Facts: Mother and Father divorced in 2014 and had two Children. In 2018, Father petitioned to modify child support. The appellate record did not include the underlying child-support hearings.

The trial court entered an order in February 2024 finding that Father overpaid child support by $4,437 through 2022. It ordered that the overpayment be credited against Father’s future child-support payments. The order also directed the Child Support Office to release to Father any money it was holding.

Father timely moved to alter or amend the order. He argued that the correct overpayment was $33,841.50, not $4,437. He did not challenge the trial court’s decision to reimburse him by crediting it against future child support rather than entering a judgment against Mother.

At the hearing on the postjudgment motions, Father again challenged only the amount of the overpayment. The trial court granted his motion and entered a July 2024 order increasing the overpayment to $33,841.50. The order provided that all other provisions of the February order remained in effect.

Father’s attorney prepared both orders. No party appealed the July 2024 judgment.

Four months later, Father moved for relief under Rule 60 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. He asked the trial court to replace the credit against future child support with a judgment against Mother.

Father’s motion did not state whether he sought relief under Rule 60.01 or Rule 60.02. It did not identify any subsection of Rule 60.02, explain why the existing remedy was erroneous, or show that Rule 60 allowed the requested relief.

Father also noticed the depositions of three State employees. He wanted to determine why disputed child support funds were released to Mother instead of being held by the State.

The trial court denied Father’s Rule 60 motion. It found that the July order accurately reflected its ruling and that Father had not properly raised the reimbursement method before entry of the final judgment.

The trial court also quashed the depositions because the case was over and the proposed testimony would not lead to relevant information.

Father moved to alter or amend the Rule 60 ruling under Rule 59.04. The trial court denied that motion because it merely rehashed previously raised issues.

Father appealed.

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

Rule 60.01 allows a court to correct clerical mistakes and errors arising from oversight or omission. It applies when the written judgment fails to reflect accurately what the trial court decided.

Father did not argue that the July order misstated the trial court’s ruling. Instead, he wanted to replace the court’s ruling with a different remedy. That requested substantive change was not a clerical correction under Rule 60.01.

Rule 60.02 allows relief from a final judgment for limited reasons, including mistake, excusable neglect, fraud, voidness, satisfaction, changed prospective circumstances, or another reason justifying relief. It does not allow a party to relitigate an issue that could have been raised before the judgment became final.

Father argued that the trial court erroneously forgave Mother’s obligation to reimburse Father for an overpayment of child support. The Court disagreed:

Father then takes a leap to assert that failure to reduce the overpayment to a judgment against Mother would “basically forgive the thousands of dollars that he overpaid.” However, the trial court did not “forgive” the amount Father overpaid. Instead, it ruled that the overpayment would be credited against Father’s future child support obligation.

Father did not develop an argument that the trial court abused its discretion by selecting a credit instead of a judgment. Nor did Father establish a recognized basis for Rule 60 relief. The Court commented:

The motion asserted Father was entitled to judgment, but it did not articulate a basis for Rule 60 relief from the order permitting reimbursement through credits. Faced with a skeletal motion, the trial court was not required to guess at or ferret out the reason that Father believed reimbursement through credit, rather than judgment, was grievous legal error and why this legal error should be addressed under Rule 60.

The record also showed that Father had several opportunities to request a judgment instead of a credit.

He could have raised the issue in his first motion to alter or amend, at the hearing on that motion, while preparing the July order, through another motion before entry of the July order, or through a timely appeal. He did none of those things.

Instead, Father first challenged the reimbursement method four months after entry of the final judgment. Rule 60.02 could not revive an issue that Father had multiple opportunities to raise before the judgment became final:

We conclude the trial court was basing its ruling on a determination that Father had slept upon his claims and was first attempting to raise them in the Rule 60 motion despite plentiful opportunity to do so in a timely manner.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

K.O.’s Comment: Father won the dispute over the amount of the overpayment, increasing it from $4,437 to $33,841.50, but he did not preserve his challenge to the form of reimbursement. This opinion shows why lawyers must address the amount and the remedy as separate issues.

When litigating a child-support overpayment, counsel should calculate the overpayment, identify the desired remedy, explain why that remedy is appropriate, and ensure the proposed order includes it. If the order does not provide the requested remedy, counsel must raise that issue through a timely Rule 59.04 motion or direct appeal.

Finally, a Rule 60 motion should never leave the court staring into a “black box.” The motion should identify Rule 60.01 or the applicable subsection of Rule 60.02, state the supporting facts, apply the governing standard, and explain why the final judgment must be modified. Rule 60 is not a do-over for a remedy that could have been requested before the judgment became final.

Source: Terry v. Terry (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, July 24, 2026).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.