We also find no reversible error regarding the lack of evidence at the hearing. We recognize that Barbara's estate cites Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, No. W2012-02564-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 4774139, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2013), in which this Court stated that "the failure to allow a party to present proof to support his or her Rule 60.02 motion may be considered an abuse of discretion." In Gonzalez, however, this Court was "not confronted with the trial court's decision to deny Mother's request for Rule 60.02 relief, but rather with its decision to dismiss her Motion and refuse to allow a hearing," without considering the "proffered new evidence."
This Court has held that "the failure to allow a party to present proof to support his or her Rule 60.02 motion may be considered an abuse of discretion." Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, No. W2012-02564-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 4774139, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2013); see also Harper v. Harper, No. E2002-01259-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 192151, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2003) (holding that the court's refusal to hear proof related to a wife's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion was error). We are sensitive to the fact that this case proceeded during the COVID-19 pandemic, a world-wide public health emergency that affected the way Tennessee courts conducted business; however, the Tennessee Supreme Court's Order referenced in Mother's notice encouraged courts to "continue and even increase the use of telephone, teleconferencing, email, video conferencing or other means" in order to keep courts accessible to litigants.
One child was born to the marriage in 2002. As set out in Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, No. W2012-02564-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 4774139 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2013) ("Gonzalez I"), Ms. Gonzalez filed a complaint for divorce on April 5, 2010. Mr. Gonzalez answered and alleged that the parties were not legally married because, at the time of their wedding, Ms. Gonzalez was still married to her first husband, Carlos Escala, whom she wed in Chile in 1991 (the "Chilean marriage").