# FILED
February 27, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

TIMOTHY K. BRADY, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9707-CV-00308 VS. ) ) Williamson Circuit ) No. 96760 JAMES M. VALENTINE, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )
APPEALED FROM THE CIRC UIT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY AT FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE CORNELIA A.CLARK, JUDGE

REBECCA E. BYRD PETERSEN, BUERGER, MOSELEY & CARSON 306 Court Square Franklin, Tennessee 37064 Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee ERIC J. MORRISON STONE & HINDS 700 First American Center 50 7 G ay St re et , S .W. Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Attorney for Defendant/Appellant

REVERSED AND REMAND ED

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR: TODD, P.J., M.S. KOCH, J.


## O P I N I O N- 2 - The only issue we hav e to decide is whe

the r an appeal of a general sessionsjudgment gives t he circ uit court the jurisdic tion to award sanctions under Rule 11, Tenn. R. Civ. P. The Circuit Court of Williamson County held that it does

not. We reverse and remand the cause for further consi deration.

I.
Timothy K. Brady sued James M. Val entine in the G e neral Sessions Court of Williamson County to coll ect a promis sory note.The court di smi ssed the claim, and Mr. Brady appe aled by executing a $250 cost bond.On December 24, 1996 counsel for Mr. Valentine served a letter on counsel for Mr. Brady asserting that Mr. Brady’s claim wa

s clearly barred by

the statute of

limitations, that the appeal w as frivolous, and that unless the appeal w a s withdrawn within twenty-one days Mr. Valentine would move for sanctions under Rule 11. Mr. Brady did not co mply with the demand.

Both sides moved for summary j udgment in the circuit cou rt. The court granted Mr. Valen tine’s m otion and made the following find ings on the Rule 11 motion: 2. That the motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P.

11 and a letter requesting that the appeal of this cause be withdrawn was served uponplaintiff’s counsel more than twenty-one

(21) days before the subject motionwas filed with the Court, that the Cost Bond signed by plai ntiff

and plaintiff’s counsel and filed in the General Sessions Court forWilliamson County, Tennessee constitutes an “other paper ” as contemplated by Tenn. R. Ci v. P. 11.02, bu t does not constitute “other paper” filed in this Circuit Court and as such the Court is w ithout sufficient jurisdicti on or authority to impose sancti ons under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11; 3. That the appeal of this case by plai ntiff from General Sessions Court to thi s Court constitutes a violation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11; however, because there was no specific paper filed in this Court w ith respect to the appea l of the case, the Court is without suffici en t jurisdiction or

authority

to impose sanctions under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11; and . . .

.- 3 - II.
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.02 provides: By presenting to the court ( whether by

signi ng, fi ling, submitting, or later adv ocating) a pleading, w

ritte n motion , o r other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certif yi ng thatto the best of the person’s know ledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquir y reasonable under the circumstances, -- (1) i t is not being presented for any imprope r purpose, such as to harass or to c aus e unnecessary delay or needless incr

ease in the cost of litigati on; (2) the claims, defenses, and other l ega l contentionstherein are warranted by ex isting law or

by a nonfrivolous

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal o f existin g law or the e stablish ment of new law; (3) the allegation s and other factual c ontentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so

identified, are likely to have ev identiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further inv estigation or discov

ery; and (4) the denial of factual contentions ar e warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reas onably based on

a lack o f informa tion or belief.
Chapter 5 of Title 27 of the Tennessee Code prescribes the procedure for appealing an adverse judgment in the general sessions court to the circuit court. The most import ant step is the giving of a bond for the prosecution of the appeal. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-103. When the appeal is perfected, it is the duty of the clerk of general sessions cour t to file the papers in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-105, where the appeal shall be heard de novo. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-108.

We think that the appeal procedure brin gs t he appellant within he express provisions of Rule 11.02. By perfecting the appeal -- whic h o bligates the clerk to forward the papers to the circuit court -- the appellant has “presented” to the court all the papers that accompany that filing. The pre sentation carries with it the- 4 -

certification described in Rule 11.02(1) --(4). The papers filed in the circuit cou r t included the civil warra nt filed in the general sess ions court and the cost bond executed to perfect the appeal. If the appeal w as taken for an improper purpose, it would, in our judgment, be a violation of Rule 11.

The con fusion in this case results from a focus on the requirement i n Rule 11.01 that all papers filed in courts of record must be si gned. But it is not the sig ning t hat carries with it th e certificatio n in Rule 11.02; it is the “signing, fi ling, submitting, or later adv ocating” a pleading or

written motion.

We think the proper procedure from this point is to remand the ca use to the circuit court for reconsiderationof the Rule 11 motion in light of the holding in this opinion.

The lower court’s judg ment denying the Rule 11 moti on is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Cour t of Williamson County for further proceedings. Tax the cos ts on appeal to the appellee.

_________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:

_______________________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESI DING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

_______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE- 5 -