### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Ma y 15, 200 8 S es sio n

M A X WE LL M ED IC A L, IN C

. , S uc ce sso r in In te re st t o M ax W el l M ed ic al, LL C

. , v. LO R EN L. C HU M LE Y , C om m iss ion er of R ev en ue , S ta te of Tenn essee

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 04-1548-1 Hon. Cristi Scot t, Chancellor by Interc hange

No. M2007- 01702-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Septem ber 22, 2008

The Clerk a

nd Master, a

substitut e Judge, g rante d d ef en d an t s ummary

judgme nt in this case , and plaintiff appe aled. The re co rd re veals that the substitute J udg e wa s not designated in acc ordanc e wi th t he statut e s and

c a se de c isi on s, and

we the re fo re va c a te the su mma ry jud g me nt a

nd re mand to the Tr ia l Co ur

t.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t V ac at e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the Court, in which D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., and S HAR ON G. L EE , J ., joined.

Mic ha e l G. Ste wa

rt , B re tt R. Cart e r and Chr ist op he r A. Wils on , Na sh vil le , Te nn e sse e , f or a pp e lla nt.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, J r., Att or

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r, and

Mary El le n K na c k, Se nio r C ouns e l, Offic e of the Attorney

Gene ral, Na shville, Tennessee , for a ppellee.

OP IN ION

Appellant, MaxW ell Medica l, I nc., appeals from the summary judgme nt gr anted the defe ndant. The pa

rties had f

iled cr o s s m o t i o n s for summary judgme nt where the only issue was whether g lucom et er s an d related produc ts were exempt from Tennesse e sale s and use tax under Tenn. Code. Ann. § 67- 6- 314(5). The motions we re argued on Aug ust 18, 2006, and the Court took-2-

the matter unde r adviseme nt and issued a Memorandum Opinion on J une 5, 2007 and ente red F inal Judg me nt i n f

a vo r o f d e fe nd ant a g a ins t a pp e lla nt.

The F inal De cr ee, a s entere d, was sig ned by Cristi S cott, “Cristi Scott si tting as Chance llor by

I nterc hang e”.

Su a S po ntewe inquire d of the pa rties by Orde r:

The F inal Dec ree in this cas e wa s s i g ned by Cristi S cott, which the Dec ree desig nates a s “Cristi Scott s itting as Chanc ellor by I nterc hang e”.

We cannot find a

ny Orde r of de sign at i o n i n the re cord a nd we a re unable to judicially

notice that Cristi Scott i s a Chance llor.

I t is therefor e Or dere d that counsel for the parties inform the Court by what author ity

Cristi S cott acte d as a Chanc ellor in this case.

I n r e sp on se to t

he Or de r, the pa

rt ie s file d an a ff

ida vit of the Cha nc e llo r w hic h s ta te s:

1. Iam the Part I

Chance llor for the Chanc ery Court of Davidson C o u n t y.

2. Cristi S cott is the Chancer y Court Clerk and Master for Davidson County

. She is f

orty -three y ear s old. She was licensed to pr actice law in Tennesse e in 1 9 9 1 an d s h e h a s p r a c ti c e d in th is s tate s in c e 1 9 9 1

. Sh e h a s b e e n a r e s id e nt of Na s h v i l l e, T en n es s ee s i n ce b i rt h

. He r l aw l i ce n s e i s i ngo o d s t an d i n g.

3. On Aug ust 9, 2006, I e-ma iled Cristi Scott to ask that she ser ve as the P ar t I C h an ce l l or on Aug ust 18, 2006 beca use I would be out of town that day

. I

c on c lud e d that no ne of the oth e r thr e e c ha nc e llo rs (w ithwh om I

int e rc ha ng e ) w ou ld b e a v a i l a b l e t o h e ar

m o t i o n s o nc a s e s o nA u g u s t1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , f o r P artI.

4. Ifound it nece ssary to be abse nt f

rom holding c ourt bec ause my son was to par

ticipate in a n i m p o rt ant event at the Univer sity of Tenne ssee Me dical Sc ho ol i n M e mph is.

5. Iwas out of town on Fr iday , Aug ust 18, 2006 and Cristi S cott serve d as substitute judge pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. §§ 17-2-118( a) and (f )(2) , and Te nn. Code Ann. § 17-2- 122.

6

. I w a s b a c k

i nt h e c o urtf

o r w o r k o nt h e f o l l o w i n g M o n d ay.

7. I revie wed the chanc ery file for case no. 04-1548-I

. My revie w shows-3- that Cristi S cott hear d a motion for summary judgme nt in Max well Medica l, I nc., v. L oren L

. Chumley , No. 04-1548-I , on Aug ust 18, 2006. She signe d a fina l order a s

“ Ch an c e ll o r

[s itti n g ] b y

in te r c h an g e ” a f

te r d e c id in g th e M o ti o n

. I nf a c t, s h e w as servingas a substitute J udg e for Part Iat my

reque st and direc tion.

8

. Id i d

n o ten t er an o rd er ap p o i n t i n g t h e C l er k an d M as t er as s u b s t i tu t e j u d ge on Aug ust 18, 2006.

The Chanc ellor asse rts as her authority Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-2-118(a ) and ( f)( 2). Th e c od e se c tio n r e a ds :

17-2-117, Substitute Judges. - (a) I f, for g ood cause , including but not li m i t ed to, by r e a s o n o f il ln e s s , p h y s ic a l in c a p a c it a ti o n , v a c a ti o n o r a

b s e n c e f r o m th e city

or jud ic ia l di str ic t on

a ma tte r r e la te d to the jud g e ’s jud ic ia l off ic e , th e jud g e of

a state
or c ounty tr ia l c ourt

of re c or d is un a

ble to h old

c ourt , s uc h jud ge s hall a pp oin t a substitut e judg e to hold court, pre side and a djudicate.

. . . (f ) T he pr ov isi on s o f su bs ect ions ( a )- (e ) s ha ll n ot a pp ly wh e re a jud g e fi nd s it

nece ssary to be abse nt from holding c ourt, and a ppoints as a substitute judge:
(1) A duly

elec ted or a

ppointed judge of any

inferior court; or (2) A f ull-time office r of the judicia l sy stem under the jud ge’ s supervision wh os e du ty i ti s t o p e r f

o r m j u d i c i a l f

u n c t i o n s , s u c h a s a

j u v e n i l e r e f

e r e e , a c h ild

su pp or t r e fe re e or

c le rk and ma ste r, wh o is a

lic e ns e d atto rn e y

in g oo d s tand ingwi th t h e T en n es s ee s u

p re m e c o u rt

. S u ch j u d i ci al o ff i ce r s h al l o n l y s er v e as s p ec i al j u d ge in matters re lated to that offic er’ s duties as a judicial off icer

.
No tw ith sta

nd ingthe p r o v i s i o n s o f

s u bs e c tio ns (a )- (e ), a

jud g e sh a ll h a ve the a

uth or ity to appoint a substitute judge a s provided in this subsection.

Th e se min a l c a se se tti ng fo rt h the pr oc e dure fo r de sig natin g sp e c ia l ju dg e s is Fe rre ll v. Cigna Property &Cas. Ins. Co., 33 S .W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2000). The Supreme Court g rante d an appea l in that case, “ to determine the leg ality of the trial co u rt ’s p ractice of r efe rringworke r’s compensation cases to a c lerk a nd master f

or trial”. Id. 733. I n Fe rre ll , the C o u rt held that the pr op e r p ro c e dure s f

or a pp oin tin g a sp e c ia l/s ub sti tut e jud g e we re no t f oll ow e d, bu t di d n ot r e ve rs e the dec ision because the Court held the cle rk and ma ster wa s acting as a “ de fa cto judg e”.

The Fe rre ll

Court outlined and detailed the pr ocedur e for appointing specia l/substi tute judge s, and we quote at leng th:

I n th e e xer c ise of ou r sup e rv iso ry a uth or ity ov e r t he jud ic ia l sy ste m of

thi s-4- State, we a lso deem it nece ssary to a ddress the alleg ed standing order by which the Clerk and Ma ster wa s desig nated as substitut e judge (Circuit J udg e P ro Tem) to hear this and all other wor

kers’ compensation cases a rising in the thirty -first judicial dis tr ic t.

