the party seeking relief from a judg ment has the burden of proving he or she is entitled to relief. See Nelson, 826 S.W.2d at 485; Walker v. Baker, 738 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987). Rule 60.02 provides for relief, “on such terms as are just,” from final judgments, orders, or proceedings based on the following grounds: (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 reas pp.1981) (<HOLDING>). Relying upon Terminix Int’l Co. v. Tapley,
holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief from default judgment because notice to an attorney of filing of motions and orders is constructive notice to the client even when the client did not have actual notice holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice holding that when counsel was present when a trial date was announced and received written notice of the date even though the client did not receive notice the attorneys knowledge was imputed to the client holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client