Again, this Court has repeatedly recognized that the party’s reason for failing to meet the deadline may be the single most important of the four factors. Id.; see, e.g., Cored, LLC v. Hatcher, No. M2020-00083-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 5944067, at *8-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2020) (finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court found that the first, second, and fourth factors had "no significant impact" on the analysis and that "the dispositive factor" was the reason why the filings were late); Scott, 2011 WL 3760940, at *5 ("While prejudice to the other party is a consideration in this context, the trial court must also find the failure to act as mandated was excusable.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. "Determining whether to award damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122 'is a discretionary decision.'" Cored, LLC v. Hatcher, No. M2020-00083-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 5944067, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2020) (quoting Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 66-67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). "A frivolous appeal is one that is 'devoid of merit' or 'has no reasonable chance of succeeding.'"

As such, this Court has repeatedly applied Rule 6.02 in the context of issuance and service of summonses. See, e.g., Edwards v. Herman, No. E2017-01206-COA-R9-CV, 2018 WL 2231090, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 2018) ("[W]e affirm the trial court's utilization of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02 as a method of enlarging the timeframe for issuance and service of process, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3, when the complaint was timely filed and when excusable neglect can be demonstrated."); see also, e.g., Cored, LLC v. Steve Hatcher et al., No. M2020-00083-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 5944067, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2020) (applying Rule 6.02 to this issue, but affirming the trial court's denial of the motion); Webster v. Isaacs, No. M2018-02066-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3946093, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2019) (same); Maness v. Garbes, No. M2008-00797-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 837707, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2009) (same); Ross v. Shelby Cty. Healthcare Corp., No. W2000-01553-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1078266, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2001) (same). Tennessee courts utilize a four-part test to determine whether an enlargement of time should be granted on the basis of excusable neglect.