WPC? oijfIr_&C7Xfg a 5>й]ɓ:3:=R^wX0?@"e$39,&1)?Xrk ?'`'k>pt@WĈ{c& 2ĸf&[B:z& An>HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0DžY) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularsM):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.wpt 3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    Rg$      1    _Ms.Madumadeacleartacticaldecisiontoseekalegalseparationasopposedtoadivorce.Shestatedinher  complaintthat [g]iventhewifescurrent,uncertainimmigrantstatus,thegrantingofanabsolutedivorcecouldresult t inthewifesdeportation.Inherprayerforrelief,shealsorequested [t]hatnoabsolutedivorcebedecreedinthiscase 8 unlessanduntilthewifehasattainedpermanentresidentstatusinthiscountry. { Rg$      7    _Clientsarenotboundbytheirlawyer'sagreementtodismisstheirsuitwithprejudiceunlesstheyhave  authorizedoracquiescedinthedismissal.Absarv.Jones,833S.W.2d86,89(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). t ̀  Rg$      2    _ThelawyerrepresentingMs.Maduattrialstated: Wehavefiled,withthiscourt,literally,underthenew  statute,apetitionforseparatemaintenance,asopposedtodivorce,becauseMrs.Madu,atthistime,isnotalegal t immigrant,inthiscountry,andwewereconcernedthatadivorcewouldfurthertheeffortsofdeportation.(|3G}$ !.8JUdd8      o Rg$      3    _Therecordunfortunatelydoesnotcontainthecolloquybetweenthetrialcourtandthepartieslawyers  regardingthereasonsforratherabruptlystoppingthetrial.Theonlystatementsheddinganylightontheissueisthe t followingstatementbythetrialcourt: BecauseIdontthinkeitheroneofyouallwanttogototheCourtofAppeals 8 withthesetwo.Letsgoofftherecord.Thereafter,thetranscriptindicatesthattherewasan offtherecorddiscussion L betweenthetrialcourtandthepartiestrialcounselfollowedbya briefrecess.Thetrialcourtsdecisiontoconduct  aportionoftheseproceedings offtherecordcausesthiscourtconcernbecauseitunderminesthepartiesrighttoan  appealandiscontrarytothesettledprinciplethatTennesseesstatetrialcourtsarecourtsofrecord.However,neither H  partyhasquestionedtheappropriatenessofthetrialcourtsdecisiontoconduct offtherecordproceedings.  \ Accordingly,wewillnotaddressthisissuefurtherexcepttonotethatitishighlyirregular.  Rg$      5    _TheaffidavitstatesonlythattheattorneyrepresentingMs._Madu_ԀattrialwouldnothaveencouragedMs._Madu_  tosettlethemaritaldisputehadshe!theattorney!beenawareofMr._Madu_sallegedextramaritalaffair.  Rg$      4    _TheaffidavitbyMs._Madu_sformerlawyercontainsdoublehearsayatbest.Itpurportstoprovideinformation  thelawyerlearnedfromMs._Madu_Ԁwho,inturn,learneditfromsomeotherunidentifiedperson.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   T Rg$      6    _TheonlydistinctionbetweenaTenn.R.Civ.P.59motionseekinganewtrialbasedonmistake,inadvertence,  orexcusableneglectandaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)motionisthattheTenn.R.Civ.P.59motionseeksrelieffroma t judgmentthathasnotyetbecomefinal,whiletheTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)motionseeksrelieffromajudgmentthathas 8 becomefinal.Campbellv.Archer,555S.W.2dat112.2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5    Rg$      8    _ThelawyerrepresentingMs.Maduattrialstatesinheraffidavitthat Ihadnoreasontobelievethatthemere  factofthefinalityofthedivorcewouldinanywayimpedeMrs.Madusrightsandinterestsinthepursuitofpermanent t residencestatusinthiscounty[sic].(|G2g$ !.8JUdd8         0   d(|3G}$ !.8JUdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G}$ !.8JUdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8JUdd8     _  JULJU  8yXXdd8INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#JUL#Ԉ &   September6,2000Session L XyXJU #JUXXy#DOLLYJULIETRAKIROMADUv.FIDELISOBIMADUXyXJU  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J 99D537MurielRobinson,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199902302_COA_ԄR3CV#JUXXye#ԄXyXJUFiledOctober#JUXXy #ԀXyXJU25,_2000_   AV) ` dE<` A      _This_Ԁappealinvolvesthedissolutionofathreeyearmarriagebetweenanaturalizedcitizenanda  foreignnationalattendingschoolonatemporarystudentvisa.Soonafterthepartiesweredivorced x byagreementintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty,theforeignnationalsoughttosetthedivorce d asidebecauseofitseffectonhereffortstoremainintheUnitedStates.Thetrialcourtdeclinedto P setthedivorceaside.Theforeignnationalassertsonthisappealthatthetrialcourtshouldnothave < declaredthepartiesdivorcedandthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinghermotionforanewtrialbased (x onnewlydiscoveredevidence.Wehavedeterminedthattherecordsupportsthetrialcourts d decisiontodeclarethepartiesdivorcedandthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrwhenitdeniedtheforeign P nationalsposttrialmotion.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgment. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,  andPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined.  RandleW.Hill,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,DollyJulietRakiroMadu. `!  DanR.Alexander,Nashville,Tennessee,forappellee,FidelisObiMadu. 8#"   OPINION  %` $     FidelisObiMaduandDollyJulietRakiroMadumetin1994.Ms.Madu,a34yearold &8"& citizenofKenya,waspursuinganundergraduatedegreeatTennesseeStateUniversityundera '$#' studentvisa.Mr.Madu,aNigerianbybirth,wasa39yearoldtaxaccountantworkinginNashville ($( andwasanaturalizedcitizenoftheUnitedStates.TheMadus,alongwithMr.Madustwochildren )$) fromapreviousmarriage,beganlivingtogethershortlyaftertheymet.Ms.Maduhadneverbeen *%* marriedbefore. +&+   p,',   Astimepassed,Ms.Madubecamemoreinsistentaboutgettingmarried.Thepartieswere   eventuallymarriedonJuly17,1996!twoweeksbeforehergraduationfromTennesseeState  Universityandtwoweeksbeforetheexpirationofherstudentvisa.ThemarriageenabledMs.Madu  toremainintheUnitedStates.InSeptember1996,Ms.Maduacceptedajobasasoftwareengineer t requiringhertomovetoChicago.Atfirst,theMadusalternatedweeklytripsbetweenNashvilleand ` Chicagoandtalkedfrequentlybytelephone.Aftertwoyears,thedistancebecameincreasingly L  difficulttomanage,andthefrequencyofthepartiesvisitsdiminished.Inearly1998,Ms.Madu 8  agreedtoconsiderreturningtoNashvilleandbegantoseekemployment.Shewasunsuccessfulin $ t hereffortstofindemploymentinNashville,andtherelationshipbetweenthepartiescontinuedto  ` deteriorate.BetweenJanuaryandMarch1998,thepartiesdidnotcommunicateatall.  L    AfterthepartiesmarriageinJuly1996,Mr.MadufiledapetitionwiththeImmigrationand $  NaturalizationService( INS)seekingalienrelativestatusforMs.Maduwhich,ifgranted,would   haveenabledMs.MadutoremainintheUnitedStates.InMarch1998,Ms.Madureturnedto   NashvilleforaninterviewwiththeINSconcerningthepetition.Duringthisvisit,shetoldMr.Madu   thatshedidnotintendtoreturntoNashvilleandthatshedidnotplantoremainmarriedtohimafter   shereceivedhergreencard.SoonafterlearningMs.Madusintentions,Mr.Maduwithdrewhis p petitionandinformedtheINSthatthepartieshadbeenlivingapartforquitesometime. \   Ms.MadureturnedtoNashvilleinJune1998torepairherdifferenceswithMr.Madu.In 4 February1999,aftereightmonthsofacrimoniouscohabitation,Ms.Madufiledacomplaintforlegal  p separationintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty. #  1      ׀Mr.Maducounterclaimedforanabsolute  \ divorceonthegroundsofinappropriatemaritalconduct,irreconcilabledifferences,andcrueland H inhumantreatment.DuringtheJuly1999divorcehearing,Ms.Maduslawyerurgedthetrialcourt 4 tograntalegalseparationinsteadofadivorce. #  2      ׀Thetrialcourtrejectedtherequestand,aftera   portionoftheproofhadbeenpresented,suggestedarecesstoenablethepartiestodiscussamutually   satisfactoryresolutionoftheirdifferences. #  