Facts: When Mother and Father divorced in 2008, Father was ordered to pay child support for his three children.

Ten years later, the State sued on Mother’s behalf to get a judgment for Father’s child-support arrearage. The Magistrate awarded Mother a judgment of $3615.14.

Six months later, the State moved to modify the judgment under Rule 60.02 because the amount awarded in the judgment was wrongly calculated to credit Father for payments made by a different parent in a separate case.  The State claimed the case ID numbers in the record were for a different person’s case, not Father’s. Attached to the motion were copies of various payment summaries and child-support worksheets showing how the error occurred and that Father’s correct arrearage is $9815.79.

The State argued the point at the hearing but did not put on any evidence.

The trial court granted the motion and amended the earlier judgment to fix Father’s child-support arrearage at $9815.79.

Father appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

Rule 60.02 allows a Tennessee court to modify an order upon showing “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” among other reasons. Such a motion must be filed within one year after the order was entered.

The moving party must plead the basis for relief with specificity and establish that they are entitled to relief by clear and convincing evidence, meaning the judge has no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn. This is considered a “very high” burden of proof.

Allegations in pleadings are not evidence of the facts claimed. Unless the facts are admitted or stipulated, they must be proved by documents, affidavits, oral testimony, or other competent evidence. Merely attaching a document to a pleading does not place that document in evidence.

The Court found the State’s reliance on allegations without evidence to be fatal:

While the State attached numerous documents to its Rule 60.02 motion in an effort to demonstrate the alleged erroneous calculation of Father’s child-support arrearage, it never laid the foundation for such evidence[,] nor did it introduce any evidence at the hearing in support of its motion. No affidavits were offered in connection with its submissions, and no witnesses offered any testimony. The mere attachment of purportedly legitimate documentation to a pleading is not sufficient. Although it appears the State was prepared to put on evidence, . . . for whatever reason it did not do so. . . . Here, the State’s counsel’s reliance on its motion and the documents attached, without offering any evidence, is not sufficient to show that there exists “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn.” Because the State failed to put on evidence at the hearing, it failed to meet its burden of proof[,] much less the high burden of “clear and convincing evidence” required of it pursuant to Rule 60.02 and, as a result, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Rule 60.02 motion.

The Court reversed the revised judgment and reinstated the earlier—and incorrect—judgment for Father’s child-support arrearage.

State ex rel. Gray v. Daugherty (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, November 19, 2020).

I hope you found this helpful. If you think others could benefit from it, please share it using the sharing buttons below.