ÿWPCŸ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw.å4 ' 6 0J> 0Tˆ 0^Ü 0h: 0r¢ 0| 0† 0 1u¦ U, 0dG U,« U>× B)DC> AMU*Î Bø!v~6vÓ´ D3‡ 0@º AOúÆI 0D D/S B‚˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-ƒU„D…D†D‡UˆÓ€’Gav 3|x’2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌJune€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€f'XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›TERESA€G.€BRADFORD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMontgomery€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€92„71„434ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9603„CH„00121ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|÷Š` ç `€€LßDONNIE›€R.€BRADFORD,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€œCLARKSVILLE›,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€ALEX€W.€œDARNELL›,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌœÌÌCLEO›€GREER€HOGANÌ107€North€Third€StreetÌœClarksville›,€Tennessee€37041ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌœÌÌTHOMAS›€R.€œMEEKS›Ì137€Franklin€StreetÌœClarksville›,€Tennessee€37040ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌÌÌœÌMOTION›€OF€THE€APPELLANT€IS€OVERRULED.ÌÌœÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÇTERESA€G.€BRADFORD,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àMontgomery€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àNo.€€92„71„434ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à à01„A„01„9603„CH„00121ÌœDONNIE›€R.€BRADFORD,à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àà à€)ÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€May€16,€1996,€appellant€moved€this€Court€to€rule€that€this€cause€is€properly€beforeÏthis€Court.ÌÌà àIt€appears€that,€on€June€9,€1995,€this€Court€dismissed€a€previous€appeal€from€aÏjudgment€that€did€not€dispose€of€all€issues€pending€before€the€Trial€Court.ÌÌà àOn€March€18,€1996,€appellant€filed€in€this€œCourt,›€the€following€motion:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Comes€now,€œDonnie›€R.€Bradford,€pursuant€to€Rule€22€of€theÏTennessee€œRules›€of€Appellate€Procedure€and€respectfullyÏpetitions€this€court€for€an€order€which€would€allow€the€appellant,ÏœDonnie›€R.€Bradford€to€proceed€with€his€appeal€from€a€judgmentÏof€the€œChancery›€Court€of€Montgomery€County,€Tennessee.€€TheÏmovant€would€show€that€he€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€and€the€courtÏruled€that€said€notice€of€appeal€was€premature€due€to€a€lack€of€aÏfinal€order€addressing€the€issue€of€back€child€support.€€TheÏmovant€would€show€subsequent€to€this€courtððs€decision,€theÏparties€entered€an€order€which€stated€that€there€was€no€back€childÏsupport€due€at€the€time€of€the€initial€appeal€by€the€appellant.€Ï(See€exhibit€one).€€The€positions€of€the€appellant€and€theÏappellee€are€the€same€as€they€were€on€the€œ24th›€day€of€May,Ï1995.€€The€appellant€œrequests›€that€his€notice€of€appeal€be€treatedÏas€œ[if€it€had]›€been€filed€subsequent€to€the€œpartiesðð›€agreed€order€asÏevidenced€by€œExhibit›€œOne›€of€this€motion.€€The€appellant€aversÏthat€Rule€4€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏœallows›€a€premature€notice€of€appeal€to€be€treated€as€filed€after€theÏentry€of€the€judgment€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken.€€TheÍmovant€respectfully€prays€that€this€court€issue€an€order€requiringÏthe€Clerk€and€Master€to€transfer€the€record€of€the€trial€courtÏproceedings€to€this€court€so€that€a€proper€review€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€can€be€made.€€(See€exhibit€two).ÌÌÓÓà àExhibit€œOne›€to€said€motion€is€an€agreed€order€entered€on€February€1,€1996,€reading€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€This€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€œDecember›€22,€1995€upon€theÏMotion€filed€June€26,€1995€of€the€defendant€to€declare€there€wasÏno€back€support€due€and€upon€the€Notice€of€Withdrawal€ofÏœPetition›€for€Contempt€filed€in€this€cause€on€September€20,€1995Ïpertaining€to€a€Petition€for€Contempt€filed€on€May€11,€1993€andÏupon€the€Notice€of€Withdrawal€of€the€Petition€for€Contempt€filedÏon€September€20,€1995€pertaining€to€a€Petition€for€ContemptÏfiled€on€May€20,€1994€by€the€plaintiff€and€upon€the€record€as€aÏwhole€and€on€the€representation€of€counsel€for€the€parties.