ÿWPCS Ї‹Sœ^\âÜÀ]âÜ@<ø'?I  ¥ú!+ݺ++‹ëS–œ^JÑ÷Òã¼A¨{¯P“L;e´8# H O â’ß„™Šx~»mš^®-‰þ[F/Ϧý¸pzÞT_ü‹Bu@gÐ6)K'Àª˜­iw 9_ó ªÜIlY‹n[$vAÍQ‰|fb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ 0D™ ÆÝ Æ£ ÆiÆ/UNõNCEc[E¾HÀU>bFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 0ëNNNN B99 0¤V D5ú D-/ 0K\\ AS§Æú 0¤À 0Dd A«¨˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»—•1î (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularINŽ101s02 ˜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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒR@$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€appears€from€the€record€that€the€hearing€before€the€Clerk€and€Master€marks€the€first€appearance€of€Wife€inÐ ° Ðthis€matter. YÝ ƒR@$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑÀU}ÑRule€60.02€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€or€the€partyððsÐ 8ˆ Ðrepresentative€from€a€final€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)€mistake,Ð üL Ðinadvertence,€surprise,€or€excusable€neglect;€(2)€fraud€(whether€heretofore€denominated€intrinsic€orÐ À Ðextrinsic),€misrepresentation,€or€other€misconduct€of€an€adverse€party;€(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€(4)Ð „Ô Ðthe€judgment€has€been€satisfied,€released€or€discharged,€or€a€prior€judgment€upon€which€it€is€based€hasÐ H ˜ Ðbeen€reversed€or€otherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€a€judgment€should€haveÐ  \ Ðprospective€application;€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€from€the€operation€of€the€judgment.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€(2004). >ÔUSUS.,ÔÔ_ÔÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òô\  `&Times New Roman- ù-(|G2@$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿ ò»»Ô d(|3‡r$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡r$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼E »»»ÔÑ8€ uXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îM¸î»¼E ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼E »îîM¸ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓNovember€2,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X uX»¼E ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E »XX uõ#ÔLOUIS€HUDSON€ROBERTSòòóó€v.€MARY€ELIZABETH€TODD,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X uX»¼E Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€03„809„II€€€€€€Carol€L.€McCoy,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„02594„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€21,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X uXXX uÔThis€is€an€appeal€from€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€to€set€aside€a€default€judgment.€€We€affirm.Ð xÈ  ÐÔ#†X uXXX uÕ#ÔÔ#†¼E »XX uz#ÔÔ‡X uX»¼E ÔÓÉÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ P  ÐRemandedó óÐ <Œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E »àX u¸#ÔÔ‡X uX.¼E ÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó€and€òòHollyÐ d ÐM.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð P ÐÌConnie€Ô_ÔReguliÔ_Ô,€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mary€Elizabeth€Todd.Ð Ø( ÐÌJon€S.€Ô_ÔJablonskiÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Louis€Hudson€Roberts.Ð ° ÐÓwÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E »XX u¦#ÔÔ‡X uX»¼E ÔÐ ˆØ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼E »XX uÚ#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X uX»¼E ÔÔ‡X uXXX uÔò òó óÌòòò òà@""ìàFacts€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ `° Ðóóó óÌà  àOn€February€28,€2002,€Louis€Hudson€Roberts€(ð ðHusbandðð)€and€Mary€Elizabeth€ToddÐ 4!„  Ð(ð ðWifeðð)€were€divorced€in€Davidson€County€Circuit€Court.€€Pursuant€to€a€marital€dissolutionÐ  "p! Ðagreement€(ð ðMDAðð),€the€parties€agreed€to€own€the€marital€residence€as€joint€tenants,€with€WifeÐ  #\" Ðhaving€sole€possession€while€Husband€assumed€responsibility€for€the€mortgage€indebtedness.€Ð ø#H# ÐSpecifically,€the€MDA€provided€that€ð ðWife€shall€€have€sole€and€exclusive€use€and€possession€of€theÐ ä$4 $ Ðmarital€residence€until€such€time€as€it€is€sold,€either€by€agreement€of€the€parties€or€by€Order€of€theÐ Ð% !% ÐCourt.ðð€€Ð ¼& "& ÐÌà  àOn€March€21,€2003,€Husband€filed€a€Complaint€for€Partition€in€the€chancery€court.€€AfterÐ ”(ä#( ÐWife€failed€to€file€an€answer,€Husband€filed€a€motion€for€default€judgment€on€May€2,€2003.€€WifeÐ €)Ð$) Ðalso€failed€to€respond€to€Husbandððs€motion€for€default€judgment.€€On€June€5,€2003,€the€trial€courtÐ l*¼%* Ðentered€an€order€granting€Husband€a€default€judgment.€€The€trial€court€referred€the€matter€to€theÐ X+¨&+ ÐClerk€and€Master€(the€ð ðMasterðð),€directing€her€to€determine€matters€regarding€the€partition€of€theÐ D,”', Ðproperty,€such€as€ownership€interests,€encumbrances,€and€the€manner€of€sale.€€On€June€30,€2003,€theÐ 0-€(-ý ÐÔ_Ôparties€attended€a€hearing€before€the€Master,€where€Wife€appeared€unrepresented€by€counsel.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° ÐDuring€the€hearing€before€the€Master,€Wife€expressed€her€belief€that€she€was€entitled€to€the€maritalÐ œì Ðresidence€as€part€of€her€divorce€settlement.€€Wife€and€the€Master€then€engaged€in€the€followingÐ ˆØ Ðcolloquy€regarding€Wifeððs€lack€of€representation€in€this€matter:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  à[Wife]:€€I€canððt€afford€to€get€a€lawyer.€€But€it€seems€like€itððs€ð"ð€itððs€too€late,€anyway.€Ð L œ ÐIt€seems€like€my€house€is€going€to€be€taken€away€from€me.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Master]:€€Until€the€case€is€over,€itððs€never€[too]€late.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à[Wife]:€€Whether€I,€you€know,€spend€all€the€money€I€have€in€savings€on€a€lawyer€orÐ è 8  Ðnot.€€And€this€is€not€fair.€€This€was€ð"ð€this€is€what€I€was€supposed€to€get€from€myÐ Ô$  Ðdivorce.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€Master€filed€her€report€with€the€trial€court€on€July€2,€2003.€€The€report€indicated,€and€the€masterÐ ˜è  Ðinformed€the€parties€during€the€hearing,€that,€pursuant€to€Rule€53€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ „Ô  ÐProcedure,€the€parties€would€have€ten€(10)€days€from€the€filing€of€the€report€to€file€objections.€€NoÐ pÀ Ðobjections€were€ever€filed,€and€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€confirming€the€report€on€August€12,Ð \¬ Ð2003.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAt€some€point€shortly€after€the€Master€filed€her€report,€Wife€retained€counsel.€€On€July€11,Ð  p Ð2003,€Wife€filed€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€of€the€TennesseeÐ  \ ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€support€for€her€motion,€Wife€asserted€that€she€did€not€retain€counselÐ øH Ðsooner€because€she€did€not€fully€understand€the€impact€of€the€partition€action;€her€rights€would€beÐ ä4 Ðprejudiced€if€she€were€not€entitled€the€opportunity€to€be€represented;€she€believed€she€could€put€forthÐ Ð  Ða€valid€defense€to€the€complaint;€her€counsel€needed€ample€time€to€review€the€case€and€prepare€aÐ ¼  Ðdefense;€and€her€failure€to€obtain€representation€was€excusable€neglect€as€she€had€a€limitedÐ ¨ø Ðunderstanding€of€the€law.€€Ð ”ä Ðâ âÐ €Ð Ðà  àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€Wifeððs€motion€during€which€counsel€for€Wife€raisedÐ ° Ðâ âthe€following€as€defenses€to€the€partition€action:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€do€believe€my€client€does€have€some€defenses€that€need€to€be€properlyÐ tÄ Ðbrought€before€[t]he€Court€on€this€matter.€€I€think€the€intent€of€the€parties€in€theÐ `° Ðoriginal€contractual€agreement€„€„€I€think€there€might€even€be€a€jurisdictionalÐ L œ Ðquestion,€since€this€was€a€Fourth€Circuit€M.D.A.,€.€.€.€.€€And€I€think,€that€as€we€getÐ 8 ˆ Ðinto€the€discovery,€we€will€also€show€that€there€really€was€not€proper€considerationÐ $ t Ðwithin€that€M.D.A.€for€the€partition€to€occur€.€.€.€.€€Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAlso,€thereððs€questions€about€whether€she€has€any€liability€on€theÐ è 8  Ðindebtedness€.€.€.€.€€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌFurther€into€the€hearing,€Wifeððs€counsel€made€the€following€statement:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà ` àJudge,€just€two€things€that€„€„€€also,€equity€abhors€a€default€against€the€party.€Ð „Ô  ÐAnd,€as€I€said€this€morning€.€.€.€I€believe€the€intent€of€the€parties,€and€whether€or€notÐ pÀ Ðthis€is€the€proper€jurisdiction,€need€to€be€examined€by€[t]his€Court€in€a€defense.€€AndÐ \¬ Ðas€to€the€intent€of€the€parties€in€that€contract,€I€canððt€tell€what€that€is€until€weððve€hadÐ H˜ Ðthe€opportunity€to€do€discovery.€€And€so€.€.€.€that€is€a€big€part€of€the€defense€that€Ms.Ð 4„ ÐTodd€would€present€to€[t]his€Court.€€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌIn€issuing€its€ruling€from€the€bench,€the€trial€court€found€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àI€have€no€idea€.€.€.€what€would€be€the€response€if€the€default€were€set€aside.€€AndÐ Ð  Ðwhile€you€say€you€have€to€do€some€discovery,€what€has€been€filed€in€this€court€reallyÐ ¼  Ðreflects€that€Ms.€Todd€has€not,€in€any€way,€acted€timely.€€And,€in€fact,€abdicatedÐ ¨ø Ðparticipating,€when€she€said€she€couldnððt€afford€to€get€a€lawyer,€and€that€she€didnððtÐ ”ä Ðwant€to€spend€all€of€her€money€she€had€in€savings€on€a€lawyer.€€Thatððs€not€saying€sheÐ €Ð Ðcouldnððt€get€a€lawyer,€she€just€chose€not€to€get€a€lawyer.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à.€.€.€.Ð D!” ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€.€when€Iððm€asked€to€set€[the€default€judgment]€aside,€I€have€no€good€reason,€otherÐ #l! Ðthan€she€wants€to€get€a€lawyer;€thatððs€not€a€sufficient€justification€for€setting€asideÐ $X" Ðdefault.€€I€need€to€feel€that,€in€some€way,€thereððs€an€error€thatððs€been€committed.€€AndÐ ô$D # Ðhaving€looked€at€what€the€Clerk€and€Master€has€done,€it€seems€appropriate.€€AndÐ à%0!$ Ðthere€were€no€objections€to€the€Clerk€and€Masterððs€report.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€its€order€denying€Wifeððs€motion€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment,€the€trial€court€found€thatÐ ¤(ô#' ÐWife€had€shown€no€meritorious€defense€to€the€partition€action;€she€had€made€a€conscious€decisionÐ )à$( Ðâ ânot€to€hire€legal€counsel€prior€to€the€motion€for€default€judgment€and€Clerk€and€Masterððs€hearing;Ð |*Ì%) Ðthe€Masterððs€report€was€confirmed€without€objection€by€either€party;€and€Wife€had€shown€no€basisÐ ° Ðupon€which€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWife€has€appealed€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€her€motion€to€set€aside€the€defaultÐ tÄ Ðjudgment€and€presents,€as€we€perceive€them,€the€following€issues€for€our€review:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` à(1)€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Wifeððs€motion€to€set€aside€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefault€judgment,€andÐ$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(2)€€Whether€the€trial€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€suit€forÐ ü L  Ðpartition.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓStandard€of€ReviewÐ À  Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àWe€review€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€Rule€60.02€motion€for€relief€from€a€default€judgmentÐ ”ä  Ðunder€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€review.€€òòReynolds€v.€Battlesóó,€108€S.W.3d€249,€251€(Tenn.Ð €Ð  ÐCt.€App.€2003).€€Under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€this€Court€will€not€reverse€the€decision€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€trial€court€ð ðunless€it€affirmatively€appears€that€the€lower€courtððs€decision€was€against€logic€orÐ X¨ Ðreasoning€and€caused€injustice€to€the€complaining€party.ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.€Jones€v.€Looperóó,€86€S.W.3dÐ D” Ð189,€193€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€ð ð[T]he€trial€court€is€in€the€best€position€to€assess€the€various€factorsÐ 0€ Ðthat€should€be€considered€in€determining€whether€a€default€judgment€should€be€vacated€and€itsÐ l Ðfinding€is€entitled€to€great€weight.ðð€€òòTennessee€Depððt€of€Human€Serv.€v.€Barbeeóó,€689€S.W.2d€863,Ð X Ð867€€(Tenn.€1985).€€The€trial€court€should€grant€relief€under€Rule€60.02€ð ðwhenever€any€reasonableÐ ôD Ðdoubt€exists€concerning€whether€the€default€judgment€should€be€set€aside.ðð€€òòNelson€v.€Simpsonóó,€826Ð à0 ÐS.W.2d€483,€486€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(citing€òòKeck€v.€Nationwide€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€499€S.W.2d€266,€267Ð Ì Ð(Tenn€Ct.€App.€1973)).Ð ¸ ÐÌà  àSubject€matter€jurisdiction€concerns€a€courtððs€power€to€adjudicate€a€particular€class€of€cases.€Ð à ÐòòSee€State€v.€Cawoodóó,€134€S.W.3d€159,€162ð!ð63€(Tenn.€2004)€(citing€òòNorthland€Ins.€Co.€v.€Stateóó,€33Ð |Ì ÐS.W.3d€727,€729€(Tenn.€2000)).€€Whether€a€court€has€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€of€a€caseÐ h¸ Ðis€a€question€of€law,€which€we€review€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€to€theÐ T ¤ Ðtrial€courtððs€conclusions€in€that€regard.€€òòIdóó.Ð @! ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòRule€60.02€MotionÐ #h! ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àó óóóUnder€Rule€55.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€when€a€defendant€fails€toÐ è$8 # Ðrespond€to€a€complaint,€the€plaintiff€may€move€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€a€default€judgment€withoutÐ Ô%$!$ Ða€hearing€on€the€merits.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55.01€(2004);€òòHenryóó€òòv.€Goinsóó,€104€S.W.3d€475,€481Ð À&"% Ð(Tenn.€2003).€€Rule€55.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€that€ð ðthe€court€mayÐ ¬'ü"& Ðset€aside€a€judgment€by€default€in€accordance€with€Rule€60.02.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55.02€(2004).€Ð ˜(è#' ÐUnder€Rule€60.02(1),€the€trial€court€may€relieve€a€party€from€a€final€judgment€for€ð ðmistake,Ð „)Ô$( Ðinadvertance,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(1).€€Ð p*À%) Ðâ âòòò òÐ \+¬&* Ðà  àó óóóIt€is€well€established€that€courts€clearly€prefer€a€trial€on€the€merits.€€òòHenryóó,104€S.W.3d€at€481;òòÐ ° Ðâ âBarbeeóó,€689€S.W.2d€at€866.€€Therefore,€when€a€default€judgment€is€involved€Rule€60.02€should€beÐ œì Ðconstrued€liberally.€€òòHenryóó,€104€S.W.3d€at€481.€€However,€Rule€60.02€relief€should€not€be€liberallyÐ ˆØ Ðapplied€where€the€defaulting€party€has€not€established€proper€grounds€for€relief.€€òòBowers€v.Ð tÄ ÐGutterguard€of€Tenn.,€Inc.óó,€No.€M2002„02877„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€22994302,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð `° ÐApp.€Dec.€17,€2003)(òòno€perm.€app.€filedóó).€€Therefore,€ð ð[t]he€party€seeking€to€set€aside€a€defaultÐ L œ Ðjudgment€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€it€is€entitled€to€relief.ðð€€òòNelson€v.€Simpsonóó,€826Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€483,€485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€That€burden€can€be€met€by€ð ðset[ting]€forth€in€a€motion€orÐ $ t Ðpetition€and€supporting€affidavits€facts€explaining€why€the€movant€was€justified€in€failing€to€avoidÐ  ` Ðthe€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€neglect.ðð€€òòTenn.€State€Bank€v.€Layóó,€609€S.W.2d€525,€527Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980)€(citing€òòHopkins€v.€Hopkinsóó,€572€S.W.2d€639€(Tenn.€1978).€€In€determiningÐ è 8  Ðwhether€to€grant€relief€from€a€default€judgment€under€Rule€60.02€for€ð ðexcusable€neglect,ðð€the€courtÐ Ô$  Ðshould€consider€the€following€factors:€(1)€whether€the€default€was€willful;€(2)€whether€the€defendantÐ À  Ðhas€a€meritorious€defense;€and€(3)€whether€granting€relief€from€the€default€would€result€in€prejudiceÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€non„defaulting€party.€€òòHenry€v.€Gainsóó,€104€S.W.3d€475,€481€(Tenn.2003);€òòsee€also€ReynoldsÐ ˜è  Ðv.€Battlesóó,€108€S.W.3d€249,€251€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2003).Ð „Ô  Ðòòò òÌóóó óà  àIn€applying€the€òòHenryóó€factors,€we€first€turn€to€whether€Wife€has€shown€ð ðexcusable€neglect,ððÐ X¨ Ðor,€in€other€words,€whether€Wife€has€shown€that€her€default€was€€not€ð ðwillful.ðð€€òòSee€Henryóó,€104Ð D” ÐS.W.3d€at€481.€€In€this€case,€the€record€demonstrates€that,€when€served€with€Husbandððs€complaint,Ð 0€ ÐWife€failed€to€retain€counsel€or€file€an€answer.€€When€Wife€was€served€with€a€motion€for€defaultÐ l Ðjudgment,€she€again€failed€to€respond.€€Wife€made€her€first€appearance€in€this€matter€at€the€hearingÐ X Ðbefore€the€Master,€twenty„five€(25)€days€after€the€entry€of€default€judgment.€€At€that€hearing,€theÐ ôD ÐMaster€stated€to€Wife,€in€response€to€Wifeððs€concerns€about€not€retaining€counsel,€that€ð ð[u]ntil€theÐ à0 Ðcase€is€over,€itððs€never€too€late€[to€hire€an€attorney].ððÐ Ì ÐÌà  àIn€her€brief€to€this€Court,€Wife€appears€to€contend€that€the€Masterððs€statement€that€it€wasÐ ¤ô Ðð ðnever€too€lateðð€to€hire€counsel€was€somehow€an€inaccurate€statement€that€misled€Wife€intoÐ à Ðbelieving€she€could€still€defend€the€partition€action.€€Therefore,€Wife€contends€that€the€MasterððsÐ |Ì Ðstatement€should€serve€as€a€ground€for€vacating€the€default€judgment.€€Without€addressing€the€legalÐ h¸ Ðaccuracy€of€the€Masterððs€statement,€we€find€that€Wifeððs€argument€lacks€merit.€€As€the€òòHenry€óócourtÐ T ¤ Ðexplained,€Ô#†X uXXX ub #ÔÔ‡X uXXX uÔð ðrelief€under€Rule€60.02€is€available€ððÔ#†X uXXX uD#ÔòòÔ‡X uXXX uÔfrom€óóÔ#†X uXXX uŠD#ÔÔ‡X uXXX uÔa€final€judgment.ðððð€òòHenryóó,€104€S.W.3d€at€480.€Ð @! ÐTherefore,€Ô#†X uXXX uÔD#ÔÔ‡X uXXX uÔð ðthe€grounds€for€relief€asserted€under€Rule€60.02(1)€must€have€occurred€at€or€before€theÐ ,"|  Ðentry€of€the€final€judgment€and€must€have€resulted€in€the€judgmentððs€entry.ðð€Ô#†X uXXX upE#ÔÔ‡X uXXX uÔ€òòIdóó.€€The€final€judgmentÐ #h! Ðat€issue€here€is€the€default€judgment€entered€on€June€5,€2003.€€In€this€case,€the€hearing€before€theÐ $T" ÐMaster€took€place€twenty„five€(25)€days€after€the€entry€of€the€default€judgment.€€Thus,€statementsÐ ð$@ # Ðmade€during€that€hearing€could€not€provide€a€ground€for€relief€under€Rule€60.02.Ð Ü%,!$ ÐÌà  àWife€concedes€that€she€was€ð ðnegligentðð€in€failing€to€hire€counsel€and€failing€to€file€aÐ ´'#& Ðresponsive€pleading.€€Wife,€however,€cites€our€decision€in€òòLayóó€for€the€proposition€òòóóthat€ð ð[n]egligenceÐ  (ð#' Ðon€the€part€of€the€moving€party€is€precisely€the€type€of€error€[Rule€60.02]€is€designed€to€relieve.ðð€Ð Œ)Ü$( ÐòòTenn.€State€Bank€v.€Layóó,€609€S.W.2d€525,€527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€Although€Wife€mayÐ x*È%) Ðcharacterize€her€unresponsiveness€as€negligent,€she€has€not€been€able€to€demonstrate,€either€in€theÐ d+´&* Ðtrial€court€or€on€appeal,€how€her€inaction€was€ð ðexcusable.ððòòóó€€òòóóAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record,Ð ° Ðwe€are€unable€to€find€any€justification€or€ð ðexcusable€neglectððfrom€which€to€set€aside€the€defaultÐ œì Ðjudgment.€€Instead,€it€appears€from€Wifeððs€inaction€and€testimony€during€the€hearing€before€theÐ ˆØ ÐMaster€that,€for€whatever€reason,€she€simply€chose€not€to€hire€an€attorney€or€participate€in€this€matterÐ tÄ Ðwithout€one.€€Clearly,€Wifeððs€failure€to€participate€in€this€matter€was€ð ðwillful.ðð€€Therefore,€havingÐ `° Ðdetermined€that€Wife€has€demonstrated€no€basis€under€Rule€60.02€for€vacating€the€default€judgment,Ð L œ Ðwe€affirm€the€trial€court€on€this€issue.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòSubject€Matter€JurisdictionÐ  ` ÐÓ  Óóóó óÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€parties€were€divorced€in€circuit€court,€and€Husband€brought€the€partitionÐ ä 4  Ðaction€in€chancery€court.€€Wife€contends€that€the€chancery€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdictionÐ Ð  Ðover€the€partition€matter.€€Wife€asserts€that€her€right€to€sole€possession€of€the€marital€home€alongÐ ¼  Ðwith€Husbandððs€assumption€of€the€mortgage€indebtedness€were€in€consideration€for€her€waiver€ofÐ ¨ø  Ðalimony€under€the€MDA.€€Therefore,€Wife€contends€that€her€possessory€interest€in€the€marital€homeÐ ”ä  Ðwas€essentially€spousal€support,€and€this€partition€action€was€effectively€an€action€to€modify€spousalÐ €Ð  Ðsupport.€€As€such,€Wife€argues€that€the€chancery€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€thisÐ l¼ Ðpartition€action€because€jurisdiction€to€modify€spousal€support€remains€exclusively€with€the€courtÐ X¨ Ðthat€issued€the€divorce.€€Ð D” ÐÌà  àIt€is€true€that€section€36„5„101(a)(1)(A)€of€the€Tennessee€Code€provides€that,€where€a€divorceÐ l Ðdecree€includes€provisions€for€spousal€support,€the€decree€shall€ð ðremain€in€the€courtððs€control.ðð€Ð X ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)(A)€(Supp.€2004).€€Therefore,€any€petition€to€modify€spousalÐ ôD Ðsupport€must€be€brought€in€the€court€that€originally€issues€the€divorce.€€òòRider€v.€Rideróó,€No.€M2002„Ð à0 Ð00556„COA„R3„CV,€2003€WL€22345475,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€15,€2003)€(òòno€perm.€app.€filedóó).€Ð Ì ÐHowever,€a€division€of€property€pursuant€to€an€MDA,€once€merged€into€a€divorce€decree,€becomesÐ ¸ Ða€final€order€and€is€generally€not€subject€to€modification.€€òòJohnson€v.€Johnsonóó,€37€S.W.3d€892,€895Ð ¤ô Ð(Tenn.€2001);òò€Vanatta€v.€Vanattaóó,€701€S.W.2d€824,€827€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€Jurisdiction€to€hearÐ à Ðpartition€actions€is€governed€by€section€29„27„106€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€29„27„Ð |Ì Ð106€(2000)ò òó ó.€€Under€section€29„27„106,€county,€chancery,€and€circuit€courts€have€concurrentÐ h¸ Ðjurisdiction€to€hear€partition€actions.€€òòIdóó.Ð T ¤ ÐÌà  àIn€order€for€this€Court€to€determine€whether€the€chancery€court€had€jurisdiction€to€hear€thisÐ ,"|  Ðpartition€matter,€we€must€first€determine€whether€Wifeððs€right€to€reside€in€the€home€was€a€form€ofÐ #h! Ðproperty€division€or€spousal€support.€€The€parties€here€provided€in€their€MDA€that€Husband€wouldÐ $T" Ðpay€the€mortgage,€while€ð ðWife€shall€have€sole€and€exclusive€use€and€possession€of€the€maritalÐ ð$@ # Ðresidence€until€such€time€as€it€is€sold,€either€by€agreement€of€the€parties€or€Order€of€the€Court.ðð€€AÐ Ü%,!$ Ðlater€provision€in€the€MDA€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€parties€accept€the€provisions€of€this€Agreement€in€fullÐ È&"% Ðand€final€settlement€and€satisfaction€of€any€and€all€claims€and€rights€which€either€or€[sic]€them€haveÐ ´'#& Ðhad€or€may€now€have€against€the€other€party€with€respect€to€alimony,€maintenance€and€support.ðð€Ð  (ð#' ÐNothing€in€the€record,€however,€€indicates€that€Wife€released€any€potential€claim€for€alimonyÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðspecifically€in€consideration€for€the€right€to€remain€in€the€marital€home.€€On€the€contrary,€the€MDAÐ x*È%) Ðclearly€states€that€the€parties€contemplated€that€the€property€would€indeed€be€sold€at€some€point.€Ð d+´&* ÐMoreover,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€reflect€that€Husband€would€necessarily€have€any€alimonyÐ ° Ðobligation.Ð œì ÐÌà  àWife€directs€our€attention€to€òòMcAlexander€v.€McAlexanderóó,€No.€W2001„02550„COA„R3„CV,Ð tÄ Ð2003€WL€22204527€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€15,€2003)(òòno€perm.€app.€filedóó),€to€support€her€contentionÐ `° Ðthat€her€possessory€interest€in€the€property€is€spousal€support.€€Our€decision€in€òòMcAlexanderóó,Ð L œ Ðhowever,òò€óóis€distinguishable€from€the€facts€in€this€case.€€First,€the€parties€in€òòMcAlexander€óóagreed€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðtheir€MDA€that€the€wife€would€continue€to€work€in€a€management€position€òòóóin€the€husbandððs€twoÐ $ t Ðbusinesses,€but,€after€continued€harassment,€the€wife€was€forced€to€resign.€€òòMcAlexanderóó,€2003€WLÐ  ` Ð22204527,€at€*6.€€The€husband€conceded€that€he€would€have€incurred€an€alimony€obligation€had€theÐ ü L  Ðwife€not€retained€her€employment€with€his€businesses.€€òòId.óó€€The€parties€agreed€to€arbitrate€theirÐ è 8  Ðdispute,€and€the€arbitrator€issued€a€finding€that€the€wife€waived€her€claim€to€alimony€in€exchangeÐ Ô$  Ðfor€continued€employment€in€the€husbandððs€businesses.€€òòIdóó.€at€*7.€€The€arbitrator€further€found€thatÐ À  Ðthere€was€a€failure€of€consideration€for€the€wifeððs€waiver€of€alimony€and€that€the€MDA€should€beÐ ¬ü  Ðmodified€to€require€the€husband€to€pay€alimony.€€òòIdóó.€€Applying€a€very€deferential€standard€of€review,Ð ˜è  Ðthis€Court€upheld€the€arbitratorððs€decision,€as€there€was€ð ðample€evidence€[in€the€record]€to€supportÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Arbitratorððs€finding€that€there€was€a€failure€of€consideration€for€[the€wifeððs]€agreement€to€waiveÐ pÀ Ðalimony€in€the€MDA.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*14.€€As€stated€above,€in€the€case€at€bar€there€is€absolutely€nothing€inÐ \¬ Ðthe€record€to€support€Wifeððs€argument€that€the€parties€intended€that€Wifeððs€possessory€interest€in€theÐ H˜ Ðmarital€home€be€in€lieu€of€Husbandððs€obligation€to€pay€alimony.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€òòVanattaóó,€under€facts€very€similar€to€this€case,€this€Court€held€that€ð ðmortgage€payments€Ð  \ Ðwere€a€contractual€obligation€voluntarily€assumed€by€the€husband€as€a€part€of€a€property€settlementÐ øH Ðagreement€and€made€a€part€of€the€property€division€provisions€of€the€divorce€decree.ðð€€òòVanatta€v.Ð ä4 ÐVanattaóó,€701€S.W.2d€824,€827€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€In€view€of€the€plain€language€of€the€divorceÐ Ð  Ðdecree,€we€conclude€that€the€provisions€in€the€MDA€dealing€with€the€marital€residence€were€purelyÐ ¼  Ðin€the€nature€of€property€division€and€not€spousal€support.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€chanceryÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€had€concurrent€jurisdiction€to€hear€Husbandððs€partition€action.Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionÐ l¼ Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àHusband€contends€that€Wifeððs€appeal€in€this€matter€is€frivolous€and€requests€reimbursementÐ @! Ðfor€attorneyððs€fees,€mortgage€payments,€and€other€expenses€incurred€during€the€pendency€of€thisÐ ,"|  Ðappeal.€€We€are€disinclined€to€hold€that€this€appeal€is€frivolous.€€Accordingly,€Husbandððs€request€isÐ #h! Ðdenied.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€Wifeððs€motion€for€rule€60€relief.€€Costs€of€thisÐ $T" Ðappeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€Mary€Elizabeth€Todd,€and€her€surety,€for€which€execution€mayÐ ð$@ # Ðissue€if€necessary.€Ô#†X uXXX uuF#ÔÐ Ü%,!$ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Œ)Ü$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGE