60.01 Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record, and errors therein arising from oversight or omissions, may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.
Rule 60.Relief From Judgments or Orders
Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 60 lets a court correct clerical mistakes in a judgment at any time, and separately lets a party seek relief from a final judgment for mistake, fraud, a void judgment, a judgment that has been satisfied or should no longer apply, or any other reason justifying relief — within a reasonable time, and within one year for the first two grounds — while abolishing the old writs of coram nobis and bills of review.
Full Text of Rule 60
60.02 Mistakes -- Inadvertence -- Excusable Neglect -- Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (3) the judgment is void; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that a judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) and (2) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this Rule 60.02 does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation, but the court may enter an order suspending the operation of the judgment upon such terms as to bond and notice as to it shall seem proper pending the hearing of such motion. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of error coram nobis, bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments [2009].
A modified Rule 60 procedure to obtain relief from a general sessions court judgment is available by statute, T.C.A. § 16-15-727.
Advisory Commission Comments [2017].
60.02. Rule 60.02 provides that a motion filed pursuant to the Rule "shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) and (2) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken." The Supreme Court, however, has held that "the reasonable time filing requirement of Rule 60.02 does not apply to petitions seeking relief from void judgments under Rule 60.02(3)." Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 260 (Tenn. 2015). But the Court went on to also hold in Turner that relief from a void judgment should nevertheless be denied "if the following exceptional circumstances exist: '(1) [t]he party seeking relief, after having had actual notice of the judgment, manifested an intention to treat the judgment as valid; and (2) [g]ranting the relief would impair another person's substantial interest of reliance on the judgment.' Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 66 (1982)." Id.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 60.01 lets a court fix clerical mistakes in a judgment, order, or other part of the record — along with errors from oversight or omission — at any time, on its own initiative or a party’s motion, with whatever notice the court thinks appropriate. Even while an appeal is pending, this kind of correction can still happen, before the appeal reaches the appellate court on its own, and afterward only with that court’s permission.
Rule 60.02 addresses something more consequential: relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding itself. On a party’s motion and on whatever terms are just, the court can grant relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party; a judgment that is void; a judgment that has already been satisfied, released, or discharged, or that rests on an earlier judgment since reversed, or that it would no longer be equitable to keep applying going forward; or any other reason justifying relief. The motion has to come within a reasonable time, and for the first two grounds, no more than one year after the judgment was entered. Filing the motion does not by itself pause the judgment’s effect, though the court can suspend it pending the motion on whatever bond or notice terms seem proper. The rule does not cut off a court’s separate power to hear an independent action for relief from a judgment, or to set aside a judgment obtained through fraud on the court itself, and it formally abolishes the old writs of error coram nobis and bills of review — whatever those older devices once did, a motion or an independent action under this rule now does instead.
Tennessee courts treat Rule 60.02 as a deliberately narrow escape valve against the ordinary finality of judgments, not a second chance to relitigate a case a party lost on the merits. Grounds (1) and (2) carry the strict one-year outer limit, but a truly void judgment under ground (3) is not bound by any fixed time limit at all — though a court can still decline relief from a void judgment where the party seeking it had notice, treated the judgment as valid for some time, and where undoing it now would unfairly disturb another party’s reliance on it. The catch-all fifth ground is read narrowly, reserved for circumstances that do not fit comfortably within the other four rather than serving as a general fallback whenever a party feels a judgment was unjust.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to ask for relief from a judgment based on mistake or fraud?
Within a reasonable time, and no more than one year after the judgment for those two grounds specifically. Rule 60.02 sets that one-year outer limit for relief based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and for relief based on fraud or misconduct by an adverse party.
Is there a time limit for asking a court to set aside a void judgment?
No fixed deadline applies to relief from a void judgment under Rule 60.02(3), though a court can still deny relief if the party seeking it had notice and treated the judgment as valid, and setting it aside now would unfairly disturb another party’s reliance on it.
Can a clerical mistake in a judgment be fixed at any time?
Yes. Rule 60.01 lets the court correct clerical mistakes and errors from oversight or omission at any time, on its own initiative or a party’s motion, even while an appeal is pending.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: relief from judgmentvoid judgmentclerical mistake correctioncoram nobis abolished
Advisory Commission Comments.
60.01: This Rule supersedes the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-1508 [repealed], 20-11-106 and 20-11-107, although it is generally consistent with the purpose of those statutes. The provisions of the Rule are somewhat more flexible than the statutory procedures.
60.02: This Rule supersedes chapter 7 of Title 27, T.C.A., dealing with the writ of error coram nobis, and Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 27-203, 27-204 [both repealed] dealing with bills of review. The Committee felt that it was better to bring together under one Rule the subject matter formerly covered by these statutes and to provide a simple remedy by motion or by separate suit to obtain relief under the circumstances set out in the Rule.