Fredonia Mountain Nature Homeowners Associations, Inc. v. David Anderson, M2016-01021-COA-R3-CV

FMNHA sued to enforce homeowners’ association liens against Arthur and Helen Wiard for unpaid dues; the Wiards disputed the debt.
After nearly three years of litigation, the Wiards’ counsel was permitted to withdraw by order entered August 17, 2015; the order gave the Wiards 30 days to retain new counsel and did not stay the case.
The Chancery Court’s regular docket call (which the Wiards knew was scheduled) was held August 25, 2015; at that call the court set the case for trial on November 10, 2015 and a notice of the trial setting was mailed to the Wiards.
The Wiards did not appear at the November 10 trial (they say they did not receive the notice); the court entered judgment against them on December 7, 2015 for $9,766.88 plus costs.
The Wiards rehired prior counsel in February 2016 and filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion arguing the case was improperly set during an assumed 30‑day inactivity period; the trial court denied relief, finding no mistake, inadvertence, or surprise.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion: pro se litigants must monitor their cases, the withdrawal order did not stay proceedings, and the 30‑day period (if any) had expired well before trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02	Wiards: counsel withdrawal was intended to create a 30‑day window of inactivity; the case was inadvertently set for trial during that presumed window, so relief is warranted for inadvertence/mistake	FMNHA: the withdrawal order did not stay the case; Wiards (as pro se) were responsible to monitor the docket and did not follow up after withdrawal	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no inadvertence/surprise/mistake shown and pro se parties must keep informed

Wine v. Wine, 245 S.W.3d 389 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (Rule 60.02 is within trial court discretion)
Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (definition and review of abuse of discretion)
Furlough v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 60.02 relief is exceptional and burdensome to obtain)
Nails v. Aetna Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 289 (Tenn. 1992) (Rule 60.02 characterized as an exceptional remedy)
Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 798 S.W.2d 235 (Tenn. 1990) (Rule 60.02 provides an "escape valve")
Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (pro se litigants must comply with same procedural standards as counsel)
Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (courts should be fair to pro se litigants but not excuse noncompliance)