ÿWPCû Š`•¥ÞŽÿYµž¨XÅë›+YböùÛí~öãv[ èŒúÝ]8=}Á]í© UP½ba½ýõWj¡‹\*³‘9ø¢ ŸF:,¢aù‹Hw ï«´1e‹Ð'‰t/RÁø4çÀŒÝÖo¸8ž”×!¦ÆíÐ^넬´Ó®æ8$ëH%‰¼¯Èi”Ýõ!Aød9ªmOMÍMâà«/`kö\¬ŸÙ]ö`øª{·,Ë”°3ˆwOÃË¡`…Âc<ÝbÔ°:Õvø ŠþÍ„9 kûëݯå%l½Û›„·õ³EñN ¬˜Xa½=^`ÕPdü2AÙ¶ò¢m²EÈù%±`Íâ‡COkSÊÉ­ùÜÜ®èôT/ â¤q¶m\ÔOûnºy̬ÝëWJ|Tµuá¤3ú::ÕüiÞ×1Ÿa@0 5&Óª†•Ȫlàå…è|η4zŠ ;?š€ã“»ô”dÇiÄ$o°_- ö Ò:î eªâ;ŸšÿyqûIöò‰9–.¶-ñ2S‘5nèùÈÅw1Š”DÊ,È|ÜÃñn©Îøru?¡¯d±\b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù 7G ­~ z+Ò¥×wôN^ B 0DNÆ’ÆXÆÆäwªN®4°ÄEÓÕ m××××××××××××××××××××××bîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîî 0ëöööö Báá 0¤þ D5¢ D-× 0K ASOÆ¢ 0¤h 0D  A«P˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular -Ý ƒR݇$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€Appellant€acknowledges€that€he€received€a€copy€of€the€order€and€was€aware€of€the€date€and€time€of€theÐ ° Ðdamage€hearing.€Ô_ÔÔ_Ô £Ý ƒR݇$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€While€we€express€Ô_ÔnoÔ_Ô€opinion€on€the€Ô_Ôultimate€issue,€there€is€evidence€tending€to€show€that€the€AppellantððsÐ ° Ðfailure€to€answer€the€complaint€was€a€calculated€risk.€Affidavits€in€the€record€claim€that€the€Appellant€had€threatenedÐ xÈ Ðthe€Appellees€with€bankruptcy€in€lieu€of€defending€the€action.€Whether€this€be€true€or€not,€we€are€convinced€that€theÐ @ ÐAppellant€knew€that€the€litigation€was€proceeding€and€chose,€for€his€own€reasons,€not€to€act. ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÍÝ ƒR݇$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€To€the€extent€the€Appellant€claims€relief€under€any€other€part€of€Rule€60.02,€we€consider€such€an€argumentÐ ° Ðto€be€without€merit.€His€claims€that€he€was€mis„led€by€the€Ô_ÔAppelleesððÔ_Ô€attorney€are€unfounded€and,€moreover,Ð xÈ ¾ Ðcontradicted€by€the€record.€€Additionally,€the€attorney€denies€that€he€ever€mis„led€the€Appellant.€€Presumably,€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€considered€issues€of€credibility€in€making€its€decision,€and€we€will€not€Ô_ÔoverruleÔ_Ô€its€determinations€in€that€regard. êÝ ƒR݇$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€Appelleesðð€previous€counsel€had€contacted€the€Appellant€regarding€the€performance€of€warranty€work.€.j )L (#Ã$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 5ö~ì(1'­¡Corel3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2݇$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€«»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕŒò»»Ô d(|3 $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€«»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€«»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€«»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼«»»»ÔÑ8€¥CXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îïW«ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼«»îîïW #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X¥CX»¼«ÔÌò òÔ#†¼«»XX¥Cï#ÔJOE€Ô_ÔTRAMMELLÔ_Ô€AND€KAREN€Ô_ÔTRAMMELLÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€GEORGE€W.€POPE,€JR.,Ð  ` ÐINDIVIDUALLY€AND€D/B/A€Ô_ÔACHIEVAÔ_Ô€HOMESòòóóÔ‡X¥CX»¼«Ôó óÐ ( x ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Franklin€CountyÐ 0 € Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II26066;€The€Honorable€Russ€Ô_ÔHeldmanÔ_Ô,€ChancellorÐ  p ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ï` AßÐ ð@  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00886„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€9,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ï?  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Î` AßÐ Ï Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X¨8XXX¥CÔThis€appeal€arises€out€of€a€default€judgment€rendered€against€the€Appellant.€€The€underlying€causeÐ Î Ðof€action€was€for€the€breach€of€a€construction€contract.€€After€the€Appellant€did€not€answer€theÐ º  Ðcomplaint€or€otherwise€defend€the€action,€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€granted€theÐ ¦ö Ðplaintiffsðð€motion€for€default€and€entered€€judgment€accordingly.€€A€subsequent€damage€hearing€wasÐ ’â Ðheld€at€which€the€Appellant€did€not€appear.€€The€Appellees€obtained€a€judgment€for€$918,073.15.€Ð ~Î ÐThe€Appellant€filed€an€application€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment€which€was€denied€by€the€trialÐ jº Ðcourt.€Ô#†X¥CXXX¨8#ÔÔ#†¼«»XX¥C#ÔÔ‡X¥CX»¼«ÔÐ V¦ ÐÓƒÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ 2‚ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼«»àX¥C¿#ÔÔ‡X¥CX.¼«ÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFarmer,€J.,óó€and€òòLillard,€J.óó,Ð b Ðjoined.Ð R ÐÌGail€P.€Ô_ÔPiggÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€for€appellantÐ â2 ÐÌPaul€T.€Ô_ÔHouschÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€for€appelleesÐ Â!  ÐÓo ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼«»XX¥Cž #ÔÔ‡X¥CX»¼«ÔÐ ¢#ò" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼«»XX¥CV #ÔÔ‡X¥CX»¼«ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡X¨8XXX¥CÔGeorge€Pope€appeals€from€the€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€denying€hisÐ ‚%Ò $ Ðapplication€to€set€aside€a€default€judgment.€For€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ n&¾!% Ðdecision.Ð Z'ª"& ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€Facts€and€Procedural€Historyó óÐ 2)‚$( ÐÌò òòòÓ  Óà  àó óóóThis€case€originated€with€a€complaint€filed€by€Joe€and€Karen€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ô€(ð ðAppelleesðð)€againstÐ  +Z&* ÐGeorge€W.€Pope€(ð ðAppellantðð)€on€March€3,€1999,€seeking€monetary€damages€for€breach€of€aÐ ö+F'+ Ðconstruction€contract.€€The€claims€were€based€on€the€failure€to€complete€and/or€for€defectiveÐ â,2(, Ðconstruction€of€the€Appelleesðð€home€by€the€Appellant.€€òòóóÐ Î-)-ý Їà  àThe€Appellant€was€served€with€a€copy€of€the€summons€and€complaint€on€April€6,€1999.€€Ð ° ÐPreviously,€by€letter€dated€March€4,€1999,€the€Appellant€had€been€contacted€by€the€AppelleesððÐ œì Ðattorney€to€inform€him€that€he€had€been€sued€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County.€€ThisÐ ˆØ Ðletter€also€informed€the€Appellant€that€any€warranty€work€performed€by€the€Appellant€would€not€beÐ tÄ Ðdeemed€as€a€compromise€or€settlement.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€pertinent€part,€the€letter€stated:Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà8  àà ` àThis€letter€will€also€confirm€that€you€had€previously€scheduled€with€Dr.€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐMrs.€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ôððs€former€attorney,€Lynn€Robinson,€to€have€certain€warranty€workÐ $ t Ðperformed€at€2183€South€Berryððs€Chapel€Road,€property,€on€March€5,€1999,€and€thatÐ  ` Ðyou€had€arranged€for€these€subcontractors€to€meet€you€at€the€property€site.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhile€we€have€not€personally€met€to€discuss€these€matters€of€the€pendingÐ Ô$  Ðaction,€this€letter€will€serve€as€official€notice€that€you€are€under€an€obligation€underÐ À  Ðthe€Contract€for€Dr.€and€Mrs.€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ô€to€provide€warranty€services€notwithstandingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€present€litigation.€If€you€provide€the€warranty€services€for€the€items€ofÐ ˜è  Ðconstruction€as€contractually€bound€to€do€and€under€the€implied€warranty€of€goodÐ „Ô  Ðworkmanship,€this€will€in€no€way€be€deemed€to€be€a€settlement€or€compromise€ofÐ pÀ Ðsettlement€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ôððs€claims€against€George€Pope,€Jr.,€d/b/a/Ð \¬ ÐÔ_ÔAchievaÔ_Ô€Homes€pending€in€the€above€referenced€matter.ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà8  àà ` àI€have€recommended€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Trammel€to€allow€the€warranty€workÐ  p Ðas€per€the€contract€between€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ô€and€you€to€proceed€on€March€5,Ð  \ Ð1999.€I€want€to€make€sure€that€you€understand€that€this€is€not€a€compromise€orÐ øH Ðsettlement€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ô_ÔTrammellÔ_Ôððs€claims€against€you€by€allowing€warrantyÐ ä4 Ðwork€to€be€performed€under€the€existing€Contract€which€is€the€subject€of€theÐ Ð  Ðlitigation€in€the€above€referenced€matter.м Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌÔ_ÔByÔ_Ô€letter€dated€March€16,€1999,€the€Appelleesðð€attorney€again€contacted€the€Appellant€to€inform€himÐ ”ä Ðthat€the€performance€of€specific€work€in€the€home€would€not€serve€as€a€compromise€or€settlementÐ €Ð Ðof€the€claims€against€him.€A€third€letter,€dated€April€22,€1999,€effectively€re„stated€the€position€takenÐ l¼ Ðin€the€previous€letters.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àOn€April€30,€1999,€the€Appellees€filed€a€motion€for€default€judgment€based€on€the€fact€theÐ 0"€  ÐAppellant€had€failed€to€answer€the€complaint€or€otherwise€defend€the€action.€€The€Appellant€wasÐ #l! Ðserved€with€notice€that€a€hearing€on€the€motion€was€set€for€June€14,€1999.€òòóó€€The€Appellant€did€notÐ $X" Ðappear€to€contest€the€motion€for€default,€and€an€order€was€entered€on€June€14,€1999€granting€theÐ ô$D # Ðâ âAppelleesðð€motion.€òòóó€€The€court€set€a€damage€hearing€for€July€12,€1999.€òòóó€€Pursuant€to€the€courtððsÐ à%0!$ Ðinstructions,€the€Appellant€was€provided€with€a€copy€of€the€order€granting€the€motion€for€default,Ð ° Ðas€well€as€the€date€and€time€for€the€damage€hearing.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOn€July€12,€1999,€the€Appellees€and€their€attorney€appeared€at€the€damage€hearing€andÐ tÄ Ðpresented€evidence€on€the€question€of€damages.€€€The€Appellant€did€not€appear€at€the€damageÐ `° Ðhearing.€òòóó€€A€judgment€of€$918,073.15€was€subsequently€entered€against€the€Appellant.€òòóóÐ L œ ÐÌà  àOn€July€26,€1999,€the€Appellant€filed€an€application€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€HeÐ $ t Ðasserted€that€the€reason€he€failed€to€answer€the€complaint€was€his€reliance€on€the€representations€ofÐ  ` Ðopposing€counsel€and€his€own€belief€that€the€case€would€be€settled€outside€court.€€òòóóHe€also€claimedÐ ü L  Ðto€have€numerous€meritorious€defenses€to€the€action€against€him.€€òòóóOn€September€8,€1999,€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðcourt€conducted€a€full€hearing€on€the€application€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€The€court€foundÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€Appellant€had€failed€to€show€any€mistake,€inadvertence,€excusable€neglect,€orÐ À  Ðmisrepresentation€of€the€adverse€party€or€any€other€reason€to€justify€relief€under€Rules€55€and€60.02Ð ¬ü  Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€òòóóBased€on€these€findings,€the€court€denied€the€applicationÐ ˜è  Ðto€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€Law€and€AnalysisòòÐ \¬ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óóóOur€standard€of€review€in€this€case€has€been€succinctly€stated€by€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ 4„ ÐCourt€in€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.óó,€854€S.W.2d€94€(Tenn.€1993).€€A€motion€for€relief€basedÐ  p Ðon€Rule€60.02€grounds€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€the€scope€ofÐ  \ Ðreview€of€an€appellate€court€is€to€determine€if€the€discretion€was€abused.€€òòId.óó€at€97.€€The€burden€isÐ øH Ðon€the€party€seeking€relief€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€"to€show€that€he€[or€she]€is€entitled€to€relief."€Ð ä4 ÐòòÔ_ÔSteioffÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSteioffÔ_Ôóó,€833€S.W.2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€pertinent€to€the€present€case,€Rule€60.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ¨ø Ðprovides:Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  Óà8  àà ` àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€orÐ l¼ Ðthe€party's€legal€representative€from€a€final€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€theÐ X ¨ Ðfollowing€reasons:€€(1)€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect;€€(2)Ð D!” Ðfraud€(whether€heretofore€denominated€intrinsic€or€extrinsic),€misrepresentation,€orÐ 0"€  Ðother€misconduct€of€an€adverse€party;€€(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€€(4)€the€judgment€hasÐ #l! Ðbeen€satisfied,€released€or€discharged,€or€a€prior€judgment€upon€which€it€is€based€hasÐ $X" Ðbeen€reversed€or€otherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€a€judgmentÐ ô$D # Ðshould€have€prospective€application;€€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€fromÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€operation€of€the€judgment.€€The€motion€shall€be€made€within€a€reasonable€time,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€for€reasons€(1)€and€(2)€not€more€than€one€year€after€the€judgment,€order€orÐ ¸'#& Ðproceeding€was€entered€or€taken.€€A€motion€under€this€Rule€60.02€does€not€affect€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfinality€of€a€judgment€or€suspend€its€operation,€but€the€court€may€enter€an€orderÐ ° Ðsuspending€the€operation€of€the€judgment€upon€such€terms€as€to€bond€and€notice€asÐ œì Ðto€it€shall€seem€proper€pending€the€hearing€of€such€motion.€€This€rule€does€not€limitÐ ˆØ Ðthe€power€of€a€court€to€entertain€an€independent€action€to€relieve€a€party€from€aÐ tÄ Ðjudgment,€order€or€proceeding,€or€to€set€aside€a€judgment€for€fraud€upon€the€court.€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌRelief€under€Rule€60.02€is€considered€"an€exceptional€remedy."€€òòNails€v.€Aetna€Insurance€Companyóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð834€S.W.2d€289,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€analyzing€this€issue,€we€are€required€to€examine€the€movingÐ $ t Ðparty's€proof€to€determine€whether€the€default€was€willful€and€to€assess€the€extent€to€which€theÐ  ` Ðdefaulting€party's€conduct€has€prejudiced€the€non-defaulting€party.€€òòTennessee€Ô_ÔDep'tÔ_Ô€of€Human€Ô_ÔServsÔ_Ô.Ð ü L  Ðv.€Ô_ÔBarbeeÔ_Ôóó,€689€S.W.2d€863,€866€(Tenn.1985).€€Unfortunately€for€the€Appellantððs€position,€ourÐ è 8  Ðconsideration€of€those€factors€leads€us€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ Ô$  Ðdenying€his€application€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment.Ð À  ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€the€arguments€which€the€Appellant€makes€to€this€court,€the€record€is€repleteÐ ˜è  Ðwith€evidence€showing€that€his€failure€to€defend€the€action€was€completely€unjustified.€€He€receivedÐ „Ô  Ðat€least€three€letters€informing€him€that€any€work€on€the€home€would€not€serve€as€a€ð ðcompromise€orÐ pÀ Ðsettlementðð€of€the€claims€against€him.€€He€received€notices€of€all€the€filings€and€hearings€in€the€case.€Ð \¬ ÐEvery€indication€is€that€the€case€was€proceeding€forward€and€the€Appellant€was€fully€aware€of€thisÐ H˜ Ðfact.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€believe€the€record€is€extremely€clear€in€this€regard.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWe€are€unable€to€attribute€the€Appellantððs€actions€to€ð ðmistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€orÐ  \ Ðexcusable€neglect.ðð€€While€we€do€not€wish€to€imply€that€the€Appellant€is€well€versed€in€the€languageÐ øH Ðof€legalities,€his€complete€failure€to€act€reasonably€under€the€circumstances€cannot€be€remediedÐ ä4 Ðunder€Rule€60.02(1).€€Such€relief€would€prejudice€the€Appellees€insofar€as€they€complied€with€allÐ Ð  Ðapplicable€rules€in€pursuing€their€action.€€The€after„the„fact€claim€by€the€Appellant€that€the€judgmentÐ ¼  Ðwas€not€rendered€fairly€is€unsupported€by€the€record,€and€the€Appellees€are€entitled€to€their€validÐ ¨ø Ðjudgment.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€we€do€not€believe€the€Appellant€makes€a€viable€argument€under€Rule€60.02(5),Ð l¼ Ðallowing€a€judgment€to€be€set€aside€for€ð ðany€other€reason€justifying€relief.ðð€€This€section€has€beenÐ X ¨ Ð"very€narrowly"€construed€by€the€courts€of€this€state.€€òòTyler€v.€Tyleróó,€671€S.W.2d€492,€495€(Tenn.Ð D!” ÐCt.€App.1984);€€òòÔ_ÔSteioffÔ_Ôóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€97;€€òòUnderwoodóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€97;€€òòDuncan€v.€Duncanóó,€789Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€557,€564€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1990).€€We€find€nothing€in€the€present€case€which€would€lead€usÐ #l! Ðto€conclude€that€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€relief€under€60.02(5).€×ƒ °×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð $X" Їà  àThe€party€seeking€relief€from€a€judgment€bears€a€heavy€burden.€€The€ð ðabuse€of€discretionððÐ ° Ðstandard€of€review€places€significant€limitations€on€this€courtððs€power€to€review€a€trial€courtÐ œì Ðdecision.€€Moreover,€the€ð ðexceptional€remedy"€provided€by€Rule€60.02,€òòNails€v.€Aetna€InsuranceÐ ˆØ ÐCompanyóó,€834€S.W.2d€289,€294€(Tenn.€1992),€must€be€carefully€utilized.€€Its€function€is€"to€strikeÐ tÄ Ða€proper€balance€between€the€competing€principles€of€finality€and€justice."€€òòJerkins€v.€Ô_ÔMcKinneyÔ_Ôóó,€533Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€1976).€€€It€operates€as€"an€escape€valve€from€possible€inequity€that€mightÐ L œ Ðotherwise€arise€from€the€unrelenting€imposition€of€the€principle€of€finality€imbedded€in€ourÐ 8 ˆ Ðprocedural€rules."€€òòThompson€v.€Fireman's€Fund€Ins.€Co.óó,€798€S.W.2d€235,€Ð $ t Ð238€(Tenn.1990).€€€But,€"[Ô_Ôb]ecauseÔ_Ô€of€the€'principle€of€finality,'€the€'escape€valve'€should€not€be€easilyÐ  ` Ðopened."€€òòÔ_ÔToneyÔ_Ô€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€S.W.2d€at€146€(Tenn.€1991).€€Our€analysis€of€the€record€showsÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€€€Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionÐ À  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àóóó óFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€theÐ ˜è  Ðapplication€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€GeorgeÐ „Ô  ÐW.€Pope,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary€€€€€Ð pÀ Ðà  à€€Ð \¬ ÐÌ€Ô#†X¥CXXX¨8ß #ÔÔ#†¼«»XX¥C´ #ÔÔ€X¥CX»¼«ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð P Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE