T en n. C t

. A p p

. R

. 1 0 st ates: 1

T hi s C o urt , wi t h t he co ncurrence of al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af firm , r e v e rs e o r m o d i f y t he

ac t i o ns o f

t he t rial co urt b y m em o ran d um o p i nio n w he n a f o rm al o p i nio n w o uld ha ve no p rec ed en t i al value

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed by m em o randum o p i ni o n i t shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " shal l no t be pub l i shed, and

s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 10, 200 7 S es sio n

MIK E CAMPBELL v. COUNTRY HO MES, I NC. , ET AL


### . Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Cheatham County No. 5591 G eorge C. Sexton, Circ uit Jud ge

No. M2006- 1886-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on Ju ly 31, 2007

On this appea l, it is alleg ed the tria l court abuse d its discretion by dismiss ing appellant’s complaint for f

ailure to obe y

an orde r com p el l i n g discovery and for ref using to va cate that order

. F ind ingno a

bu se of dis c re tio n, we a ff

ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d.

D ONAL D P. H A R R IS , S R

. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined.

Jer ry W. H a mli n, As hla

nd City , T e nn e sse e , f

or the a pp e lla nt, Mik e Campb e ll.

Arthur E. Mc Clellan, L ance A. Wray , for the a ppellee, Country

Homes, Inc.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 1
On September

9, 2004, the appe llant, Mike Campbell filed suit ag ainst Country Homes, I nc. (Country Homes), a

nd Pat Mulloy , doing busine ss as Mulloy Plumbi ng

. The c omplaint alleg ed Mr. Campbell had c o n t rac ted with Country Homes, in late 1998, to per form the c onstruction of a log house on proper

ty owned by him in P eg ram, Te nnessee . Country Homes contra cted with Pat Mulloy to desig n and construc t the plumbing and se ptic sy stem. On September 9, 2000, Campbell alleg ed he re turned to the c ompleted home to find it flooded. Shortly there afte r, a “ test ball” wa s discovere d in the sewe r line ca

using the blockag e. Remediation of t he dama g es took until October 2001. On No ve mbe r 1 3, 20 01 , M r. Campb e ll e mpl oy e d an env ir on me nta l c on su lti ngfi rm to d o a ir qu a lity-2-

testing a nd was a dvised of the pr esenc e of toxic mold growth in the ba sem ent ar ea of the home. B a se d u po n a ssu ra nces the ho me wa s sa fe to l ive in, Mr . Ca mpb e ll c on tin

ue d to liv e the re bu t,

acc ording to the complaint, develope d various phy sical sy mptoms. On March 29, 2002, Mr. Campbell ag ain had the a ir quality in the home tested a

nd discovere d the pre sence of t ox ic m old on the first floor of the home and in the baseme nt a rea

. On May 13, 2002, he was advised to vac ate the

re sid e nc e

. As a re su lt, Mr

. Campb e ll a lle g e d he wa s dis pla c e d fr om his ho me , d e pr ive d o f a c c e ss to hi s p e r s o nal prope rty , furnishing s and belong ings, a nd suffe red e conomic loss, mental anguish and loss of enjoy

ment of life. The lawsuit alleg ed the cre ation of a nuisance and brea ch o f c o n t ract inc lud ingbr e a c h o f i mpl ie d w arr anti e s.

The c omplaint was verif

ied by Mr. Campbell. The summons that was filed w ith the court simult aneously

with the complaint, stated, “Y ou are also requir ed to serve a copy of y our Answe r upon plaintiff’s attorne y , or the pr o s e plaintiff as set out below.” The name a nd addre ss list ed wa s “Mike Campbell, P.O 250, Peag ram (sic ), TN 37143.” A cost bond attac hed to the complaint was si gn ed b y a l i ce nsed attorne y , Howar d B. B arnw ell (Mr. B arnw ell). The r eturn of se rvice on the summons was also executed by Mr. B arnw ell, toge ther with an affidavit of Mr. Bar nwell executed in J ackson County , Alabama , stating his qualific ations to act as pr ocess se rver and that he ha d eff ecte d service on Country

Homes, Inc., on Oc tober 4, 2004.

On Oc t o b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , Ar t h u r M cC l el l an an d t h e f i rm o f M cC l el l an , P o we rs , E h m l i n g & Roge rs, P.C. filed a

formal notice of appe ara

nce on be half of Country

Homes. A c opy

of the notice

was ser ved on Mr. Campbell at t he address not ed on the s ummons. On November 1, 2004, C ountry Home filed its answe r and ma iled a copy to Mr. Campbell at the addr ess noted on the summons. Mr. Mulloy filed his answe r on Nove mber 5, 2004, a nd mailed a c opy

to Mr. Ba

rnwe ll.

On Novembe r 10, 2004, Country Homes propounde d to Mr. Campbell a r eq u es t for admissions pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Civi l Procedure , and Interrog atories a nd Request for the P ro d u cti on of Doc uments pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the T ennesse e Rules of Civil Procedur e. The se docume nts were forwa rded t o M r. Campbell by cer tified mail and we re
acc epted a

nd signe d for by

a Ms. B ridg et L . Dobbins on November 15, 2004.

On Dec ember

29, 2004, Mr. Barnwe ll, as attorney for plaintiff, filed a motion for e x tension of time to answer

the discover

y reque sts. There is no indication this motion wa s set for he aringor oth e rw ise a c te d u

po n. Atta c he d to the mot ion wa s a c e rt if ic a te of se rv ic e e xec ute d b y

Mr . B arnwe ll,

cer tify ing he mailed copies of the motion to the attorney s for Country Home and Mulloy . On that same date, a response to the requests for a dmission was filed but there is no indication it was mailed to or in any

way serve d on adver sary

counsel.

On Janu ary 20 , 2 00 5, Countr

y Ho me s file d a motio n to dee m its re qu e st fo r a dmi ssi on s to have be e n a dmi tte d a

nd a mot ion to c omp e l di sc ov e ry

. Th e se mot ion s w e re ma ile d to Mr . Ca mpb e ll. Mr. Mulloy

filed similar motions on J anuar y 25, 2005, and mailed co p i es t o M r. B arnw ell. The motions of Count ry

Homes and Mr . Mulloy

wer e set for hearing on the same date, Fe bruar y 7, 2005.-3-

On Fe bruar

y 7, 2005, Country

Homes and Mulloy

appea red in Circuit Court for Cheatham County . The court order ed the r equest for admissions be deeme d admitted and fur ther orde red Mr

. Campbell to provide counse l for Country Homes re sponses to the discover y reque sts no later than thirty day s from the date of the or der. This or der was enter ed by the cour t on Febr uary 22, 2005, and

a c op y wa s ma ile d to b oth

Mr . Ca mpb e ll a nd Mr . B arnwe ll. A s imi lar o rd e r w a s e nte re d in be ha lf of Mr . M ull oy

on F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 5, and

wa s ma ile d to bo th M r. Campb e ll a nd Mr . B arnwe ll.
On April 4, 2005, Country Homes filed a

motion for summary

judgme nt bas ed upon the applicable statute of limitations and statute of re pose and the reque sts for admission that had bee n deeme d admitted b y t he cour t. On May

20, 2005, Country

Homes filed a

motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 3 7

. 0 2 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure. The motion for sanctions reque sted the cour

t dismiss Mr. C ampbell’s complaint for his failure to comply with the Fe bruar

y 22, 2005, order

compelling discovery

. These motions wer e sent by mail to both Mr. Campbell and Mr . B arnwe ll.

On the date these motions were to be hea rd, June 30, 2005, an attorney , J err y W. Hamlin, appea red in Mr. Campbell’s behalf and reque sted an extension of thirty day s within which to respond to the motions. The court continued the hear ing on the motions unt il August 5, 2005. On that date, the cour t gr anted the motions for summar y judgme nt f

i l ed i n b ehalf of Country Homes and Mr

. Mulloy . Additionally , the cour t gr anted Country

Home’s moti o n for sa

nctions and dismissed the complaint for Mr. Campbell’s failure to comply with pr evious order s of the court. This order w as filed September

14, 2005.

On Octobe r 11, 2005, a motion to vacate the order g ranting summary judgme nt and the orde r of d is mi s s a l w a s f

il e d in b e h a lf o f M r

. Ca mp b e ll

. T h e mo ti o np o in te d o u t t h a t a r e s p o n s e to the reque st for admissions ha d, in f act, been filed with the court on Dec ember 29, 2004. This motion

was e ventually

hear d by the cour t on Aug ust 7, 2006. The trial cour t gr anted the motion to set aside its pre vious or ders g ranting summary judgme nt to both C ountry Homes and Mulloy

but denied the mot ion to s e t a sid e the dis mis sa l of Cou ntry Ho me s a s a

sanc tio n f

or Mr . Ca mpe ll’ s f a ilure to comply with the trial cour t ’s p re vious discovery order s. From this ruling , Mr. Campbell has

a pp e a le d a lle g ingthe tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in dis mis sin g the c a se a s to Countr y Ho me s and

in f a ili ngto

va c a te its or de r o f d ism iss a l.

Cle a rl y , a tr ia l c ourt

ha s th e dis c re tio n to dis mis s an a c ti on whe re a party pla int if f f a ils to obey an orde r compe lling discove ry . Rule 37.02 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil Procedur e provide s that w he re a pa

rt y fa ils to ob e y an or de r to pr ov ide dis c ov e ry , the c ourt may , amon g oth e r s anc tio ns , issue an orde r “dismissing the a ction or proce eding or any part ther eof, or

rende ring a judg ment by de fa ult a g a ins t th e dis ob e die nt p art y .” Te nn . R. Civ . P. 37 .0 2( C) . Wh e n th e tr ia l court e xer c ise s it s discretion in imposing the sa nction of di smissal, its action will not be dis turbed by this court in the absenc e of a

n aff irmative showing that the trial cour t ab u s ed it s discretion. Holt v. Webster, 638 S.W .2d 391, 394 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982); He mmer v. Tenne ssee Ele ctric Powe r Co., 24 Tenn. App. 42, 139 S.W .2d 698 (1940).-4-

Th e a bu se of dis c re tio n s tand ard

ha s b e e n s ta te d i n vary in g wa y s. I n Wh ite v. Va

nd e rb ilt Univ., 21 S.W .3d 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) , this court stated that discre tionary decisions of a

trial court will be set a side only when " the trial cour

t has misconstrued or misapplied the controlling leg al pr inc ipl e s or ha s ac te d inc on sis te ntl y wi th the su bs tanti a l we ig ht of the e vid e nc e ." I d. a t 223. Th is

c ourt ha s a lso sa id t

hat un de r t

he a bu se of dis c re tio n s tand ard , a

tr ia l c ourt ' s r

uli ng" wi ll b e up he ld so long as rea sonable mi nds can disag ree as t o propriety of t he decision made." Buss-F linn v. Flinn, 121 S.W .3d 383, 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) ( quoting, S t ate v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 20 00 )) . T he Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court ha s sai d tha t a tria l cou rt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n o nly

wh e n it "a pplies an incorr ect leg al standar d, o r re ac h es a decision which is ag ainst logic or re asoning that

cause s an injustice to the par t y co m p l aining ." State v. Shirley , 6 S.W .3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)

. Ho we ve r i t is state d, it i s c le ar t hat th e a bu se of d is cret io n s tand ard do e s n ot p e rm it the a

pp e llate court to substitute its j udg ment for that of the trial court. My int v. Allstate I ns. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998) ; Buss-F linn, 121 S.W .3d at 390.

We rec og nize that dism issal is a harsh sanc tion. However , it is specifically authorized by

the Rules, and there are reasons for its im position. The trial courts of Te nnessee must and do have the dis c re tio n to imp os e sanc tio ns su c h a s d ism iss a l in or de r to pe na lize tho se wh o fa il to c omp ly wi th the Rules and, fur

ther, to dete r others f

rom flouting or

disreg ardin g d i s co v er y

order s. Holt, 638 S.W .2d at 394.

Mr. Campbell in the instant c ase was g iven consider able oppor tunity to comply

with the trial

cour t' s o r d e r s

. Y e t, th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t r e f le c t h e ma d e an y e f

f o rt to p r o v id e a r e s p onse to the reque sts for discover

y prior to the time the trial c o u rt ref used to vac ate the dismissal of his ca se. There was ample opportunity for Mr. Campbell to ha

ve provided the reque sted discover y even a fter Country Homes filed its motion for sanctions. That motion was filed Ma y 20, 2005. I t was not hear d until August 7, 2 0 0 5

. Even a fter the trial court dismissed the ca se as a sanction for

Mr. Camp b e ll ’ s f

a il u r e to o b e y

th e o r d e r c o mp e ll in g d is c o v e r

y , th e r e is n o in d ic a ti o nh e p r o v id e d the

re qu e ste d in fo rm a tio n in

c on jun c tio n w ithhis e ff

or t to have the c ourt

va c a te tha

t or de r. Un de r t

ho se circ umst an c e s , w e s im

p ly c an n o t f

in d th e tr ia l c o u rt a

b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o n b y e n te r in g an order of dismiss al or by

ref using to va cate that order

. Finding no abuse of

discretion, we aff

irm the trial j udg e' s order of di smissal. The costs of this appeal shall be ta x ed to the appe llant, Mike Campbell. The ca use is remande d to the trial court fo r a ny fu rt he r n e c e ssa

ry pr oc e e din g s.

___________________________________ DONAL D P. HARRI S, SENI OR J UDGE