WPCR /4Wlz\ѽL.dl`!B Oaq]% O_/6l)&`_0` L|(PLVJ2b`=;\KVtM`"h[{߂J\G]*pm\xdeG{ |As\v S/ 7H^ U/Ob͘a#rc~&^='IMahj?x*S;.n+fՆ-:Tg̻ gX{ &*E/)i-M.8 "* 껆8/N+"b>4r0OPtWVUgD*N!{cl8T:E7^y!%Hh LC iL\dOU9شO۱qog.(3C9%K?kFQV7K70(\_vthן}oGhvƉ a;@L8b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;==EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 0Dc AHP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9?(:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   - -(|G2b$ !.8dd8         0  XX d(|3%$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3%$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATKNOXVILLE  @"June2000Session 0    XX #XX#C.M.REAGAN,vs.TROYMALONE,SANDRAMALONE,andDAN 8 CONNELLYXX,   P @   DirectAppealfromtheEquityCourtforHamiltonCounty  X @ No.960855Hon.W.FrankBrown,III,Chancellor  H _   `    _ h FILEDJULY25,_2000_@*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @No.E199901846COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A    OnaRule60,T.R.C.P.motionofplaintiff,theChancellorcombinedjudgmentsandaddedinterest  asonejudgment.Onappeal,thecombinedjudgmentwasvacated.  #XXJ#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtvacated.  F HerschelP.Franks#X#XX.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard,#X#XX.ԀP.J., &v andD.MichaelSwiney,#X(#XX.ԀJ.,joined. f MarvinBerke,Chattanooga,forDefendantAppellant,Dan_Connelly_. 6 ScottN.Brown,Jr.,and_Stephany_ԀS._Pedigo_,Chattanooga,forPlaintiffAppellee,C.M.Reagan.   #XX#XX@55' OPINION #XX4 #XXԈ #" #XX #XX   `  X>XXXInthisactiononapromissorynote,theTrialCourtoriginallyenteredajudgmentin v% $ plaintiffsfavorfor$170,585.07,whichincluded$32,190.73incollectioncosts.Onappeal,this b&!% Courtreversedtheawardof$32,190.73incollectioncostsandremandedforadeterminationofa N'"& reasonableattorneysfee,whichtheCourtsubsequentlydeterminedtobe$34,598.57,forwhich :(#' judgmentwasenteredonJune2,1999. &)v$(    ` OnSeptember9,1999,plaintifffiledaMotionforRestatedJudgmentpursuantto *N&* T.R.C.P.Rule60,andthetrialcourtgrantedtheMotionbyconsolidatingthejudgments,plusinterest +:'+ todate,foratotaljudgmentof$204,103.23._Connelly_Ԁhasappealed,arguingthattheTrialCourt ,&(, erredbyenteringarestatedjudgment,whichaddsitspreviousjudgmentstogetherwithpost -)- judgmentinterest,suchthatplaintiffwillreceivecompoundpostjudgmentinterest.     ` OurreviewofatrialcourtsgrantordenialofamotionforreliefbasedonTenn.R.  Civ.P.60istodetermineifthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion.Sprucev.Spruce,2S.W.3d192 t (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). Further,theburdenisonthepartyseekingrelieftodemonstratethatheis ` entitledtorelief. Spruce. P       ` Weconcludethatthereliefgrantedinthiscaseisnotwithinthenatureoftherelief ( x contemplatedbyTenn.R.Civ.P.60.TheRuleaddressesitselftocorrectingclericalmistakesin  d judgmentsandothermistakeswhicharetheresultofinadvertence,surprise,excusableneglect,fraud,  P  etc.PlaintiffdidnotallegeandtheTrialCourtdidnotfindthatanyofthesespecificconditionshad  <  beenmet.Theonlyotherbasisuponwhichtheplaintiffcouldseekandthecourtcouldgrantrelief (  pursuantto Tenn.R.Civ.P.60wouldbeunderthe catchallprovisioncontainedinTenn.R.Civ.   P.60.02(5).        ` TheSupremeCourthassaidthat"Rule60.02actsasanescapevalvefrompossible   inequitythatmightotherwisearisefromtheunrelentingimpositionoftheprincipleoffinality t imbeddedinourproceduralrules."Thompsonv.Fireman'sFundIns.Co.,798S.W.2d235,238 ` (Tenn.1990).TheCourthasalsosaidthat becauseoftheimportanceofthisprincipleoffinality, L theescapevalveshouldnotbeeasilyopened._Toney_Ԁv.MuellerCo.,810S.W.2d145,146(Tenn. 8 1991).Moreover,thecaselawonthisissuehasalsomadeclearthatthestandardsofTenn.R.Civ. $t P.60.02(5) aremoredemandingthanthoseapplicabletotheothergroundsfor[Rule]60.02relief. ` TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure60.02(5)intendstoprovidereliefonlyinthemostunique, L exceptional,orextraordinarycircumstances._NCNB_ԀNat.BankofNorthCarolinav._Thrailkill_,856 8 S.W.2d150,154(Tenn.Ct.App.1993). $      ` Plaintiffsrequestfora restatedjudgmentdoesnotrisetothelevelrequiredinorder  togainreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.See46Am.Jur.2dJudgments,1756.Moreover,it  appearsthattheeffectofthecourtsenteringonejudgmentfor$204,103.23asofacertaindate,does  moretoconfusethanclarify,becauseitestablishesaperdieminterestchargeoneachjudgmentto p becarriedforwardintothefuture,butdoesnottakeintoaccountthatpaymentsthatwouldreduce \  theprincipalwouldobviouslyreducetheperdieminterestchargesaswell. H!      ` Tenn.CodeAnn.4714121and4714122providethat10%postjudgment  #p! interestshallbeaddedtoeveryjudgmentfromthedateofentryofthejudgmentuntilpaid.The  $\" matterofcalculatingtheinterestonthejudgmentisaministerialfunction,andunlesserrorsaremade $H # intheclerkscomputations,thereisnoissueforthecourttoresolve. %4!$    ` Accordingly,wesetasidetheRestatedJudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,with ' #& costsoftheappealassessedtoappellee.  (#'    #XXX X>- ##XX #XX   `     h      p ___________________________ *%)    `     h      p HerschelPickensFranks,J.