WPC' c%drNpXr[Jv風݅Q:5Y\FE.P>+Fȹ:­F1J {4% gLN[3n^732g"ҒbsYW$tJsHs=-r?'?[4(`3 +ز㏾J;~P_9tw#?ל&3N2AL#"B`_[FgkA#ײ-}T/Q 9u=I+96 GGGDa;8"tXxcG)1sE_. ]qȾqpDLq,ċ/c!{5Swr6G HollandLawOffices   h   Knoxville,Tennessee d# Knoxville,Tennessee@$ XXXX  V X XOPINION     V XX  Ԉ 4)2  ^:09 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09      ` Inthispostdivorceproceeding,weareaskedtoreviewthejudgmentofthetrialcourt  #  1      ׀denyingtheRule60.02  #  2      ׀motion   oftheoriginaldefendant,LoriJeanMcDowell,formerlySpruce( Mother).ThepartiesfinaljudgmentofabsolutedivorcewasenteredonApril14,1994.Itrecites,approves,andadoptsthepartiesagreementpertainingtoallmattersthenatissuebetweenthem,includingchildsupportfortheirtwominorchildren.OnSeptember11,1997,some41monthsafterthefinaljudgmentwasentered,Mother,whohadbeenawardedcustodyofthechildreninthedivorcejudgment,filedamotion 8   #  3      כagainsther \  formerhusband,BarryAlanSpruce( Father),predicatedonϜsubsections(4)and(5)ofRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,  #  4      כseekingto d be relieve[d],seeRule60.02,ofthatportionofthedivorce P  judgmentawardingchildsupportof$100permonth.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,findingnobasisforRule60.02relief.Motherappealed,arguingthattheoriginalawardof$100permonthfortwochildrenisnotincompliancewiththeChildSupportGuidelines( Guidelines)promulgatedpursuanttoT.C.A.365101(e)(1);thatthetrialcourterred,atthetimeofthedivorce,indeviatingfromtheGuidelines;and,finally,thattheprocedureatthetimeofthedivorcewasirregular,andsuchastojustifysatisfythereliefsoughtinthiscase.@tt)I.   ` Thestandardofourreviewiswellstatedin Underwood  v.ZurichIns.Co .,854S.W.2d94(Tenn.1993): !h   8 ` AmotionforreliefbasedonRule60.02groundsaddressesitselftothesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.Thescopeofreviewofanappellatecourtistodetermineifthediscretionwasabused.(Citationomitted). ` `   Id .at97. +x!(    ` TheburdenisonthepartyseekingreliefpursuanttoRule60.02 toshowthathe[orshe]isentitledtorelief. Steioffv.Steioff ,833S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.App.1992). 28(0 ̜  5+4 Л@88)II.   ` CuttingthroughtheverbiageofMothersfilings,includingherbrief,weconcludethatthebasicthrustofherpositionisthatthetrialcourt,insettingchildsupportinthedivorcejudgment,deviateddownwardfromtheamountmandatedbytheGuidelines,andthatitdidsowithoutaproperbasisforsuchadeviation.ShereliesontheSupremeCourtcaseof Jones   v.Jones ,930S.W.2d541(Tenn.1996).Shecontendsthatthis `  downwarddeviationwasnotproperwhen consideredinlightoftheprovisionsdealingwithsuchdeviation[Tenn.Comp.R.&ϜRegs.,ch.]124024.04(2)and(4).See id .at545. x    ` Inthiscase,neitherpartyclaimsignoranceoftheoperativefacts.Onthecontrary,itisclearthateachofthepartiesgavetheirconsenttothechildsupportagreementbased #8 uponexistingfactsthenknowntobothofthem.Thisisnota H%  caseinvolvingamutual,orevenaunilateral,mistakeoffact.WhatMotherisreallycomplainingaboutisthefactthatthelawwasimproperlyappliedtotheknownfactsfirstbythepartiesinreachingtheiragreement,andthenbythecourtinapprovingit.Eveniftrue,thisisamistakeoflawandnotamistakeof -X#* fact.󛀀Amistakeoflaw occurswhenapartyknowsthefactsof h/%, thecasebutisignorantofthelegalconsequences. Haasv. (1&. МHaas ,1998WL599529*4(CourtofAppealsatJackson,September 2(0 11,1998).   ` TheSupremeCourthasopinedthatif ignoranceofthelawisapropergroundforreliefunderRule60.02...,itishard 9`/8 toconceivehowanyjudgmentcouldbesafefromassaultonthatground. FoodLion,Inc.v.WashingtonCountyBeerBd .,700   S.W.2d893,896(Tenn.1985).Infact,thecasesclearlyholdthatamistakeoflawisnotabasisforRule60.02relief. MetropolitanDev.&Hous.Agencyv.Hill ,518S.W.2d754,768  (Tenn.App.1974).   ` Inthe Haas case,citedearlierinthisopinion,the (  trialcourt,actingonaRule60.02motion,reducedthefatherschildsupportobligationbecauseitfoundthattheparties,atthetimeofthedivorce,had mistakenlyappliedtheChildSupportGuidelinesbycalculatingchildsupportusingFathersgrossincomeratherthanhisnetincome. Haas ,1998WL599529, @ at*2.Thiscourtreversedthetrialcourt,findingthatthetrialcourthadcommittedamistakeoflawthatcouldnotbereachedbyaRule60.02motion.Inthecourseofouropinion,thiscourtstatedthefollowing:  8 ` Fromtherecord,itisevidentthatFatherwasawareofthefactsofthecase,butwasignorantofthelaw.ThisisnotthetypeofmistakethatTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02isdesignedtocorrect. ` `  1998WL599529,at񛀜*4.ThesamethingcanbesaidofMotherintheinstantcase.   ` Whilethemotionin Haas wasbasedonsubsection(1)of d3)1 Rule60.02notonsubsections(4)or(5),asisthemotioninϜtheinstantcasewedonotbelievethatthisislegally significant.Inbothcases,themovingpartyseekstosetaside |8,.7 ajudgmentbecauseofamistakeoflaw.Generallyspeaking,thisisnottheofficeofaRule60.02motion.    ` Accordingly,MothersmotionforRule60.02reliefbaseduponanallegedillegaldeviationfromtheGuidelinesisfoundtobewithoutmerit.@(III.   ` MotheralsoseekstosetasidethechildsupportdecreeinthejudgmentofdivorcebyattackingafilingmadebyFatherscounselonthedaythedivorcewasgranted.XXX X  #  5      # XXXXd%#ԀThedocumentin 8 questionisatrialcourtfurnished,fillintheblanksformentitled CertificateofComplianceWith/DepartureFromChildSupportGuidelines.ThetestimonyattheRule60.02hearingindicatesthatthetrialcourtrequiresthattheformbecompletedinconnectionwithalluncontesteddivorces.ItisapparentlydesignedtoaffordthetrialcourtthebenefitofarepresentationbyoneormoreofthepartiesortheircounselthattheGuidelineshavebeencompliedwith,or,ifnot,thereasonfordeviatingfromthem.   ` Mothercontendsthatthe CertificateofCompliancewas(1)improperlyhandledand(2)containsamisstatementastowhythepartiesweredeviatingfromtheGuidelines.Specifically,sheclaimsthatacopyofthedocumentwasnot servedonherorhercounselafailurethat,accordingtoher, `5+4 constitutesaviolationofRule5.01,Tenn.R.Civ.P.  #  6      ׀Second,she P   arguesthatthefollowingstatementplacedintheCertificateofCompliancebyFatherscounselisanincorrectstatementofthereasonthatpromptedthepartiestoagreetodeviatefromtheGuidelines:  8 ` [Father]isinneedoffinancialandvocationalrehabilitationandthepartieshavebargainedthisarrangementtowardsthatend. ` `  =+   ` ThereareanumberofreasonswhyMothersargumentspresentaninsufficientbasisforRule60.02relief.First,therewasevidencefromwhichthetrialcourtcouldconcludethattheCertificateofCompliancewas,infact,servedonMotherscounsel.Fathersformercounselsotestified,andtherewascircumstantialevidencetobackuphisclaim.TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstafindingthattheCertificateofCompliancewasservedonMotherscounsel.However,evenifthedocumentwasnotproperlyserved,itdoesnotfollowthatthejudgmentofdivorceisinvalid.Thatjudgmentwassignedbybothpartiesandtheircounsel,anddulysignedandenteredbythetrialcourt.Hence,itwasfiledinfullcompliancewithRule58,Tenn.R.Civ.P.WhiletheCertificateofCompliancemaywellhavepromptedthetrialcourttoapproveandadoptthepartiesagreementastochildsupport,itwasnotapartofthat h0&. judgment,byincorporationorotherwise.Evenassuming,forthepurposeofargument,thattheCertificateofCompliancewasnotproperlyserved,thatfactisaninsufficientbasisforinvalidatingadivorcejudgmentthatwasproperlyenteredundertheRulesofCivilProcedure.   ` Assuming,againsolelyforthepurposeofargument,thatthereasongivenfordeviatingfromtheGuidelinesasstatedintheCertificateofComplianceisanincorrectstatementofthepartiesrealreasonfordoingso,thisdoesnotchangethefactthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentregardingchildsupportcorrectlystatesthepartiesagreementonthesubjectofchildsupport.Eachofthepartiesagreedtochildsupportof$100permonth.Furthermore,evenifcounselforFathermadeamisrepresentationastowhythepartiesagreedtodeviatefromtheGuidelinesafactthatisnotatallclearfromtherecordbeforeusthisisamatterthatfallssquarelywithintheambitofRule60.02(2)τ fraud...,misrepresentation,orothermisconductofanadverseparty.SinceMothersmotionwasnotfiledwithinoneyearoftheentryofthejudgment,thatgroundisnotavailabletoherinthisproceeding.AnuntimelyclaimclearlyassertingaRule60.02(2)basisforreliefcannotbepursuedunderthedisguiseofaRule60.02(5)requestforrelief. Wallacev.Aetna .p$, Life&CasualtyCo .,666S.W.2d66,67(Tenn.1984). 08&. @88)IV.   ` Wealsofind,asanadditionalgroundfordenyingϜMothersmotion,thatitwasnotfiled withinareasonable 8.8 time.SeeRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.41monthsafterentryof P  thejudgmentandatleast23months"  #  7      כafterMotherscounsel   МbecameawareofthecontentsoftheCertificateofComplianceissimplytoolong. Cf .,e.g., CainbyCainv.Macklin ,663S.W.2d x( 794,796(Tenn.1984)(30monthstoolong); Dayv.Day ,931 @ S.W.2d936,93940(Tenn.App.1996)(14monthstoolong).   ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsassessedthere,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     _____________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:̜________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________DonT.McMurray,J.