RUL E 1 0
. M E M ORANDUM OPI NI ON 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m em o randum o p i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue . W he n a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ”, s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

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

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s S ep te m be r 6, 200 6
BARRY BASS v . LARRY D. BI LLE AUDEAUX, JR., ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. CT-000575-06 John R. Mc Carr oll, Jud ge

No. W2006-01219-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Septem ber 27, 2006

This is a per sonal injury

action. Thetrial court a war ded summary judgme nt to Defe ndants based on the statut e of

lim itatio ns . We re ve rs e a ndre ma ndfo r f urthe r p ro c e e din g s.
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 uit

Co ur t R e ve r se d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Ba rry Ba ss, Pr o s e
. Robert M Fa

rg arson, Me mphis, Tenn es see, f or the a ppellees, L arry

D. B illeaudeaux , J r., Kathy Ru tl e d g e a n d L arr y

B il le au d e au x.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
This lawsuit arises fr om an Aug ust 27, 2004, automobile acc ident in which Plaintiff Ba rry Ba ss (Mr. B ass) a lleg ed that a vehicle operated by Def endant L arry

D. B illeaudeaux , J r. (L arry ), then sevente en y ear s of ag e, cr ashed throug h the front window of the Super N avy Marke t in Mil lingtonT he reco rd ref l ect s t hat M r. B ass ha d o b t ai ned legal c o unsel a t so m e t i m e p ri o r t o D ecem b er 22 , 20 0 4 , and 2
t h at c ou n s el de cl i n ed f

u r t h er r epr es en t at i on on J u l y 13, 2005. -2- a n d i n j u re d M r. Ba s s , wh o wa s a c u s t o m eri n t h e s t o re
. Ac t i n g pro s e a n d o n a n a f f ida vit of 2 indige nce, on O ctober 3, 2005, Mr. Ba ss filed a c ause of action in the Shelby

CountyCourt of G e n e r a l S e s s i o n s a g a i n s tL ar r y an d h i s p a r e n t s , La r r y B i l l e au d e au x a n d K a t h y R u t l e d g e ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, Def endants). T he g ener al sessions co u rt d ismiss ed the a ction based on the one y ear limit ations period pre scribed by

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 28-3- 104.
Mr. Ba ss a

ppeale d to c ircuit court. On Fe bruary 16, 2006, Def

endants a nswere d and moved for dismissal based on the statute of limitations. On Februa ry 2 1 , 2006, Mr. B ass filed a “motion for c onsideration” a sserting he suffe red seizures, mental reta rdation, and schizophrenia. Also in the
re c or d are a c lin ic a l re po rt a nd c or re sp on de nc e fr om the Ve te rans Me dic a l Ce nte r in Mem ph is indicating that Mr. Bass does i ndeed suffer from mental reta rdation and schizophrenia. On Mar ch 2, 2006, Def

endants filed a

statement of undis p u ted fa cts, asserting Mr. B ass had f iled his action outside the one-y ear

limit ations period. Mr. B ass re plied on Marc h 14 and Mar ch 17, asse rting incompetenc y
. The recor d further contains corresponde nce dated Mar ch 9, 2006, fr om the Mental Hea lth Cl inic of the Ve tera ns Medi cal Center af firming that Mr. B ass suffe rs schizophrenia a nd mod e rat e men tal ret ard a tio n. On June 1, 20 06 , th e tr ia l c ou rt a wa rd e d s umm ary

jud g me nt t o Def endants ba sed on the limitations period. Mr. Ba ss now appea ls.
On app e a l to thi s Co urt, M r. B a ss’ s a rg ume nt, in i ts e nti re ty

state s:
Dea r Judge I had a License d of Attorney he stop helping me on J uly 13, 2005 he wa s up se t he c ou ld n ot g e t kn ow he lp F ro m the pe rs on wh o h it m e so he c los e the c a se when I g ot some one to help me it was to late and I was still sick From the he ad on do wn I wa s h it by a c ar in a sto re the c ou rt ha d tol d him to pay the B ill he ne ve r d id thats was Juvenile court in September of 2004 I side it was over and Mr. L arry Daniel Billeaudeau[x ] was going to pay thay told the J udg e but thay

never did so I g ot Gary Green a t 40 no rth p auli ne str e e t me mph is t e nn 38 10 5 - 90 1- 52 3- 09 99 he sto p h e lp me to he close the ca se so will y ou let my case be on trial at this t ime I did not make th a t m is ta k e b y n o t f il e in g ino n e y e ar

I h a d a L a w e r h e r e is c o p y s [] o f

th e m[

. ] Thank y ou.
The issue raised on appe al, as we perc eive it, is whether the trial co u rt erred by

awa rding summary judgme nt to Defe ndants wher e the limitations period fo r p ersonal injuries prescribed at Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 28-3-104 was tolled pur suant to Tennesse e Code Annotated § 28-1- 10 6 inthi s c a se . Se c tio n 2 8- 1- 10 6 p ro vid e s:

I f the pe rson entit l ed t o co m mence an ac tion is, at the tim e the c ause of action
acc rued, e ither under

the ag e of e ighte en (18) y ear s, or of unsound mind, such per son,-3-

or such pe rson' s repr esentatives and privies, a s the ca se may be, may commence the action, af ter the r emoval of suc h disability , within t h e ti me of limitation for the pa rt ic ula r c aus e of a c tion, un les s it e xce e ds thr e e (3 ) y e ars , a ndin that c a se wi thi n t h r e e ( 3 ) ye ar s f

r o mt h e r e m o v a l o f

s u c h d i s ab i l i t y.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28- 1-106 (2000). I n order to a ssert tolling of the limitations period under § 28- 1- 106, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he was inc ompetent at the time the cause of action ac crue d. Foster v. Allbright , 631 S.W .2d 147, 150 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).
I n light of the fore g oing, w e find that Mr. B ass s ufficie ntly asserted t olling of the limitations period by rea son of disability under § 28-1-106 in the trial court. We f urther find a g enuine issue of material fac t exi sts reg arding whether Mr. B ass was disabled at the time the action ac crue d so as to toll t he one- y ear

limit ations period. W e ac co rdi ng ly reve rse summary

judgme nt in favor of Def endants, and rema nd for determination of whether the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to § 28-1-106 and f

or further proce eding s. Costs of this a ppeal are taxed to the Appellee s, L arry D. B il le au d e au x, Jr

. , K a th y

Ru tl e d g e , a n d L arr y

B il le au d e au x.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE