Id. at 101. See also Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (finding that an affidavit, which stated "[m]y wife hastaken a considerable amount of our property which I feel the court would have awarded to me if I could have been present at the hearing," did not assert a meritorious defense).

("When the trial court hears the evidence, but the evidence is not included in the record on appeal, it is presumed that the evidence supports the ruling of the trial court.") (citing Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)); see also McKinney v. Educator & Exec. Insurers, Inc., 569 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977). We observe that neither party challenges the factual findings of the court, and upon our review of the record, specifically the proof filed by the parties that was before the court at the time it rendered its decision, we conclude that they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Other courts have come to similar conclusions under somewhat similar circumstances. Cf. State v. Jones, No. M2015-00720-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 3621513, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2016) (holding that the defendant could not show reversible error in the trial court's denial of his purported request to proceed pro se because "[w]ithout the transcript of the March 1, 2013 hearing, we must presume that the trial court was correct when it ruled that Defendant's request, made three days before the scheduled trial date, was merely a delay tactic"); see also Freels v. Jones, No. E2002-00895-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 104621, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2003) (citing Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)) (holding that the defendant could not show a reversible error in the failure to have a jury trial because the trial court "found that defendant had waived her right to a jury trial, and absent any transcript of evidence to show otherwise, this Court must presume that the evidence would support the [t]rial [c]ourt's ruling"). Thus, even in the criminal law context, with its heightened procedures, a party's failure to present a proper record upon which this Court can evaluate the trial court's decision has proven fatal to his or her argument on appeal.

Since Patterson was decided, we have found similar conclusory statements were insufficient. See, e.g., Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (affidavit stated "[m]y wife has taken a considerable amount of our property which I feel the court would have awarded to me if I could have been present at the hearing"); cf. Reynolds, 108 S.W.3d at 253 (opining that defendant's averment that they were "now prepared to answer or otherwise plea to the complaint" was insufficient). Defendant asserts that "she was denied the opportunity to appear and present evidence in support of an accurate accounting of the Lambert-Babcock Partnership."

Furthermore, mere conclusory statements suggesting a meritorious defense are insufficient. "A conclusory statement, such as '[the movant] believes itself to have a good and valid defense,' is insufficient" to establish a meritorious defense. Pryor, 338 S.W.3d at 887; see also Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (finding that an affidavit, which stated "[m]y wife has taken a considerable amount of our property which I feel the court would have awarded to me if I could have been present at the hearing," did not assert a meritorious defense). Here, Defendants set forth no specific facts, no proof, to support their arguments that they have a meritorious defense to the amount of damages awarded.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 55.02; Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02; Patterson v. Rockwell Int'l, 665 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tenn. 1984); Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). Trial courts should construe Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02's requirements liberally when a party is seeking relief from a default judgment.

Mfrs. Consolidation Serv., Inc. v. Rodell, 42 S.W.3d 846, 865 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000); (citing Coakley v. Daniels, 840 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992); Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1988)); accord Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, 752 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1988) ("When the trial court hears the evidence, but the evidence is not included in the record on appeal, it is presumed that the evidence supports the ruling of the trial court." (citing Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1986))). The presumption that the evidence supports the trial court's findings has been termed "conclusive."

Id. at 101. See also, Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1986) (finding that an affidavit, which stated "[m]y wife has taken a considerable amount of our property which I feel the court would have awarded to me if I could have been present at the hearing," did not assert a meritorious defense). This requirement does not apply where the 100.

The plaintiff's affidavit supporting his motion states, "[I]f I had known that a default judgment was being sought against me and a trial had been set, I would have come into Court and defended this action against me and made a claim for my portion of the marital estate." This Court has found a similar statement to be too conclusory to constitute a meritorious defense to a suit for divorce. Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1986) (finding the following statement to be too conclusory: "My wife has taken a considerable amount of our property which I feel the court would have awarded to me if I could have been present at the hearing."). In Turner, however, this Court did not have a transcript of the proceedings for the Rule 60 motion.

Code § 20-124.2:1 provides, "In any proceeding in a court of record to determine custody or visitation, when the court conducts an in camera interview of a minor child whose custody or visitation is at issue without the presence of the parties or their counsel, a record of the interview shall be prepared, unless the parties otherwise agree."See e.g., Waddell v. Waddell, 2004 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 726, *8 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004); Reuter v. Neese, 586 So. 2d 232, 235 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Dreyer v. Smith, 592 S.E.2d 594, 596-97 (N.C.App. 2004); Turner v. Turner, 739 S.W.2d 779, 780 (Tenn.App. 1986). This Court has "'many times pointed out that on appeal the judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct and the burden is on the appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can determine whether the lower court has erred in the respect complained of.'"