St and i fer Lane i s uni m p roved and t welve (12 ) f eet wi d e. O nce i t i s reco gni zed as a p ub l i c road , t he ri ght 1 of way wi dt h i s r equi r ed t o be a mi ni mum o f fort y ( 40 ) f

eet wh i ch i mp l i cat es a t aki ng , s i nce t he P l ai nt i f f owned propert y on ei t her s i de of t he Lane

. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT KNOXVI LLE June 8, 200 4 S es sio n AILE EN STA ND IFER

CRAF T v. C LAIB ORN E C OUN TY Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Anderson Coun ty No. 7941 Jam es B. Scott, Judge

________________________ No. E2003-01806-COA- R3-CV F iled Jul y 21, 2004

________________________ The initial judgme nt declar ed that Standifer L ane w as a public r oad for one-te nth mile only . Six teen (16) months afte r the judg ment was e ntere d, the County filed a Rule 62.02 motion alleg ing that “onetenth mile” was a mistake beca use all conce rned had ag ree d upon two-tenths mile. The judg ment was amended to provide that Standifer L ane is a public road f

or a distanc e of 950 f

eet or to an e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y. T h e R u l e 6 2

. 0 2 m o t i o n i s u n t i m e l y. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court is Reve rsed
W I L L I AM H. INMAN , S R
. J ., delivere d the opinion of t he court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., joined.
Mic ha e l G . H a tma

ke r, Jac ks bo ro , T e nn e sse e , f or app e llant, Ai le e n St a nd if e r C ra ft

. J ames D. Este p I I I , Tazewe ll, Tennessee , attorney for a ppellee, ClaiborneCounty , Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
The Plaintiff’s re sidence o n her f armland f ronts on Standifer L ane, a g rave led roa d which serve s other re sidence s. It intersects with L one Mou n ta in Road, and meanders throug h the Plaintiff’s f ar m , p r o v i d i n g a c c e s s t o a n i s o l a t e dc e m e t e ry. The Claiborne CountyCommi ssion on May 19, 1999 adopted a

motion “that Standifer L ane b e m ad e ap u b l i c r o ad ” w h i ch m o t i v at ed t h e P l ai n t i ff t o fi l e a n i n v er s e c o n d em n at i o n p ro ce ed i n g. 1T hi s mo t i on al s o al l ege d t hat M s
. Craf t s houl d be hel d i n c ont emp t for c ons t r uct i ng a f enc e wh i ch 2 inte rfe re d w ith the us e o f S ta n d ifer L a n e . T h e c o n te m p t alle g a tio n w a s d ism isse d a n d is no t re le v a n t o n a p p e a l. -2- A benc h trial resulted i n t h e en t ry of a judg ment which in pertinent part provided, in haec verba ; “1. That Standifer L ane is a public road, twelve feet in width, and as

it ex isted as of Marc h 24, 1999 beg inning at the point of intersec tion of Standifer

L ane and L one Mountain Road, and c on t i n u i n g a distance of

.1 miles from said point of beg inning ( at the interse ction) but no further , providing acc ess to the dw el l i ng s exi sting of Ma rch 24, 1999. Be y ond the .1 mile from the inter section of Standife r L ane and L one Mountain Road, Standifer L ane is a private r oad.” This judg ment was filed May 16, 2000 afte r being approve d by all counsel and signe d by the trial judg e. On September

27, 2001 t h e County

filed a Rule 62.02 motion alleg ing that the decr etal 2 provision of one-te nth mile was a typog raphic al mistake and that it was intended to be two-te nths mile. The P laintiff answered that the quot ed decre tal provision was not a ty pog raphic al er

ror, but was ag ree d upon following neg otiations be tween the parties, and in any event the Rule 62.02 motion was untimely

since it was f

iled six teen ( 16) months after the judg ment was e ntere d. Following extended colloquy and the prese ntation of testimony , the trial court ruled that the Orde r ente red May

16, 2000 should be amende d to provide:
That Standifer

L ane is a county road, twelve (12) f eet in width, and a s it ex isted as of Mar ch 24, 1999, beginning at the point of interse ction of Standifer L ane and L one Mountain Road, and con t i n u i n g with the cente r line of said L ane a distance the g reater of 950 f

eet f rom said point of beg inning (at the i ntersec tion) or to the existi ng Cora and E ddie Roberts’ driveway (as of Marc h 24, 1999), but no furthe r, providing acc ess to the swelling s exi sting a s of Marc y 24, 1999. Be y ond the said distance from theint e rs e c tio n o f S ta nd if e r L a ne a ndL on e Mo un ta in R oa d, Sta nd if e r L a ne is a private r oad. The Plaintiff appe als, insisti ng that the Court was witho u t j u risdiction to amend the jud g me nt. Th is i s t he is su e fo r r e vie w, wh ic h is de novo on the re cord w ith no presumption of corr ection since the issue is one of law

. Wa rre n v . Es tat e of Kir k , 954 S.W .2d 722 (Tenn. 1997)

. Ana lys is At the outset it is pertinent to note that the County - the Appe llee - doe s not i n s i s t t hat the mis take, if any , w a s a

c le ri c a l on e . Rathe r, theCou nty arg ue s th a t th e de c isi on to g rant R ule-3-

60 .0 2( 5) re lie f w a s w ith in the dis c re tio n o f the tria l judg e , whi c h sho uld be re vie we d und e r the abu se of dis c re tio n s ta nd ard . TheCou nty arg ue s th a t th e trial ju dg e int e nd e d th a t Stand if e r L a ne sh ou ld be a public r oad for

a distanceof 950 fe et, and that the r ule announc ed in F ederated Ins. Co. v. Lethcoe , 18 S.W .3d 621 (Tenn. 2000) (r el i ef u n d er Rule 60.02( 5) is only appropriate in ca ses of overw helming importa nce or in case s involving extraordinary circ umstances or extreme hardship) should be applied to the c ase at Ba r. Rul e 60 .0 2, Te nn . R. Civ . P. pr ov ide s: 60.02. Mistakes – I nadvertence – Ex cusable Neg lect – Fr aud, etc . – On motion and upon such terms a s are ju s t , t h e court may relievea party or the party ’s leg al repr esentative from a final judg ment, order or proc eeding for the f

ollowing r easons: (1) m i stake, inadve rtenc e, surprise o r ex cusable neg lect: (2) f raud ( whether

here tofore denominated intrinsic or e x t ri n sic), misrepr esentation, or other misconduct of an a dverse party : (3) t h e judgme nt is void: (4) the jud gm en t h as bee n satisfied, re lease d or dischar g ed, or a prior jud g me nt u po n w hic h it is b a se d h a s b e e n r e ve rs e d o r o the rw ise vacated, or it is no longe r equitable that a judg ment should have prospec tive application: or (5) any other rea son justify ing r elief f rom the oper ation of the judg ment. T h e m otion shall be made within a rea sonable time, an d fo r reasons (1) and (2) not more than one y ear afte r the ju d gm en t , order or proc eeding was e ntere d or take n. A motion under this Rul e 6 0

. 0 2 does not aff ect the f inality of a judgme nt or suspend its operation, bu t t h e court may enter an orde r suspending the oper ation of the judgme nt upon such terms as to bond and notice a s to it sha l l seem prope r pending the hea ring of such motion. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independe nt action to relievea party from a judg ment, order or pr oc e e din g , o r t o s e t a sid e a jud g me nt f

or fr audup on thec ou rt . Writs of er ror c oram nobis, bills of revie w and bills i n the natureof a bill of re vie w a reabo lis he d, a ndthepr oc e du refo r o btaini ng re lief f rom a judgme nt shall b e bymotion as prescribed in these rule s or by an independe nt action (Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure, 2003.) Relief may

be g rante d for “ any o t h er re ason justify ing r elief f rom the oper ation of the jud g me nt, ” 60 .0 2( 5) , bu t it is re qu ir e d that the motion sh a ll b e fi le d w ith in a re a so na bletim e . Ru le 60.02(5) should be na

rrowly construed, NC

NB Na t’ l Bank o

f N .C. v . T hra ilk ill , 856 S.W .2d 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), and is a pplicable only in unique or extraordinary circ umstances. See , also, Holiday v. S h o n ey ’s S o uth , Inc. , 42. S.W .3d 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). T he re cord r evea ls no evidenc e of uni q u e , e xc e p ti o n al or extraordinary

circ umstances, and we a g reewith the Appellant that thetria l c ou rt

wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to mod if y thejud g me nt.-4-

The judg ment enter ed June 26, 2003 i s there fore reve rsed, with costs asse ssed to the Appellee

.

____________________________________ WI LL I AM H. INMAN, SENI OR J UDGE