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€court€finds€that€the€parties€are€in€agreement€that€the€FinalÏDecree€of€Absolute€Divorce€filed€in€this€cause€on€June€15,€1994Ïwas€entered€with€consideration€for€the€respective€Petitions€forÏContempt€and€that€defendantððs€motion€to€declare€there€was€noÏback€child€support€owed€at€the€time€of€entry€of€the€Final€œDecree€›Ïis€well€taken,€and€should€be€granted.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Wherefore,€premises€considered;€it€is€hereby€ordered,€adjudgedÏand€decreed€that€the€Final€Decree€of€Absolute€Divorce€in€thisÏcause€contained€consideration€of€the€respective€Petitions€forÏContempt€that€have€now€been€withdrawn€by€the€plaintiff€andÏthere€was€not€at€the€time€of€the€entry€of€the€Final€Decree€on€JuneÏœ15,›€1994€any€issue€of€Contempt€in€this€cause€and€thatÏdefendantððs€Motion€for€the€Court€to€find€that€all€child€supportÏarrearages€had€been€resolved€by€the€Final€Decree€is€granted.̛̜ÌÓÓà àAlso€attached€to€said€motion€is€the€following€affidavit:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€I,€Thomas€R.€œMeeks›,€hereby€state€and€aver€that€I€have€been€theÏattorney€of€record€for€œDonnie›€R.€Bradford€from€the€inception€ofÏthe€divorce€proceedings€filed€in€Montgomery€County€ChanceryÏCourt,€Docket€Number€92„71„434.€€On€May€œ24th›,€1995€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€determined€that€the€appeal€that€the€appellantÏhad€perfected€in€case€number€01„A„01„9505„CH„00207€shouldÏbe€dismissed€on€the€basis€that€an€issue€of€back€child€support€hadÏnot€been€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€Both€attorneys€of€record,ÏœCleo›€œHogan,›€attorney€for€appellee,€and€myself€recognized€thatÏthe€issue€of€back€child€support€was€non€existent€and€not€a€viableÍissue€which€either€party€sought€the€Court€of€Appeals€to€address.€ÏœAn›€agreed€order€acknowledging€that€back€child€support€was€notÏœan›€issue€and€that€all€child€support€arrearage€had€been€resolved€byÏthe€final€decree€which€the€appellant€sought€to€appeal€in€caseÏnumber€01„A„01„9505„CH„00207.€€The€respective€œpartiesðð›Ïœpositions›€are€the€same€prior€the€entry€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏorder€to€dismiss,€œDonnie›€R.€Bradfordððs€appeal€as€it€standsÏtoday.€€(See€March€œ11th›,€1996€letter€from€œCleo›€Hogan).€€NeitherÏœpartiesðð›€positions€have€been€changed,€altered,€or€modified€by€theÏentry€of€the€agreed€order€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€MontgomeryÏCounty,€Tennessee€on€February€1,€1996.€€The€appellant€did€notÏfile€a€notice€of€appeal€after€entry€of€the€February€1,€1996ÏChancery€Court€order.€€It€is€the€affiantððs€belief€that€relief€underÏRule€2€and€Rule€4€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure€allows€this€court€to€utilize€the€notice€of€appeal€filed€inÏ01„A„01„9505„CH„00207,€and€allow€the€appellant€to€proceedÏwith€his€appeal€without€filing€another€notice€of€appeal€after€theÏentry€of€the€agreed€order€filed€by€the€parties€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Montgomery€County,€Tennessee.̛̜ÌÓÓà àOn€March€29,€1996,€this€Court€entered€the€following€order:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€On€May€24,€1995,€this€court€dismissed€the€appellantððs€appealÏfor€lack€of€a€final€order.€€The€trial€court€apparently€entered€a€finalÏorder€on€February€1,€1996€but€the€appellant€failed€to€file€a€newÏnotice€of€appeal€within€the€time€permitted€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï4.€€The€appellant€has€now€filed€a€motion€requesting€an€orderÏallowing€his€appeal€to€proceed€based€on€his€original€notice€ofÏappeal.€€The€appellantððs€request€addresses€itself€in€the€firstÏinstance€to€the€trial€court.€€This€court€declines€to€rule€upon€theÏappellantððs€right€to€appeal€unless€and€until€the€trial€court€hasÏruled€on€the€issue.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€the€appellantððs€motion€beÏoverruled.̛̜ÌÓÓà àOn€May€16,€1996,€the€appellant€filed€in€this€court€the€first€mentioned€motion€reading€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Comes€the€movant,€œDonnie›€Ray€Bradford,€by€and€through€hisÏattorney,€Thomas€R.€œMeeks›,€and€respectfully€requests€the€CourtÏto€rule€that€this€case€is€properly€before€the€Court€and€there€are€noÏissues€left€for€the€trial€court€to€review€or€try.€€This€matter€isÏaccepted€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€proper€review.€€TheÏmovant€further€requests€that€any€failure€on€the€part€of€œDonnie›ÍRay€Bradford€to€file€a€new€notice€of€appeal€is€excused€pursuantÏto€Rule€2€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.̛̜ÌÓÓà àœT.R.A.P.›€Rule€4(d)€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò(d)ó ó€ò òPremature€Filing€of€Notice€of€Appeal€„ó ó€AÏprematurely€filed€notice€of€appeal€shall€be€treated€as€filed€afterÏthe€entry€of€the€judgment€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€and€onÏthe€day€thereof.€€ÌœÌ›ÌÓÓà àAs€explained€in€the€Committee€Comment,€the€quoted€provision€œwas›€for€the€limitedÏpurpose€of€preserving€the€validity€of€a€notice€of€appeal€filed€after€entry€of€final€judgment€butÏbefore€the€disposition€of€œpost„judgment›€motions€such€as€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€€€€It€wasÏnot€intended€to€validate€notices€of€appeal€filed,€for€example,€with€the€complaint.€€Nor€was€itÏintended€to€preserve€the€effectiveness€of€a€notice€of€appeal€from€a€non„final€judgment€when€thatÏappeal€is€dismissed€by€the€appellate€court€for€lack€of€a€final€œjudgment.›ÌÌà àWhen€the€previous€appeal€was€dismissed,€the€appellant€had€the€opportunity€of€petitionÏto€rehear€and/or€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€theÏexpiration€of€the€time€for€same€or€the€exhaustion€of€such€remedies,€the€judgment€of€this€œCourt›Ïwas€final,€and€not€œsubject›€to€revision€by€this€Court.ÌÌà àThe€agreed€order€of€February€1,€1996,€if€it€completed€the€disposition€of€all€issuesÏbefore€the€Trial€œCourt,›€constituted€a€final€judgment€from€which€a€new€appeal€on€all€issues€wasÏavailable€by€timely€notice€of€appeal€which,€apparently,€was€not€filed.ÌÌà àThe€motions€of€March€18,€1996,€and€May€16,€1996,€are€an€effort€to€rely€upon€theÏoriginal€notice€of€appeal€from€the€non„final€judgment.€€By€Rule€4(d),€said€notice€was€deemedÍto€have€been€œfiled›€on€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€ð ðfrom€which€(the€appeal)€was€œtaken.ðð€›ÏUndoubtedly,€the€judgment€named€in€the€notice€was€œthe›€non„final€judgment.€€It€has€served€itsÏpurpose€by€causing€a€record€to€be€transmitted€to€this€Court.€€Having€served€its€purpose,€itÏbecame€ð ðòòfunctus€officioððóó€(a€task€performed).€€òòBlackððs€Law€œDictionary,›€óóFourth€Edition,€p.802,Ïand€useless€for€any€further€purpose.€€òòCity€Finance€Co.€œv.›€Harris,€óó60€Tenn.€App.€188,€445ÏœS.W.2d›€467€(1968);€òòState€v.€Stafford,óó€183€Tenn.€186,€191€œS.W.2d›€442€(1946).ÌÌà àThe€motions€seek€relief€under€œT.R.A.P.›€Rule€2,€but€said€rule€specifically€denies€to€thisÏœCourt›€the€power€to€waive€the€timeliness€œof›€a€notice€of€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€motion€of€the€appellant€is€overruled,€and€appellant€is€taxed€with€accrued€cost€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue.ÓÓà àœÌÌÌà àMOTION€OF€THE€APPELLANT€IS€OVERRULED.›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœÌÌÌà àà àà à›à àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœÌ_____________________________________›ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌœÌÌ_____________________________________›ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE