FILED

July 3, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ROBERT DALE COBB, ) 

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt , )

)

 v. ) HAMBLEN LAW

) 03A01- 9602- CV- 00051

DOUGLAS R. BEI ER, )

)

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee. ) 

DI SSENTI NG OPI NI ON

Whi l e I c onc e de t ha t t he ma j or i t y opi ni on i s

t e c hni c a l l y c or r e c t a nd t he r e a s oni ng e mpl oye d c ompor t s wi t h

pr e vi ous c a s e la w, I obs e r ve tha t thi s Cour t, or a t le a s t thi s

me mbe r of t hi s Cour t , ha s r out i ne l y ove r r ul e d s uc h mot i ons whe n

t he onl y de f e c t a s t o t he s e r vi c e of t he not i c e of a ppe a l i s

f a i l ur e t o f i l e a c opy wi t h t he Cl e r k of t hi s Cour t .

Gi ve n t he f a c t t ha t t hos e pr omul ga t i ng t he Rul e s of

Appe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e ha ve va c i l l a t e d on t hi s r e qui r e me nt , a nd s uc h

a f iling s e r ve s little pur pos e in the va s t ma j or ity of c a s e s

a ppe a l e d, I woul d s us pe nd t ha t pr ovi s i on of Rul e 5 unl e s s

pr e j udi c e t o t he a ppe l l e e ha s be e n s hown.

_______________________________
2

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .
FILED

July 3, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

ROBERT DALE COBB, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9602- CV- 00051

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt , ) HAMBLEN LAW

)

v. ) HON. J OHN K. WI LSON,

) J UDGE

DOUGLAS R. BEI ER, )

)

De f e nda nt - Appe l l ee. ) DI SMI SSED

J . RANDALL SHELTON, Mor r i s t own, for Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt .

J AMES M. DAVI S, Mor r i s t own, f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

The de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l i s whe t he r t he

a ppe a l s houl d be di s mi s s e d be c a us e t he a ppe l l a nt di d not f i l e

not i ce of t he appeal wi t h t he cl e r k of t he appe l l a t e cour t

de s i gna t e d i n t he not i c e of a ppe a l . 

I n t he Tr i a l Cour t a ppe l l e e wa s gr a nt e d s umma r y

j udgme nt, a nd a ppe lla nt time l y f ile d the r e qui s ite notic e of

a ppeal , except wi t h t he cl e r k of t he appe l l a t e cour t .
2

Appe lle e f ile d a motion to di s mi s s on tha t ba s i s with thi s

Cour t , a nd t he i s s ue ha s be e n br i e f e d a nd a r gue d.

The Rul e s of Appe l l a t e Pr ocedur e s t a t e : 

( a ) Se r vi c e of Notic e of Appe a l in Ci vil Ac tions -

Not l a t e r t ha n 7 da ys a f t e r f i l i ng not i c e of a ppe a l ,

t he appe l l a nt i n a ci vi l act i on s ha l l s e r ve a copy

of t he not i c e of a ppe a l on c ouns e l of r e c or d of e a c h

pa r t y . . . a nd on t he c l e r k of t he a ppe l l a t e c our t

de s i gna t e d i n t he not i c e of a ppe a l . 

T. R. A. P. Rul e 5 ( 1995) .

The Rul e wa s modi f i e d i n 1984 t o r e move t he

r e qui r e me nt of not i ce t o t he appe l l a t e cour t , becaus e 

?t he expe r i e nce of t he appe l l a t e cl e r ks ha s been t ha t t he

r e qui r e me nt of s e r vi ng a not i c e of a ppe a l a t t he a ppe l l a t e

l e ve l a c c ompl i s he d no vi t a l pur pos e . . . . ? Advi s or y

Commi s s i on Comme nt s t o T. R. A. P. 5, 1984. I n 1991, t he

r e qui r e me nt of s e r vi ce of not i ce on t he appe l l a t e cour t cl e r k

wa s a dde d t o t he r ul e , us i ng t he e xa c t l a ngua ge t ha t ha d be e n

i n t he pr e - 1984 ve r s i on. T. R. A. P. Rul e 5, 1983.

Appe l l a nt c onc e de s he di d not f i l e a c opy of t he

not i c e wi t h t he c l e r k of t he Cour t of Appe a l s . Fa i l ur e t o

c ompl y with Rul e 5 me r its di s mi s s a l of a n a c tion. G. F. Pl unk

Cons t r uc t i on Co., I nc . v . Bar r e t t Pr ope r t i e s , I nc . , 640 S. W. 2d

215 ( Te nn. 1982) .

I n Pl unk , t he a ppe l l a nt ha d f i l e d a not i c e of a ppe a l

wi t h t he t r i a l c our t but not wi t h t he oppos i ng c ouns e l or t he

c l e r k of t he Cour t of Appe a l s . The Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t

he l d t ha t i t wa s pos s i bl e f or t he s e r vi c e upon t he c l e r k of

t he appe l l a t e cour t t o be wa i ve d. Id. Thi s wa i ve r , howe ve r ,
1

 T. R. A. P. 2 r e a d s :

Fo r good ca u s e , i n c l udi ng t h e i n t e r e s t of expe d i t i ng dec i s i on upon any

ma t t e r , t h e Su p r e me Co u r t , Co u r t o f Ap p eal s , o r Co u r t o f Cr i mi n a l

Ap p eal s ma y suspen d t h e r e q u i r e me n t s or p r o v i s i o n s of an y o f t h ese r u l e s

i n a p a r t i c u l a r case on mo t i o n o f a p a r t y o r o n i t s mo t i o n an d ma y o r d e r

p r o c e e d i ngs i n ac c o r d a n c e wi t h i t s di s c r e t i on, exc e p t t h a t t h i s r u l e

shal l n o t p e r mi t t h e ex t e n s i o n o f t i me f o r f i l i n g a n o t i ce o f ap p eal

p r escr i b e d i n Ru l e 4 , an ap p l i cat i o n f o r p e r mi s s i o n t o ap p eal p r escr i b e d

i n Ru l e 11, or a pe t i t i on f o r r e v i e w pr e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 12.

2

 T. R. A. P. 21 ( b ) r e a d s :

Fo r good ca u s e s hown t h e appe l l a t e cour t ma y enl a r g e t h e t i me pr e s c r i b e d

b y t h ese r u l es or b y i t s or d e r f o r d o i n g an y act , o r ma y p e r mi t an act

t o be done af t e r t h e expi r a t i on of s u c h t i me ; but t h e cour t ma y not

e n l a r g e t h e t i me f o r f i l i n g a n o t i ce o f ap p eal p r escr i b e d i n Ru l e 4 , an

a ppl i c a t i on f o r per mi s s i on t o appe a l pr e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 11, or a

p e t i t i on f o r r e v i e w pr e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 12.

3

r e qui r e s a s howi ng of good c a us e . I d. T. R. A. P. 21; T. R. A. P.

212

. 

Pl unk not e d t ha t c our t s a r e mor e ge ne r ous i n f i ndi ng good

c a us e be f or e t he t i me f or pe r mi t t i ng a n a c t t o be done ha s

e xpi r e d. The c our t de t e r mi ne d t ha t a f t e r t he e xpi r a t i on of

t he t i me pr e s c r i be d i n t he r ul e s ha s oc c ur r e d, a s howi ng of

good c a us e ?r e qui r e s mor e t ha n a me r e good f a i t h be l i e f t ha t a

r out i ne of f i c e c hor e ha s be e n t i me l y pe r f or me d. ? Id. a t 218.

The Cour t we nt on t o r e j e c t c ouns e l ’ s e xc us e t ha t he s i nc e r e l y

t hought t he not i c e s of a ppe a l ha d be e n ma i l e d.

I n t hi s c a s e , a c c or di ng t o hi s br i e f , Appe l l a nt

f a i l e d t o s e r ve t he appe l l a t e cl e r k due t o ?i na dve r t e nce, t he

r e qui r e me nt of T. R. A. P. Rul e 5( a ) be i ng ove r l ooke d. ? No cas e s

s e e ki ng t o a voi d di s mi s s a l be c a us e of a l a wye r ’ s mi s r e a di ng of

T. R. A. P. Rul e 5 ha s be e n c a l l e d t o our a t t e nt i on. Howe ve r ,

t hi s e xc us e ha s be e n pr of f e r e d f or r e l i e f unde r T. R. C. P. Rul e

60. I n Kilby v . S i v l e y , 745 S. W. 2d 284 ( Te nn. App. 1987) . 

Pl a i nt i f f ’ s a t t or ne y e r r one ous l y f ol l owe d t he a ppe a l

pr oc e dur e s of T. R. A. P Rul e 12 i ns t e a d of T. R. A. P. Rul e 3 a nd

f i l e d a n a ppe a l wi t h t he c l e r k of t he Cour t of Appe a l s i ns t e a d
3

Pr o f e s s o r Sobi e s k i i n hi s Proced u ral De t a i l s of t h e Prop o sed Te n n ess ee 

Ru l e s of Appe l l a t e Pr o c e dur e , Te nne s s e e La w Re v i e w Vo l . 46, #1, p. 1 ,

( 1978) not e s t h a t s e r v i c e of t h e not i c e of appe a l on t h e cl e r k of t h e

a ppe l l a t e cour t advi s e s t h a t cour t of t h e pende n c y of t h e appe a l and

p e r mi t s i t t o as s u me s upe r v i s i on of t h e appe a l , wh i c h compor t s wi t h t h e

ABA S t andar d s Re l a t i ng t o t h e Appe l l a t e Cour t s .

4

of t he Tr i a l Cour t . Thi s Cour t de t e r mi ne d t ha t t hi s t ype of

e r r or di d not c ons t i t ut e a ?mi s t a ke ? tha t c oul d jus tif y

T. R. C. P. Rul e 60 r e lie f . The r a tiona l e wa s : 

The me r e f act t ha t a l a wye r i s i gnor a nt of t he r ul e s

or mi s t a ke nl y r e a ds the r ul e s is not withi n its e l f

r e a s on t o i nvoke Rul e 60. 02( 1) , Te nn. R. Ci v. P. To

gr a nt r e l i e f i n eve r y cas e whe r e a l a wye r i s

mi s t a ke n a bout t he r ul e s or i s ne gl i ge nt i n r e a di ng

t he r ul e s woul d e ma s c ul a t e t he r ul e s pe r t a i ni ng t o

f i l i ng of not i c e of a ppe a l .

I d. a t 287; al s o s e e H. D. Edge mon Cont r ac t i ng Co. , I nc . v .

Ki ng, 803 S. W. 2d 220, 222 ( Te nn. 1991) . 

Thi s t ype of e r r or doe s not c ons t i t ut e ?good c a us e . ?

See Ki l by . The r e qui r e me nt s of T. R. A. P. Rul e 5 ar e r ead

s t r i c tly, Pl unk . In a ddition, the f iling of notic e with the

a ppe l l a t e c our t c l e r k wa s c ons i de r e d i mpor t a nt e nough t o

wa r r a nt i t s be i ng br ought ba c k a s a r e qui r e me nt i n T. R. A. P.

Rul e 5. 3 Gi ve n t he s e c ons i de r a t i ons , t he ba s i s a dva nc e d doe s

not c ons t i t ut e c a us e t o i nvoke a wa i ve r of t he r e qui r e me nt

unde r Rul e 2, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e . 

We di s mi s s t he appeal and r e ma nd at appe l l a nt ’ s

c os t .

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:
5

___________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

___________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .