WPC-! 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1u U,v UB % 0d U,N U6z B B) DC AM9U*+ D3q 0@jv~7v AO 0D D/ B!yp 3|x($ DDDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(Modern<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd-&C << G<  9p`(Arial ! !  #d##  ((   YYY FILED(X July3,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk $$$$'dxd  !#d##   $       #ԀT.R.A.P.2reads:0 Forgoodcause,includingtheinterestofexpeditingdecisionuponanymatter,theSupremeCourt,CourtofAppeals,orCourtofCriminalAppealsmaysuspendtherequirementsorprovisionsofanyoftheserulesinaparticularcaseonmotionofapartyoronitsmotionandmayorderproceedingsinaccordancewithitsdiscretion,exceptthatthisruleshallnotpermittheextensionoftimeforfilinganoticeofappealprescribedinRule4,anapplicationforpermissiontoappealprescribedinRule11,orapetitionforreviewprescribedinRule12. g !#d##   $       #ԀT.R.A.P.21(b)reads:0 Forgoodcauseshowntheappellatecourtmayenlargethetimeprescribedbytheserulesorbyitsorderfordoinganyact,ormaypermitanacttobedoneaftertheexpirationofsuchtime;butthecourtmaynotenlargethetimeforfilinganoticeofappealprescribedinRule4,anapplicationforpermissiontoappealprescribedinRule11,orapetitionforreviewprescribedinRule12.("$     ` !#d##   $       #ProfessorSobieskiinhisProceduralDetailsoftheProposedTennessee0 RulesofAppellateProcedure,TennesseeLawReviewVol.46,#1,p.1,(1978)notesthatserviceofthenoticeofappealontheclerkoftheappellatecourtadvisesthatcourtofthependencyoftheappealandpermitsittoassumesupervisionoftheappeal,whichcomportswiththeABAStandardsRelatingtotheAppellateCourts.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##        \RA'\7XXdd7L')&;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION ̜ROBERTDALECOBB,   )C/ANO.03A019602CV00051      ) PlaintiffAppellant, )HAMBLENLAW      )v.      )HON.JOHNK.WILSON,      )JUDGEDOUGLASR.BEIER,   )      ) DefendantAppellee.  )DISMISSED̜J.RANDALLSHELTON,Morristown,forPlaintiffAppellant.JAMESM.DAVIS,Morristown,forDefendantAppellee.̛̜@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  Thedeterminativeissueonappealiswhethertheappealshouldbedismissedbecausetheappellantdidnotfilenoticeoftheappealwiththeclerkoftheappellatecourtdesignatedinthenoticeofappeal.̛  IntheTrialCourtappelleewasgrantedsummaryjudgment,andappellanttimelyfiledtherequisitenoticeofϜappeal,exceptwiththeclerkoftheappellatecourt.AppelleefiledamotiontodismissonthatbasiswiththisCourt,andtheissuehasbeenbriefedandargued.  TheRulesofAppellateProcedurestate:0 0 (a)ServiceofNoticeofAppealinCivilActionsNotlaterthan7daysafterfilingnoticeofappeal,theappellantinacivilactionshallserveacopyofthenoticeofappealoncounselofrecordofeachparty...andontheclerkoftheappellatecourtdesignatedinthenoticeofappeal.T.R.A.P.Rule5(1995).  TheRulewasmodifiedin1984toremovetherequirementofnoticetotheappellatecourt,because theexperienceoftheappellateclerkshasbeenthattherequirementofservinganoticeofappealattheappellatelevelaccomplishednovitalpurpose.... AdvisoryCommissionCommentstoT.R.A.P.5,1984.In1991,therequirementofserviceofnoticeontheappellatecourtclerkwasaddedtotherule,usingtheexactlanguagethathadbeeninthepre1984version.T.R.A.P.Rule5,1983.  AppellantconcedeshedidnotfileacopyofthenoticewiththeclerkoftheCourtofAppeals.FailuretocomplywithRule5meritsdismissalofanaction.G.F.PlunkConstructionCo.,Inc.v.BarrettProperties,Inc.,640S.W.2d215(Tenn.1982).  InPlunk,theappellanthadfiledanoticeofappealwiththetrialcourtbutnotwiththeopposingcounselortheclerkoftheCourtofAppeals.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthatitwaspossiblefortheserviceupontheclerkoftheappellatecourttobewaived.Id.Thiswaiver,however,requiresashowingofgoodcause.Id.T.R.A.P.2 +   ;T.R.A.P.21 ,   . Plunknotedthatcourtsaremoregenerousinfindinggoodcausebeforethetimeforpermittinganacttobedonehasexpired.Thecourtdeterminedthataftertheexpirationofthetimeprescribedintheruleshasoccurred,ashowingofgoodcause requiresmorethanameregoodfaithbeliefthataroutineofficechorehasbeentimelyperformed. Id.at218.TheCourtwentontorejectcounselsexcusethathesincerelythoughtthenoticesofappealhadbeenmailed.  Inthiscase,accordingtohisbrief,Appellantfailedtoservetheappellateclerkdueto inadvertence,therequirementofT.R.A.P.Rule5(a)beingoverlooked. NocasesseekingtoavoiddismissalbecauseofalawyersmisreadingofT.R.A.P.Rule5hasbeencalledtoourattention.However,thisexcusehasbeenprofferedforreliefunderT.R.C.P.Rule60.InKilbyv.Sivley,745S.W.2d284(Tenn.App.1987).PlaintiffsattorneyerroneouslyfollowedtheappealproceduresofT.R.A.PRule12insteadofT.R.A.P.Rule3andfiledanappealwiththeclerkoftheCourtofAppealsinsteadoftheTrialCourt. 򛀀 ThisCourtdeterminedthatthistypeoferrordidnotconstitutea mistake thatcouldjustifyT.R.C.P.Rule60relief.Therationalewas:0 0 ThemerefactthatalawyerisignorantoftherulesormistakenlyreadstherulesisnotwithinitselfreasontoinvokeRule60.02(1),Tenn.R.Civ.P.Tograntreliefineverycasewherealawyerismistakenabouttherulesorisnegligentinreadingtheruleswouldemasculatetherulespertainingtofilingofnoticeofappeal.Id.at287;alsoseeH.D.EdgemonContractingCo.,Inc.v.King,803S.W.2d220,222(Tenn.1991).  Thistypeoferrordoesnotconstitute goodcause. SeeKilby.TherequirementsofT.R.A.P.Rule5arereadstrictly,Plunk.Inaddition,thefilingofnoticewiththeappellatecourtclerkwasconsideredimportantenoughtowarrantitsbeingbroughtbackasarequirementinT.R.A.P.Rule5. .   כGiventheseconsiderations,thebasisadvanceddoesnotconstitutecausetoinvokeawaiveroftherequirementunderRule2,TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.  Wedismisstheappealandremandatappellantscost.       ________________________       HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.