Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (2026)

Correction of judgment - Mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect and fraud

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01, regarding clerical mistakes, shall apply to all courts of general sessions. The general sessions judge shall have the authority under the same circumstances and in the same manner as is provided in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 to correct such mistakes.

(b) Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, regarding mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect, fraud and other similar reasons set out in that rule, shall apply to all courts of general sessions. A motion under the general sessions court's authority under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 shall be filed within ten (10) days of the date of judgment. Once filed, the motion shall toll the ten-day period for seeking de novo review in the circuit court until the determination of the motion is concluded. Thereafter, an appeal for de novo review in the circuit court shall be filed within ten (10) days of the general sessions court's ruling on the motion to relieve a party or the parties' legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding in the same manner as provided in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02.

Acts 1859-1860, ch. 109; Shan., § 4600; mod. Code 1932, § 8724; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, §§ 2, 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 19-423; Acts 1993, ch. 241, § 44; T.C.A., § 19-1-116; Acts 2004, ch. 875, § 1; 2007, ch. 443, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Marcus Dorris, 556 S.W.3d 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Marcus Dorris, 556 S.W.3d 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 48× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b). Like the court in Johnson, we must conclude that 9 a party cannot deprive the general sessions court of its statutory authority to adjudicate a timely filed section 16-15-727(b) motion by filing an intervening notice of appeal.”

Benson v. Herbst, 240 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The transfer provisions in Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-15-732 (1994) were equally unavailable to Mr.”

Jackson Energy Auth. v. Diamond, 181 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “The appellate court reasoned that Tennessee Code Annotated § 16-15-727, which authorizes the General Sessions Courts to “correct” its own judgments, does not authorize the General Sessions Court to set aside its judgments.”

Valenen Collins v. Sams East, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 28× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b) (“Tenn. R.”

Harpeth Fin. Servs., LLC v. Corey Montez Lea, Sr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 16× “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b). Likewise, the circuit court determined that it “also lack[ed] jurisdiction, as [Mr.”

Apexworks Restoration v. Derek Scott (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 15× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b) (emphasis added).”

TBF Fin. LLC v. Jonathan Simmons (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 15× “02 relief is sought is that service of process was never achieved, thereby rendering the judgment void ab initio, to-wit: In reliance on Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 , Plaintiff argues that [the defendant's] motion to quash and set aside the October 6, 2004 judgment which was…”

John F. Curran v. Only Motorsports, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “On appeal to this Court, the defendant contended that the general sessions court correctly concluded that the time for filing a motion under section 16-15-727(b) did not begin to run until a party was notified of a judgment under Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.”

First Cmty. Fin. Servs. v. Ronald Simmons & Sunny Simmons (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “The court overruled the motion because it was filed more than ten days after the challenged judgments were entered and thus was not timely in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b). The defendants then appealed to the Circuit Court, which dismissed the appeal on the…”

Brookside Homeowners Ass'n v. Stan Vaught (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16× “That pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b), Plaintiff had ten (10) days to file a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court of the General Sessions Court‟s Order setting aside the default judgment.”

Tennessee Prot. Agency, Inc. v. Jordon D. Mathies (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 15× “Based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 , the court held that Mathies had failed to timely file his Rule 60.”

Linda Hanke v. Landon Smelcer Constr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (2007). Since that time, Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-727 was amended to provide as follows: (a) Tenn.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727(a) — 1 case

Linda Hanke v. Landon Smelcer Constr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (2007). Since that time, Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-727 was amended to provide as follows: (a) Tenn.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727(b) — 10 cases

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Marcus Dorris, 556 S.W.3d 745 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b). Like the court in Johnson, we must conclude that 9 a party cannot deprive the general sessions court of its statutory authority to adjudicate a timely filed section 16-15-727(b) motion by filing an intervening notice of appeal.”

Valenen Collins v. Sams East, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b) (“Tenn. R.”

TBF Fin. LLC v. Jonathan Simmons (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020). “02 relief is sought is that service of process was never achieved, thereby rendering the judgment void ab initio, to-wit: In reliance on Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 , Plaintiff argues that [the defendant's] motion to quash and set aside the October 6, 2004 judgment which was…”

Harpeth Fin. Servs., LLC v. Corey Montez Lea, Sr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-727 (b). Likewise, the circuit court determined that it “also lack[ed] jurisdiction, as [Mr.”

John F. Curran v. Only Motorsports, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “On appeal to this Court, the defendant contended that the general sessions court correctly concluded that the time for filing a motion under section 16-15-727(b) did not begin to run until a party was notified of a judgment under Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.