Raymond O. Hampton, the plaintiff/appellant, purchased a used truck from Tennessee Truck Sales, Inc., the defendant/appellee, which required extensive repairs shortly after the purchase. Disputing a $7,330 repair bill, Hampton claimed it was the seller's responsibility under warranty. Following a complaint filed in April 1996 against the seller and manufacturers for breach of warranties, the parties reached an agreed order in September 1996, where the manufacturers would pay a total of $4,800, and the seller would return the truck in good working condition. Hampton took possession of the truck but later filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the agreed order, citing material misrepresentation and claiming the truck had significant damages when returned.
The trial court dismissed Hampton's motion based on the doctrine of laches, determining that his seven-month delay in seeking relief prejudiced the defendant, as conditions had changed during that time. The court found that Hampton's delay was inexcusable and negatively impacted the rights of Tennessee Truck Sales. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that Hampton's claim was barred by laches, which requires both a substantial delay and resulting injury to another party.
The appellant acknowledges taking possession of his truck in September 1996 but claims it was not returned in good working condition, citing numerous issues such as serious oil leaks, engine problems, battery replacements, flat tires, and over $7,000 in body damage incurred during the appellee's possession. Despite the apparent condition of the truck, the appellant delayed seven months before filing a motion to set aside the agreed order, which undermines the appellee's ability to prove the truck's condition at the time of delivery. This delay supports the application of the doctrine of laches. The appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion; however, a RULE 60.02 motion requires a demonstration of such an abuse to warrant disturbing the trial court's decision. The court references Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co. and notes that relief from a final judgment is only available if a substantial right was likely affected. The trial court's judgment is affirmed, placing the costs on the appellant, with all judges concurring.
