Bryan McNeese v. Wendolyn Carol Williams, M2015-01037-COA-R3-CV

McNeese and the Williamses are neighboring landowners; a dispute over an easement led to litigation in 2014.
In August 2014, the parties' attorneys orally agreed to settle; counsel for the Williamses reduced the terms to a letter and prepared a draft agreed order.
At an October 27, 2014 hearing on the Williamses' motion to enforce the settlement, McNeese's then-attorney told the court he had authority to make the agreement but that McNeese no longer wanted him to sign the agreed order.
Despite that communication, the trial court entered an agreed order on November 4, 2014, requiring McNeese to complete construction tasks by March 31, 2015; the order was signed by the judge and counsel for the Williamses only.
McNeese (with new counsel) filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the agreed order, arguing he never authorized entry of the order and had repudiated the settlement prior to entry; the trial court denied relief as untimely and because it found a settlement had been reached.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court lacked power to enter a consent judgment after being informed of McNeese’s withdrawal of consent and that Rule 60 relief was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60.02(1) relief should be granted to set aside the agreed order	McNeese: he never consented to entry; his attorney was forbidden to sign; entry without his consent was mistake/neglect	Williamses: consent existed when agreement was made; it was unnecessary that McNeese consent at entry	Court: Relief warranted — court lacked authority to enter consent judgment after notice of repudiation; Rule 60 relief appropriate
Whether Rule 60.02(3) or (5) justifies relief because court had no authority to enforce unsigned, unannounced agreement	McNeese: judgment void or extraordinary circumstances justify relief because consent withdrawn prior to entry	Williamses: settlement need only exist when made, not at time of entry; trial cancellation evidenced settlement	Court: Judgment voidable; extraordinary circumstances present; consent must exist at moment of judicial sanction absent announcement in open court

Harbour v. Brown for Ulrich, 732 S.W.2d 598 (Tenn. 1987) (trial court cannot enter a consent judgment after being informed a party has withdrawn consent)
Ledbetter v. Ledbetter, 163 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2005) (consent must exist at time judgment is entered unless terms were announced in open court)
Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard governs review of Rule 60.02 rulings)