ÿWPC¯ “f ó-¸?¢hÃú€;sN²ïXt&VµÞ¾µƒP`$G ÖWA; 몼dÉ0¯}(´QèØ¯kc¾ÙåÂÖ|«(ªÌÊ¿Do¹Æâ<ˆ!=ìŒ ãVfúÕØ]ž¯¡í‹îALÍ9È›jaº°~{¸Õ€0¢k<šc|mœ4,ðs_?J•Õl‰–áßRù´ÃŠ¥¦^•Øj5©Ëæ©Å¨q¢8]JH¿ªPUß‹F¯+´¡E±[NZ;²9øt¸yî¾×+ÞV‚+uU8÷S-+Óƒ§¿FjêU ýDs;×õ’¾¾õ“Å4G㟠’ovE!GP–èÿ)ÿ)¹ØÅµ àçUA/ò[ÇèhÙŒßûš¡y„µMZWëyÚb28±ÅÀÞ£Ú¬â6y—¾{³P}[ƒ‚îT+CÕÖ/™±H?6Å÷éD·¨Ž´—ürýT¨jrø€¬˜a™Ð¹¯…î½Ò D|?ÆúS ü­àq¶iôg€õ!{.ÏK.׊e·,W¾Á%+°…_ò}ò Dø7h Ž—?¼Ã3êî†J'6ÒÀ«(8b¶× ÞO¸ßåÔqÙò>(¸²V‡‡ þ_û% óó)D<è[Û–¥K¨–«_ÿº¥bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;]=šE¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢b¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 0묬¬¬ B—— 0¤´ D3X D-‹ 0K¸¸ ASÆV 0¤ 0DÀ A«(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓO«Š+â yG*𙤬]¨3|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó SÝ ƒR†Æ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€the€contrary,€the€judgment€states€that€the€Appellant€ð ðpersonally€appeared€before€the€Court.ðð€€Both€the€StateÐ ° Ðand€the€Appellant€agree€that€the€Appellant€made€no€appearance€in€this€case. - ù-(|G2†Æ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€7,»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôò»»Ô d(|3Ga$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€7,»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ga$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€7,»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€7,»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼7,»»»ÔÑ8€oXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î,½î»¼7,ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼7,»îî,½ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€30,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XoX»¼7,ÔÌò òÔ#†¼7,»XXo!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€Ô_ÔCOLLISÔ_Ô€BRANCHòòóóÔ‡XoX»¼7,Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€57979€€€€€€Richard€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00711„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XoXXXoÔThis€appeal€arises€from€a€default€judgment€entered€in€1995€in€the€Knox€County€Criminal€CourtÐ xÈ  Ðdeclaring€the€Appellant,€Ô_ÔCollisÔ_Ô€Branch,€a€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„Ð d´ Ð603.€€On€appeal,€Branch€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€Rule€60,€Tennessee€RulesÐ P  Ðof€€Civil€Procedure,€motion€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment€upon€grounds€that€the€judgment€wasÐ <Œ Ðvoid.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€he€contends€that€the€default€judgment€was€obtained€withoutÐ (x Ðcomplying€with€Rules€5,12,€55€and€58€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€After€review,€weÐ d Ðconclude€that€Branchððs€motion,€which€was€filed€in€January€of€2001,€was€not€filed€within€aÐ P Ðð ðreasonable€time,ðð€as€required€by€Rule€60.02,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Accordingly,€theÐ ì< Ðdecision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð Ø( ÐÔ#†XoXX Xo#ÔÔ#†¼7,»XXo¶#ÔÔ‡XoX»¼7,ÔÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼7,»àXoˆ #ÔÔ‡XoX.¼7,ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€JóóJ.,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender,€Paula€R.€Voss,€Aubrey€Davis,€Assistant€PublicÐ L œ ÐDefender,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Ô_ÔCollisÔ_Ô€Branch.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kathy€D.Ð #`" ÐÔ_ÔAslingerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Randall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€PhilipÐ ü#L# ÐMorton,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÔ#†¼7,»XXoE #ÔÔ‡XoX»¼7,ÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼7,»XXoï #ÔÔ‡XoX»¼7,ÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌò òProcedural€Historyó óÐ „)Ô$) ÐòòóóÔ#†¼7,»XXob#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XoX»¼7,ÔÌà  àOn€March€22,€1995,€the€Knox€County€District€Attorney€General€filed€a€petition€requesting€Ð \+¬&+ Ðthat€the€Appellant€be€declared€a€motor€vehicle€habitual€offender.€€Accompanying€the€petition€wasÐ H,˜', Ða€ð ðshow€causeðð€order,€directing€the€Appellant€to€appear€on€April€11,€1995,€to€show€cause€as€to€whyÐ 4-„(-ýk ÐÔ_Ôhe€should€not€be€found€a€habitual€offender.€€A€copy€of€the€petition€and€order€was€served€on€theÐ ° ÐAppellant€on€April€4,€1995.€€The€Appellant€failed€to€appear€at€the€scheduled€April€11,€1995,€hearing.€Ð œì ÐA€default€judgment€signed€by€the€trial€court€on€April€12,€1995,found€the€Appellant€to€be€a€motorÐ ˆØ Ðvehicle€habitual€offender.€€The€default€judgment€was€filed€by€the€clerk€for€entry€on€April€19,€1995.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€district€attorney€general€certified€by€means€of€a€ð ðCertificate€of€Serviceðð€that€a€copy€of€the€defaultÐ `° Ðjudgment€was€sent€by€mail€to€the€Appellant€on€April€12,€1995.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOn€January€9,€2001,€the€Appellant€filed€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment€pursuantÐ $ t Ðto€Rule€60.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Hearings€on€the€motion€were€held€onÐ  ` ÐJanuary€26,€2001,€and€February€16,€2001.€€After€hearing€arguments,€the€trial€court€denied€theÐ ü L  ÐAppellantððs€motion,€finding€that€it€was€not€filed€within€a€ð ðreasonable€time,ðð€as€required€by€RuleÐ è 8  Ð60.02,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Whether€the€Judgment€is€Void€Pursuant€to€Rule€58Ð ¬ü  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€default€judgment€entered€in€this€case€is€void€because€it€doesÐ „Ô  Ðnot€comply€with€Rule€58€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€provides€in€relevant€partÐ pÀ Ðas€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àEntry€of€a€judgment€or€an€order€of€final€disposition€is€effective€when€a€judgmentÐ 4„ Ðcontaining€one€of€the€following€is€marked€on€the€face€by€the€clerk€as€filed€for€entry:Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(1)€à8` Ð Ð àthe€signatures€of€the€judge€and€all€parties€or€counsel;€orÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  à(2)€à8` Ð Ð àthe€signatures€of€the€judge€and€one€party€or€counsel€with€a€certificateÐ Ð  Ðof€counsel€that€a€copy€of€the€proposed€order€has€been€served€on€allÐ ¼  Ðother€parties€or€counsel;€orШø` x` x ÐÌà8  à(3)€à8` Ð Ð àthe€signature€of€the€judge€and€a€certificate€of€the€clerk€that€a€copy€hasÐ €Ð Ðbeen€served€on€all€other€parties€or€counsel.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌThe€trial€court€found,€as€supported€by€the€record,€that€the€default€judgment€complied€with€the€secondÐ D!” Ðprovision€of€Rule€58,€òòi.e.óó,€that€the€judgment€was€marked€on€its€face€as€filed€for€entry,€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðjudgment€contained€the€signature€of€the€judge,€the€signature€of€the€district€attorney€general,€and€aÐ #l! Ðcertificate€by€the€district€attorney€that€the€judgment€had€been€served€on€the€Appellant.€€The€AppellantÐ $X" Ðargues,€however,€that€the€certificate€of€service€signed€by€the€district€attorney€stating€that€a€copy€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€default€judgment€was€mailed€to€the€Appellant€on€April€13,€1995,€is€void€because€ð ð[Rule€5]Ð à%0!$ Ðrequires€that€service€of€pleadings€and€other€papers€be€made€to€a€personððs€last€known€address.ðð€€InÐ Ì&"% Ðeffect,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€judgment€is€void€because€the€certificate€did€not€include€theÐ ¸'#& Ðaddress€to€which€the€judgment€was€mailed€and€is€void€because€no€return€receipt€was€introduced€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðprove€the€Appellant€ever€received€a€copy€of€the€judgment.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àRule€5.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€in€relevant€part€that€ð ðserviceÐ ° Ðâ â.€.€.€upon€a€party€shall€be€made€by€delivering€to€him€or€her€a€copy€of€the€document€to€be€served€orÐ œì Ðby€mailing€it€to€such€personððs€last€known€address.ðð€€The€petition€listed€the€Appellantððs€currentÐ ˆØ Ðaddress€as€231€Oglewood€Street,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€37917.€€Moreover,€Rule€5.03€of€theÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides,€in€relevant€part,€that€proof€of€service€ð ðmay€be€byÐ `° Ðcertificate€of€a€member€of€the€bar€of€the€court€or€by€affidavit€of€the€person€who€served€the€papers,Ð L œ Ðor€by€any€other€proof€satisfactory€to€the€court.ðð€€In€this€case,€proof€of€service€was€properly€providedÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€certificate€of€the€district€attorney€general.€€We€find€that€neither€Rule€5.02€nor€5.03€of€theÐ $ t ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€specifically€requires,€contrary€to€the€Appellantððs€assertions,€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€physical€address€be€included€for€service€to€be€valid.€€Furthermore,€we€note€that€the€AppellantÐ ü L  Ðdoes€not€dispute€the€fact€that€he€received€a€copy€of€the€default€judgment€by€mail;€rather,€he€arguesÐ è 8  Ðnoncompliance€of€various€procedural€rules.€€Indeed,€the€record€reflects€that€the€Appellant€was€servedÐ Ô$  Ða€copy€of€the€order€directing€him€to€appear€on€April€11,€1995,€only€eight€days€prior€to€the€date€theÐ À  Ðjudgment€by€default€was€mailed€to€him.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€judgment€by€default€was€properÐ ¬ü  Ðand€became€a€final€judgment€for€purposes€of€appeal€upon€its€entry€on€April€19,€1995.Ð ˜è  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Timeliness€of€Appellantððs€Motion€to€Void€JudgmentÐ pÀ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àAlmost€six€years€later,€on€January€9,€2001,€the€Appellant€filed€his€motion€to€void€theÐ H˜ Ðjudgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€provides:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€or€theÐ  \ Ðpartyððs€legal€representative€from€a€final€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€theÐ øH Ðfollowing€reasons:€(1)€mistake€.€.€.€;€(2)€fraud€.€.€.€;€(3)òò€the€judgment€is€voidóó;€(4)€theÐ ä4 Ðjudgment€is€satisfied,€released€or€discharged,€or€a€prior€judgment€upon€which€it€isÐ Ð  Ðbased€has€been€reversed€or€otherwise€vacated€.€.€.;€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifyingÐ ¼  Ðrelief€from€the€operation€of€the€judgment.€€òòThe€motion€shall€be€made€within€aÐ ¨ø Ðreasonable€timeóó,€and€for€reasons€(1)€and€(2)€not€more€than€one€year€after€theÐ ”ä Ðjudgment,€order€or€proceeding€was€entered€or€taken€.€.€.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌ(emphasis€added).€€After€hearing€the€Appellantððs€argument,€the€trial€court€denied€the€AppellantððsÐ X ¨ Ðmotion€to€void€the€judgment€and€found:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àThis€is€the€problem.€€I€do€not€believe€this€is€a€void€judgment€.€.€.€I€believe€that€it€is€aÐ #l! Ðjudgment€you€might€have€been€able€to€attack€and€obviously,€of€course,€denied€likeÐ $X" Ða€default€judgment.€€However,€what€has€happened€in€this€case€is€that€[the€Appellant]Ð ô$D # Ðwas€served,€and€within€less€than€30€days€a€default€judgment€was€taken€against€him.€Ð à%0!$ ÐHe€was€served€with€a€copy€of€that€default€judgment.€€So€he€knew€that€the€defaultÐ Ì&"% Ðjudgment€had€come€down€against€him.€€Not€only€did€he€not€come€into€Court€and€doÐ ¸'#& Ðanything€about€it,€but€in€fact€he€was€in€Court€time€and€time€and€time€again€after€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ð11òòthóó€of€April,€1995€.€.€.€My€point€is€that€he€didnððt€complain.€€He€didnððt€raise€any€issueÐ )à$( Ðin€this€case€until€he€had€subsequent€problems,€until€something€happened.€€I€think€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€waited€too€long€to€raise€this€issue.€€I€deny€your€motion.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àInitially,€we€are€constrained€to€note€various€procedural€errors€which€occurred€in€the€processÐ ° Ðof€obtaining€the€judgment€by€default.€€First,€the€trial€court€erred€by€ordering€the€Appellant€to€appearÐ œì Ðon€April€11,€1995,€which€was€less€than€thirty€days€from€the€date€he€was€served€[April€4,€1995].€Ð ˆØ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„10„608(a)€and€(b)€provides:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  à(a)€à8` Ð Ð àUpon€the€filing€of€the€petition,€the€court€shall€make€an€order€directingÐ L œ Ðthe€individual€(defendant)€named€therein€to€appear€before€the€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€show€cause€why€the€defendant€should€not€be€barred€from€operatingÐ $ t Ða€motor€vehicle€on€the€highways€of€this€state.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  à(b)€à8` Ð Ð àThe€order€of€the€court€shall€specify€a€time€certain,€òònot€earlier€thanÐ è 8  Ðthirty€(30)€days€after€the€date€of€service€of€the€petition€and€orderóó,€atÐ Ô$  Ðwhich€the€defendant€shall€first€appear€before€the€court.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌ(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.€€Furthermore,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€aÐ ˜è  Ðmotion€for€default€judgment€was€made€by€the€State€nor€is€there€any€reference€within€the€final€orderÐ „Ô  Ðthat€judgment€was€obtained€by€default.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Finally,€we€note€that€the€State€failed€to€present€an€affidavitÐ pÀ Ðof€entitlement€to€a€default€judgment€or€present€proof€otherwise€as€required€by€Rule€55.01€of€theÐ \¬ ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Notwithstanding€these€errors,€the€determinative€issue€on€appealÐ H˜ Ðis€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denying€the€Appellantððs€motion€to€void€theÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02,€given€the€Appellantððs€long€delay€in€seeking€relief.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àRelief€under€Rule€60.02€is€considered€ð ðan€exceptional€remedy.ðð€€òòNails€v.€Aetna€Ins.€Co.,óó€834Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€289,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€ð ðthe€party€seeking€relief€from€a€judgment€bears€a€heavyÐ ä4 Ðburden.ðð€€òòJoe€Trammell€v.€George€W.€Pope,€Jr.,€óóNo.€M1999„00886„COA„R3„CV€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ð  Ð2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€Mar.€5,€2001).€€The€scope€of€review€on€appeal€for€relief€fromÐ ¼  Ða€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€is€limited€to€whether€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion.€€òòBanksÐ ¨ø Ðv.€Dement€Const.€Co.,€Inc.,óó€817€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.€1991).€€A€discretionary€judgment€of€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourt€will€not€be€reversed€for€abuse€of€discretion€unless€it,€ð ðððaffirmatively€appears€that€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourtððs€decision€was€against€logic€or€reasoning,€and€caused€an€injustice€or€injury€to€the€partyÐ l¼ Ðcomplaining.ðððð€òòMarcus€v.€Marcus,óó€993€S.W.2d€596,€601€(Tenn.€1999)(quoting€òòBallard€v.€Herzke,óóÐ X ¨ Ð924€S.W.2d€652,€661€(Tenn.€1996)).€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€when€seeking€to€set€aside€a€judgment€under€Rule€60.02,€the€moving€party€hasÐ #l! Ðthe€burden€to€prove€ð ðthat€he€is€entitled€to€relief,€and€there€must€be€proof€of€the€basis€on€which€reliefÐ $X" Ðis€sought.ðð€€òòFederated€Ins.€Co.€v.€Lethcoe,óó€18€S.W.3d€621,€624€(Tenn.€2000);€€òòBanks,óó€817€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ðat€18.€€The€moving€party€must€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€relief€from€theÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgment€is€warranted.€€òòDuncan€v.€Duncan,óó€789€S.W.2d€557,€563€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990),€òòperm.€toÐ Ì&"% Ðappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€May€14,€1990).€€Indeed,€Rule€60.02€was€designed€to€strike€a€proper€balanceÐ ¸'#& Ðbetween€the€competing€principles€of€finality€and€justice.€€òòBanks,óó€817€S.W.2d€at€18€(quoting€òòJerkinsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðv.€McKinneyóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€1976)).€€In€òòBanks,óó€our€supreme€court€examined€theÐ ° Ðpurpose€of€Rule€60.02€and€found:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àRule€60.02€acts€as€an€escape€valve€from€possible€inequity€that€might€otherwise€ariseÐ tÄ Ðfrom€the€unrelenting€imposition€of€the€principle€of€finality€imbedded€in€ourÐ `° Ðprocedural€rules€.€.€.€Because€of€the€importance€of€this€ð ðprinciple€of€finality,ðð€theÐ L œ Ðð ðescape€valveðð€should€not€be€easily€opened.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€(quoting€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.,óó€810€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€1991)).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAgain,€we€emphasize€that€a€motion€for€relief€from€a€civil€judgment€or€order€based€uponÐ è 8  Ðvoidness€must€be€made€within€a€ð ðreasonable€time.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€In€this€case,€theÐ Ô$  ÐAppellant€sought€no€relief€from€the€default€judgment€entered€against€him€until€five€years€and€nineÐ À  Ðmonths€after€its€entry.€€The€record€reveals€that€the€Appellant€was€served€on€April€4,€1995,€withÐ ¬ü  Ðnotice€to€appear€on€April€11,€1995,€to€show€cause€as€to€why€he€should€not€be€declared€a€motorÐ ˜è  Ðvehicle€habitual€offender€and€he€chose€not€to€appear€or€respond€to€the€pleadings.€€The€record€reflectsÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€Appellantððs€response€is€now€prompted€by€the€fact€that€he€has€since€been€indicted€as€a€motorÐ pÀ Ðvehicle€habitual€offender€for€violating€the€order€which€he€currently€challenges.€€We€are€far€fromÐ \¬ Ðpersuaded€that€the€almost€six„year€delay€in€bringing€his€motion€to€void€the€judgment€is€reasonableÐ H˜ Ðunder€Rule€60.02.€€òòSee€State€v.€Michael€Shawn€Shofner,óó€No.€E2000„00993„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCrim.€App.€at€€Knoxville,€May€1,€2001)(motion€to€void€HMVO€judgment€not€timely€whereÐ  p Ðdefendant€did€not€seek€relief€until€three€years€and€four€months€after€date€of€entry);€òòState€v.€MichaelÐ  \ ÐSamuel€Eidson,óó€No.€03C01„9711„CR„00506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€24,€1999)(motionÐ øH Ðto€void€HMVO€judgment€not€timely€where€defendant€did€not€seek€relief€until€three€years€after€dateÐ ä4 Ðof€entry€and€no€reason€was€provided€for€the€delay);€òòState€v.€Ronald€D.€Correll,€Jr.,óó€Nos.€03C01„Ð Ð  Ð9707„CC„00295,€03C01„9801„CC„00014€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€21,€1998),€òòperm.€toÐ ¼  Ðappeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€1999)(motion€to€void€HMVO€judgment€not€timely€where€defendant€did€notÐ ¨ø Ðseek€relief€until€twenty€months€later€when€he€was€charged€with€violation€of€the€order).€€A€delay€mayÐ ”ä Ðbe€deemed€unreasonable€where€the€defendant€knows€of€the€judgment€against€him€and€offers€noÐ €Ð Ðreason€for€his€failure€to€timely€challenge€the€judgment.€€€òòState€v.€Michael€Samuel€Eidson,óó€No.Ð l¼ Ð03C01„9711„CR„00506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€24,€1999)(citing€òòMagnavox€Co.€v.Ð X ¨ ÐBoles€&€Hite€Constr.€Co.,óó€583€S.W.2d€611,€613„14€(Tenn.€App.€1979)).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAfter€review,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€Appellantððs€motion€toÐ #l! Ðvoid€the€judgment€amounted€to€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error€in€the€courtððsÐ $X" Ðdecision€to€deny€relief€from€the€judgment€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02,€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ ô$D # ÐProcedure.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Їò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ ° ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àWe€find€that€the€Appellantððs€almost€six„year€delay€in€bringing€his€motion€to€set€aside€theÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment€was€not€filed€within€a€ð ðreasonable€timeðð€as€required€by€Rule€60.02€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÐ tÄ Ðof€Civil€Procedure.€€As€such,€the€judgment€of€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€is€affirmed.€€CostsÐ `° Ðare€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€Collis€Branch,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE