WPC? \S ::FEjސs~ 9^pjم^ål'86D$s; M*&xCV^U E,@^/ N 7!чaPQ?THѺ'3D"o~fwKE!QV.\j@-#V +(tt05ͽNYﭛblh ,Lvahхs   i/U/NNCVE 0DEb 0: 0<<<< B'' 0D D3 D- 0KHH AS 0 0DP A\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0nl/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=.: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|xU\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular L RD$      1  =  _OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonOctober14,2003,inMorristownaspartoftheCourtsC.A.S.E.  ( C ourtofAppeals A ffecting S tudent E ducation)project.(#$  0   PACHEHamblenKindall COASwineyInmanJesseeMorristownSheltonoverbroadi]dentifyLoudonLethcoeEldridge f]or o]nGoinsD]efendants JurOverstreetC.A.S.E.applie[sreache[scause[sShoneyC.J.S.Trusler  RG,$      2  i  _Thecertificateofservice,thesignatureblock,andthenotarizationontheAnswerarealldatedJanuary16,  2003;however,theHamblenCountyCircuitCourtClerkdatestampedthedocumentasfiledonJanuary15,2003. t WhethertheAnswerwasactuallyfiledonthe15thorthe16thhasnobearingonouranalysisoftheissuesinthiscase.- -42Emphasis(|G2D$ !.8dd8         0  = d(|3z$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3z$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8LXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ &   October14,2003Session L XLX #XXL#PACHEINDUSTRIES,LLCv.WALLACEHARDWARECO.,INC.XLX   " @@ Appealfromthe0 @ CircuitCourtforHamblenCounty  " @@No.02CV236KindallT.Lawson,Judge    FILEDNOVEMBER12,_2003_   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200301483_COA_ԄR3CV }  AV) ` dE<T` A U    PacheIndustries,LLC( Plaintiff)suedWallaceHardwareCo.,Inc.( Defendant)forunpaid < invoices.Defendantwasservedwiththesummonsandcomplaint,butdidnotanswerwithinthirty (x days.Plaintifffiledamotionfordefaultjudgment.Afterbeingservedwiththemotionfordefault d judgment,Defendanthiredanattorney,filedananswertothecomplaint,andfiledresponsesto P discoveryrequests.TheTrialCourtgrantedPlaintiffadefaultjudgment.Defendantfiledamotion < tosetasidethedefaultjudgment.TheTrialCourtdeniedthemotion.Defendantappeals.We ( affirm. #  1      ׀   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;  CaseRemanded.  t   #XL|#XLX.D.MichaelSwiney,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J., 8!  andWilliamH.Inman,Sr.,J.,joined. $"t! LoriL.Jessee,Morristown,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,WallaceHardwareCo.,Inc. $8 $ J.RandallShelton,Morristown,Tennessee,fortheAppellee,PacheIndustries,LLC. '"'  p*%* _ԇ OPINION #XXL#XLX  #^IXXž #XX^I Background        ` PlaintiffsuedDefendantforseveralunpaidinvoices.Thesummonsandcomplaint ` wereserveduponWilliamA.Trusler,DefendantsregisteredagentandVicePresidentofFinance, L  onSeptember9,2002.Atthatsametime,Defendantalsowasservedwithrequestsforadmission 8  andinterrogatories.Mr.Trusleradmitshereceivedthesedocuments.Defendantdidnotanswerthe $ t complaintwithinthirtydaysandalsodidnotanswertherequestsforadmissionandinterrogatories  ` timely.  L     ` OnNovember1,2002,Plaintifffiledamotionforjudgmentbydefaultandserved $  DefendantwiththemotionandwithnoticethatthemotionwouldbeheardonFebruary3,2003.   DefendantsappellatebriefstatesthatDefendantfinallymetwith,andhired,anattorneyon   November24,2002.Thenextday,DefendantsattorneycontactedPlaintiffsattorneytodiscussthe   case.OnJanuary15,2003 #  2      ,approximatelyeighteendayspriortothehearingonthemotionfor   defaultjudgment,Defendantfiledananswer,amotiontowithdrawadmissions,andaresponseto p requestsforadmissionandinterrogatories. \    ` Defendantprovidedresponsestoalloftherequeststoadmitandtotwentyfourofthe 4 twentyfiveinterrogatories.Defendantobjectedtointerrogatorynumbertwentyfiveclaimingitwas  p  ambiguous,overbroad,andundulyburdensome.Specifically,interrogatorynumbertwentyfive  \ requestedthatDefendant [i]dentifyandattachtoyouranswerscopiesofanydocuments[youhave] H whichhaveabearingorshedlightontheissuesraisedintheComplaint.Plaintifffiledamotion 4 tocompelananswertointerrogatorynumbertwentyfive.      ` TheTrialCourtheardargumentonthemotionfordefaultjudgmentonFebruary3,  2003,andgrantedPlaintiffadefaultjudgmentrenderingtheotherpendingmotionsmoot.TheTrial  CourtenteredajudgmentonFebruary6,2003,grantingPlaintiffthesumof $11,678.70,plus  prejudgmentinterestof10%fromthedatesoftheindividualinvoicesidentifiedintheComplaint. l    ` Defendantfiledamotiontosetasidethedefaultjudgmentandthesupporting D! affidavitsofMr.TruslerandDefendantsattorney.Themotionclaimsthatthefailuretotimely 0"  answerthecomplaintwas theresultofexcusableneglect,mistake,andinadvertenceof #l! [Defendant].Inaddition,Defendantclaimedithadavalidandmeritoriousdefensetothesuitand $X" thatPlaintiffwouldnotbeprejudicedifDefendantsmotionweregranted.Mr._Trusler_saffidavit $D # admitsthathereceivedthesummonsandcomplaintandstatesthat thedocumentsweremisplaced %0!$ bymeandallowedtolanguishuntilNovemberof2002,whenthedocumentswerefoundand &"% Defendantfinallysoughtlegalcounsel.TheTrialCourtheardargumentandthenenteredanorder '#& onMay19,2003,denyingDefendantsmotiontosetasidethedefaultjudgment.Defendantappeals  tothisCourt.    Discussion  t      ` Defendantraisestwoissuesonappeal:1)whethertheTrialCourterredingranting L  judgmentbydefault;and2)whethertheTrialCourterredindenyingDefendantsmotiontosetaside 8  thedefaultjudgment.Wewilladdresseachissueinturn. $ t    `  XXXXThedecisiontograntadefaultjudgmentisreviewedunderanabuseofdiscretion  L  standard.#XXX XA#XXXXStateofTennesseeex.rel.Jonesv.Looper,86S.W.3d189,193(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).#XXXX# XXXX# ^IX X # XX ^I  8  AtrialcourtsdecisiontograntordenyreliefunderRule60.02alsoisreviewedforabuseof $  discretion.FederatedIns.Co.v.Lethcoe,18S.W.3d621,624(Tenn.2000);Underwoodv.Zurich   Ins.Co.,854S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.1993).      ` OurSupremeCourtdiscussedtheabuseofdiscretionstandardinEldridgev.   Eldridge,stating: p 8   ` Undertheabuseofdiscretionstandard,atrialcourtsruling willbeupheld H solongasreasonablemindscandisagreeasto[the]proprietyofthedecisionmade. 4 Atrialcourtabusesitsdiscretiononlywhenit applie[s]anincorrectlegalstandard,  p orreache[s]adecisionwhichisagainstlogicorreasoningthatcause[s]aninjustice  \ tothepartycomplaining.Theabuseofdiscretionstandarddoesnotpermitthe H appellatecourttosubstituteitsjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt.4   Eldridgev.Eldridge,42S.W.3d82,85(Tenn.2001)(citationsomitted).      ` Appellatecourtsordinarilypermitdiscretionarydecisionstostandwhenreasonable  judicialmindscandifferconcerningtheirsoundness.Overstreetv._Shoney_s,Inc.,4S.W.3d694,  709(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Atrialcourtsdiscretionarydecisionmusttakeintoaccountapplicable l lawandbeconsistentwiththefactsbeforethecourt.Id.Whenreviewingadiscretionarydecision X  bythetrialcourt,the appellatecourtsshouldbeginwiththepresumptionthatthedecisioniscorrect D! andshouldreviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothedecision.Id.#XXX Xœ##^IXX#XX^IXXXX 0"     ` #XXXXJ&#WefirstwillconsiderwhethertheTrialCourterredingrantingPlaintiffjudgment $X" bydefaultXXXX#^IXX%&#XX^I.TheentryofadefaultjudgmentisgovernedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.55,whichstates,in $D # pertinentpart: %0!$ 8  55.01.Entry. Whenapartyagainstwhomajudgmentforaffirmativereliefis '#& soughthasfailedtopleadorotherwisedefendasprovidedbytheserulesandthatfact (#' ismadetoappearbyaffidavitorotherwise,judgmentbydefaultmaybeenteredas )$(  follows:*%)   8   ` Thepartyentitledtoajudgmentbydefaultshallapplytothecourt.All   partiesagainstwhomadefaultjudgmentissoughtshallbeservedwithawritten  noticeoftheapplicationforjudgmentatleastfivedaysbeforethehearingonthe  application,regardlessofwhetherthepartyhasmadeanappearanceintheaction. t Nojudgmentbydefaultshallbeenteredagainstaninfantorincompetentperson ` unlessrepresentedintheactionbyageneralguardian,committee,conservator,or L  othersuchrepresentativewhohasappearedtherein.If,inordertoenablethecourt 8  toenterjudgmentortocarryitintoeffect,itisnecessarytotakeanaccountorto $ t determinetheamountofdamagesortoestablishthetruthofanyavermentby  ` evidenceortomakeaninvestigationofanyothermatterthecourtmayconductsuch  L  hearingsorordersuchreferencesasitdeemsnecessaryandproperandshallaccord  8  arightoftrialbyjurytothepartieswhenandasrequiredbyanystatute.$    Tenn.R.Civ.P.55.01.      ` #XXXX,'#XXXX#^IXXn'#XX^ITheTrialCourtgrantedthedefaultjudgmentbecauseDefendantfailedtocomply   withTenn.R.Civ.P.12,whichstates: Adefendantshallserveananswerwithinthirty(30)days p aftertheserviceofthesummonsandcomplaintuponhim.Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.01. \    ` #XXXX.##^IXX>/#XX^IXXXXAsthisCourtstatedintheLoopercase#XXXX%1#XXXX#^IXX1#XX^I: 4 8  Thebelatedfilingofananswerisnotanadequateresponsetoamotionfordefault.  \ Theremustbesomeapplicationtothecourtforrelieffromthefailuretotimelyfile H ananswer.ThelanguageofRule55.01makesitclearthatajudge,intheexercise 4 ofsoundjudicialdiscretion,mayenteradefaultjudgmentagainstapartywhohas   failedtopleadorotherwisedefendinaccordancewiththerules,aslongasproper   noticeofhearingonthemotionisgiven....Undertherules,anextensionoftime  withinwhichtofileanalreadyoverdueresponseisavailableinthediscretionofthe  trialcourt,forgoodcauseshown,anduponashowingofexcusableneglect.While  trialcourtsgenerallyhavedis_cretion_Ԁtoallowlatefilings,theyarenotcompelledto l doso.X    StateofTennesseeex.rel.Jonesv.Looper,86S.W.3dat196#^IXX1#XX^I#XXXXŔ1#XXXX(citationsomitted). 0"     ` Inthiscase,Defendantfailedtofileananswerwithinthetimeperiodprovidedby $X" Rule12oftheRulesofCivilProcedureortootherwisetimelydefendasprovidedbytheRulesof $D # CivilProcedure.#XXXX6#XXXX#^IXXŁ6#XX^IDefendantthenmadenoapplicationforanextensionoftimeinwhichtorespond %0!$ tothecomplaint,butinsteadmerelyfiledabelatedanswer. &"%    ` Defendantclaimsthatthiswasnotan eleventhhourdefensebecauseitsanswerwas (#' filedeighteendayspriortothehearingonthemotionfordefaultjudgment.However,neitherthe )$( RulesofCivilProcedurenorcaselawprovidethatadefaultjudgmentmustbedeniedifananswer |*%) isfiledpriortothecourtshearingonthemotion.#XXXX98#XXXX#^IXX{8#XX^IRule12.01clearlyprovidesthatacomplaint h+&* _ shallbeansweredwithinthirtydays.Defendantdidnotdothat.Inaddition,Defendantdidnot  simplydelayinansweringthecomplaint,butalsodelayedinhiringanattorneyforseveralweeks  afterbeingservedwiththemotionfordefaultjudgment.TheTrialCourttookintoaccountthe  applicablelawandthefactsbeforeitandexerciseditsdiscretionunderRule55.01tograntadefault t judgment.TheTrialCourtneitherappliedanincorrectlegalstandardnorreachedadecisionthatis ` againstlogicorreasoningthatcausesaninjusticetoDefendant.Likewise,webelievethat L  reasonablemindscoulddisagreeastotheproprietyofthedecisionmadebytheTrialCourt,thevery 8  essenceofadiscretionarydecision.Giventhis,wearenotpermittedtosubstituteourjudgmentfor $ t thatoftheTrialCourt,and,therefore,weaffirmtheTrialCourtastothisissue.  `    ` Wenextconsider#XXXX";#whethertheTrialCourterredindenyingDefendantsmotiontoset  8  asidethedefaultjudgment.Rule55providesthat #^IXXd;#XX^IXXXX[f]#XXXX!A##^IXXA#XX^IXXXX orgoodcauseshownthecourtmaysetaside $  ajudgmentbydefaultinaccordancewithRule60.02.Tenn.R.Civ.P.55.02.AsthisCourthas   stated:   8   ` ApartyseekingreliefunderRule55.02mustsatisfythecourtthatitis   entitledtoreliefbasedononeofthegroundsinTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02andthatithas p ameritoriousdefensetotheplaintiffssuit.Further,thepartyseekingrelieffroma \ judgmenthastheburdenofprovingheorsheisentitledtorelief.H   StateofTennesseeex.rel.Jonesv.Looper,86S.W.3dat199200(citationsomitted).  p    ` Inpertinentpart,Rule60.02providesthat [o]nmotionanduponsuchtermsasare H just,thecourtmayrelieveapartyorthepartyslegalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderor 4 proceedingforthefollowingreasons:(1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;....   Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02.      ` Neitherdismissalsnordefaultjudgmentsarefavoredbythecourts.Dismissals  basedonproceduralgroundslikefailuretoprosecuteanddefaultjudgmentsruncountertothe  judicialsystemsgeneralobjectiveofdisposingofcasesonthemerits.Henryv.Goins,104S.W.3d l 475,481(Tenn.2003)(citationsomitted). X     ` However,adefendantmaynotsimplyignoreasuitordelayfilingananswerto 0"  inconveniencetheplaintiff. [D]efendantsarenottobeallowedtoprolonglitigationbyimposing #l! proceduraldelays.Thedefaultjudgmentprotectsadiligentpartyfromcontinualdelayand $X" uncertaintyastohisorherrights.StateofTennesseeex.rel.Jonesv.Looper,86S.W.3dat194 $D # (quoting49C.J.S.Judgments196(1997)).#XXXXŨA#XXXX#^IXXʼnA#XX^IԀ#XXXXŀJ#XXXX#^IXXJ#XX^ITheRulesofCivilProcedure shallbeconstruedto %0!$ securethejust,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationofeveryaction.Tenn.R.Civ.P.1.Tenn. &"% R.Civ.P.1.Inaddition,ourSupremeCourthasstated: '#& 8   ` Ithasbeendeclaredthatthemerenegligenceorinattentionofapartyisno )$( groundforvacatingajudgmentagainsthim.Carelessnessisnotsynonymouswith |*%) excusableneglect.Mereforgetfulnessofapartytoanactionisnotasufficient h+&* groundforvacatingorsettingasideajudgmentbydefault.Partiesarenotjustified  inneglectingtheircasesmerelybecauseofthestressorimportanceoftheirown  privatebusinessandsuchneglectisordinarilynotexcusable.   FoodLion,Inc.v.WashingtonCountyBeerBd.,700S.W.2d893,896(Tenn.1985)(quoting46Am. ` Jur.2d87475Judgments718(1969)). L     ` Defendantofferednoexplanationtosupportitsclaimthatitisentitledtohavethe $ t defaultjudgmentsetasideotherthantheassertioninMr.Truslersaffidavitthat#XXXXK# thedocuments  ` weremisplacedbymeandallowedtolanguish.WhenDefendantwasservedwithPlaintiffs  L  motionfordefaultjudgment,Defendantapparentlywaitedseveralmoreweeksbeforehiringan  8  attorney.Mr.TruslerisDefendantsregisteredagentforserviceofprocessand,assuch,isassumed $  tounderstandtheseriousnessofbeingservedwithasummonsandcomplaint.Yet,Mr.Trusler,by   hisownadmission,allowedthedocumentsto languish.Defendantscarelessness,mere   forgetfulness,orstressorimportanceofotherbusinessisnotexcusableneglect.      ` Defendantarguesthatthedefaultjudgmentshouldbesetasidebecauseithaswhat p itbelievesisameritoriousdefense.WhileitmaybetruethatDefendantmayhaveameritorious \ defense,Defendantdidnottakestepstodefendwithinthepropertimelimitsandhasofferedno H excuseforthisfailurethatrisestothelevelofXXXX mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect 4 contemplatedbyRule60.02.Rule60.02providesthatacourtmayrelieveapartyfromafinal  p judgment#XXXX,U##^IXXGK#^I^IXX^IԀ uponsuchtermsasarejust#^IXXłV#XX^I#XXXXcV#XXXX.TorelieveDefendantfromthedefaultjudgmentbecause  \ itallowedthesummonsandcomplaintto languishwouldnotbejusttoPlaintiff.Rule60.02was H notintendedtorescueapartywhofailedtoansweracomplaintfornogoodreason.#XXXX&W##^IXXV#^I^IXX^ITheremustbe 4 finalitytolawsuitssothatpartiesmaymoveonwiththeirlivesandtheirpersonalbusiness,andour   RulesofCivilProcedureareinplacetoassistinachievingthatgoal.Ifweallowdefendantsto   overturnproperlygranteddefaultjudgmentswithoutagoodexcuse,weareunderminingthegoalof  achievingfinality.#^IXXX#XX^I#XXXXůX#XXXX [D]efendantsarenottobeallowedtoprolonglitigationbyimposingprocedural  delays.Thedefaultjudgmentprotectsadiligentpartyfromcontinualdelayanduncertaintyastohis  orherrights.StateofTennesseeex.rel.Jonesv.Looper,86S.W.3dat194(quoting49C.J.S. l Judgments196(1997))#XXXXZ#XXXX#^IXXůZ#XX^I.#XXXXŵ\##^IXX\#XX^IXXXX X     ` DefendantalsoclaimsthattherewouldbenoprejudicetoPlaintiffifthedefault 0"  judgmentweresetaside.However,Defendantdidnotcarryitsburdenofprovingitisentitledto #l! reliefunderRule60.02.SinceDefendantdidnotproveitisentitledtoreliefunderRule60.02,proof $X" ofameritoriousdefenseandalackofprejudicetoPlaintiffareinsufficienttooverturnadefault $D # judgment. %0!$    ` TheTrialCourtneitherappliedanincorrectlegalstandardnorreachedadecisionthat '#& isagainstlogicorreasoningthatcausesaninjusticetoDefendantwhenitdeniedDefendants (#' motion.Likewise,webelievethatreasonablemindscoulddisagreeastotheproprietyoftheTrial )$( CourtsdecisiontodenyDefendantsmotion.Giventhis,wearenotpermittedtosubstituteour |*%) judgmentforthatoftheTrialCourt.#XXXX~]#XXXX#^IXX_]#XX^IԀWeholdthattheTrialCourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin h+&* refusingtosetasidethedefaultjudgment,and,therefore,weaffirmtheTrialCourtonthisissue.  Ѐ#XXXXa##^IXX8b#XX^I  Conclusion        ` ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremandedtotheTrial ` Courtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmayberequired,ifany,consistentwiththisOpinionandfor L  collectionofthecostsbelow.ThecostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellant,Wallace 8  HardwareCo.,Inc.,anditssurety. $ t #^IXXmc#XX^I   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE