WPC tNνG@?x[3 }&oAþ!(76~De䅑c+Ew:Ž&|^^HEL {qxLIX1| Q| 6-rwat(YI]v'زUoJ:9޽仜mь9G9t\\(>e(1 K^W%5S&S1!Qyb_D2풱g('0] 1fJ { f<@u>"A$4 ojF]ѶߐV*Ԩjz6:«Ad%Ht!bzeNHYY"$Kz~KYV%xN0Uk1ͻpeݓ"Q-o#c$q(mh]cz7m)Ł%Vvvr-,ڱRzY8ۭޗ>wܯ<;b#\ % ^ # 0/ U%N w 4 z  i x mz O   l2 0DN<d>>Eb 0 B 0 D5X D- 0K ASX 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0s+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular-C +H- 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 E RI$      2  -  _Thedismissedcomplaintisnotpartoftherecordbeforethiscourt,buttheappelleesstatementofthecase  indicatesthatitdealtwithconditionsattheCoffeeCountyjail.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   Z RI$      1  -  _Althoughtheoriginalcomplaintseemstohavehadmultipleplaintiffs,onlyMr.White,aproselitigant,signed  theRule60.02motion.Weshall,therefore,refertohimastheonlyplaintiff.- -(|G2I$ !.8TEdXXd8         0  - d(|3 W$ !.8TEdXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 W$ !.8TEdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8TEdd8     _  TE8XXdd8  @ O$TEINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#TEO$ #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsDecember14,2000 L XXTE #TEXX#FRANKIEL.WHITE,etal.v.RONNIEL._GAULT_,etal.XXTE  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty  J @@No.28,301L.CraigJohnson,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000534_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust21,20010 @    AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheplaintifffiledaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02motion,seekingtoreinstatehisclaimaftertheSupreme x  Courtreversedadecisioncitedbythiscourtwhendismissinghisappeal.Thetrialcourtdeniedthe d motion.Weaffirm. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt (x AffirmedandRemanded  d   #TEX#XX.TEPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S., < andWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,joined. ( FrankieL.White,Wartburg,Tennessee,ProSe.  RobertF.Hazard,Tullahoma,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,RonnieL.GaultPamelaFreeman.     OPINION #TEXX#XXTE `     Thisappealistheplaintiffs #  1      ׀efforttoresuscitateadismissedcomplaint.  #  2      #TEXX#XXTEԀOnJanuary10, 8!  2000,Mr.WhitefiledaMotionforRelieffromJudgmentpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02,asking $"t! thecourttosetasideitspreviousorderdismissinghiscomplaintforfailuretoprosecute.Inhis #`" motion,hestatedthat1)thetrialcourthaddismissedthepreviouscomplaintonMay24,1999for #L# failuretoprosecute;2)hehadplacedhisnoticeofappealinthemailat (_M.T.R.C._)_Cockrill_ԀBend $8 $ InstituteonJune18,1999,butthattheCoffeeCountyClerksrecordshowedthenoticewasnot %$!% receiveduntilJune24,1999,thirtyonedaysafterthecourtdismissedhiscomplaint;3)thiscourt &"& dismissedtheappeal,citingGoodwinv.HendersonvillePolice_Dept_,No.01A019509CH00423 '"' (Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.17,1997),becausethenoticewasnottimelyfiled;4)thiscourtissuedits  mandatetothetrialcourtbasedonGoodwin;and5)onOctober18,1999theTennesseeSupreme  CourtreversedGoodwin.    InsupportofhisRule60.02motion,theplaintiffsubmittedamemorandumsettingoutthe ` abovementionedfactsandnotingthesimilaritybetweenhisowncaseandGoodwin,inwhichan L  incarceratedproselitiganthaddeliveredhisnoticeofappealtotheappropriatepersonatthe 8  correctionalfacilitywithintheallowedtime.TheSupremeCourtstated, [_W]e_Ԁfindhisnoticeof $ t appealtohavebeentimelyfiledbecausehedeliveredittoprisonofficialswellwithintheperiod  ` allowed.Goodwinv._Hendersonville_ԀPolice_Dept_,5S.W.3d633,634(Tenn.1999).Mr.Whites  L  memorandumconcluded, Fortheforegoingreasons,yourplaintiffrespectfullyrequeststhiscourt  8  vacateitspreviousorderofMay24,1999,andreinstatesaidorderasoftheentryofthecourts $  order.     Althoughnotdirectlystatedinthemotion,theplaintiffiscandidinhisbriefthathewanted   thetrialcourttoreenteritsdismissalofhiscomplaintsothathecouldagainappealthatdismissal.   Thetrialcourtdeniedhismotionandtheplaintiffappeals. p   ApartyseekingreliefunderRule60.02bearsaheavyburden.As,thiscourthaspreviously H stated: 4 8  [_R]elief_ԀunderRule60.02isconsidered"anexceptionalremedy."Nailsv.AetnaIns.  \ Co.,834S.W.2d289,294(Tenn.1992).ThefunctionofRule60.02is"tostrikea H properbalancebetweenthecompetingprinciplesoffinalityandjustice."Jerkinsv. 4 _McKinney_,533S.W.2d275,280(Tenn.1976).Rule60.02operatesas"anescape   valvefrompossibleinequitythatmightotherwisearisefromtheunrelenting   impositionoftheprincipleoffinalityimbeddedinourproceduralrules."Thompson  v.Fireman'sFundIns.Co.,871S.W.2d157,159(Tenn.1990).However,"[_b]ecause_  ofthe'principleoffinality,'the'escapevalve'shouldnotbeeasilyopened."Banksv.  _Dement_ԀConstr.Co.,817S.W.2d16,18(Tenn.1991)(quoting_Toney_Ԁv.MuellerCo., l 810S.W.2d145,146(Tenn.1991)).X    8  TosetasideajudgmentunderRule60.02theburdenisuponthemovanttoprove 0"  thatheisentitledtorelief,andtheremustbeproofofthebasisonwhichreliefis #l! sought.See_Brumlow_Ԁv._Brumlow_,729S.W.2d103,106(Tenn.Ct.App.1986); $X" Jeffersonv._Pneumo_Ԁ_Servs_.Corp.,699S.W.2d181,186(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).A $D # motionforrelieffromajudgmentpursuanttoRule60.02addressesthesound %0!$ discretionofthetrialjudge.Accordingly,thescopeofreviewonappealislimitedto &"% whetherthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretion.See_Toney_Ԁv.MuellerCo.,810S.W.2d '#& 145(Tenn.1991);Travisv.CityofMurfreesboro,686S.W.2d68,70(Tenn.1985).#TEXX9 #XXTE(#'   Sellersv.Sellers,No.W20001475COAR3CV,2001WL523964at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.May15, |*%) 2001)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). h+&* Ї  Whenthiscourtentereditsorderdismissingtheplaintiffsappeal,theplaintiffhadsixtydays  toseekpermissiontoappealtotheSupremeCourt.Tenn.R.App.P.11(b).Whenthosesixtydays  passed,andpermissiontoappealwasnotsought,thiscourtsdismissaloftheappealbecamefinal,  makingthetrialcourtsorderafinaljudgment. Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02allowsatrialcourttoset t asideafinaljudgmentoncertainlimitedgrounds,asfollows: d 8  (1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;(2)fraud(whether <  heretoforedenominatedintrinsicorextrinsic),misrepresentation,orothermisconduct ( x ofanadverseparty;(3)thejudgmentisvoid;(4)thejudgmenthasbeensatisfied,  d releasedordischarged,orapriorjudgmentuponwhichitisbasedhasbeenreversed  P  orotherwisevacated,oritisnolongerequitablethatajudgmentshouldhave  <  prospectiveapplication;or(5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperation (  ofthejudgment....    #TEXX9#XXTETenn.R.Civ.P.60.02#TEXXT$#XXTE.Althoughnotexplicitlystated,Mr.Whitesargumentrestsonthefourth   ground,thatthejudgmentshouldbesetasidebecause apriorjudgmentuponwhichitisbasedhas   beenreversedorotherwisevacated. t   TennesseecasesinterpretingRule60.02(4)arefew.#TEXX$#XXTEHowever,thiscourtinContinental L Cheshire_Assocs_.v._AGS_ԀCheshire_Assocs_.,1986WL14444(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.22,1986)(no 8 Tenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled),wasfacedwithasituationinwhichapriorlawsuithadbeen $t dismissedastocertaindefendantsforlackofinpersonamjurisdiction.Thatdismissalwasupheld ` bythiscourt,andtheSupremeCourtdeniedreview.1986WL14444at*1.#TEXXJ&#XXTEԀAftertheSupreme L Courtissuedasubsequentopinioninanunrelatedcaseregardinginpersonamjurisdiction, 8 _intervenors_ԀintheearliercasefiledaRule60.02(4)motion,seekingtohavethefinaljudgment $ previouslyenteredsetaside,theeffectofwhichwouldbetoreinstatetheircounterclaimagainstthe  defendants.Id.ThetrialcourtdeniedtheRule60.02(4)motion,andthiscourtaffirmed,relyingon  federalcaselawinterpretingFed.R.Civ.P.60(b)(5),whichcontainslanguageidenticaltothatof  Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(4).Wenoted:  8  Litigationmustendsometime,andthefactthatacourtmayhavemadeamistakein \  thelawwhenenteringajudgment,orthattheremayhavebeenajudicialchangein H! thecourts#TEXX(#XXTEviewofthelawafteritsentry,doesnotjustifysettingitaside.4"    1986WL14444at*4(quotingCollinsv.CityofWichita,254F.2d837,839(10thCir.1958)).We  $\" furthernotedthatrelieffromjudgmentongroundsthat apriorjudgmentuponwhichitisbasedhas $H # beenreversedorotherwisevacated#TEXX,#XXTEwasonlyavailablein %4!$ 8  situationswherethepresentjudgmentisbasedonthepriorjudgmentinthesenseof ' #& resjudicataorcollateralestoppel.Rule60(b)(5)doesnotapplywhereacaserelied (#' onasprecedentbythecourtinrenderingthepresentjudgmenthassincebeen )$( reversed.*%)    l+&* Id.at*3(quotingWallaceClark&Co.v.AchesonIndustries,Inc.,394F.Supp.393,395n.4  (_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1975)).Morerecentfederalcaseshavefollowedthesamereasoning.See_Dowell_Ԁv.State  FarmFire&CasualtyAutomobileIns.Co.,993F.2d46,48(4thCir.1993)( adecisionalchange  inthelawsubsequenttotheissuanceofafinaljudgment,especially,ashere,wheretheearlier t judgmentisneitherresjudicatanorprovidescollateralestoppel,doesnotprovideasufficientbasis ` forvacatingthejudgmentunderRule60(b)(5));Baileyv.RyanStevedoringCo.,Inc.,894F.2d157, L  160(5thCir.1990)( Achangeindecisionallawafterentryofjudgmentdoesnotconstitute 8  exceptionalcircumstancesandisnotalonegroundsforrelieffromafinaljudgment.). $ t   Mr.WhitecouldhaveappealedthiscourtsdismissaltotheSupremeCourt,asdidthe  L  plaintiffinGoodwin,buthedidnot.WefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthedenialoftheRule  8  60.02(4)motion,andaffirmthetrialcourt.Thiscauseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsas $  maybenecessary.Costsaretaxedtotheappellant,FrankieL.White,forwhichexecutionmayissue   ifnecessary.      `     h     ___________________________________ \    `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE#TEXX.#