Jimmy E. Henderlight, Jr. v. David Henderlight

10/14/2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 24, 2026 Session JIMMY E. HENDERLIGHT, JR. v. DAVID HENDERLIGHT, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Wilson County No. 2022-CV-184 Charles K. Smith, Chancellor ___________________________________ No. M2025-00022-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ This litigation arises from a dispute between cousins who started a business together. During discovery, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to respond in good faith to the defendants’ requests for admission and deemed all requests admitted. Shortly thereafter, the court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s attorney leave to withdraw. The defendants/counter-plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted by and against them, relying on the admissions as well as declarations they submitted. The plaintiff failed to file any response to the motions for summary judgment. However, he did appear pro se at the summary judgment hearing and claimed that he was unaware of the summary judgment motions until two days earlier because he did not know that his email address had been provided to opposing counsel and the court, and he had not checked that email since his counsel withdrew. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to testify as to these facts. However, the court ultimately found that the plaintiff was properly served with the motions and had notice of the hearing date. Considering the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of the motions for summary judgment, in addition to the plaintiff’s admissions and his failure to respond to the statements of material facts, the court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Thus, the trial court dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiff and also granted the defendant/counter- plaintiffs damages on their counterclaims. The plaintiff retained counsel and timely filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting that his failure to respond to the summary judgment motions was due to excusable neglect. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s proffered excuse was a tactic for delay, he was not credible, and he acted intentionally. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KRISTI M. DAVIS and VALERIE L. SMITH, JJ., joined. Thomas M. Leveille, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jimmy E. Henderlight, Jr. Reid D. Leitner and Michael A. Caskey, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellees, Elite Ambulance LLC, David Henderlight, and Laura Henderlight. OPINION I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY In July 2022, Jimmy E. Henderlight, Jr., filed this lawsuit against his cousin David Henderlight (individually and in his capacity as a member of Elite Ambulance LLC), and Elite Ambulance LLC. According to the complaint, Jimmy had significant experience operating private ambulance businesses, and around 2015, he and his cousin David began to discuss opening a new private ambulance company. The complaint alleged that the parties entered into an agreement setting forth terms related to their new business, Elite Ambulance LLC. Essentially, Jimmy would contribute finances and equipment to assist with “start-up” of the business, while David would be in charge of its day-to-day operations. The complaint described various steps taken by both parties over the next several years in furtherance of the business. Ultimately, however, the complaint alleged that David refused to recognize Jimmy’s right to exercise an option to take majority ownership of the business. According to the complaint, David took the position that the company should be dissolved because it could not be salvaged financially. Jimmy’s complaint set forth claims for a declaratory judgment regarding his ownership interest, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. Jimmy was later granted leave to file an amended complaint, which added David’s wife, Laura, as a defendant due to her ownership of a minority interest in the LLC. He added claims against Laura for unjust enrichment, intentional interference with a business relationship, and inducement of breach of contract. David and Elite Ambulance filed a counter-complaint against Jimmy. They alleged that Jimmy had failed to disclose that he had operated his other ambulance companies “for multiple years [as] an unlicensed ambulance operation.” Specifically, they asserted that Jimmy’s LLC had been administratively dissolved, and yet he continued to apply for licenses listing the LLC as the licensee while operating the business as a sole proprietor. The counter-complaint alleged that David “would not have entered into any agreement with Jimmy [] regarding creation of the ambulance company if Jimmy [] had made this disclosure.” They claimed that Jimmy was not qualified to be the majority owner of a licensed ambulance service because he had been operating an unlicensed service for a decade in violation of state regulations, and therefore, they would not consent to the transfer of a majority ownership interest to him. David and Elite Ambulance also alleged that Jimmy had failed to provide all of the necessary start-up capitalization