WPC{J 4e<6ݾ] ౤9O%>6Rw foJN{ޭ `KY^OI$Gxx㻐~w`OgCR"y_]'q$8r!DZi~ ̃$9__VXn$R fzlh윊/9~5p'S8K|C!lS~ARtd2's!(ZwUb]=[&7N/yl>P{(]dN\ ))pksvozߥ0/WKEO:+n%,)7˕5V īFAN/Ɩը"<%Yղs]DY_ Z7s>^H#{vનPő"4% 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0c* 0E+ 0+ 02, 0- 0:- 0Y9. 0_. 0 . 0/ 0}1 B*3 D/3 D+3 04 D/ 6 0<6 06 7 0@7 0:H8 0^8 0<8 1e9U69U>9U*9UN:: 0Nm::b: B::U@>y>EAEABCBCBCBC 1uE 72|E 0cEEEEECFF'TG\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,Ԉ/ qdj/:i+003|xU(x(2;$ !USUS.,  VX~XXXVFXVX~      0  (#$  0     ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      7    _TheCourtofAppealsmayaffirmajudgmentondifferentgroundsthanthosereliedonbythetrialcourtwhen  thetrialcourtreachedthecorrectresult.ContinentalCas.Co.v.Smith,720S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.1986);Arnoldv.City t ofChattanooga,19S.W.3d779,789(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Allenv.NationalBankofNewport,839S.W.2d763,765 8 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Clarkv.MetropolitanGovt,827S.W.2d312,317(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). K  ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      2    _TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtdismissedDr._Nagarajan_scomplaintonMarch30,2000,andtheUnited  StatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitlateraffirmedthedecision._Nagarajan_Ԁv._Scheick_,8Fed.Appx.336,2001 t WL278256,at*1(6thCir.Mar.16,2001).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7A(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d@)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X75+ ` hp x 5  @)2dxd0KS.SampleKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   ! 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(O$  - - d GOVINDASWAMYSCHEICKHobbs suasponteMarettScheikLovettBankheadHefnerKalyanapuramAnnamalai AppxChisleyMoyersLeesonChernau S.W.relitigateMastiniServsRozierF.SuppPaehlerNat'lEdmundsonKaylor CasPendletonGov'tAldridge OnohEnggTullahoma COAmotion[s TSUDementChernBaltiaD.C.CirKrotuiskiCameliaSoumayahEntmanOakleyNagarajan Mgmt(@ Z(Times New Roman  o  ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      1    _TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtawardedDr._Nagarajan_Ԁ$511,019.10inbackpayand_directed_Ԁthathebe  reinstatedasafullnontenuredprofessor._Nagarajan_Ԁv.TennesseeStateUniv.,187F.3d637,1999WL551369,at*2 t (6thCir.July19,1999)(_unpublished_Ԁtabledecision).   ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      5    _Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02statesthat [a]motionunderthisRule60.02doesnotaffectthefinalityofajudgment  orsuspenditsoperation.RobertBanks,Jr.&JuneF.Entman,TennesseeCivilProcedure123(k),at895 t (1999)( TennesseeCivilProcedure).   ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      3    _ThetimeforfilinganoticeofappealissuspendedbythetimelyfilingofaTenn.R.Civ.P.59.02or59.04  motion.Tenn.R.App.P.4(b).Dr._Nagarajan_smotionisessentiallyaTenn.R.Civ.P.59.04motion.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)^i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   9  ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      4    _Tenn.R.Civ.P.59motionsmustbefiledwithinthirtydaysaftertheentryofthejudgment.Tenn.R.Civ.P.  59.02.   ;$USUS.,VX~XXXVFXVX~      6    _BecauseofthesubstantialsimilaritiesbetweenFed.R.Civ.P.60(b)andTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02,thedecisions  ofthefederalcourtsconstruingFed.R.Civ.P.60(b)providehelpfulguidanceforourinterpretationofTenn.R.Civ. t P.60.02.SeeFrazierv.EastTenn.BaptistHosp.,55S.W.3d925,929(Tenn.2001);Harrisv.Chern,33S.W.3d741, 8 745n.2(Tenn.2000);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,211n.2(Tenn.1993);PacificEasternCorp.v.GulfLifeHolding L Co.,902S.W.2d946,952n.7(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). !USUS.,  _TRX3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 AddressX3'LetterT  OX~XXXO*XOX~S8~Xdd8  RINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @@gg$ATNASHVILLE#OX~XO*#OXOX~ & AssignedonBriefsApril1,2003 L #OX~XO# O*XOX~GOVINDASWAMYNAGARAJANv.SANDRASCHEICK,etal.#OX~XO*J#  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  Z @@No.00246IIIEllenHobbsLyle,Chancellor  F @@*AT ) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200002323_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember19,_2003_   AT ) ` dE<` A   #X~XXOX~#   ThisappealisanoutgrowthofcomplaintsfiledbyagroupofTennesseeStateUniversitystudents   regardingtheperformanceoftheirphysicsprofessor.Afterthestudentscomplainedtothe   university,theprofessorfiledaprosecomplaintintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyagainst t theTennesseeBoardofRegents,theuniversity,fouruniversityadministrators,andtwentyfour ` students,allegingbreachofcontract,defamation,intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,and L discriminationbasedonage,race,andnationalorigin.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheprofessors 8 complaintinitsentiretyinresponsetomotionstodismissfiledbytheuniversitydefendantsanda $t numberofthestudentdefendants.Theprofessorthenfiledserial motion[s]tovacatetheorderof ` dismissalforjustcause.Thetrialcourtdeniedthefirstmotionand,treatingthesecondmotionas L aTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)motion,alsodeniedthesecond.Onthisappeal,theprofessorseeksto 8 raisetwelveissuesregardingthemeritsofhisclaim.However,theonlymatterproperlybeforeus $ isthedenialofhissecond motiontovacatetheorderofdismissalforjustcause.Wehave  determinedthatthetrialcourtproperlydeniedthismotion.Wehavealsodeterminedthatthisappeal  isfrivolous.  @AA Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  p WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S. H!  andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. 4"! GovindaswamyNagarajan,Hermitage,Tennessee,ProSe.  $\# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andWilliamJ.Marett,Jr.,AssistantAttorney %4!% General,fortheappellees,SandraScheik,BobbyLovett,AugustusBankhead,JamesHefner, & "& TennesseeStateUniversity,andtheTennesseeBoardofRegents. ' #' RobertL.Smith,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,YolandaMcCall,TheodoreKrotuiski, )$) CameliaMitchell,andSoumayahWalton. *%*  D-(- R R  R    OPINION  I.      Dr.GovindaswamyNagarajan,anativeofKalyanapuram,India,holdstwodoctoratedegrees ` fromAnnamalaiUniversity.HeimmigratedtotheUnitedStatesin1962andbecameanAmerican L  citizenin1977.InAugust1980,Dr.NagarajanwashiredasanAssociateProfessorofPhysicsat 8  TennesseeStateUniversity( TSU).Hewasdeniedtenureduringboththe198586and198687 $ t academicyearsandwasterminatedbyTSUatthecloseofthe198990academicyear.Following  ` protractedlitigationintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee,W #  1      ׀TSU  L  reinstatedDr.Nagarajanatthestartofthe199798academicyear,andtheTennesseeBoardof  8  RegentsawardedhimtenureinJune1998. $    Dr.NagarajantaughtPhysics211duringthefallsemesterofthe199899academicyear.In   December1998,twentyfourofthethirtysixstudentsinhisclassfiledacomplaintabouthis   performancewithDr.SandraScheick,thechairpersonofTSUsDepartmentofPhysicsand   Mathematics.ThestudentsallegedthatDr.Nagarajanhadfailedtoattendpostedofficehours,to p returntelephonecallsfromstudentsafterrepeatedattemptstocontacthim,tocorrectgrading \ inaccuraciesinhisgradebook,andtoaddressphysicsproblemsposedbystudents.Theyalso H assertedthatDr.Nagarajanhaddiscouragedopendialoguewithstudents,usedprofanityand 4 derogatoryremarks,andhaddegradedandembarrassedstudentsbyannouncingtheiroverall  p performanceongradedassignmentsbeforetheentireclass.  \   Dr.ScheickinformedDr.NagarajanofthecomplaintsandaskedtomeetwithhimafterDean 4 BobbyLovett,theDeanoftheCollegeofArtsandSciences,sentherfiveofthestudentcomplaints   aboutDr.Nagarajansperformance.Dr.Nagarajaninsistedthatthecomplainingstudentsshouldbe   removedfromhisclassesandlaboratoriesbecausethey createdaconflict.DeanLovettdeclined  toremovethestudentsandinformedDr.Nagarajanthattheyhadarighttoremaininhisclass.The  DeanalsoinformedDr.SchickthatthestudentswerealsocomplainingthatDr.Nagarajanwas  pressuringthemtosignpetitionsandlettersrenouncingtheircomplaints.Fivestudentsmadeformal l requestsforadjustmentsinthegradestheyhadreceivedfromDr.Nagarajan.InFebruary1999,Dr. X  NagarajanrequestedTSUspresidenttoappointacommitteetoinvestigatethestudentscomplaints D! abouthimandtoexcludeDeanLovettandDr.Scheickfromthecommittee.Approximatelytwo 0"  weekslater,Dr.Scheickinformedthefivestudentsthattheirrequeststochangetheirgradeshad #l! beendenied. $X"   Dr.Nagarajanwasnotcontenttoletthematterdrop.InApril1999,hefiledsuitinthe %0!$ UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseeagainsttheTennesseeBoardof &"% Regents,TSU,fouruniversityofficials,andtwentyfourstudents,seekingdamagesforbreachof '#& contract,defamation,intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,anddiscriminationbasedonage,  race,andnationalorigin.OnJanuary25,2000,whilehisfederalactionwasstillpending, #  2      ׀hefiled  asubstantiallyidenticalprosecomplaintintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyagainstthe  samedefendantsseeking$70,000,000inpunitivedamages.Asubstantialportionofthecomplaint t !thirtysevenoffiftyfourpages!rehashedthefactualallegationsinDr.Nagarajansformer ` employmentdiscriminationlawsuit. L    FiveofthestudentdefendantsmovedtodismissDr.Nagarajansstatecomplaintbecauseof $ t hispendingfederalcomplaintseekingthesamerelief.InMarch2000,theTennesseeBoardof  ` Regents,TSU,andthefouruniversityadministratorsalsofiledamotiontodismissDr.Nagarajans  L  complaintonanumberofothergrounds.OnMay5,2000,thetrialcourtfiledamemorandumand  8  orderdismissingDr.Nagarajanscomplaintagainsttheuniversitydefendantsandthestudent $  defendantswhohadnotfiledtheirownmotiontodismiss.OnMay30,2000,thecourtenteredan   orderdismissingtheclaimsagainsttheremainingfivestudentdefendantsbasedonitsMay5,2000   order.     OnJune5,2000,Dr.Nagarajanfiledarambling,unfocused motiontovacatetheorderof p dismissalforjustcausedirectedatthetrialcourtsMay5,2000order.Approximatelythreeweeks \ later,hefiledafortysixpagedocumententitled additionalfactssupportingthemotiontovacate H theorderofdismissalforjustcause.OnJune27,2000,thetrialcourtdeniedDr.Nagarajans 4 motion.  p   OnJune28,2000,Dr.Nagarajanfiledasecond motiontovacatetheorderofdismissalfor H justcausedirectedatboththeMay5andJune27,2000orders.Asgroundsforthismotion,he 4 pointedto thefraudulentactsofcertainDefendantsastheyfabricatedthedocumentsandaffixed   theforgedsignaturestothedocumentaccusingthePlaintiffofmisconduct.OnJuly14,2000,Dr.   Nagarajanfiledanineteenpagedocumententitled moreadditionalfactssupportingthemotionto  vacatetheorderofdismissalforcause.ThetrialcourttreatedDr.NagarajansJune28,2000  motionasaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)motionandfiledanorderonAugust11,2000denyingit.Dr.  NagarajanfiledhisnoticeofappealonSeptember8,2000. l @) II.  D! @KK TheScopeofThisAppeal  0"    Dr.Nagarajanseekstoraisetwelveissuesonthisappeal,mostofwhichinvolvethe $X" substanceofthecomplaintthatwasdismissedbythetrialcourtsMay5,2000order.Wecannot $D # considerelevenoftheseissues.Becauseofhislackoffamiliaritywiththeproceduralrules,Dr. %0!$ Nagarajanfailedtofileatimelynoticeofappealfromthedismissalofhiscomplaint.Eventhough &"% heisaproselitigant,wecannotrelievehimoftheresponsibilitytoadheretothemandatory '#& requirementsoftheproceduralrules.Hodgesv.AttorneyGeneral,43S.W.3d918,920(Tenn.Ct.  App.2000);Edmundsonv.Pratt,945S.W.2d754,755(Tenn.Ct.App.1996);Kaylorv.Bradley,  912S.W.2d728,733n.4(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).    ThetrialcourtentereditsorderdismissingDr.Nagarajanscomplaintagainsttheuniversity ` defendantsandmostofthestudentdefendantsonMay5,2000.However,thisorderwasnotfinal L  becauseitdidnotresolveDr.Nagarajansclaimsagainstfiveremainingstudents.Thetrialcourt 8  dismissedtheseclaimsonMay30,2000.ThetimeforfilinganoticeofappealbegantorunonMay $ t 30,2000;however,theclockwasstoppedonJune5,2000,whenDr.Nagarajanfiledhisfirst  `  motiontovacatetheorderofdismissalforjustcause.Z #  3      ׀Whenthetrialtrialcourtdeniedhismotion  L  onJune27,2000,thetimeforfilinganoticeofappealchallengingtheMay5,2000orderbeganto  8  runagain,andDr.Nagarajanhadthirtydayswithinwhichtofileanoticeofappeal. $    Dr.NagarajandidnotfileanoticeofappealwithinthirtydaysfollowingtheentryoftheJune   27,2000order.Instead,hefiledhissecond motiontovacatetheorderofdismissalforjustcause   onJune28,2000.IfthismotionwereconstruedasaTenn.R.Civ.P.59motion,itwouldnothave   beenpermittedfortworeasons.First,itwasnotfiledwithinthirtydaysoftheentryoftheMay30, p 2000order.e #  4      ׀Second,serialTenn.R.Civ.P.59motionsandmotionstoreconsiderordersdenying \ Tenn.R.Civ.P.motionsarenotpermitted.Tenn.R.Civ.P.59.01;Tenn.R.Civ.P.59.02cmt; H Gassawayv.Patty,604S.W.2d60,61(Tenn.Ct.App.1980).Accordingly,thetrialcourt,liberally 4 construingDr.Nagarajansmotion,determinedthatitwas,inessence,aTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)  p motion.Thereafter,thetrialcourtdeniedDr.Nagarajanssecond motiontovacatetheorderof  \ dismissalforjustcauseonAugust11,2000,andDr.Nagarajanfinallyfiledanoticeofappealon H September8,2000. 4   ThetrialcourtsdecisiontocharacterizeDr.Nagarajanssecond motiontovacatetheorder   forjustcauseasaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)motionisdoublysignificant.First,itenabledthetrial  courttoconsiderthesubstantivemeritsofDr.Nagarajansmotion.Second,itnecessarilymeantthat  Dr.NagarajanssecondmotiondidnotsuspendthetimeforfilinganoticeofappealbecauseTenn.  R.Civ.P.60.02motionsarenotamongthelimitednumberofmotionswiththateffect.Xh #  5      ׀Because l thetimeforfilinganoticeofappealfromtheJune27,2000orderwasnotsuspended,Dr.Nagarajan X  wasrequiredtofileanoticeofappealonorbeforeJuly27,2000inordertochallengetheMay30, D! 2000orderonappeal.Thus,hisSeptember8,2000noticeofappealcametoolate,atleastinsofar 0"  astheMay5,2000orderwasconcerned. #l! Ї  Dr.Nagarajanspleadingmiscuedoesnotleavehimwithoutanyremedy.Hefiledatimely  noticeofappealfromtheAugust11,2000orderdismissinghissecond motiontovacatetheorder  ofdismissalforjustcause.Asaresult,hisnoticeofappealpreserveshisrighttochallengethe  correctnessofthatorderandthatorderalone.Oakleyv.State,No.W200200095COAR3CV, t 2003WL103215,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.8,2003);ThirdNatlBankv.Estes,No.84142II, ` 1986WL3155,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.12,1986),perm.app.denied(Tenn.May4,1987). L  Therefore,thescopeofthisappealislimitedtothetwelfthissueinDr.Nagarajansdeclarationof 8  issues: Whetherornotpostjudgmentrelief,pursuanttoRule60.02,shouldbegrantedwhenthere $ t existedconductamountingtoanintentionalcontrivancebyboththeStateDefendantsandStudent  ` DefendantstokeepthePlaintiffandtheChanceryCourtinignoranceoftherealfactstouchingthe  L  mattersinlitigation,wherebyawrongconclusionwasreached,andpositivewrongdonetothe  8  Plaintiffsrights. $  @^^( III.    @. .  ReliefPursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)      Dr.Nagarajandoesnottakeissuewiththetrialcourtscharacterizationofhissecond motion p tovacatetheorderofdismissalforjustcauseasaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)motion.However,he \ assertsthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinghismotionbecauseofthefraudulentnatureofthe H defendantsconductin1998and1999thatgaverisetothislawsuit.Dr.Nagarajanfailsto 4 understandthatthisprelawsuitconductcannot,asamatteroflaw,providegroundsforreliefunder  p Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.  \   Tenn.R.Civ.P.60motionsareintendedtostrikeaproperbalancebetweenthecompeting 4 principlesoffinalityandjustice.Banksv.DementConstr.Co.,817S.W.2d16,18(Tenn.1991);   Rogersv.EstateofRussell,50S.W.3d441,444(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Inthewordsofthe   TennesseeSupremeCourt,theyact asanescapevalvefrompossibleinequitythatmightotherwise  arisefromtheunrelentingimpositionoftheprincipleoffinalityimbeddedinourproceduralrules.  Thompsonv.FiremensFundIns.Co.,798S.W.2d235,238(Tenn.1990).    Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)providesaproceduralvehicleforseekingrelieffromajudgment X  obtainedbyfraud.ThesortoffraudthattriggersreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)mustbefraud D! thatpreventedthemovingpartyfromfullyandfairlypresentingitscase.InreEstateofWilliams, 0"  No.M200002434COAR3CV,2003WL1961805,at*13(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.28,2003),perm. #l! app.denied(Tenn.Oct.6,2003);Leev.Lee,No.29,1990WL90942,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.July $X" 3,1990)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);11CharlesA.Wrightetal.,Federal $D # PracticeandProcedure2860,at313(2ded.1995)( FederalPracticeandProcedure).g #  6      ׀ %0!$ Itinvolvesconductthatisdirectedatthejudicialmachineryitself,BaltiaAirLines,Inc.v. &"% TransactionMgmt.,Inc.,98F.3d640,642(D.C.Cir.1996);InreWhitneyForbes,Inc.,770F.2d  692,698(7thCir.1985),andthatoccursbetweenthetimethelawsuitisfiledandtheentryofthe  finaljudgment.OptimalHealthCareServs.v.TravelersIns.Co.,801F.Supp.1558,1561(E.D.  Tex.1992). t   ReliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)isnotavailabletocorrectjudgmentsthataresimply L  incorrect.Rozierv.FordMotorCo.,573F.2d1332,1339(5thCir.1978).Itislikewiseunavailable 8  whenthemovingpartyismerelyattemptingtorelitigatethemeritsofitscase.Flemingv.NewYork $ t Univ.,865F.2d478,484(2dCir.1989);Mastiniv.AmericanTelephone&TelegraphCo.,369F.2d  ` 378,379(2dCir.1966);OptimalHealthCareServs.,Inc.v.TravelersIns.Co.,801F.Supp.at1561;  L  FederalPracticeandProcedure2860,at314.  8    ThepartyseekingreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)hastheburdenofprovingthatitis   entitledtorelief.Tricev.Moyers,561S.W.2d153,156(Tenn.1978);Holtv.Holt,751S.W.2d426,   428(Tenn.Ct.App.1988);FederalPracticeandProcedure2860,at312.Tobeentitledto   reliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2),amovingpartymustdescribeitsgroundsforreliefwiththe   particularityrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.9.02,Duncanv.Duncan,789S.W.2d557,563(Tenn.Ct. p App.1990);TennesseeCivilProcedure55(f),at232(1999),andmustprovebyclearand \ convincingevidencethatitisentitledtorelief.Duncanv.Duncan,789S.W.2dat563;Federal H PracticeandProcedure2860,at31213. 4   AmotionforreliefbasedonTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(2)lieswithinthesounddiscretionofthe  \ trialcourt.Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.1993);Banksv.DementConstr. H Co.,817S.W.2dat18;Davidsonv.Davidson,916S.W.2d918,923(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).On 4 appeal,ourscopeofreviewislimitedtodeterminingwhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.   Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2dat97;Howardv.Howard,991S.W.2d251,255(Tenn.   Ct.App.1999);Davidsonv.Davidson,916S.W.2dat923.    Dr.Nagarajanssecond motiontovacatetheorderofdismissalforjustcausecenters  aroundthefilingandadministrativedispositionofthestudentscomplaintabouthisperformance l in1998and1999.Herepeatedlyreferstothe fraudulentactsofcertain[d]efendantsasthey X  fabricatedthedocumentsandaffixedtheforgedsignaturestothedocumentaccusingthe[p]laintiff D! ofmisconduct.ThemotiondoesnotallegeanyfraudulentconductbetweenJanuary25,2000, 0"  whenhefiledhiscomplaintandMay30,2000,whenthetrialcourtdismissedit.Accordingly, #l! becausehissecondmotionisnothingmorethananattempttorelitigatethemeritsofhisoriginal $X" complaint,Dr.NagarajanhasfailedtodemonstratethatheisentitledtoreliefpursuanttoTenn.R. $D # Civ.P.60.02(2). %0!$ @dd) IV. '#& @ DamagesforaFrivolousAppeal  (#'   Partiesshouldnotbeforcedtobearthecostandvexationofbaselessappeals.Davisv.Gulf |*%) Ins.Group,546S.W.2d583,586(Tenn.1977);Jacksonv.Aldridge,6S.W.3d501,504(Tenn.Ct. h+&* App.1999);McDonaldv.Onoh,772S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Accordingly,in1975,  theGeneralAssemblyenactedTenn.CodeAnn.271122(2000)toenableappellatecourtsto  awarddamagesagainstpartieswhoseappealsarefrivolousorarebroughtsolelyforthepurposeof  delay.Determiningwhethertoawardthesedamagesisadiscretionarydecision.Banksv.St.Francis t Hosp.,697S.W.2d340,343(Tenn.1985).Whileitiscustomaryfortheappelleetorequestdamages ` underTenn.CodeAnn.271122,appellatecourtsmaydeterminethatanappealisfrivolouson L  theirownmotion.However,appellatecourtsshouldbecarefulnottodiscouragelegitimateappeals. 8  Wakefieldv.Longmire,54S.W.3d300,304(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Knowlesv.State,49S.W.3d $ t 330,341(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).  `   Afrivolousappealisonethatisdevoidofmeritorthathasnoreasonablechanceofsuccess.  8  CombustionEng'g,Inc.v.Kennedy,562S.W.2d202,205(Tenn.1978);Wakefieldv.Longmire,54 $  S.W.3dat304;Jacksonv.Aldridge,6S.W.3dat504;IndustrialDev.Bd.v.Hancock,901S.W.2d   382,385(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Theappellantsinabilitytociteanyevidenceorlegalprinciplethat   wouldwarrantgrantingreliefonappealisasignoffrivolity.Wellsv.SentryIns.Co.,834S.W.2d   935,93839(Tenn.1992);Jacksonv.Aldridge,6S.W.3dat504.     Dr.NagarajansoughtthisappealtoobtainappellatereviewofthetrialcourtsMay5,2000 \ orderdismissinghiscomplaintagainsttheuniversitydefendantsandthestudentdefendants. H Becauseofhisfailuretocomplywiththeapplicableproceduralrules,bythetimehiscasereached 4 thiscourt,nobasisexistedthatwouldenableustoreviewthetrialcourtsdismissalofhiscomplaint.  p Dr.Nagarajanhasfailedtociteanylawtosupportanyofhislegalarguments.Theappelleeshave  \ incurredattorneysfeesandothercostsasaresultofDr.Nagarajansinsistenceonpursuingthis H appealwhen,viewedobjectively,hehadnoreasonablechancetoprevail.Accordingly,wehave 4 determinedthattheappelleesareentitledtodamagesunderTenn.CodeAnn.271122.On   remand,thetrialcourtshallholdahearingtodeterminethedamagesandshallthengivean   appropriatejudgmenttotheappelleesinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.271122.  @) V.     WeaffirmtheAugust11,2000orderdenyingDr.Nagarajanssecond motiontovacatethe X  orderofdismissalforjustcause #  7      ׀andremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings D! consistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoDr.GovindaswamyNagarajanfor 0"  whichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue. #l! OX~XXX~   `     h     _____________________________ %0!$    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,J.#X~XXOX~j#