### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 2000 Session FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK v. MILTON C. PROWELL Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. II-99700 Jeffrey Bivins, Judge

No. M2000-00580-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 28, 2000
The Circuit Court of Williamson County refused to issue a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the General Sessions Court of that county

because the pet

ition was untimely

and the same issues were already

pending in an ac

tion in Maury

County. We af

firm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 ; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed and Remanded B EN H. C ANTRELL , P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W ILLI AM C. K OCH , J R . and W ILLI

AM B. C AIN , JJ., joined. Matt Q. Bastian, Co

lumbia, Tennesse

e, for the appell

ant, Milton C. Prowel

l. Step h en Price and Andrea Taylor McK

ellar, Nashville

, Tennessee, for

the appellee, F

ranklin National Bank. OPINION I. On October 26, 1998,

the Franklin Nat

io na l Bank obtained a civil warrant in the General Sessions Court of Williamson County to recover some personal property from Milton Prowell. The warrant was returned on October 29, 1998, by William Hooper, Constable, with the following notation, “made three separate attempts def. refused to come to the door posted on door today’ s date 0825 hrs.” The warrant commanded Mr. Prowell to appear on November 2, 1998 in the Williamson County Sessions Court. On November 2, the court entered judgment for the bank for possession of the property described in the warrant and the costs of the ca use. O n Oct obe r 12 , 19 99, Mr. Pro wel l fi led a com pla int in t he M aury C oun ty Circuit Cour t ag ain st the bank and Mr. H

ooper. The compla

int alleged that

Mr. Prowell had fin

anced his contracting business through loans from the bank, giving the bank a secur

ity interest

in some of his equipment. Mr. Prowell denied that he had been served with the warrant for possession or that he-2-

hadany notice of the proceeding until he was arreste d by Mr. Hooper and other officers on February 4, 1999 on a charge of hindering a secured creditor. The complaint alleged that Mr. Hooper was the paid agent of the ba

nk and that the ban

k and Mr. Hooper w

ere guilty of malicious prose

cution, false imprisonment,

abuse of process, conv ersio n, libel, slander, defamation of business character, and outrageous conduct. The bank fi led it s answer and a counterclaim for the balance owed by Mr. Prowell. Apparently some of the collateral securing Mr. Prowell’s note had been repossessed under the Williamson County

General S essions warrant. Mr. Hooper filed his answer on December 7, 1999 and a supplemental answer on December 13. On December 20, 1999, Mr. Prowell filed a petition for writ of cert

iorari in the Circu

it Court of Williams on County seek ing a nullification of the judgment for possession issued by the General Sessions Court on November 2, 1998. The pleadings from the Maury County litigation were filed as exhibits to the petit

io n. The circuit judg

e refused to gr

ant the writ, holdin

g that the issues i

n Maury County involved the question of the validity of

the Williamson County judgment and that Mr. Prowell had unduly

delayed filing the petition for more than ten months after becoming aware of the judgment agai

nst him. II. The parties make some effort to deci de whether the w rit sought was a c

ommon law writ under Te nn. Code An

n. § 27-8- 101 or the

statutory writ unde

r Tenn. Co

de Ann. § 2

7-8-102. We think the point is immaterial because the decision to grant either writ is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Clark v. Metropolitan Gove

rnment of Nashville , 827 S.W.2d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); Pack v. Royal-Globe Ins. Co. , 457 S.W.2d 19 (Tenn. 1970). Certiorari should not be granted if the person see

king it h as oth er adequate appellate remedies. Tragle v. Burdette , 438 S.W.2d 736 (Tenn. 1969). In the case at

bar, the appellant contends that the General Sessions Court lacked in personam jurisdiction, for

various reasons, and the

refore lacked

the authority

to enter a judgme

nt against him. However, as pointed out by the trial court, the ap pellant has an ade

quate remedy

to the default judgment entered against him. Such remedy lies in the appella

nt’s pending suit

against the appellee in t he Circuit Court for Maury County. The validity of the General Sessions judgment had been placed in issue in the pleadings in Maury County. There was no need

in this case for the appellant to have resorted

to a writ for cer

tiorari. Theref

ore, it was within th

e discretion of th

e trial court to deny the ap

pellant’s petition

for the writ of ce

rtiorari. III. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for Williamson County

for any further proceedings nece ssary. Tax

the costs on appea

l to the appellant, Milton C. Prowell.

_________________________________________ BEN H. CANTREL

L, PRESIDI

NG JUDGE, M.S.