Rule 60.02(3) Motion (Judgment Void)

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion. 

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

Estate of Donna McCullough v. McCullough, No. W2020-01723-COA-R3-CV, p. 7  (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2022).

However, when reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60.02(3), our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See id. at 269. Any factual findings made by the trial court are reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Id.; Hussey v. Woods, 538 S.W.3d 476, 483 (Tenn. 2017); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

In re Hailey C., No. M2020-01487-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2022).

We review a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 60.02 motion for an abuse of discretion. See Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012). A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard, reaches “an illogical or unreasonable decision,” or bases its decision “on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010). But whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law, which we review de novo. Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727, 729 (Tenn. 2000); see also Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 269 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that the standard of review on a Rule 60.02(3) motion to set aside a judgment as void is de novo).