Although motions based on Rule 60.02(5) are subject only to the “reasonable time” limitation, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02; see also Rogers, 50 S.W.3d at 446,Rule 60.02(5) has been construed narrowly by Tennessee's courts. See Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 94 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (citing Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn.1993)). Rule 60.02(5) does not “relieve a party from his or her free, calculated, and deliberate choices.

"A Rule 60.02 motion for relief from a judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the court's ruling on a Rule 60.02 motion may not be reversed on appeal unless it is determined that the court abused its discretion." Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citations omitted). Under this standard, we are not permitted to "substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court[,]" and the trial court's ruling will be upheld "unless it affirmatively appears that the decision was against logic or reasoning, and caused an injustice or injury to the party complaining."

Although motions based on Rule 60.02(5) are subject only to the "reasonable time" limitation, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02; see also Rogers, 50 S.W.3d at 446, Rule 60.02(5) has been construed narrowly by Tennessee's courts. See Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn. 1993)).

Although motions based on Rule 60.02(5) are subject only to the “reasonable time” limitation, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02; see also Rogers, 50 S.W.3d at 446, Rule 60.02(5) has been construed narrowly by Tennessee's courts. See Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 94 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (citing Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn.1993)). Rule 60.02(5) does not “relieve a party from his or her free, calculated, and deliberate choices.”

Although motions based on Rule 60.02(5) are subject only to the “reasonable time” limitation, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 ; see also Rogers, 50 S.W.3d at 446, Rule 60.02(5) has been construed narrowly by Tennessee's courts. See Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 94 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (citing Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn.1993) ). Rule 60.02(5) does not “relieve a party from his or her free, calculated, and deliberate choices.”Id.

Although motions based on Rule 60.02(5) are subject only to the "reasonable time" limitation, . . . Rule 60.02(5) has been construed narrowly by Tennessee's courts. See Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn. 1993)).

Accordingly, a Rule 60.02 motion for relief from a judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's ruling on a Rule 60.02 motion may not be reversed on appeal unless it is determined that the court abused its discretion. Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 92-93 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000) (citing Underwood, 854 S.W.2d at 97 (Tenn. 1993); Banks v. Dement Constr. Co., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991); Toney v. Mueller Co., 810 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Tenn. 1991); Travis v. City of Murfreesboro, 686 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tenn. 1985); Spruce v. Spruce, 2 S.W.3d 192, 194 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998); Day, 931 S.W.2d at 939; Ellison v. Alley, 902 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1995)). Alimony in solido, like the division of marital property, is not modifiable as a matter of law once the order is final.

In the case of removals from general sessions court, Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-732(a) requires a circuit court to ignore judgments, including non-suits, which occurred in the general sessions court. Working together, the statutes require a circuit court to consider only non-suits which have taken place in the circuit court when applying the savings statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(a). The case at bar is materially indistinguishable from Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000). The history of the litigation in Holiday is set forth in the opinion of this Court by footnote.

While the language of Tenn. R.Civ.P. 60.02(5) could be read to suggest a broad application of its terms, it has been "very narrowly" construed by the courts of this state. Holiday v. Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90, 94 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000); Steioff, 833 S.W.2d at 97; Duncanv. Duncan, 789 S.W.2d 557, 564 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990). Two applications of the rule have been recognized.

Indeed, in applying the standard of Tennessee State Bank v. Lay, it is difficult to imagine a more compelling case for reversal. Even if we are not dealing with a default judgment but are, in fact, dealing with the abuse of discretion rule, Holiday v. Shoney's S., Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000), the facts disclosed by the record still justify reversal. While it is unnecessary to discuss Rule 60.02(5), which "affords relief in the most extreme, unique, exceptional, or extraordinary cases and generally applies only to circumstances other than those contemplated in sections (1) through (4) of Rule 60.02," Holiday, 42 S.W.3d at 94, a study of this record as a whole shows a case that is indeed "extreme, unique, exceptional, or extraordinary".