holding that ignorance of the law is not a proper ground for relief under Rule 60.02
How later courts described this case
- holding that ignorance of the law is not a proper ground for relief under Rule 60.02
- finding attorney’s uncertainty as to how to proceed does not constitute excusable neglect
- dealing with a motion under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 for relief from a final judgment due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect”
- trial court’s granting of Rule 60.02 relief reversed for failure to seek Rule 59 relief regarding post judgment facts after a trial on the me rits and notice of ap peal filed w here counsel w as bu sy an d un certain how to pro ceed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DROWOTA, Justice,
concurring.
In Henry v. Blount County Beer Board, 617 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Tenn.1981) this Court stated:
Once there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the beer permit distance ordinance, its validity can be restored only “by revocation or other elimination, such as attrition, of the discriminatorily-issued permits and licenses.” City of Murfreesboro v. Davis, 569 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tenn.1978).
At the time of entry of judgment in this case, [Henry] all discriminatorily-is-sued beer permits had been revoked and, consequently, the 2,000 foot rule was valid and in force in Blount County.
In the case at bar, at the time of entry of judgment (October 16, 1984), the discrimi-natorily-issued permit of 107 Package Store had not been revoked. After final judgment when the 107 Package Store’s permit was revoked, the Washington County Beer Board filed a Rule 60.02 motion on November 21, 1984, after the judgment of the Circuit Court had become final.
*898 The majority opinion holds that this is not a proper case for Rule 60.02 relief, and I agree. The defendant Beer Board should have filed a timely Rule 59, T.R.C.P., motion as Judge Brock suggests.
In Needham v. Beer Board of Blount County, 647 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn.1983), this Court held that a beer board can revoke a permit on the sole ground that the business establishment is in violation of the 2,000 foot rule. Thus the Washington County Beer Board may still restore its 2,000 foot rule but not in the procedural manner attempted in this case.
I am authorized to state that Justice HARBISON joins me in this concurring opinion.