ÿWPC$  @T3νÓZVÁp˜:éï×?vÕxŸ©ze WÿlxYÝSbWƽ¶”ÅcFˆ¶Vª_ÛP@ZkÍ h¨@1~HlŒÇÞ÷’®QQL%Œp;‘8ÏJÝ׌’ËÁ Ê–?IŽcÕ_ä-‰hFã#÷/Ǻ*7¸_þ²gÉ/Þ´5™²°\îl¯¶OC,»Ú›U)¼²O dàðÄH÷3µp¡F*ìjÇÁgþ…ÇNAäÒªNºÞú—…ÍØÅ£å Í+€É Ú[­F‰ÊgkÏ);¿G*ÞÍø@™âüí|# o.Ÿž™zÙ¯šú\=æ Q>ž E±žC" 9! þç-¾³ û $Ö+¤'2°Ò%d+’qÌg @T ËÑU“Jp\:•„1òÜðÉÆÄ›MOÞ‰ÕùíÿLEˆ½fï´íóôq™éá_ˆ±I6ˆ_(}ê G†±3¡Ûc\²}É_3e*¿h .ŸÀHÿ%ÔH?¯ÍŸ{ú5^FÌÌ‹W77¹CÒè«ù±¬Sá (^ê= ”°âõ¡ôZRiæ·‡ëærÔ>V94£Š…xüõo7˜XúdmKúñþ úÈŽ9׬h½ÅÔhO¨‘6Â1dÂJÛZ#ÁìUN­ %û 0: ^ ; wG 4K _ n mp $‡ 0~« 0D) m UNu bà :Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë E                                                                   B ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô'g*+L ˜L-(Ø¥ú¥3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÌ òXXÔThe€trial€court€entered€an€order€of€voluntary€dismissal€with€prejudice€as€to€American€Association€of€BloodÐ ° ÐBanks€on€May€18,€1999.€(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular- ù- 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òòòóóó óÔ‡X49XXXÔÔ‡îh]îXX49ÔÑ€¶^Ñà@ü ü ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†X49Xîîh]h#ÔÔ‡¼4Þ»XX49ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€21,€2001€SessionÐ X ÐÔ#†X49X»¼4Þ##ÔÌò òÔ‡îh]îXX49ÔJOE€W.€ROSS€AND€Ô_ÔLOVIEÔ_Ô€M.€ROSSòòóó€v.€SHELBY€COUNTYÐ  ` ÐHEALTHCARE€CORP.€AND€JOHN€D.€KING,€M.D.òòóóÔ#†X49Xîîh]¶#Ôó óÐ < Œ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ X ¨ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€85932€T.D.;€The€Honorable€Robert€A.€Lanier,€JudgeÐ H ˜ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€Y) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ h  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01553„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ g  ÐÌßA€Y) °°` dE<ö` AßÐ ÷G Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†Xî¨XXX49I#ÔThis€appeal€arises€from€the€contraction€of€the€HIV€virus€by€the€Appellant€after€he€received€bloodÐ öF Ðtransfusions€from€the€Appellees.€€The€Appellants€brought€a€complaint€with€the€Circuit€Court€ofÐ â2 ÐShelby€County€against€the€Appellees€but€then€filed€a€voluntary€dismissal€without€prejudice.€€TheÐ Î ÐAppellants€Ô_ÔrefiledÔ_Ô€the€complaint€against€the€Appellees.€€Process€for€the€Appellees€was€issued€butÐ º  Ðreturned€unserved.€€The€Appellants€failed€to€reissue€process€within€one€year.€€The€Appellants€filedÐ ¦ö Ða€motion€for€enlargement€of€time€to€issue€new€process€pursuant€to€Rule€6.02€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÐ ’â Ðof€Civil€Procedure.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Appellantsðð€motion€and€dismissed€the€complaintÐ ~Î Ðagainst€the€Appellees.Ð jº ÐÌÓ'°‚X(™X°œX'Ó€€€€€€€€€€The€Appellants€appeal€from€the€denial€of€their€motion€and€the€dismissal€of€the€complaintÐ B’ Ðagainst€the€Appellees€by€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County.€€For€the€reasons€stated€herein,€weÐ .~ Ðaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision.à h àÐ j ÐÔ‡X49XXXî¨ÔÌÓÄÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌòòÓ  ÓAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,€óó€and€òòHollyÐ Æ"! ÐKirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ¶#" ÐÌAugust€C.€Winter,€Brentwood,€TN,€for€Appellant,€Joe€Willard€RossÐ –%æ $ ÐÌCharles€W.€McDonald,€Memphis,€for€Appellant,€Ô_ÔLovieÔ_Ô€M.€RossÐ v'Æ"& ÐÌMark€S.€Norris,€Ô_ÔNicholeÔ_Ô€E.€Ô_ÔSoulÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€for€Appellee,€Shelby€County€Healthcare€Corp.Ð V)¦$( ÐÌWilliam€H.€Ô_ÔHaltomÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Michael€E.€Ô_ÔKeeneyÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€for€Appellee,€John€D.€King,€M.D.Ð 6+†&* ÐÓn ÓÌò òÐ -f(, ÐѶ^Ñâ âÑ8€î¨XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ#†Xî¨XXX49Ð #ÔòòóóOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÓÓà@@ìàò òI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€Historyó óÐ œì ÐÓ  ÓÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€On€November€2,€1994,€the€Appellant,€Joe€W.€Ross€(ð ðMr.€Rossðð)€was€injured€in€an€automobileÐ tÄ Ðaccident€and€transported€to€the€Regional€Medical€Center€at€Memphis,€Tennessee€(ð ðthe€Medðð)€forÐ `° Ðtreatment.€€Mr.€Ross€received€blood€transfusions€at€the€Med.€€Following€Mr.€Rossðð€discharge€fromÐ L œ Ðthe€hospital,€a€physician€at€the€Med€mailed€Mr.€Ross€a€letter€informing€him€that€he€had€contractedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€HIV€virus€as€a€result€of€receiving€the€blood€transfusions.€Ð $ t ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€On€November€3,€1995,€Mr.€Ross€and€his€wife,€Lovie€Ross€(ð ðMrs.€Rossðð),€filed€a€complaintÐ ü L  Ðin€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€against€Mid„South€Regional€Blood€Center€d/b/a€Lifeblood,Ð è 8  ÐShelby€County€Healthcare€Corporation€d/b/a€the€Med,€American€Association€of€Blood€Banks,€Inc.Ð Ô$  Ðd/b/a€American€Association€of€Blood€Banks,€U.T.€Medical€Group,€Inc.,€William€Walker,€M.D.,Ð À  ÐMark€Akins,€M.D.,€Timothy€Fabian,€M.D.,€and€John€D.€King,€M.D.€(ð ðDr.€Kingðð).€€€On€March€7,Ð ¬ü  Ð1996,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€filed€a€notice€of€voluntary€dismissal€without€prejudice€as€to€the€Med,Ð ˜è  ÐAmerican€Association€of€Blood€Banks,€U.T.€Medical€Group,€William€Walker,€and€Dr.€King.€€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðorder€of€voluntary€dismissal€without€prejudice€was€filed€on€March€13,€1996.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€refiled€the€complaint€against€the€Med,€American€Association€of€BloodÐ H˜ ÐBanks,׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€Dr.€King€on€March€13,€1997.€€Process€for€the€Med€and€Dr.€King€was€issued€but€wasÐ 4„ Ðreturned€unserved.€€On€October€28,€1997,€the€attorneys€representing€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€withdrewÐ  p Ðfrom€the€case.€€The€date€for€refiling€the€action€against€the€Med€and€Dr.€King,€March€13,€1998,€passedÐ  \ Ðwithout€a€reissuance€of€process.Ð øH ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€On€February€16,€1999,€Mr.€Ross,€through€new€counsel,€filed€a€motion€for€enlargement€of€timeÐ Ð  Ðto€issue€new€process€pursuant€to€Rule€6.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€€The€motionÐ ¼  Ðwas€based€on€the€grounds€of€excusable€neglect€on€the€part€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€and€lack€ofÐ ¨ø Ðprejudice€to€the€Med€and€Dr.€King.€€The€motion€was€supported€by€the€affidavits€of€Mr.€Ross€and€hisÐ ”ä Ðtreating€psychiatrist,€Thomas€Bannister€(ð ðDr.€Bannisterðð).€€Mr.€Ross€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€heÐ €Ð Ðhas€had€problems€understanding€and€remembering€things€since€he€learned€that€he€had€contracted€theÐ l¼ ÐHIV€virus.€€Mr.€Ross€also€stated€that€he€had€no€memory€of€being€under€any€kind€of€a€deadline€inÐ X ¨ ÐMarch€of€1998.€€Dr.€Bannister€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€he€believed€that€Mr.€Rossðð€memory€andÐ D!” Ðconcentration€had€been€impaired€at€times€over€the€past€few€years.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€Following€a€hearing€on€May€21,€1999,€the€trial€court€denied€Mr.€Rossðð€motion€and€dismissedÐ $X" Ðthe€complaint€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€against€the€Med€and€Dr.€King.€€€The€trial€court€found€that€Mr.Ð ô$D # Ðand€Mrs.€Rossðð€excusable€neglect€argument€was€without€merit.€€€The€trial€court€further€found€thatÐ à%0!$ ÐMr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€failed€to€show€that€there€was€no€harm€or€prejudice€to€the€Med€and€Dr.€King€fromÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€delay.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ѐ€€€€€€€€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€filed€motions€to€alter€or€amend€the€order.€€€The€motions€were€supportedÐ ° Ðby€the€affidavits€of€Mr.€Ross,€Mrs.€Ross,€and€Louis€Jay€Miller€(ð ðMr.€Millerðð).€€€Mr.€Ross€stated€byÐ œì Ðaffidavit€that€he€was€aware€of€family€members€and€friends€who€are€not€deceased€that€haveÐ ˆØ Ðknowledge€of€facts€relating€to€his€claim€for€damages.€€He€stated€that€the€delay€had€not€impaired€theÐ tÄ ÐMed€and€Dr.€Kingððs€ability€to€contact€these€witnesses.€€€Mrs.€Ross€stated€by€affidavit€that€she€doesÐ `° Ðnot€recall€her€attorneys€informing€her€about€deadlines.€€Mrs.€Ross€also€stated€that€she€was€aware€ofÐ L œ Ðfamily€members€and€friends€who€are€not€deceased€that€have€knowledge€of€facts€relating€to€her€claimÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€damages.€€She€stated€that€the€delay€had€not€impaired€the€Med€and€Dr.€Kingððs€ability€to€contactÐ $ t Ðthese€witnesses.€€Mr.€Miller,€attorney€for€American€Association€of€Blood€Banks,€stated€by€affidavitÐ  ` Ðthat,€in€April,€1997,€he€advised€counsel€for€the€Med€and€Dr.€King€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€had€refiledÐ ü L  Ðthe€complaint.€€On€May€26,€2000,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€This€appealÐ è 8  Ðfollowed.€€€€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@ìàò òII.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€The€standard€of€review€for€a€non-jury€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record.€€òòSee€Wright€v.€City€ofÐ „Ô  ÐKnoxvilleóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995).€€There€is€a€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourtððs€factual€findings,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€R.€App.Ð \¬ ÐP.€óó13(d).€€For€issues€of€law,€the€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð H˜ ÐòòSee€Ridings€v.€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,€914€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€1996).Ð 4„ ÐÌà@00ìàò òIII.€€Law€and€Analysisó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€The€sole€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€byÐ ä4 Ðdenying€Mr.€Rossðð€motion€for€enlargement€of€time€to€issue€new€process€pursuant€to€Rule€6.02€of€theÐ Ð  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€In€situations€where€service€of€process€is€returned€unserved,€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff€must€issue€new€process€within€one€year€of€the€previous€process€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€theÐ ¨ø ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€in€order€to€rely€upon€the€original€commencement€of€the€civilÐ ”ä Ðaction€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óó€3€(2000).€€Rule€3€provides€as€follows:Ð €Ð ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€All€civil€actions€are€commenced€by€filing€a€complaint€with€the€clerkÐ X ¨ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€of€the€court.€€An€action€is€commenced€within€the€meaning€of€anyÐ D!” Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€statute€of€limitations€upon€such€filing€of€a€complaint,€whether€processÐ 0"€  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€be€issued€or€not€issued€and€whether€process€be€returned€served€orÐ #l! Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€unserved.€€If€process€remains€unissued€for€30€days€or€is€not€servedÐ $X" Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€within€30€days€from€issuance,€regardless€of€the€reason,€the€plaintiffÐ ô$D # Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€cannot€rely€upon€the€original€commencement€to€toll€the€running€of€Ð à%0!$ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€a€statute€of€limitations€unless€the€plaintiff€continues€the€action€byÐ Ì&"% ÐÓlO°‚X(€` Ø ¸ 0 ˆhàÀ8pèÈ@ ˜xX°‚X(™XlÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€obtaining€issuance€of€new€process€within€one€year€from€issuanceÐ ¸'#& Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€of€the€previous€process€or,€if€no€process€is€issued,€within€one€yearÐ ¤(ô#' Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.Ð )à$( ÐòòId.óóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐRule€6.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€grants€the€trial€court€broad€discretion€to€enlargeÐ ° Ðprocedural€time€limitations€established€by€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.óó€6.02Ð œì Ð(2000).€€Rule€6.02€states€in€pertinent€part:Ð ˆØ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€When€by€statute€or€by€these€rules€or€by€a€notice€given€thereunderÐ `° Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€or€by€order€of€court€an€act€is€required€or€allowed€to€be€done€at€orÐ L œ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€within€a€specified€time,€the€court€for€cause€shown€may,€at€any€timeÐ 8 ˆ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€in€its€discretion,€.€.€.€(2)€upon€motion€made€after€the€expiration€of€Ð $ t Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€the€specified€period€permit€the€act€to€be€done,€where€the€failure€to€Ð  ` Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€act€was€the€result€of€excusable€neglect.Ð ü L  ÐòòId.óóÐ è 8  ÐÌà ( àà  àIn€support€of€their€respective€arguments,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross,€the€Med,€and€Dr.€King€rely€onÐ À  ÐòòDouglas€v.€Estate€of€Robinsonóó,€876€S.W.2d€95€(Tenn.€1994),€as€governing€the€application€of€RuleÐ ¬ü  Ð6.02€to€the€case€at€bar.€€In€òòDouglasóó,€the€sole€issue€for€consideration€was€whether€the€trial€courtÐ ˜è  Ðabused€its€discretion€in€granting€the€plaintiffsðð€motion€for€enlargement€of€time€to€substitute€a€partyÐ „Ô  Ðunder€Rule€6.02.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€96.€€The€court€cited€with€approval€òòWagner€v.€Frazieróó,€712€S.W.2d€109Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986)€which€held€that€ð ðin€instances€of€excusable€neglect€òòandóó,€where€the€opposingÐ \¬ Ðparty€has€not€been€prejudiced€by€the€delay,ðð€the€trial€court€in€its€discretion€may€grant€a€Rule€6.02Ð H˜ Ðmotion€for€enlargement€of€time.€€òòDouglasóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€97€(citing€òòWagneróó,€712€S.W.2d€at€113).€Ð 4„ ÐòòóóIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€placed€the€burden€upon€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€to€show€that€their€failureÐ  p Ðto€timely€issue€process€was€a€result€of€excusable€neglect€and€that€the€Med€and€Dr.€King€were€notÐ  \ Ðprejudiced€or€harmed€by€the€delay.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€were€unable€to€meetÐ øH Ðtheir€burden€and€thus,€denied€their€motion€for€enlargement€of€time€and€dismissed€the€complaint.€òòóóÐ ä4 ÐÌà ( àà  àWe€must€first€determine€whether€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€satisfied€their€burden€to€show€that€theirÐ ¼  Ðfailure€to€issue€timely€process€was€a€result€of€excusable€neglect.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€claim€that€Mr.Ð ¨ø ÐRoss€was€mentally€impaired€such€that€he€was€unable€to€understand€or€remember€that€he€was€underÐ ”ä Ða€time€limit€to€reissue€process.€€In€support€of€their€argument,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€presented€anÐ €Ð Ðaffidavit€of€Mr.€Rossðð€treating€psychiatrist,€Dr.€Bannister.€€Dr.€Bannisterððs€affidavit€stated€that€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐRoss€suffered€from€major€depression€and€anxiety€which€impaired€Mr.€Rossðð€memory€andÐ X ¨ Ðconcentration€at€times€during€the€past€few€years.€€The€affidavit€does€not€specify€the€degree€of€Mr.Ð D!” ÐRossðð€impairment€or€point€to€specific€times€when€Mr.€Rossðð€memory€and€concentration€wereÐ 0"€  Ðimpaired.€€Furthermore,€the€affidavit€does€not€state€that€Mr.€Ross€was€unable€to€make€decisions€orÐ #l! Ðtake€actions€relating€to€or€affecting€his€lawsuit.€€Thus,€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€ð ðtheÐ $X" Ðaffidavit€entirely€fails€to€demonstrate€that€Plaintiff€Joe€Ross€was€rendered€helpless€to€pursue€hisÐ ô$D # Ðlawsuit.ðð€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà ( àà  àMr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€also€claim€that€they€satisfied€their€burden€to€show€excusable€neglectÐ ¸'#& Ðbecause€they€were€not€aware€of€a€time€limit€for€reissuing€service€of€process.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€RossÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpoint€to€the€fact€that€they€were€unrepresented€from€October,€1997€until€early€1999.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.Ð )à$( ÐRoss€were€represented,€however,€during€approximately€six€months€of€the€period€of€time€in€whichÐ |*Ì%) Ðthey€could€have€reissued€process€under€Rule€3.€€Additionally,€we€decline€to€excuse€a€failure€toÐ h+¸&* Ðcomply€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€based€on€ignorance€of€the€applicable€rule.€Ð ° ÐBased€on€the€above,€we€find€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€failed€to€satisfy€their€burden€to€show€excusableÐ œì Ðneglect.€€The€standard€articulated€by€the€òòDouglasóó€court€required€a€showing€of€both€excusable€neglectÐ ˆØ Ðòòandóó€lack€of€prejudice.€€Because€we€find€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€are€unable€to€meet€this€standard€dueÐ tÄ Ðto€their€failure€to€show€excusable€neglect,€the€issue€of€lack€of€prejudice€is€pretermitted.Ð `° ÐÌà ( àà  àòòòòóóóóTrial€courts€are€granted€broad€discretion€over€procedural€matters.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€97.€€Accordingly,Ð 8 ˆ Ðappellate€courts€review€decisions€regarding€procedural€matters€using€the€deferential€ð ðabuse€ofÐ $ t Ðdiscretionðð€standard€of€review.€€ð ðAn€appellate€court€will€not€reverse€a€discretionary€judgment€of€theÐ  ` Ðtrial€court€unless€it€affirmatively€appears€that€such€discretion€has€been€explicitly€abused€to€greatÐ ü L  Ðinjustice€and€injury€of€the€party€complaining.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòTenn.€R.€App.€P.€óó36(b);€òòBruce€v.€Bruceóó,Ð è 8  Ð801€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)).€€The€burden€is€on€the€plaintiff€to€show€that€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€abused€its€discretion.€€We€find€that€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ross€failed€to€satisfy€their€burden€to€showÐ À  Ðthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€the€motion€for€enlargement€of€time€pursuant€toÐ ¬ü  ÐRule€6.02.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà@SS#ìàò òIV.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€areÐ H˜ Ðtaxed€against€the€Appellants,€Joe€W.€Ross€and€Lovie€M.€Ross,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ 4„ Ðnecessary.Ð  p Ðà ( àà  àà € àà ` àà Ø àÌÌÌà ( àà  àà € àà ` àà Ø àà ¸ àà 0 àà  àà ˆ àà h àà à àà À àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE