# FILED July 3, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N THECOUR

TOFAPPEALSOFTENNES SEE EA STER N SEC TI O N

RO BERTD A LECO BB, )

) Pl a i ntif f

- A

p p e lla nt , )

) v. ) HAM BLEN LAW ) 03A 01- 9602- C

V

- 00051 DOUGLASR. BEI ER

, )

) D e f e n d a nt - A

p p e l l ee. )

DI S SENTI NG OPI NI ON

W hi l e I c onc e de t ha t t he m aj 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 m pl oye d c om

por t s w

i t h p r e v i o u s c a s e la w , I ob s e r v e th a t thi s C o ur t, o r a t le a s t thi s m e m be r of t hi s C

our t , ha s r out i ne l y ove r r ul e d s uc h m ot i ons w

he 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 w i t h t he C

l e r k of t hi s C

our t . G i ve n t he f a c t t ha t t hos e pr om ul ga t i ng t he R

ul e s of A ppe 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 m e nt , a nd s uc h a f ilin gs e r v e s little p ur p o s e inth e v a s t m aj o r ityo f c a s e s a ppe a l e d, I w

oul d s us pe nd t ha t pr ovi s i on of R ul e 5 unl e s s pr ej udi c e t o t he a ppe l l e e ha s be e n s how n.

_______________________________2 H ous t on M

. G odda r d, P. J .

# FILED July 3, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N TH E C O U R T O FA PPEA LSO FTEN N ESSEE EA STER N SEC TI O N

RO BERTD A LECO BB, ) C / A N O . 03A 01- 9602- C

V

- 00051 ) Pl a i ntif f

- A

p p e lla nt , ) HAM BLEN LAW ) v. ) HON. J OHN K. W I LS ON, ) J UDGE DOUGLASR. BEI ER

, )

) D e f e n d a nt - A

p p e l l ee. ) D I SM I S SED

J . R A N D A LLSH ELTO N , M o r r i s t o w

n , for Pl a i ntif f

- A p p e lla nt . J A M ESM . D A V I S , M or r i s t ow

n, f or D

e f e nda nt - A

ppe l l e e .

O PI N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

The de t e r m

i na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l i s w he t he r t he a ppe a l s houl d be di s m i s s e d be c a us e t he a ppe l l a nt di d not f i l e n o t i ce o f t h e app eal w i t ht h e cl e r ko f t h e app e 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 C

our t a ppe l l e e w

a s gr a nt e d s um

m a r y j u d g m e nt, a n da p p e lla nt tim e l yf ile dth e r e qu i s ite n o tic e o f a p p eal , ex cep t w

i t ht h e cl e r ko f t h e app e l l a t e cour t .2

A p p e lle e f ile da m o tio ntodi s m

i s s o nth a t b a s i s w iththi s C our 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.

Th e R u l e s o f A

p p e l l a t e Pr o cedur e s t a t e : ( a ) S e r v i c e o f N

o tic e o f A

p p e a l inC

i v il A c tio n s - N ot 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 h e app e l l a nt i na ci v i l act i o ns h a l l s e r v e a cop y 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. R ul e 5 ( 1995) . The R ul e w a s m odi f i e d i n 1984 t o r e m ove t he r e qu i r e m

e nt o f n o t i ce t ot h e app e l l a t e cour t , b ecau s e ? t h e exp e r i e n ce o f t h e app e l l a t e cl e r k s h a s b eent h a t t h e r e qui r e m

e 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 om

pl i s he d no vi t a l pur pos e . . . . ? A dvi s or y C om m i s s i on C

om m e nt s t o T. R. A

. P. 5, 1984. I n 1991, t he r e qu i r e m

e nt o f s e r v i ce o f n o t i ce o nt h e app e l l a t e cour t cl e r k w a 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. R ul e 5, 1983. A ppe 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 w

i t h t he c l e r k of t he C our t of A

ppe a l s . Fa i l ur e t o c o m p l yw ithR u l e 5 m

e r its di s m

i s s a l o f a na c tio n . G . F. Pl u n k C o n s t r u c t i o nC

o ., I n c . v . Ba r r e t t Pr op e r t i e s , I n c . , 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 w i t h t he t r i a l c our t but not w i t h t he oppos i ng c ouns e l or t he c l e r k of t he C

our t of A

ppe a l s . The Te nne s s e e Supr e m e C our t he l d t ha t i t w

a 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 h e app e l l a t e co ur t t ob e w a i v e d . Id. Thi s w a i ve r , how

e ve r ,1 T . R. A. P . 2 r e a d s : F o 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 m a t t e r , t h e S u p r e m e Co u r t , Co u r t o f A p p eal s , o r Co u r t o f Cr i m i n a l A p p eal s m

a y suspen d t h e r e q u i r e m e 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 m o t i o n o f a p a r t y o r o n i t s m o t i o n an d m

a 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 w i 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 m

i t t h e ex t e n s i o n o f t i m e 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 m i 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. 2T . R. A. P . 21 ( b ) r e a d s : F o r good ca u s e s how n t h e appe l l a t e cour t m a y enl a r g e t h e t i m e 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 m a y p e r m

i 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 m e ; but t h e cour t m a y not e n l a r g e t h e t i m e 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 m i 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 how

i ng of good c a us e . I d. T. R. A . P. 2 1 ; T. R. A

. P. 21 2

. Pl unk not e d t ha t c our t s a r e m or e ge ne r ous i n f i ndi ng good c a us e be f or e t he t i m e f or pe r m

i 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 m i ne d t ha t a f t e r t he e xpi r a t i on of t he t i m

e 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 how i ng of good c a us e ?

r e qui r e s m

or e t ha n a m

e 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 m e l y pe r f or m

e d. ? Id . a t 218. The C our t w e nt on t o r ej 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 m a 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 , A ppe l l a nt f a i l e dt os e r v e t h e app e l l a t e cl e r kdu e t o ? i n a dv e r t e n ce, t h e r e qui r e m

e nt of T. R. A

. P. R ul e 5( a ) be i ng ove r l ooke d. ? N ocas e s s e e ki ng t o a voi d di s m i s s a l be c a us e of a l a w ye r ’ s m

i s r e a di ng of T. R. A . P. R ul e 5 ha s be e n c a l l e d t o our a t t e nt i on. H ow e 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. R ul e 60. I n K

ilby v . S i v l e y , 745 S . W . 2d 284 ( Te nn. A

pp. 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 ow e d t he a ppe a l pr oc e dur e s of T. R. A . PR ul e 12 i ns t e a d of T. R. A . P. R ul e 3 a nd f i l e d a n a ppe a l w i t h t he c l e r k of t he C our t of A

ppe a l s i ns t e a d3 Pr o f e s s o r S obi e s k i i n hi s Proced u ral D e 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

V o 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 m i t s i t t o as s u m e s upe r v i s i on of t h e appe a l , w h i c h com

por t s w

i 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 C

our t . Thi s C

our t de t e r m

i 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 ? m i s t a ke ? th a t c o u l dju s tif y T. R. C. P . R

u l e 6 0r e lie f . Th e r a tio n a l e w a s : Th e m e r e f act t h a t a l a w y e r i s i g n o r a nt o f t h e r u l e s o r m i s t a ke n l yr e a d s th e r u l e s is n o t w ithi nits e l f r e a s on t o i nvoke R ul e 60. 02( 1) , Te nn. R. C i v. P. To g r a nt r e l i e f i nev e r ycas e w h e r e a l a w

y e r i s m i 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 w

oul d e m

a 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 . E dge m on C ont r ac t i ng C

o. , I nc . v . K i 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 K i l by . Th e r e qu i r e m e nt s o f T. R. A

. P. R u l e 5 ar e r ead s t r i c tly , Pl unk . Ina d ditio n , th e f ilin go f n o tic e w ithth e a ppe l l a t e c our t c l e r k w a s c ons i de r e d i m

por t a nt e nough t o w a r r a nt i t s be i ng br ought ba c k a s a r e qui r e m e nt i n T. R. A

. P. R ul e 5. 3G

i 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 w a i ve r of t he r e qui r e m e nt unde r R

ul e 2, Te nne s s e e R ul e s of A

ppe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e . W e di s m i s s t h e app eal an dr e m a n dat app e l l a nt ’ s c o s t .

________________________ H e r s c h e l P. Fr a nk s , J . CONC UR:5

___________________________ H ous t on M

. G odda r d, P. J .

___________________________ C h a r l e s D

. Su s a n o , J r ., J .