Article V I , § 11 of the Te nnessee Constit ution provides that

The L eg islature may

by g ener al laws make provision that spe cial J udg es may be a pp oin te d, to h old any Court s th e Judg e of wh ic h s ha ll b e un a

ble or fa il t o
a tte nd or sit ; or to h e ar a ny c a us e in w hic h th e Judg e may be inc omp e te nt.

Under the authority

o f th is c o n s ti tu

ti o n a l p rovision, the Gene ral Asse mbly has

enac ted seve ral statutes re lating to the a ppointment of special/substitute judge s including two statutes that are pertinent to the issue in t his appea l. Tennesse e Code Anno ta te d s e c tio n 1 7- 2- 11 8 p ro vid e s th a t:

(a) I f, for g ood cause , including, b u t n o t l imited to, by rea son of illness, phy sical incapa citation, vacation or absenc e from the city or judicial dis tr ic t on

a ma tte r r e la ted t o th e jud g e ' s ju dic ia l of fi c e , th e jud g e of

a state or county trial court of rec ord i s unable to hold court, such judge shall appoint a substitute judge to hold court, preside and adjudicate. (b ) A s u b s t i tu t e j u d ge s h al l p o s s es s al l o f th e qu al i fi ca t i o n s o f a j u d ge of the c ourt in which the substitute is appointed. (c) No substitute judge ma y be appointed f

or a peri o d o f more tha

n thr e e (3 ) d ay s; p ro vid e d, that any su c h ju dg e a

pp oin te d p ursu ant t o th is section may

finish any

trial that is commence d during t h e period of appointment. (d) A substitute judg e appointed pursua nt to this section shall have no
a u t h o r i t y t o aw ar d

f e e s e x c e p tt h o s e t h a tar e s t a tu t o r y. (e) A substitut e judge shall not preside ove r a c ause w ithout a consent form sig ned by

all liti g ants who ar e pre sent at the be g inning of the proce eding

. Such consent form shall plainly state that the substitut e judge has not been duly

elec ted by

the citizens of th e j u d i cial district or a ppointed by the g overnor

but has b ee n ap p ointed pursuant to this section. Fur ther, the

c on sen t f or m sh a ll i nc lud e the name of the lawy e r a

pp oin te d a s su

bs tit ute jud g e , th e jud g e of the c ourt in wh ic h suc h sub sti tut e jud g e is s itt ing , th e date for whic h the substitute judge was appointed, and the rea son for the r eg ular jud g e ' s a bs e nc e . T he c on se nt f

or m sh a ll b e tr ans mit te d a

nd ma int a ine d o n f

ile for public inspec tion at the administrative offic e of the courts in Nashville. ( f ) The provisions of

subsections (

a) -( e) shall not apply where a judge fin ds it n e c essar

y to be ab se nt f

ro m h old ing c ou rt, an d a

pp oin ts a s a substitut e judge: (1) A duly

elec ted or a

ppointed judge of any

inferior court; or-5- ( 2 ) A fu ll

- ti m e off

ic e r o f t h e ju dic ia l s

y s te m u n d e r th e ju d g e 's

su pe rv isi on who se du ty

it i s to pe rfo rm jud

ic ial fun c tio ns , s uc h a s a juv e nil e re

fe re e, a c hil

d su pp or t re fe re e or c le rk

an d m as te r, who is a licensed attorney

in good standing w ith the Tennessee supre me
c ou rt. Su c h ju dic ial

off ic e r sh all on ly serve as sp e c ial

jud ge in matters related to that offi cer's duties as a judicial off icer

. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a )-( e), a judge shall have the authority to appoint a substitute judge a s provided in this subsection.
(Emphasis adde d.) A very simil ar statutory

provision is codified at Te nn. Code Ann. § 1 7- 2- 12 2 a

nd pr ov ide s: (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 16-15-209 or § 17-2-109 or any other rele vant provision to the contra ry , a judg e shall have the authority to appoint a spec ial judge as provided in this section.
( b) The provisions of § 16-15-209 a n d § 17-2-109 and any other relev ant provision, shall not apply where a judge finds it necessary to be abse nt from holding court, and appoints a s a substitut e judge an officer of the judicial system unde r the judge's supe r vi s i o n w hose duty it is to perform judicial functions, such as a ju ve nile referee , a child support referee or c lerk and master, who is a licensed attor n ey in good standing with the Tennessee

su pr e mec ou rt. Su ch ju di cial off ic e r sh all on ly se rv e as sp e c ial

jud ge in matters related to their duties as judicial off icer

. (E mph a sis a dd e d. ) Wh e re a jud g e fi nd s it

ne c e ssa ry to be a bs e nt fr om ho ldi ngc ourt , t h es e s t at u t es au t h o ri z e t h e j u d ge t o ap p o i n t a cl er k an d m as t er t o ac tas s p ec i al j u d ge
so lon g a s th e c le rk

and ma ste r i s b oth a lic e ns e d att or ne y in g oo d stand ingwi th t his Court and is serving as spec ial judge only in m at t er s re lated to his or her duties as judicial office r.
[9] We emphasize that the statute direc ts that the absenc e be ne cessa ry . A judge may

not u s e m er e conve nience as a ba sis for being“abse nt from holding

c o u rt. ” We a g r e e w it

h th e A tt o r

n e y G e n e r a l t h a t “ n e c e s s ar

y ” a s u s e d

in th is c o n te xt should be understood in a r estrictive sense, “i.e. indispensable as opposed to a more l i bera l construction, i.e. conve nient.” Te nn. Op. Atty . Gen. No. 96- 003. Se e als o State v. Black

, 897 S.W .2d 680, 683 (Tenn. 1995)

. . . . The Court then pointed out that Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 17-2- 202 provides that a judg e has a ffirmative duties to interchang e if:

(1) A judg e h as died or is unable to hold cour t; (2) Two (2 or

more judg es have-6- ag ree d to a mut ually convenie nt intercha ng e; (3) The J udg e is incompetent unde r the provisions of § 17-1-101; or (4) The chief justice of the supreme court has assig ned by order a judg e to another

court pursua

nt to Supreme Court Rule 11.

I n addition, Tenn. Code Ann. § 16- 2-509 (e ) direc ts that
[i ]f a presiding judge is unable to corr ect a case load imbal an ce o r re duce doc ket de lay s utili zing the a va ila

ble jud g e s with in the dis tr ic t ove r w hic h th e jud g e pr e sid e s, it is t he affirmative duty of such pre siding judge to contact other p r es i d i n g judges and request assistance or contac t the s upreme court and request assistance pursuant to §16-3-502

. (Emphasis adde d.)
The Supreme Court then said:
Judg e s h a ve a n o bli g a tio n to dis c ha rg e the a ff

ir ma tiv e du tie s im po sed by the se statutes. Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3A de clar es that “[t] he judicial duties of a judge take prec edenc e over all the judg e’s other

activities” a

nd that a judg e’s judicial duties include “a ll the duties of the judge ’s offic e pre scribed by law.” T he ter

m “law” is defined by

Rule 10 to include “c ourt rule s as well as statutes, constituti onal provisions, and dec isional law.” (E mphasis added.) Ac c or din gly, read

ing the se statutes and rules together, we concludethat a trial judge s hould appoint a clerk and master to ac t as a special/substitut e judge in his or her absence only if the trial j udge determine s it is not possible either t o interchange pursuant t o Tenn. Code Ann. § 17- 2- 2 0 2 o r t o o b t a i n a s s i

s t a n c e f r o m a n o th e r p r es i di n g j u d g e o r f r o m th i s Co ur t pursuant to section 16-2-509( e)

. Consist ent with these statutes, Tenne ssee Supre me Cou rt Ru le 11 VI

I( c ) ( 3) e x pla ins the pr oc e du re

s tha t mu st be fol lo we d b e for e appointing a special judge as follow s: (Emphasis ours).

Whe re a jud g e of a tr ial cou rt of re c or d is

. . . una ble to h old

c ourt , a s p ro vid e d in Tenn. Code An n . § 17-2-118, the f ollowing pr ocedur e shall be f ollowed, in the sequenc e desig nated, f

or the sele ction of a substitute judg e. ( 1) The judge shall see k interchange in ac cordance with T enn. Code Ann. § 17-2-201 e t seq.; ( 2) Thejud

ge sh all ap ply to t he pr esid ing jud ge of t he jud ic ial dis tri c t to
e ffe c t an int e rc ha ng e with a judge of tha t judi c ial dis tri c t in ac c or

da nc e with T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 1 6-2 -5 0 9 (d); ( 3) Thepr esid

ing jud ge of the jud ic ial dis tri c t sh all e

ffe c t an int e rc ha ng e with a judge from another judicial dist rict in accordancewith T enn. Code Ann. § 1 6-2 -5 0 9 (e); ( 4) The presiding judge shall reque st from the director of the AdministrativeThe Supreme Court properly applied the de fac to rule bec ause it wa s announ ci n g a new 1
pr oc e dure to b e fo llo we d in futur e c a se s. We note with interest that in some of the intermediate appellate court decisions, the State took the position t hat a j u d gm en t b y a spec ial judge appointed without following the appropr iate proc edure was void.

-7-

Of fic e of t he Cou rts thede

sig na tion of a ju dge by

thec hie f ju sti c e, in accordanc e with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-502( 3) ( A) and 17-2-110.
(Emphasis supplied).

The Court conc luded that if the Tr ial Court had exhausted all the for eg oing conditions, it would be appropr iate to a ppoint a cler

k and master or another judicial office r, and that the appointment should be made either f or a de finite period of

time or for a

specific case

. The procedur es set forth by the Supreme Court in Fe rre ll are mandatory proce dures to b e fo llo we d b y

the tr ia l c ourt s in

a pp oin tin g su

bs tit ute jud g e s.

This rec ord does not esta blish that the mandatory require men ts of Fe rre ll wer e followed. We c onclude the proce dural require ments to a ppoint a substitut e judg e we re not satisfied

on se ve ra l g ro un ds

. Th e c le rk and ma ste r wa s no t a pp oin te d no r or de re d to sit a s a jud g e on Au g us t 18, which appa

rently was a motions docke t. Nor does the fac t that the J udg e wa s out of town on that date f all within the s pirit of t he S upreme Court's mandate. Nor was the requirement for exploring intercha ng e satisfied.

Th e iss ue t

h us be c ome s w he the r t

he c le rk and ma ste r s ho uld

be c on sid e re d a

" de fa c to judge " in this ca se.

Since Fe rre ll , sev e ra l inte rm e diate c ourt de c isi on s hav e he ld t he a pp oin te d ju dg e to be a de fa c to j ud g e e ve n tho ug h the pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts fo r t he a pp oin tme nt h a d n ot b e e n me t. These de cisions are appar ently based on the fac t that t h e S upreme Court itself held the appointed judge to be a "de fac to judg e"

. A subsequent Supre me Court decision, In re: Valentine , 79 S.W .3d 1 539 (Tenn. 2002) , considere d whether th e prope r proc edure for a ppointing a spe cial judg e wa s fo l l o we d i nt h at ca s e, b u t co n cl u d ed t h at t h e ch al l en ge t o t h e j u d ge's au t h o ri t y t o s i ta s p ec i al j u d ge had bee n waived. Id. at 545.

As we r ead Fe rre ll , the prope r proc edure s for ap p o i nting a specia l judge are mand at o ry

. I t i s t he duty of the Tr ial Court to comply with these re quirements. I f the proc edura l

re qu i re m en t s t o ap p o i n ta s p ec i al j u d ge ar e no t m et an d o u r C o u rt u p h o l d s t h e ju d gm en to f t h e j u d ge not p ro p er l y desig nated, the ma ndates of Fe rre ll

and the Sup re me Court

Rul e 10 be c ome meaning less. We give forc e and e ffe ct to Fe rre ll and its mandates, a

nd are constraine d to vacate the J udg ment of the Tr ial Court and re mand for f urther pr ocee dings in a ccor dance with this Opini on.-8- Th e c os t of

the a pp e a l is a sse sse d jo int ly

to t he pla int if

f a nd de fe nd ant.

___________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.