as agreed, which led to substantial debt obligations. They asserted counterclaims for fraudulent -2- concealment, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. In August 2023, the trial court entered an order finding Jimmy in contempt for failure to produce documents at a January hearing that were properly requested by a subpoena duces tecum. In September 2023, the trial court entered another order finding Jimmy in contempt based on his violation of a temporary restraining order by disposing of business assets. Around this time, Jimmy sought a protective order against the defendants “for propounding an unreasonable number of requests for admissions.” On October 27, the trial court denied Jimmy’s motion and ordered him to answer all admission requests propounded. The court also ordered him to respond to outstanding interrogatories and document requests within thirty days. Notably, regarding scheduling matters, the order provided: It is further ORDERED that trial in this case is hereby re-set for November 18-22, 2024, in the Chancery Court of Wilson County, Tennessee. The previous trial dates of March 11-14, 2024, are hereby reserved for the prospective summary judgment motion of Laura Henderlight. Counsel are hereby directed to appear at Court on March 13, 2024, for hearing on the prospective summary judgment motion of Laura Henderlight after the Court’s review of the pleadings on March 11-12, 2024. (emphasis added). On November 29, David and Elite Ambulance filed a motion for the court to deem all of their requests for admission admitted, as Jimmy had responded to all 123 with the statement that he was “without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny.” That same day, the defendants also filed a motion to compel responses to their written discovery, as Jimmy had not responded within thirty days as required by the October order. The motion to compel again noted that the court had “reserved” the previous trial dates of March 11-14 for the prospective summary judgment motion of Laura and directed counsel to appear for the summary judgment hearing on March 13 after the court’s review of the pleadings on March 11-12. Roughly two weeks later, on December 11, Jimmy’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The motion was heard on January 26, 2024, and Jimmy did not appear at the hearing. An order was entered on February 6 granting the motion to withdraw as unopposed, and it stated that all deadlines and orders would remain in effect. On February 2, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to deem the requests for admission admitted and on the motion to compel discovery, which had been filed on November 29. Jimmy appeared pro se at the hearing and requested an extension of thirty days to respond to the motions and seek counsel. The trial court denied his request for an extension, noting that his attorney had moved to withdraw in December and that Jimmy failed to appear at the hearing on that motion in January. The court entered an order deeming the requests for admission admitted that same day, noting that the requests had been served in August 2023 and that Jimmy had failed to respond in good faith. Regarding the motion to compel, the -3- court found that Jimmy had not responded to the discovery as ordered and that the defendants should be granted “a negative inference.” Also during the February 2 hearing, defendants’ counsel requested that David and Elite Ambulance be granted leave to set their own prospective summary judgment motion for March 11 to 14, on the same dates when Laura’s prospective motion was already set to be considered and heard. The trial court found this request to be well taken “in view of [Jimmy’s] prolonged failure to respond to multiple sets of written discovery request[s] . . . as well as [his] failure to answer the Defendants First Set Of Admission Request within the timeframe previously ordered by the Court in the order entered on October 27, 2024.” On February 9, David and Elite Ambulance filed their motion for summary judgment on all claims, encompassing not only those asserted against them in Jimmy’s complaint but also the counterclaims they asserted against Jimmy. They alleged that Jimmy had approached David to form a new ambulance company as part of a scheme that would allow him to profit from Medicare reimbursements while covering up his wrongdoing with prior companies. They alleged a multiyear operation to defraud not only Medicare but also the Tennessee Department of Health and the Internal Revenue Service. David and Elite Ambulance claimed that Jimmy had taxable income of millions of dollars but did not file any income tax returns for six years. They contended that David would not have entered into any agreement to form the new company if Jimmy had disclosed the nature of his operations. With respect to their “offensive” motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims for fraudulent concealment and breach of contract, they requested damages in amounts equal to various debts owed by Elite Ambulance to creditors, which David allegedly had to guaranty as a result of Jimmy’s failure to capitalize the business. For their “defensive” summary judgment motion, they argued that Jimmy could not prove the elements of his claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment, so those claims should be dismissed. The motion was supported by numerous documents, including declarations from David and an accountant, as well as Jimmy’s admissions. The motion included a notice of hearing, which stated that the summary judgment hearing would take place on March 13, 2024, after the court’s review of the pleadings on March 11 and 12, as directed in the October order and the court’s ruling on February 2. Laura filed a separate motion for summary judgment the same day, asserting that all of the claims against her in Jimmy’s amended complaint should be dismissed as well. Her motion also included a notice of hearing setting the matter for March 13. At the summary judgment hearing on March 13, Jimmy again appeared pro se. At the outset, the trial judge addressed Jimmy and stated that he had been informed by his clerks that “you came by and said you did not receive a copy of the motion for summary judgment” because of an issue with his email address. In light of that claim, the judge asked Jimmy how he knew that the court was having a hearing. Jimmy stated that when he was last in court on February 2, “March 11th was the date that was said” so he came to court on March 11. Jimmy explained that when he arrived, he was told that he was there on the wrong day. Jimmy said he also learned that the motions for summary judgment had -4- been sent to his email address. Jimmy said he explained that was not his “primary e-mail address” and “I hadn’t checked that e-mail address in months, and I wasn’t aware that [defense counsel] or anyone was trying to send me e-mail to that e-mail address that he had.” In response, defense counsel stated that the email address of record that the court clerk had for Jimmy was the same one on the motion to withdraw filed by his former attorney in December 2023. He further stated, “I’ve got copies of everything that his former attorney has filed and served, and on each one, she has that same e-mail address.” Counsel said he expected Jimmy would ask the court for more time to respond, but he asked the court to consider Jimmy’s credibility and the numerous other instances in which he had failed to respond. Counsel asked if the court was inclined to consider evidence on the issue, and the trial judge stated that he would give Jimmy an opportunity to put on any evidence to rebut the presumption that he was properly served with the motions by email. Jimmy was then placed under oath and testified. Jimmy again explained that he had come to court two days earlier, on March 11, believing that “we were having the court that day.” He said the person who assisted him pulled copies of the filings, which showed his email address on them. Jimmy testified that he had not been accessing that email account because he “didn’t anticipate anything was being sent to that e-mail.” The trial judge then questioned Jimmy about his prior knowledge of the March hearing date, and the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: How did you know about the court was being held on the 11th? That’s because we told you back in February -- JIMMY HENDERLIGHT: Yes. While we were here. THE COURT: -- that the motions for summary judgment would be heard on the 11th. JIMMY HENDERLIGHT: Yes. THE COURT: And so you knew it, but you didn’t file any response to the material? You see, the law requires in summary judgment under Rule 56 that -- under Rule 56, it’s required that -- read it exactly what it says, as opposed to paraphrasing, “that the person filing the motion shall file a separate, concise statement of material facts.” And he’s done that. And then it gives you no later than five days before the time for the hearing to set to file a response to those, either admit them, denial them, or not state some reason why you have not responded. But then I’ve talked to my clerks and I’ve looked at the file, and I find no response to these -- to these statements of -- that’s been filed by David and his wife Laura, and -- and you’re required to do that. And also they filed not affidavits, but they filed statements that you’ve not responded to with affidavits at all, either. They were sworn statements that they filed in lieu of affidavits. How -- why didn’t you do any of that? You knew the motion for summary judgment was coming up. Did you ask the clerk for a copy of it the -5-  day you were – JIMMY HENDERLIGHT: The day I was here, I asked, I said that wasn’t my e-mail address. She -- I’m sorry. I said I hadn’t accessed that e-mail address, and she said do you have another e-mail address that she could provide for [defense counsel’s] office, and I said yes, and I gave her the e-mail address. And I didn’t -- I didn’t know that I was supposed to file something to -- to as you’re responding. I mean, my problem is, is obviously I don’t have a counsel. I intended to, I tried to, but unfortunately I don’t have the funds to be able to retain counsel. So I wasn’t aware of that, of, I guess, of the rules of how those are to be done. And so that’s -- that’s the reason I didn’t file it. . . . I just, I had received things from my attorney through that e-mail address previous, but that’s -- I -- but I don’t use it for anything except for that. And I haven’t had any communication with the attorney in quite a while, and I didn’t anticipate any reason that there would be communication from my attorney since they were no longer representing me. So there was -- there was no reason for me to think that the Court or that [defense counsel] or anyone else would be sending me an e-mail to the address that I hadn’t given out to anyone. I didn’t provide that e-mail address to the Court or to anyone other than my attorney. The trial judge then ruled that Jimmy had failed to rebut the presumption that he had been properly served under the applicable rules. The judge noted that Jimmy’s email address was not only on the pleadings filed by his former attorney but also other documents in the clerk’s office, and he knew that the motions for summary judgment would be heard on March 11. The judge also questioned Jimmy’s claim that he lacked the money to afford an attorney given records indicating that he had earned millions in recent years. As such, the judge found that Jimmy had adequate notice of the hearing and ruled that the hearing would proceed. Turning to the merits of the summary judgment motions, the judge acknowledged that Jimmy had “a hard row to hoe” given that he had not responded to the statements of undisputed material fact or the summary judgment motions.1 The judge also granted a pending motion to deem a second set of requests for admission admitted in light of Jimmy’s failure to respond. The judge then set forth the undisputed facts, examined the claims asserted by or against the defendants, and explained why they were entitled to summary judgment on each one. The trial court entered a written order and judgment for damages against Jimmy on April 5, 2024. David was awarded $180,000 in damages for payroll taxes that Elite Ambulance owed the IRS, which Jimmy failed to pay, and sums of 1 See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06 (“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but his or her response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.”). -6- $128,948.40, $30,701.15, and $32,095.45 for debts owed to lenders that David had to personally guaranty due to Jimmy’s wrongful conduct. All claims asserted by Jimmy were dismissed. Because an issue remained outstanding regarding dissolution of Elite Ambulance, the trial court certified its order as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. Jimmy timely filed a motion to alter or amend on May 6, 2024.2 He first argued that many of the requests for admission had pertained to legal conclusions rather than facts, which he argued should not be considered when ruling on a summary judgment motion. He also asserted that the facts that were deemed admitted did not establish as a matter of law the elements of the defendants’ counterclaims or that his claims should be dismissed. Jimmy contended that, in the event the court allowed him to “withdraw the admitted matters” and respond to the summary judgment motions, he could demonstrate genuine issues of material fact. Jimmy also submitted a lengthy declaration. He described receiving emails from his attorney on January 26 and January 31, prior to the entry of the order of withdrawal, in which she advised him of the upcoming hearing on February 2. Jimmy’s declaration stated that he had not intended to represent himself, but he owed his prior counsel $48,000 and “did not have sufficient cash” to pay her or retain new counsel. He stated that he made efforts to obtain other counsel but was unable to do so prior to employing his current attorneys. Jimmy stated that when he appeared pro se at the February 2 hearing, “I heard the attorney for the Defendants say that a hearing would be held on a motion for summary judgment on March 11 but I did not know what that meant. I also was not aware of any such motion having been filed.” Jimmy also explained that he had used this particular email address to communicate with his previous attorney, but this was “an older email address” that he had stopped using otherwise. He stated that after his attorney advised him on January 31 that the proposed order allowing her withdrawal had been sent to the court, he “completely stopped checking that email address.” He said he did not realize that this email address “was on the certificate of service to the Order of Withdrawal” or that it had been provided to defense counsel. Jimmy said he “believed” that he would have at least thirty days to try to retain new counsel. He also described his appearance in court on March 11 when he thought the hearing was scheduled for that day but was informed that it was set for March 13. According to Jimmy, he asked what was set for hearing and was told that it was motions for summary judgment, and when he stated that he had not received any, the individual explained that they had been served to his email address. Jimmy stated that he did not dispute that the matters were emailed by counsel to his email address. However, he insisted that he was not “aware” of the motions until March 11. Jimmy stated, 2 The motion was timely filed because the thirtieth day fell on a weekend. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) (providing the notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days for an appeal as of right); Tenn. R. App. P. 21(a) (stating if the last day of a time period designated in the rules of appellate procedure falls on a weekend, the allowable time period extends to the next available day). -7- “Once I found out about the motions on March 11, 2024, I also was completely without knowledge of how to respond to the Motions.” Jimmy said he appeared at the March 13 hearing pro se but “did not have an understanding of what would happen that day” and “believed that the worst thing that could happen would be that my case against David Henderlight would be dismissed,” but he “did not understand that [he] was in danger of having a large judgment entered against [him].” Jimmy also stated that he had suffered from health issues in 2022 and 2023 that “impacted my ability to assist my lawyer in this litigation” and “fully understand these legal proceedings and to assist my attorney in responding to discovery.” He said he did not have access to many records and admittedly “did not provide my attorney with the information needed to fully respond to the First Set of Requests for Admissions.” His declaration also addressed the merits of the case and his involvement with Elite Ambulance and his prior companies. The day before the motion to alter or amend was set to be heard, Jimmy’s counsel filed a memorandum in support of his motion arguing, for the first time, that his failure to respond to the motions for summary judgment was due to excusable neglect. He argued that he had meritorious defenses and that the defendants would not be prejudiced by vacating the summary judgment orders and allowing withdrawal of the admissions. At the hearing the following day, the defendants asked the trial court to strike Jimmy’s late-filed memorandum, but the court declined to do so and continued the hearing instead in order to allow the defendants time to respond. In response, the defendants argued that they would in fact be prejudiced if the orders were set aside due to the outstanding debt obligations they owed to creditors. In addition, they submitted documents from simultaneous proceedings pending in tax court and claimed that Jimmy had failed to respond there as well, resulting in a judgment against him for about nine million dollars in unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest. The defendants argued that they were essentially in a race to achieve priority for their judgment over the tax lien. The defendants also noted that the court had already received testimony from Jimmy at the March 13 hearing and concluded that he had notice and the hearing should proceed. They argued that Jimmy’s claim that he did not check his email was suspect given his statement in court at the March 13 hearing that he had not checked that email in “months” and his declaration stating that he had checked it as recently as January 31. Thus, they asserted that Jimmy failed to establish any basis for relief under Rule 59, even assuming that excusable neglect was a proper argument to be made. To the extent that Jimmy sought to raise arguments in opposition to the summary judgment motion in his Rule 59 motion, the defendants argued that such a motion cannot be used to raise previously unasserted legal arguments.3 After a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the motion to alter or amend. It first found that Jimmy had not shown any of the usual grounds listed as the basis for Rule 3 Jimmy argued that the trial court should apply the factors applicable to motions to set aside default judgments. However, the defendants analyzed the motion using the excusable neglect factors found in Ferguson v. Brown, 291 S.W.3d 381, 389 (Tenn. Ct App. 2008). -8- 59 relief. It also found that “the record does not show excusable neglect.” The court noted that Jimmy was afforded the opportunity to present proof at the March 13 hearing and failed to rebut the presumption that he was properly served. Despite his statement in court on March 13 that he had not checked that email “in months,” the court found that he later admitted receiving email from his prior counsel on January 31, which, the court said, called his credibility “into substantial doubt.” The court found that the Rule 59 motion was “not well taken in view of the record in this case.” It noted Jimmy’s failure to respond to the requests for admission served on him in August 2023, and in October, while he was represented by counsel, the court had ordered him to respond to discovery by November and reserved the March dates for hearing Laura’s prospective summary judgment motion. The court noted that Jimmy did not respond to the discovery and was again told of the March hearing date at the February 2 hearing. Considering all of the circumstances, the court found that Jimmy’s statement at the March 13 hearing that he did not receive the motions “was a tactic for delay.” Simply put, the court found that Jimmy “is not credible in his statements to the Court, under oath, that he did not receive the summary judgment motion filings at his email address of record with the Court[.]” The court noted that the record contained documents from other cases reflecting instances in which Jimmy did not respond after notice was served, including the proceeding in tax court. The court additionally noted that Jimmy failed to pay federal income taxes for six years, operated ambulance companies without a proper license, and failed to pay payroll taxes, as found in the summary judgment order. The court concluded that Jimmy’s failure to respond to the summary judgment motions “was intentional and willful, not excusable neglect,” as he was properly served with the motions and had actual notice of the hearing date. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence of prejudice to David and Elite Ambulance, noting the lawsuits of creditors and that the damages awarded were due to amounts the defendants owed. Thus, the court denied the Rule 59 motion. Jimmy timely filed a notice of appeal.4 II. ISSUES PRESENTED Jimmy presents the following issues for review on appeal, which we have slightly restated: 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to alter or amend filed by Jimmy pursuant to Rule 59 based on excusable neglect in failing to respond to the motions for summary judgment; 2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in reliance on requests for admission as to legal conclusions that were deemed admitted by the trial court; 3. Whether the trial court erred in its ruling on the motions for summary judgment that Jimmy fraudulently concealed material known facts from the defendants when the facts did not establish that he had a duty to disclose the facts referenced; 4 Both sides filed motions to consider post-judgment facts while this case was pending on appeal. Those motions are respectfully denied. -9- 4. Whether the trial court erred in its ruling on the motions for summary judgment that Jimmy breached any asserted duty of loyalty or duty of fair dealing owed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 48-249-403 when the facts did not establish that Jimmy was a member of Elite Ambulance; 5. Whether the trial court erred in its ruling on the motions for summary judgment that Jimmy breached any written or oral agreement with defendants based on failure to provide start-up funding to Elite Ambulance when the facts did not establish Jimmy had a contractual obligation to provide funding beyond $500,000 and the vehicles; 6. Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claims of Plaintiff Jimmy Henderlight. In their posture as appellees, the defendants raise the following issues, which we have restated slightly: 1. Whether all summary judgment motions were properly granted because Jimmy Henderlight failed to file any response to the motions five days before the hearing as required under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03. 2. Whether Jimmy waived his appeal as to all summary judgment motions by not raising below any argument, response, opposition, or objection to any of the motions before the trial court granted the motions. 3. Whether Jimmy waived on appeal the issue of the trial court’s finding in the order denying the Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend that Jimmy’s failure to respond to the summary judgment motions was intentional and willful, not excusable. 4. Whether Jimmy’s appeal is frivolous and the defendants should be awarded damages under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122 in the form of attorney fees, costs, interest on the judgment, and/or expenses. For the following reasons, the decision of the chancery court is hereby affirmed. III. DISCUSSION5 A. Rule 59 Relief “It is well-settled that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to alter or amend may be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.” Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tenn. 2020). According to the Tennessee Supreme Court, The abuse of discretion standard of review envisions a less rigorous 5 As Jimmy notes in his brief, “[i]nstead of certain documents being placed in the record on appeal numerous times, the trial court clerk in several instances referenced back to the original location in the record for those documents.” We appreciate the clerk’s efforts to limit the size of the record on appeal, especially considering that it still spans nineteen volumes. - 10 -  review of the lower court’s decision and a decreased likelihood that the decision will be reversed on appeal. It reflects an awareness that the decision being reviewed involved a choice among several acceptable alternatives. Thus, it does not permit reviewing courts to second-guess the court below, or to substitute their discretion for the lower court’s. The abuse of discretion standard of review does not, however, immunize a lower court’s decision from any meaningful appellate scrutiny. Discretionary decisions must take the applicable law and the relevant facts into account. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision. A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Id. (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). “‘A motion to alter or amend should be granted when the controlling law changes before the judgment becomes final; when previously unavailable evidence becomes available; or to correct a clear error of law or to prevent injustice.’” In re March 9, 2012 Order, 637 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 410 S.W.3d 820, 826 n.2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012)). However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has also “recognized the availability of relief under Rule 59 on the ground of excusable neglect.” Youree v. Recovery House of E. Tenn., LLC, 705 S.W.3d 193, 205 (Tenn. 2025). The Court has explained that “Rule 59.04 and Rule 60.02(1) each provide a vehicle for seeking relief from orders entered as a result of ‘mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect[.]’”6 Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 492 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Ferguson, 291 S.W.3d at 387). “Rule 59.04 allows a party to seek relief from a judgment within thirty days after being entered; conversely, Rule 60.02 affords a party a means to seek relief from a final, non-appealable judgment.” Ferguson, 291 S.W.3d at 387. Here, Jimmy timely filed a motion to alter or amend, so “Rule 59.04 is the applicable rule.” See id. (noting that the plaintiff “was seeking relief from the order of summary judgment due to counsel’s mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect,” and that summary judgment order was not yet final and appealable, so the motion should be construed as a Rule 59.04 motion). Thus, “we construe this motion as a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment on the basis of mistake or excusable neglect and will review it using standards similar to those used to review Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) 6 Rule 59.04 provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed and served within thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04. Rule 60.02 provides, in pertinent part, “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[.]” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. - 11 - motions on similar grounds.” Madu v. Madu, No. M1999-02302-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1586461, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2000). Here, Jimmy seeks to obtain relief from a summary judgment order pursuant to Rule 59.04 on the basis of excusable neglect. In Ferguson, where the plaintiff similarly asserted excusable neglect due to his attorney’s failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion or attend the hearing, we explained: Not all negligence can be indulged for to do that “would read out of the excusable neglect principle the requirement that the neglect must first be found excusable.” State ex rel. Sizemore v. United Physicians Ins. Risk Retention Group, 56 S.W.3d 557, 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). An attorney’s mere oversight or negligence, without more, does not automatically amount to excusable neglect. Madu v. Madu, No. M1999-02302-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1586461, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2000) (citing State ex. rel. Jones v. Looper, No. M1999-00662-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 354404, at *13 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 7, 2000); Barber & McMurry, Inc. v. Top-Flite Dev. Corp., 720 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)). In determining whether excusable neglect existed on behalf of the moving party, “the burden is on the movant to set forth, in a motion or petition and supporting affidavits, facts explaining why the movant was justified in failing to avoid the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Tennessee Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Barbee, 689 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tenn. 1985) (quoting Tennessee State Bank v. Lay, 609 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980)). Excusable neglect may have causes ranging from forces beyond a party’s control to forces within its control. Sizemore, 56 S.W.3d at 567. “It may encompass simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness.” Id. (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). Accordingly, excusable neglect may apply to certain situations in which failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to that party’s negligence. Id. (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 394, 113 S.Ct. 1489; Marx v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 1996)). Whether neglect is excusable is an equitable determination “taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489; Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, 958 F.Supp. 1231, 1241 (E.D. Mich. 1997)). The relevant circumstances envelop the big picture of both causes and effects, including: (1) the danger of prejudice to the party opposing the late filing, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on proceedings, (3) the reason why the filing was late and whether - 12 -  that reason or reasons were within the filer’s reasonable control, and (4) the filer’s good or bad faith. These circumstances must be weighed both with and against each other because, if considered separately, they may not all point in the same direction in a particular case. Id. (internal citations omitted). Ferguson, 291 S.W.3d at 388.7 The trial court did not expressly delineate this list of factors in its analysis. However, its findings in support of its decision reflect that it essentially considered the same factors substantively. The first factor to consider is the danger of prejudice to the party opposing the late filing. Id. (citing Sizemore