3      ׀Followingabriefrecess,Ms.Maduslawyerannounced  thatthepartieshadagreedonadivisionofthemaritalestateandthatthetrialcourtshoulddeclare  themdivorcedunderTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b)(Supp.1999).Thetrialcourtapprovedthe  termsofthepartiessettlement,grantedthepartiesleavetoamendtheircomplaints,anddeclared  theparties divorced,havingfoundbothpartiesguiltyofmisconduct.Thetrialcourtenteredits t finaldivorcedecreeonAugust11,1999. `   Ms.Maduretainedanewlawyershortlyaftertheentryofthefinaldivorcedecree.Within 8  thirtydaysaftertheentryofthedivorcedecree,Ms.Madusnewlawyerfiledamotionseekingto $ t setasidethedivorcedecreeandforanewtrial.ThemotionassertedthatMs.Madupossessednew  ` evidencethatMr.Maduhadengagedinanextramaritalaffairthathadresultedinthepregnancyof  L  anotherwomanandthatshewasunawarewhensheagreedtothedivorcethatitwouldresultinher  8  deportationbypreventingherfromobtainingpermanentresidencystatus.Thetrialcourtheard $  argumentonthesemotionsinSeptember1999and,onNovember7,1999,enteredanorderdenying   Ms.Madusmotion.Onthisappeal,Ms.Madutakesissuewiththetrialcourtsdenialofherpost   trialmotionsandwiththetrialcourtsdecisiontodeclarethepartiesdivorcedinaccordancewith   Tenn.CodeAnn.364129(b).   @) I.  \ @  ThePartiesDivorceUnderTenn.CodeAnn.364129  H     Ms.Maduassertsthatthetrialcourtimproperlydeclaredthepartiesdivorcedinaccordance  p withTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b)becausethetrialcourtstatedfromthebenchthat neitherone  \ ofthem[theMadus]areentitledtoadivorce.Shepointsoutthatdeclaringthepartiesdivorced H uponstipulatedgroundsmustbepremisedonafindingthat eitherorbothpartiesareentitledtoa 4 divorce.WhileMs.MadusunderstandingoftherequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b)   iscorrect,shehastakenthetrialcourtsremarksfromthebenchoutofcontext.     Wemustgiveeffecttoeverypartofthejudgmentswearecalledupontoconstrue,andwe  mustreadthesejudgmentsinlightofthepleadingsandtherecordasawhole.JohnBarb,Inc.v.  UnderwritersatLloydsofLondon,653S.W.2d422,423(Tenn.Ct.App.1983).Accordingly,we l mustexaminethetrialcourtsstatementsfromthebenchincontext.AfterMs.Maduslawyer X  announcedthatthepartieshadagreedtobedivorcedinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.364 D! 129(b),thetrialcourtstated: 0"  8  8`    Okay.Illdeclarethepartiesdivorced.Havingfoundthat $X" bothareguiltyofmisconduct,thereforeneitheroneofthemare $D # entitledtoadivorce,butIlldeclarethemdivorced.Illapprovethe %0!$ termsofthesettlementpresentedtotheCourtandmakethatthe &"% judgmentoftheCourt.'#&` x` x Whenconsideredintheirentirety,thetrialcourtsfindingsreflectthatthetrialcourthaddetermined )$( thatbothpartieswereatfaultforthedivorcebutthatneitherpartywasentitledtobeawardedthe |*%) divorceinhisorherownright.Ratherthanawardingonepartythedivorce,thetrialcourt,following h+&* Tenn.CodeAnn.364129(b),simplydeclaredthepartiesdivorced.Thetrialcourtsfindingis  amplysupportedbytheevidence,andtherefore,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrby  declaringthepartiesdivorcedinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b).  @) II.  ` @EE Ms.MadusPostTrialMotion  L    WeturnnowtotheposttrialmotionfiledbyMs.Maduspresentlawyerseekingtovacate $ t theverysamedivorcethatMs.Maduandherformerlawyerhadagreedtolessthantwomonths  ` earlier.Themotionseeksreliefontwogrounds.First,Ms.MadurequestsanewtrialunderTenn.  L  R.Civ.P.59.02basedon newlydiscoveredevidenceofMr.Madusextramaritalconduct.  8  Second,Ms.MadurequeststhatthetrialcourtalteroramendthejudgmentinaccordancewithTenn. $  R.Civ.P.59.04becausesheandherdivorcelawyermisjudgedtheimpactthatthedivorcewould   haveonherabilitytoremainintheUnitedStates.Whilebothgroundsofthemotionaddress   themselvestothetrialcourtsdiscretion,Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.   1993);Holmesv.Wilson,551S.W.2d682,686(Tenn.1977);Jarredv.Hendrix,No.W199800550   COAR3CV,1999WL1336084,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.15,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11 p applicationfiled),eachofthemrequiredifferentmodesofanalysistodeterminewhetherthetrial \ courtexerciseditsdiscretionproperly. H @) A.   p @}} The NewlyDiscoveredEvidenceofMr.MadusMisconduct   \   Ms.Madusfirstgroundforrelieffromthedivorcedecreeisherdiscoveryafterthetrialthat 4 Mr.Maduwashavinganextramaritalaffair.Shesubstantiatedherclaimbyfilingwithhermotion   theaffidavitofherformerlawyerstatingthatthelawyerhadbeen completelyunawarethatMr.   Maduwashavinganextramaritalaffairandthatitwasthelawyers understandingthatMs.Madu  learnedoftheaffairafterthetrial.Thelawyeralsostatedthatshewouldnothave encouragedMs.  Madutoagreetothedivorcehadshepossessedtheinformation.    Thepurposeofamotionforanewtrialistopreventunnecessaryappealsbyprovidingtrial X  courtswithanopportunitytocorrecterrorsbeforeajudgmentbecomesfinal.Ricksv.State,882 D! S.W.2d387,393(Tenn.Crim.App.1994);Safflesv.HarveyMotorCo.,780S.W.2d727,728 0"  (Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Thesemotionsareappropriateineitherjuryornonjurycases.Campbell #l! v.Archer,555S.W.2d110,112(Tenn.1977);Hughesv.CowanStoneCo.,766S.W.2d188,192 $X" (Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Thus,eventhoughmotionsforanewtrialbasedonnewlydiscovered $D # evidencearenormallyassociatedwithjurytrials,theymaybefiledinnonjuryproceedingsaswell. %0!$ See,e.g.,Seayv.CityofKnoxville,654S.W.2d397(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)(reviewingmotionfor &"% anewtrialbaseduponnewlydiscoveredevidencefollowingabenchtrial). '#&   Courtshavebecomeskepticalaboutmotionsforanewtrialbasedonnewlydiscovered )$( evidence.Brownv.UniversityNursingHome,Inc.,496S.W.2d503,510(Tenn.Ct.App.1972). |*%) Thesemotionsareviewedwithdistrustbecausetheyprovideatemptationtoperjurytostrengthen h+&* theweakpointsinthecasediscoveredduringtheprogressofthetrial.SouthwesternTransp.Co.  v.Waters,168Tenn.596,606,79S.W.2d1028,1032(1935);Rossv.State,130Tenn.387,394,170  S.W.1026,1028(1914).Accordingly,thecourtshaveemployedasetofstringentrequirements  governingmotionsforanewtrialbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidence.Themovingpartymust t satisfythetrialcourtthatitdidnotknowaboutthenewlydiscoveredevidencepriortoorduringthe ` trialandthatitcouldnothavediscoveredtheevidencethroughtheexerciseofreasonablediligence. L  Leekv.Powell,884S.W.2d118,121(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);Seayv.CityofKnoxville,654S.W.2d 8  at399.Themovantmustalsoshowthatthenewevidenceisneithercumulativenorirrelevantand $ t thattheresultofthecasewouldhavebeendifferenthadtheevidencebeenadmitted.Wrightv.  ` Quillen,909S.W.2d804,810(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).  L    Thepartiesarenotrequiredtopresenttestimonyororalargumentswithregardtomotions $  foranewtrial.Jerkinsv.McKinney,533S.W.2d275,279(Tenn.1976).However,theuseof   affidavitsisstronglyencouragedformotionsforanewtrialbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidence.   Seayv.CityofKnoxville,654S.W.2dat399400.Theseaffidavitsshouldaidthemovingpartyto   meetitsburdenofpersuasionbysettingforthfactsdemonstratingduediligenceandnotmerely   statingachangeinthecircumstancesorthegeneralknowledgeofaprospectivewitness.Rossv. p State,130Tenn.at392,170S.W.at1027;Evansv.Evans,558S.W.2d851,853(Tenn.Ct.App. \ 1977). H   TheaffidavitsofferedbyMs.Madutosubstantiateherrequestforanewtrialdonotmeet  p thesestandards.First,herformerdivorcelawyersaffidavitdoesnotexplicitlystatethatMr.Madu  \ was,infact,havinganextramaritalaffairbutmerelyreflectsthelawyers understandingthatMs. H MaduhadlearnedofMr.Madusallegedmisconductafterthetrial.Second,noneoftheaffidavits 4 arefromnewwitnesseswhowillbeabletoprovideadmissibletestimonyregardingMr.Madus   extramaritalaffair. #  4      ׀Third,theaffidavitsshedlittlelightonwhetherMs.Maduknewthis   informationpriortothetrialorwhetheritcouldhavebeendiscoveredwithduediligenceduringthe  pretrialdiscoveryprocess.Fourth,theaffidavitsdonotdemonstratethatthetrailcourtwouldnot  havedeclaredthepartiesdivorcedhadthisevidencebeenpresentedatthetrial. #  5      ׀Accordingly,in  lightofMs.Maduslessthanconvincingshowingthatsheandherlawyerexercisedduediligence l priortotrialorthatthisevidencewouldhavechangedtheoutcomeofthetrialhaditbeenadmitted, X  wehavedeterminedthatthetrailcourtdidnoterrbydenyingthemotionforanewtrialbasedon D! newlydiscoveredevidence. 0"   &"% @) B.   @mm AwarenessoftheLegalConsequencesoftheDivorceDecree     Ms.Madualsoassertsthatsheisentitledtoanewtrialbecausesheandherformerdivorce t lawyerdidnotfullyappreciatethelegalconsequencesthatthedivorcedecreewouldhaveonher ` residencystatus.Thisrequestforreliefcannotproperlybeconstruedasamotionforanewtrial L  basedonnewlydiscoveredevidencebecauseitinvolvesneither newlydiscoveredinformationnor 8  evidence.Viewedinitsproperlight,thisportionofMs.Madusposttrialmotioninvolvesamistake $ t oflaw.  `   Tenn.R.App.P.59providesthecourtswithavehicleforreviewingjudgmentsenteredas  8  aresultofmistake,inadvertence,orexcusableneglect.Campbellv.Archer,555S.W.2dat112; $  Princev.Cambell,No.01A019806CV00276,1999WL51844,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.5,   1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Thigpenv.FirstCityBank,No.01A019603CV   00095,1997WL351247,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.June27,1997)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11application   filed);Hensonv.DiehlMach.,Inc.,674S.W.2d307,310(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Accordingly,we   construethismotionasaTenn.R.Civ.P.59.04motiontoalteroramendthejudgmentonthebasis p ofmistakeorexcusableneglectandwillreviewitusingstandardssimilartothoseusedtoreview \ Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)motionsonsimilargrounds.' #  6       H   Clientsincivilproceedingscannoteasilyavoidtheconsequencesoftheactionsoftheir  p voluntarilychosenattorneys.Linkv.WabashR.R.,370U.S.626,633-34,82S.Ct.1386,1390  \ (1962);Mansfieldv.Mansfield,No.01A019412CH00058,1995WL643329,at*6(Tenn.Ct. H App.Nov.3,1995)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).Lawyersaretheagentsoftheir 4 clients.Simmonsv.OCharleys,Inc.,914S.W.2d895,902(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);CreativeRests.,   Inc.v.CityofMemphis,795S.W.2d672,679(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).Thus,exceptfor   circumstancesnotatissuehere, #  7      ׀alawyerstacticaldecisionsduringthecourseoflitigationare  attributabletoandbindingonhisorherclient.Turleyv.Cooley,3Tenn.Cas.(Shannon)68,71  (1879);Thigpenv.FirstCityBank,1997WL351247,at*4;Hartv.FirstNatlBank,690S.W.2d  536,539(Tenn.Ct.App.1985);Praterv.Louisville&NashvilleR.R.,62Tenn.App.318,330,462 l S.W.2d514,519(1970). X    Partiesseekingtoavoidajudgmentbecauseofmistakemustdemonstratewhythemistake 0"  shouldbeexcused.Neitherignoranceoftherulesnorignoranceofthelawprovidessufficient #l! justification.Algeev.StateFarmGen.Ins.Co.,890S.W.2d445,447(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);Kilby  v.Sivley,745S.W.2d284,287(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Accordingly,amistakeoflaw,unlikea  mistakeoffact,willnotprovideabasisforobtainingrelieffromajudgment.Haasv.Haas,No.  02A019709CV00241,1998WL599529,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.11,1998)(NoTenn.R.App. t P.11applicationfiled);MetropolitanDev.&Hous.Agencyv.Hill,518S.W.2d754,768(Tenn.Ct. ` App.1974).Amistakeoflawoccurswhenapartyisawareoftheoperativefactsbutisunawareof L  thelegalconsequencesarisingfromthesefacts.Stateexrel.McCormackv.AmericanBldg.&Loan 8  Assn,177Tenn.385,428,150S.W.2d1048,1065(1941).Amistakeoffactoccurswhenaparty $ t isunawareoftheoperativefacts.Sprucev.Spruce,2S.W.3d192,194(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).  `   Ms.Maduwasbeingrepresentedbytwolawyersatthetimeofthedivorceproceeding.One  8  lawyerwasrepresentingherinthedivorceproceeding,whiletheotherlawyerwasassistingherin $  herdealingswiththeINS.Therecordshedslittlelightregardingtheextenttowhichtheselawyers   werecoordinatingtheirefforts.However,despitetheclaimsinoneoftheaffidavitssupportingMs.   Madusposttrialmotion,A #  8      ׀thepleadingsandthetranscriptofthedivorcehearingdemonstratethat   bothMs.Maduandthelawyerrepresentingherinthedivorceproceedingunderstoodthatthe   outcomeoftheproceedingcouldsignificantlyinfluenceMs.Madusresidencystatus.Despitethis p knowledge,thelawyerencouragedMs.Madutoacceptasettlementthatincludeddeclaringthe \ partiesdivorcedunderTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b),andMs.Maduagreedtothis H recommendation. 4   BothMs.Maduandherlawyerparticipatedintheagreementtosettlethedivorceproceedings  \ bytheentryofanorderdeclaringthepartiesdivorcedunderTenn.CodeAnn.364129(b).Ms. H Madunowarguesthatshedidnotfullyunderstandtheeffectthatthedivorcedecreewouldhaveon 4 herabilitytoremainintheUnitedStates.Evenifweacceptthisassertionastrue,itisaclassic   mistakeoflawand,assuch,cannotproviderelieffromthejudgmentonthegroundofmistake.     Ms.Madualsoarguesthatsheisentitledtorelieffromthedivorcedecreeonthegroundof  excusableneglect.Asbestwecandetermine,theexcusableneglecttowhichMs.Madurefers  involvesherlawyersfailuretodiscusstheeffectsoftheproposeddivorceonMs.Madusresidence l statuswithherimmigrationlawyerpriortorecommendingthesettlementofthedivorcecase.We X  haveheld,however,thatalawyersoversightornegligence,withoutmore,doesnotamountto D! excusableneglect.Stateex.rel.Jonesv.Looper,No.M199900662COAR3CV,2000WL 0"  354404,at*13(Tenn.Ct.App.April7,2000)(perm.app.filedJune5,2000);Barber&McMurry, #l! Inc.v.Top-FliteDev.Corp.,720S.W.2d469,471(Tenn.Ct.App.1986). $X"   InheraffidavitsupportingMs.Madusposttrialmotion,thelawyerrepresentingMs.Madu %0!$ inthedivorceproceedingattemptstorationalizeherdecisiontoagreethatthepartiescouldbe &"% declareddivorcedbypointingoutthatshehadunsuccessfullyattemptedtotelephoneMs.Madus '#& immigrationattorney [o]natleastthreeoccasionspriortothefinalhearing.Theconclusionwe  areexpectedtodrawfromthisassertionisthatthelawyerwouldnothaverecommendedthatMs.  MaduagreetothedivorcehadshelearnedfromMs.Madusimmigrationlawyerthefulleffectsthat  thedivorcedecreewouldhave.Wehavealreadypointedout,however,thatbothMs.Maduandher t formerdivorcelawyerknewthatadivorcecouldimpedeherabilitytoremainintheUnitedStates. ` ItwasforthatreasonthatMs.Maduandherformerlawyerwerepursuingalegalseparationrather L  thanadivorce.Despitethisknowledge,Ms.Maduandherformerlawyeragreedtothedivorceeven 8  thoughtheyhadnotbeenabletoconsultherimmigrationlawyer.Thistacticaldecision,despiteits $ t unfortunatecollateralconsequences,doesnotjustifyrelieffromthedivorcedecreeontheground  ` ofexcusableneglect.  L  @^^( III.  $    Weaffirmthedivorcedecreeandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurther   proceedingsmayberequired.WealsotaxthecostsofthisappealtoDollyJulietRakiroMaduand   hersuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.      @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @ ___________________________________  p m   `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  \