the€trial€court€found€to€have€abused€its€discretion.€òòState€v.Ð  \ ÐStevensóó,€78€S.W.€3d€817,€832€(Tenn.€2002)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Shuckóó,€953€S.W.€2d€662,€669€(Tenn.Ð øH Ð1997)).Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  Óò òAnalysisó óÐ ¼  ÐÓÖ*ÓÌà  àThe€issue€before€the€Court€centers€on€the€interplay€between€Rule€20(b),€Davidson€CountyÐ ”ä ÐLocal€Rules€Of€Practice,€and€Rule€60.02(1),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€€Specifically,€it€pertains€to€the€technicalÐ €Ð Ðapplication€of€a€local€rule,€which€forecloses€a€litigant's€day€in€court,€and€the€stated€goal€of€theÐ l¼ ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€is€ð ðto€insure€that€cases€and€controversies€be€determinedÐ X ¨ Ðupon€their€merits€and€not€upon€legal€technicalities€or€procedural€niceties.ðð€€òòDoyle€v.€Frostóó,€49€S.W.Ð D!” Ð3d€853,€856€(Tenn.€2001)€(quoting€òòKarash€v.€Pigottóó,€530€S.W.€2d€775,€777€(Tenn.€1975)).€€(See€alsoÐ 0"€  ÐRule€1,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€which€€provides€that€the€Rules€should€ð ðbe€construed€to€secure€the€just,Ð #l! Ðspeedy€and€inexpensive€determination€of€every€action.ðð)Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWhile€the€judges€of€each€district€are€authorized€by€the€legislature€to€promulgate€rules€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðpractice,€ð ðSuch€€rules€shall€be€consistent€with€the€statutory€law,€the€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court€andÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€Rules€of€Criminal€and€Civil€Procedure.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„2„511.€The€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ ¸'#& ÐCivil€Procedure€are€ð ðlawsðð€of€this€state€and€cannot€be€modified€or€abrogated€by€a€rule€of€Court.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòBrown€v.€Dalyóó,€884€S.W.€2d€121€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ  h+¸&* Ðà  àDavidson€County€Local€Rule€of€Practice€20(b)€provides:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà ` àOnce€the€warrant€being€appealed€is€received€by€and€filed€with€the€CircuitÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€Clerk,€the€appellant€has€the€duty€to€set€the€appeal€for€a€hearing€before€a€trialÐ tÄ Ðjudge.€€The€appellant€has€forty„five€(45)€days€to€secure€a€trial€date€from€the€court.Ð `° ÐThis€time€is€counted€from€the€date€the€Circuit€Court€Clerk€files€the€appealed€warrant.€Ð L œ ÐIf€the€appellant€fails€to€secure€this€order€within€the€45„day€time€period,€an€order€willÐ 8 ˆ Ðbe€entered€making€the€judgment€of€the€General€Sessions€Court€the€judgment€€of€theÐ $ t ÐCircuit€Court€with€costs€taxed€to€the€appellant.€€At€the€time€the€appeal€is€perfectedÐ  ` Ðin€the€Clerkððs€office,€the€clerk€shall€give€the€appellant€or€the€appellantððs€attorneyÐ ü L  Ðwritten€notice€of€this€rule.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àRule€60.02(1),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€authorizes€a€court€to€relieve€a€party€or€its€legal€representativeÐ À  Ðfrom€a€final€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€because€of€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusableÐ ¬ü  Ðneglect.€€Discussing€the€purpose€of€Rule€60.02,€the€Court€of€Appeals€reasoned:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àRule€60.02€ð ðwas€designed€to€strike€a€proper€balance€between€the€competingÐ pÀ Ðprinciples€of€€finality€and€justice.ðð€(citations€omitted).€€Rule€60.02€ð ðacts€as€an€escapeÐ \¬ Ðvalve€from€possible€inequity€that€might€otherwise€arise€from€the€unrelentingÐ H˜ Ðimposition€of€the€principle€of€finality€imbedded€in€our€procedural€rules.ðð€(citationsÐ 4„ Ðomitted).€€Because€of€the€importance€of€this€ð ðprinciple€of€finality,ðð€the€ð ðescapeÐ  p Ðvalveðð€should€not€be€easily€opened.€(citations€omitted).Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌòòRogers€v.€Estate€of€Russellóó,€50€S.W.€3d€441,€444„445€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWhile€Rule€60€is€a€vehicle€for€relief€from€excusable€neglect,€it€is€not€intended€to€be€liberallyÐ ¼  Ðapplied€in€the€absence€of€appropriate€grounds€for€relief.€€The€movant€has€the€burden€to€show€justÐ ¨ø Ðcause€for€relief.€€ð ðThe€burden€is€upon€the€movant€to€set€forth€in€a€motion€or€petition€and€supportingÐ ”ä Ðaffidavits€facts€explaining€why€the€movant€was€justified€in€failing€to€avoid€the€mistake,€inadvertence,Ð €Ð Ðsurprise€or€neglect.ðð€òòTennessee€State€Bank€v.€Layóó,€609€S.W.€2d€525,€527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980)Ð l¼ Ð(citing€òòHopkins€v.€Hopkinsóó,€572€S.W.€2d€639€(Tenn.1978)).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAn€insight€as€to€the€spirit€under€which€rules€of€procedure€should€be€interpreted€is€providedÐ 0"€  Ðby€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòChildress€v.€Bennett:óó€€Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àThe€prime€function€and€purpose€of€the€judicial€system€is€to€settle,€determine€and€endÐ ô$D # Ðdifferences€between€contending€parties.€òòTenn.€Juris.óó,€1983,€Vol.€8,€Courts,€Sec.€2.€Ð à%0!$ ÐCourts€should€not€act€arbitrarily€in€their€judgments,€and€it€is€the€general€rule€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðcourts€are€reluctant€to€give€effect€to€rules€of€procedure€which€seem€harsh€and€unfair,Ð ¸'#& Ðand€which€prevent€a€litigant€from€having€a€claim€adjudicated€upon€its€merits.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌòòChildress€v.€Bennettóó,€816€S.W.€2d€314,€316€(Tenn.€1991).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àMoreover,€a€view€in€favor€of€deciding€€cases€on€the€merits€is€explained€in€òòKeck€v.€NationwideÐ ° ÐSystems,€Inc.,€óó499€S.W.€2d€266,€267€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973):Ð œì ÐÌà8  àOne€can€find€numerous€decisions€where€the€courts€make€it€clear€they€are€anxious€toÐ tÄ Ðsee€cases€determined€on€the€merits€whenever€such€is€possible.€€It€seems€to€be€aÐ `° Ðuniversal€rule€that€when€there€is€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€a€default€judgmentÐ L œ Ðshould€be€set€aside€upon€proper€application,€the€court€should€exercise€its€discretionÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€favor€of€granting€the€application€so€as€to€permit€a€determination€of€the€cause€uponÐ $ t Ðthe€merits.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€267.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòAbbott€v.€Gatewayóó,€an€unreported€opinion,€the€court€dealt€with€another€case€involving€theÐ À  Ðinterpretation€and€application€of€Local€Rule€20(b)€in€conjunction€with€Rule€60.02(1),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð ¬ü  ÐP.,€under€facts€that€are€similar€to€the€instant€case.€òòAbbott€v.€Gatewayóó,€No.€€M1999„00653„COA.„R3„Ð ˜è  ÐCV,€2000€WL€1038113€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€€July€28,€2000).€In€òòAbbott,óó€the€party€who€appealed€from€theÐ „Ô  ÐGeneral€Sessions€Court€to€the€Circuit€Court€failed€to€timely€file€a€Motion€to€Set.€€As€a€consequence,Ð pÀ Ðthe€trial€court,€just€as€here,€dismissed€the€appeal€and€made€the€General€Sessions€judgment€aÐ \¬ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€The€aggrieved€party€then€sought€relief€under€Tenn.€€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1),Ð H˜ Ðwhich€was€denied.€€The€aggrieved€partyððs€attorney€asserted€in€his€affidavit€that€he€did€not€receive€aÐ 4„ Ðnotice€from€the€clerk€indicating€that€the€case€had€been€docketed€and€not€set€as€required€by€Local€RuleÐ  p Ð20(b)€and€was€on€the€verge€of€being€dismissed.€€The€appellee€on€the€other€hand,€stated€that€she€hadÐ  \ Ðreceived€a€notice€of€appeal€filed€by€the€appellant€and€a€letter€from€the€clerk€indicating€that€the€caseÐ øH Ðhad€been€docketed.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€its€analysis€of€whether€relief€was€proper€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1),€the€òòAbbottóó€CourtÐ ¼  Ðcommented,€ð ðThis€Court€has€held€that€ðð[n]egligence€on€the€part€of€the€moving€party[is]€precisely€theÐ ¨ø Ðtype€of€error€a€Rule€60€motion€is€designed€to€relieve.ðððð€òòAbbottóó€at€*2€(quoting€òòTennessee€State€BankÐ ”ä Ðv.€Layóó,€609€S.W.€2d€525,€527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980)€(wherein€the€court€held€that,€ð ðmistake,Ð €Ð Ðinadvertence,€surprise€excusable€neglect€or€misfortune€of€the€moving€partyððs€attorney€may€beÐ l¼ Ðgrounds€for€vacating€a€default€judgmentðð).€€Moreover,€the€òòAbbottóó€Court€found€as€important€theÐ X ¨ Ðefforts€of€the€moving€party€to€correct€its€error€and€the€level€of€€prejudice€that€the€moving€party€hasÐ D!” Ðsuffered€as€a€result€of€the€mistake€or€inadvertence.€òòAbbottóó€at€*3.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€finding€relief€under€Rule€60.02(1)€proper,€the€òòAbbottóó€Court€considered€that€appellantððsÐ $X" Ðcounsel€was€at€fault,€not€the€appellant,€and€that€appellantððs€counsel€ð ðtook€immediate€action€to€correctÐ ô$D # Ðhis€oversightðð€by€filing€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€dismissal€€within€a€day€of€receiving€the€CircuitÐ à%0!$ ÐCourtððs€order€of€dismissal.€òòAbbottóó€at€*3.€€As€for€prejudice€to€the€appellee,€the€Court€found€that€thereÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€no€evidence€that€she€would€be€prejudiced€by€the€delay€of€the€appeal€in€the€circuit€court.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€a€very€recent€opinion,€May€2003,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€thoroughly€addressed€aÐ )à$( ÐRule€60.02(1)€request€for€relief€from€the€dismissal€of€a€case€for€failure€to€prosecute€under€the€LocalÐ |*Ì%) ÐRules€of€Practice€of€the€Courts€of€Record€of€Davidson€County€37.02.€€òòHenry€v.€Goinsóó,€104€S.W.3dÐ h+¸&* Ð475€(Tenn.€2003).€€(Unlike€the€facts€in€the€instant€case,€the€trial€judge€granted€the€request€for€RuleÐ ° Ð60.02€relief€and€the€intermediate€appellate€court€held€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€setting€aside€theÐ œì Ðdismissal.)€€In€òòHenry,€óóthe€Court€reasoned€that€the€dismissal€of€a€case€for€failure€to€prosecute€ð ðisÐ ˆØ Ðanalogous€to€a€default€judgment.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€481.€€Comparing€the€two,€the€Court€said:€Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àWhen€a€defendant€fails€to€answer€a€complaint,€the€plaintiff€may€obtain€a€defaultÐ L œ Ðjudgment€without€a€hearing€on€the€merits.€€When€a€plaintiff€fails€to€prosecute€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase,€the€defendant€may€receive€a€judgment€of€dismissal€without€a€hearing€on€theÐ $ t Ðmerits.€€Both€dismissals€and€default€judgments€are€drastic€sanctions.€(citationsÐ  ` Ðomitted)€Neither€dismissals€nor€default€judgments€are€favored€by€the€courts.Ð ü L  Ð(citations€omitted)€€Dismissals€based€on€procedural€grounds€like€failure€to€prosecuteÐ è 8  Ðand€default€judgments€run€counter€to€the€judicial€systemððs€general€objective€ofÐ Ô$  Ðdisposing€of€cases€on€the€merits.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Childress€v.€Bennettóó,€816€S.W.2d€314,Ð À  Ð316€(Tenn.€1991)€(observing€that€ð ðit€is€the€general€rule€that€courts€are€reluctant€toÐ ¬ü  Ðgive€effect€to€rules€of€procedure€.€.€.€which€prevent€a€litigant€from€having€a€claimÐ ˜è  Ðadjudicated€upon€its€meritsðð);€€òòBarbeeóó,€689€S.W.2d€at€866€(stating€that€in€the€interestsÐ „Ô  Ðof€justice,€courts€express€a€clear€preference€for€a€trial€on€the€merits).ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€481.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àFollowing€its€analysis,€the€òòHenryóó€Court€concluded€that€the€factors€pertinent€to€setting€asideÐ  p Ða€default€judgment€should€apply€when€relief€from€an€order€of€dismissal€is€sought€under€RuleÐ  \ Ð60.02(1).€€Specifically,€the€Court€held:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà ` àBecause€of€the€similarity€between€default€judgments€and€dismissals,€we€findÐ Ð  Ðinstructive€those€factors€that€are€used€to€determine€if€a€default€judgment€should€beÐ ¼  Ðvacated€under€Rule€60.02(1).€€Those€factors€include:€(1)€whether€the€default€wasÐ ¨ø Ðwillful;€(2)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€meritorious€defense;€and€(3)€whether€the€non„Ð ”ä Ðdefaulting€party€would€be€prejudiced€if€relief€were€granted.€(citations€omitted).€Ð €Ð ÐThese€same€factors€should€apply€in€cases€when€relief€from€an€order€of€dismissal€isÐ l¼ Ðsought€under€Rule€60.02(1).ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€481.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAnalyzing€the€first€factor,€€the€òòHenryóó€Court€found€that€the€movants€were€not€at€fault€for€theÐ $X" Ðtrial€court's€òòsua€sponteóó€dismissal€because€the€trial€court€had€not€provided€notice€that€it€wasÐ ô$D # Ðconsidering€dismissal€of€the€case,€thus€preventing€the€movants€from€taking€action€to€prevent€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdismissal.€€Further,€the€movants€showed€proof€that€the€parties€had€been€negotiating€toward€aÐ Ì&"% Ðsettlement€and€thus€the€case€had€not€been€"dormant."€In€regards€to€the€second€factor,€€the€CourtÐ ¸'#& Ðfound€that€it€was€clear€that€movant's€claim€was€meritorious€because€after€reinstatement€of€theirÐ ¤(ô#' Ðclaims,€the€movants€prevailed€at€trial.€With€respect€to€the€third€factor,€the€Court€found€that€the€partyÐ )à$( Ðwho€opposed€Rule€60.02(1)€relief€did€not€contend€that€any€specific€prejudice€would€result€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðreinstatement€of€the€claims.€€The€Court€stated,€"€Simply€having€to€proceed€to€trial€does€not€constituteÐ h+¸&* Ðprejudice,€nor€does€the€mere€passage€of€time."€òòIdóó.€at€482.€€Ultimately,€the€Court€found€that€theÐ ° Ðmovants€were€entitled€to€Rule€60.02(1)€relief€under€the€ground€of€excusable€neglect.Ð œì ÐÌà  àòòHenryóó€placed€particular€importance€on€the€fact€the€movant€had€no€notice€of€the€impendingÐ tÄ Ðdismissal€stating,€"When€a€party€has€no€notice€of€a€critical€step€in€a€court€proceeding,€theÐ `° Ðcircumstances€may€make€out€a€case€of€excusable€neglect."€òòId.óó€at€480.€€Observing€that€Rule€55.01,Ð L œ ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€requires€notice€to€be€given€before€a€default€judgment€is€granted,€the€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcluded€that€such€liberality€is€especially€warranted€in€a€Rule€60€proceeding€when€an€order€ofÐ $ t Ðdismissal€is€entered€without€procedural€safeguards€such€as€notice.€€A€request€to€vacate€an€order€ofÐ  ` Ðdismissal€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€should€be€granted€under€the€same€circumstances€as€a€motion€toÐ ü L  Ðvacate€a€default€judgment€when€there€is€no€notice.€€òòId.óó€at€481.€The€Courtòòóó€reasoned€that,€"A€requestÐ è 8  Ðto€vacate€a€default€judgment€in€accordance€with€Rule€60.02€should€be€granted€if€there€is€reasonableÐ Ô$  Ðdoubt€as€to€the€justness€of€dismissing€the€case€before€it€can€be€heard€on€its€merits."€òòHenryóó€at€481.€Ð À  Ðà  àÌà  àWhile€òòHenryóó€applies€Rule€55€factors׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€a€Rule€60.02(1)€motion,€€it€does€not€address€how€theÐ ˜è  ÐRule€55€factors€are€to€be€applied€in€relation€to€the€Rule€60.02(1)€reasons€of€€ð ðmistake,€inadvertence,Ð „Ô  Ðsurprise€or€excusable€neglect.ðð€€€Accordingly,€we€must€consideròòóó€whether€the€òòHenryóó/Rule€55€factorsÐ pÀ Ðsupersede€the€Rule€60.02(1)€reasons׃p ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€or€whether€they€are€to€be€applied€along€with€Rule€60.02(1)Ð \¬ Ðreasons,€such€as€excusable€neglect.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThere€is€a€substantial€body€of€case€law€interpreting€the€application€of€the€Rule€60.02(1)Ð  p Ðreasons.€€This€Court€discussed€excusable€neglect€at€great€length€in€another€context€(dealing€withÐ  \ Ðexcusable€neglect€under€Rule€6.02,׃À×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.)€in€òòState€ex€rel.€Sizemore€v.€United€PhysiciansÐ øH ÐIns.€Risk€Retention€Group,óó€56€S.W.3d€557,€566„571€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),€and€found€the€followingÐ ä4 Ðòòóófactors€(circumstances)€pertinent:Ð Ð  ÐÐ ¼  Ðà8  à[N]ot€all€negligence€can€be€indulged.€To€do€that€would€read€out€of€the€excusableÐ ° Ðneglect€principle€the€requirement€that€the€neglect€must€first€be€found€excusable.Ð œì ÐFinding€whether€neglect€is€excusable€is€an€equitable€determination€"taking€accountÐ ˆØ Ðof€all€relevant€circumstances€surrounding€the€party's€omission."€òòPioneer€Inv.€Servs.Ð tÄ ÐCo.€v.€Brunswick€Assocs.€Ltd.€P'shipóó,€507€U.S.€at€395,€113€S.Ct.€at€1498;€òòDubuc€v.Ð `° ÐGreen€Oak€Townshipóó,€958€F.Supp.€1231,€1241€(E.D.Mich.1997).€The€relevantÐ L œ Ðcircumstances€envelop€the€big€picture€of€both€causes€and€effects,€including€(1)€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdanger€of€prejudice€to€the€party€opposing€the€late€filing,€(2)€the€length€of€the€delayÐ $ t Ðand€its€potential€impact€on€proceedings,€(3)€the€reason€why€the€filing€was€late€andÐ  ` Ðwhether€that€reason€or€reasons€were€within€the€filer's€reasonable€control,€and€(4)€theÐ ü L  Ðfiler's€good€or€bad€faith.€òòPioneer€Inv.€Servs.€Co.€v.€Brunswick€Assocs.€Ltd.€P'shipóó,Ð è 8  Ð507€U.S.€at€395,€113€S.Ct.€at€1498;€òòIn€re€SPR€Corpóó.,€45€F.3d€70,€72€(4th€Cir.1995);Ð Ô$  ÐòòIn€re€Nunezóó,€196€B.R.€150,€157€(9th€Cir.BAP€1996).€These€circumstances€must€beÐ À  Ðweighed€both€with€and€against€each€other€because,€if€considered€separately,€they€mayÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€all€point€in€the€same€direction€in€a€particular€case.€òòIn€re€Keene€Corpóó.,€188€B.R.Ð ˜è  Ð903,€909€(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995);€òòIn€re€Nickels€Performance€Sys.,€Incóó.,€169€B.R.€647,Ð „Ô  Ð651€(Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1994).ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€567.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIf€we€interpret€the€òòHenryóó/Rule€55€factors€as€superseding€òòSizemoreóó€and€other€cases€whichÐ  p Ðconstrued€Rule€60.02(1)€it€would€constitute€an€amendment€to€Rule€60.02€for€the€consequence€wouldÐ  \ Ðbe€a€substitution€of€ð ðwillfulness,€meritorious€defense€and€prejudiceðð€for€the€Rule€60.02(1)€reasonsÐ øH Ðof€ð ðmistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€and€excusable€neglect.ðð€€We€do€not€believe€our€Supreme€CourtÐ ä4 Ðintended€such€and€hold€that€the€Rule€60.02(1)€reasons,€such€as€excusable€neglect,€are€still€applicableÐ Ð  Ðas€well€as€the€relevant€cases€such€as€òòSizemoreóó.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àHaving€found€that€reasons€such€as€excusable€neglect€survive€òòHenryóó,€we€are€presented€withÐ ”ä Ðyet€another€issue,€that€being€how€these€factors€and€reasons€are€to€be€weighed€with€and€against€eachÐ €Ð Ðotheròòóó.€€The€origin€of€the€three€òòHenryóó/Rule€55€factors€can€be€found€in€the€Federal€courts.€€òòTennesseeÐ l¼ ÐDepartment€of€Human€Services€v.€Barbee,€óó689€S.W.2d€863€(Tenn.€1985),€cited€frequently€in€òòHenryóó,Ð X ¨ Ðquoted€several€Federal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarbeeóó€and€òòDavisóó€òòv.€Musler,€óó713€F.2d€907€at€915€(2òòndóó€Cir.€1983)òòóóòòóó.€Ð D!” ÐThese€cases€lead€us€back€to€òòJackson€v.€Beechóó,€636€F.2d€831€(D.C.€Cir.€1980).€òòJacksonóó,€which€appliedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€same€three€factors€as€òòHenryóó.€òòóó€òòJacksonóó€held€that€Rule€55€default€judgments€are€designed€to€handleÐ #l! Ða€ð ðtotally€unresponsiveðð€party€and€that€trial€courts€should€not€grant€default€judgments€in€cases€thatÐ $X" Ðdo€not€present€the€problem€of€a€totally€unresponsive€party.òòÐ ô$D # ÐóóÌà8  àThis€is€not€a€case€in€which€a€default€judgment€was€necessary€because€the€defendantsÐ Ì&"% Ðwere€ð ðessentially€unresponsive.ðð€€Within€twenty€days€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint,Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€defendants€moved€to€stop€proceedings€pending€arbitration,€and,€by€the€time€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefault€judgment€was€entered,€they€had€filed€a€motion€for€permission€to€answer€outÐ )à$( Ðof€time€and€an€answer.€€Since€this€case€does€not€present€the€problem€that€defaultÐ |*Ì%) Ðjudgments€are€designed€to€handle€a€totally€unresponsive€party€the€district€courtÐ h+¸&* Ðshould€have€considered€three€criteria€in€deciding€whether€to€set€aside€the€default:Ð ° Ðð ðwhether€(1)€the€default€was€willful,€(2)€a€set„aside€would€prejudice€plaintiff,€and€(3)Ð œì Ðthe€alleged€defense€was€meritorious.ðð€(citation€omittedòòóó).€€Balancing€these€factors€asÐ ˆØ Ðthey€appear€in€the€case€at€bar€indicates€that€the€default€should€have€been€set€aside.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€836.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€pertinent€aspect€of€òòJacksonóó€òòóóis€the€realization€that€courts€distinguish€when€the€threeÐ $ t ÐòòHenryóó/Rule€55€factors€apply,€or€do€not€apply.€€While€òòJacksonóó€is€merely€persuasive€in€its€holding€thatÐ  ` ÐRule€60.02(1)€reasons€are€less€relevant€than€the€three€òòHenryóó/Rule€55€factors€when€the€defaultingÐ ü L  Ðparty€is€not€essentially€unresponsive,€òòHenryóó€makes€it€mandatory.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€whenÐ è 8  Ðthe€defaulting€party€is€not€essentially€unresponsive,€the€òòHenryóó/Rule€55€factors€not€only€apply€but€theyÐ Ô$  Ðare€more€relevant€than€the€reasons€under€Rule€60.02(1)€of€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€orÐ À  Ðexcusable€neglect.€Ð ¬ü  Ðò òó óÌà  àTherefore,€wòòóóe€will€consider€the€òòHenryóó/òòóóRule€55.02€factors€along€with€the€Rule€60.02(1)Ð „Ô  Ðreasonsòòóó,€weighing€them€with€and€against€each€other€to€obtain€a€proper€perspective,€as€suggestedÐ pÀ Ðabove€and€in€òòSizemoreóó,€under€the€umbrella€of€the€general€rule€that€courts€are€reluctant€to€give€effectÐ \¬ Ðto€rules€of€procedure€which€prevent€a€litigant€from€having€a€claim€adjudicated€upon€its€merits.€€òòSeeóóÐ H˜ ÐòòBarbeeóó€at€866€òòóóand€òòHenry€óóat€481€(stating€that€in€the€interests€of€justice,€courts€express€a€clearÐ 4„ Ðpreference€for€a€trial€on€the€merits.)Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€first€òòHenryóó€factor€is€whether€the€default€was€willful.€€In€preparation€for€setting€the€matterÐ øH Ðfor€trial,€Gutterguardððs€attorney€had€inquired€with€the€Clerk€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€45„dayÐ ä4 Ðperiod€to€obtain€available€trial€dates.€€When€Gutterguard€filed€its€motion€to€set€the€case€for€trial,€theÐ Ð  Ðcase€was€still€active,€€though€the€motion€was€filed€two€days€after€the€expiration€of€the€45„day€period.€Ð ¼  ÐFurther,€Gutterguardððs€attorney€insists€that€he€did€not€receive€notice€of€the€commencement€of€the€45„Ð ¨ø Ðday€period.€€€In€finding€relief€under€Rule€60.02(1)€proper€in€òòAbbott,óó€the€Court€considered€that€theÐ ”ä Ðappellantððs€counsel€was€at€fault,€not€the€appellant,€and€that€the€appellantððs€counsel€ð ðtook€immediateÐ €Ð Ðaction€to€correct€his€oversightðð€by€filing€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€dismissal€within€a€day€of€receivingÐ l¼ Ðthe€Circuit€Courtððs€order€of€dismissal.€òòAbbottóó€at€*3.€€Accordingly,€though€we€find€that€GutterguardÐ X ¨ Ðwas€in€violation€of€Local€Rule€20(b)€when€it€filed€its€motion,€we€also€find€that€such€violation€wasÐ D!” Ðnot€willful.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€second€òòHenryóó€factor€requires€Gutterguard€to€show€it€has€a€meritorious€defense.€€NeitherÐ $X" Ðparty€presented€any€evidence€concerning€whether€Gutterguard€has€a€meritorious€defense.€€In€fairnessÐ ô$D # Ðto€counsel€and€the€trial€court,€this€was€not€a€relevant€factor€when€the€motion€was€heard;€however,Ð à%0!$ Ðwhile€this€matter€was€on€appeal€our€Supreme€Court€mandated€that€this€factor€be€considered.€òòId.óó€atÐ Ì&"% Ð481.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€third€òòHenryóó€factor€is€prejudice.€€Bowers€acknowledges€it€has€suffered€no€prejudice€otherÐ )à$( Ðthan€the€cost€of€this€appeal€and€the€delay€resulting€from€the€dismissal€and€this€appeal.€€As€stated€inÐ |*Ì%) ÐòòHenryóó,€ð ðSimply€having€to€proceed€to€trial€does€not€constitute€prejudice,€nor€does€the€mere€passage€Ð  h+¸&* Ðof€time.ðð€€òòHenryóó€at€482.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€Bowers€would€not€have€been€prejudiced€if€theÐ ° Ðrelief€had€been€granted€by€the€trial€court.Ð œì ÐÌà  àòòSizemoreóó€factor€number€one€(prejudice)€is€consistent€with€òòHenryóó€factor€three€(prejudice)€andÐ tÄ ÐòòSizemoreóó€factor€number€four€(good€or€bad€faith)€is€consistent€with€òòHenryóó€factor€one€(willfulness).€Ð `° ÐThey,€therefore,€require€no€further€discussion.€€Accordingly,€we€will€evaluate€the€second€and€thirdÐ L œ ÐòòSizemoreóó€factors.€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€second€òòSizemoreóó€factor€is€the€length€of€the€delay€and€its€potential€impact€on€theÐ  ` Ðproceedings.€€Gutterguard€filed€the€motion€to€set€two€days€after€the€45€day€period€expired.€€Indeed,Ð ü L  Ðthis€is€in€violation€of€the€Local€Rule,€yet€the€motion€was€filed€prior€to€the€dismissal€of€the€action.€Ð è 8  ÐMoreover,€once€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€action€upon€motion€of€the€plaintiff,€Gutterguard€filedÐ Ô$  Ðits€Rule€60€motion€within€one€week€of€the€dismissal.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€delay€of€two€daysÐ À  Ða€violation€that€is€less€than€egregious€considering€the€fact€that€Gutterguard€did€not€have€actualÐ ¬ü  Ðknowledge€of€the€commencement€of€the€45€day€deadline׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€€Moreover,€the€record€shows€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðmatter€could€not€have€been€tried€until€January€27€of€the€following€year,€some€four€months€after€theÐ „Ô  Ðmotion€was€filed,€had€the€motion€to€set€for€trial€been€granted.Ð pÀ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€The€final€factor€to€be€considered€is€the€third€òòSizemoreóó€factor,€which€pertains€to€the€reason€forÐ H˜ Ðthe€delay€and€whether€the€reasons€were€within€Appellantððs€reasonable€control.€€Clearly,€filing€theÐ 4„ Ðmotion€to€set€the€matter€for€trial€was€within€the€control€of€Gutterguard.€€Specifically,€counsel€couldÐ  p Ðhave€immediately€filed€a€motion€to€set€without€waiting€47€days€following€the€arrival€of€the€file€inÐ  \ Ðthe€Circuit€Court€Clerkððs€office.€€While€Gutterguardððs€counsel€may€not€have€received€notice€of€theÐ øH Ðdate€the€file€ð ðarrivedðð€in€the€Circuit€Court€Clerkððs€office,€its€counsel€was€aware€of€the€timeÐ ä4 Ðconstraints€and€was€aware€that€it€was€his€affirmative€duty€to€see€that€the€matter€was€set€for€trial€noÐ Ð  Ðlater€than€45€days€from€the€arrival€of€the€file€in€the€Clerkððs€office.€€€While€counsel€may€not€haveÐ ¼  Ðknown€the€exact€date€the€clock€started€ticking,€he€was€clearly€negligent€in€waiting€47€days€from€theÐ ¨ø Ðarrival€of€the€file€in€the€Circuit€Court€Clerkððs€office€and€54€days€from€the€date€he€perfected€his€appealÐ ”ä Ðto€the€Circuit€Court.€€Accordingly,€theòòóó€ð ðreason€for€the€delayðð€is€obvious,€it€was€the€inattention€andÐ €Ð Ðneglect€of€counsel€for€Gutterguard.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhile€the€facts€before€us€are€consistent€with€òòAbbott,óó€wherein€the€Court€of€Appeals€grantedÐ D!” ÐRule€60€relief,€we€must€consider€factors€that€òòóówere€not€applicable€when€òòAbbottóó€was€decidedòòóó.€Ð 0"€  ÐParticularly,€one€of€the€three€òòHenryóó€factors,€meritorious€defense,€was€not€considered€by€the€partiesÐ #l! Ðor€the€trial€court.€€In€fairness,€the€parties€and€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€the€new€òòHenryóó€factorsÐ $X" Ðfor€òòHenryóó€was€decided€after€this€appeal€was€perfected.€€As€a€result,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ô$D # Ðfor€us€to€make€a€determination.€€€In€òòBlount€County€Educ.€Assððn€v.€Blount€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€78Ð à%0!$ Ðâ âS.W.€3d€307,€320€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€2002),€€the€Court€was€confronted€with€a€record€that€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðincomplete€on€the€details€of€a€mandatory€subject.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€Còòóóourt€concluded€that€ð ðwe€must€remand€thisÐ ° Ðâ âcase€to€the€Trial€Court€for€a€factual€determination€as€to€whether€the€parties€bargained€in€good€faithÐ œì Ðon€this€subject€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€320.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àSince€our€record€contains€no€information€concerning€the€now€mandatory€factor€ofÐ `° Ðð ðmeritorious€defense,ðð€we€too€must€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€factual€determination€ofÐ L œ Ðwhether€the€defendant€has€a€meritorious€defense.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€should€then€evaluateÐ 8 ˆ Ðall€of€the€pertinent€factors,€weighing€them€with€and€against€each€other€to€obtain€a€proper€perspectiveÐ $ t Ðof€how€they€apply€to€this€case,€along€with€the€general€rule€that€courts€are€reluctant€to€give€effect€toÐ  ` Ðrules€of€procedure€which€prevent€a€litigant€from€having€a€claim€adjudicated€upon€its€meritsòòóó.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€reverse€and€remand€the€matter€for€a€further€hearing€on€Gutterguardððs€MotionÐ Ô$  Ðfor€Rule€60.02(1)€relief.€€Since€this€appeal€is€the€direct€result€of€Gutterguardððs€failure€to€comply€withÐ À  ÐLocal€Rule€20(b),€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€Gutterguard.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌ€Ô‡XòˆXXXòˆÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à______________________________ÐH˜(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€JR.,€JUDGEÔ#†XòˆXXXòˆ¡#ÔÐ 4„ Ð