A voluntary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a “judgment or decree . . . rendered against the plaintiff upon any ground not concluding the plaintiff's right of action.” See Watts v. Kroger Co., 102 S.W.3d 645, 647 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). The sole question posed by the defendant's motion in this case is whether the present Complaint is “saved” from the operation of the applicable statute of limitations by § 28-1-105(a).

ng with this admonition, Tennessee courts have consistently applied the principle that "after the taking of any nonsuit to the original action, any additional suits would have to be filed within one year of the first nonsuit to be within the purview of T.C.A. Sec. 28-1-105." Mount Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church v. Found. Capital Res., Inc., No. M2020-00107-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 352019, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2021) (quoting Payne v. Matthews, 633 S.W.2d 494, 496 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)); see also Rector v. DACCO, Inc., No. M2005-00294-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 1749525, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2006) (stating "the courts have made it clear that all complaints after the first one must be filed within one year from the date of the dismissal of the first complaint," and "plaintiffs who file their initial complaint in federal court enjoy the same one-year saving period that is available to plaintiffs who file their initial complaint in state court under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105(a)"); Watts v. Kroger Co., 102 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) ("plaintiff's third action brought more than one year after the dismissal of the first action is time barred"); Creed v. Valentine, 967 S.W.2d 325, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) ("the failure to bring the third action within one year from the original dismissal results in this case being time barred"); Knight v. Ram Nationwide, Inc., 100 Fed. App'x 419, 421 (6th Cir. 2004) (applying Tennessee law to affirm dismissal under rule that "when a suit filed within the applicable statute of limitations is dismissed without prejudice, any subsequent suit based on the same cause of action must be instituted within one year after the termination of the first action in order to be timely") (internal quotation marks omitted). In Frazier v. E. Tenn. Baptist Hosp., 55 S.W.3d 925, 927-28 (Tenn. 2001), the Supreme Court stated the applicable rule as follows:

An order that is subject to a pending, timely-filed motion to alter or amend does not constitute a final judgment. SeeWatts v. KrogerCo., 102 S.W.3d 645, 646-47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to award Mother post-judgment interest since August 31, 2004.

The Rule 60.02 Motion was filed nineteen (19) months later, and thus was beyond consideration. See,Watts v.Kroger Co., 102 S.W.3d 645 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002); Holiday v.Shoney's South, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000). Ignorance of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not justify relief. Kilby v. Sivley, 745 S.W.2d 284 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987).