WPCf/ # VUNa % 0 Nb 0 j bN w@V 4  0D 0J 0TG 0^ 0h 0ra 0| 0O 0 1ueU , 0d Bj D3 U,@ 0@lU >B)DC AMVU*B_nn% X!K%$v~p&v' AO-. 0D. D// BI/HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ("  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2˦$ y!     XdX   `   0   MRS 92CDamronBiankaSadlerDamrons- - efgDh[i[jakUlUmӀwD 3|xw(#$  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`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X dDamron v. Sadler - Dissenting Opinion  ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   $$$$'dxd<  9p`(Monaco("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd-0C << G<  9p`(Arial 8 !  #d#!..   22   YYY FILED2XJune28,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   U !#d#!..   $    .X         ConventionontheServiceAbroadofJudicialandExtrajudicialDocumentsinCivilorCommercialMatters,Nov.15,1965,20U.S.T.361,367.TheseriesentitledUnitedStatesTreatiesandOtherInternationalAgreements(U.S.T.)publishedbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofStatecanbefoundintheTennesseeStateLibraryandArchives. d !#d#!..   $    .X         TheTennesseeSupremeCourtLawLibraryincludestheUnitedStatesCodeAnnotatedinitscollection.  !#d#!..   $    .X         HagueServiceConvention,Fed.R.Civ.4,28U.S.C.A.at222.TheGermangovernmentlaterextendedthesamerestrictiontotheterritoryformerlycomprisingtheGermanDemocraticRepublic.SeeHagueServiceConvention,Fed.R.Civ.P.4,28U.S.C.A.,at127(WestSupp.1996).  !#d#!..   $    .X         Tenn.R.Evid.202(b)(5)providesthat [u]ponreasonablenoticetoadverseparties,apartymayrequestthatthetrialcourttake,andthecourtmaytake,judicialnoticeof...treaties,conventions,thelawsofforeigncountries,internationallaw,andmaritimelaw.  !#d#!..   $    .X         Clearly,thisistruebecausetheDamronsattorneydidnotattempttoserveMs.SadlerthroughtheMinistryofJusticeofBadenWrttemburg.SeeHagueServiceConvention,Fed.R.Civ.P.4,28U.S.C.A.at221.  !#d#!..   $    .X         Tenn.R.Civ.P.3wasamendedeffectiveonJuly1,1995toeliminatetherecommencementprovisionandtoextendthereissuanceperiodfromsixmonthstooneyear.TheseamendmentscanbeofnoassistancetotheDamronssincetheirclaimswerealreadytimebarredbyJuly1,1995.SeeYancyv.Yancy,52Tenn.(5Heisk.)353,36364(1871);Collierv.MemphisLight,Gas&WaterDiv.,657S.W.2d771,775(Tenn.Ct.App.1983). N !#d#!..   $    .X         TheunsubstantiatedclaimsoftheDamrons'lawyerthathewasinducednottoreissueprocessbecauseofatelephoneconversationwithsomeoneinthetrialcourtclerksofficedonotprovidegroundsforTenn.R.Civ.P.60oranyothertypeofequitablerelieffromhisfailuretoattendtotheserviceofthesummonsandcomplaint. A !#d#!..   $    .X         Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionsmaybebasedonanyoftheaffirmativedefensescontainedinTenn.R.Civ.P.8.03,includingadefensebasedonthestatuteoflimitations.SeeAnthonyv.Tidwell,560S.W.2d908,909(Tenn.1977)(affirmativedefensesmaybeassertedinaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion).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'\7dd7    .ԛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE .JOSEPHSEANDAMRONandwife, )MRS.JOSEPHSEANDAMRON, )      ) Plaintiffs/Appellants,  )      ) DavidsonCircuit      ) No.92C528VS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019511CV00502ٜL130;+'h|M`  `LߛBIANKADENISESADLER,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )  7dd7  . DISSENTINGOPINION   . Themajorityhasvacatedthedismissalofthisclearlytimebarredcaseandhasremandeditforfurtherproceedingsthatwillinevitablyresultinitsdismissalagain.Icannotconcurwiththiswastefulandunnecessaryproceduresincetherecordbeforeusdemonstratesbeyondperadventurethatthecomplaintwasnottimelyfiled.Considerationsofjudicialeconomyandconservationofthepartiesfinancialresourceswarrantbringingthiscasetoanend.@ I.  OnApril5,1991,therewasacollisionattheintersectionofMurfreesboroRoadandHobsonPikebetweenvehiclesbeingdrivenbyJosephSeanDamronandBiankaDeniseSadler.Mr.DamronandhiswifehiredalawyerandonApril3,1992,filedanegligenceactionagainstMs.SadlerintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty.Thesummonsissuedonthedaythecomplaintwasfiledandwasreturnedunservedwiththenotation DoesnotlivehereperApt.Mgr.NottobefoundinmyCounty.̛̜ ThecaselanguishedforoveroneyearuntilJune8,1993,whenthetrialcourtdismisseditforlackofprosecution.TheDamronslawyermovedtosetasidetheorderofdismissalonthegroundthathe wasattemptingtoreachasettlementanddidnotrealizetheCourtwoulddismiss[thecomplaint]forlackofprosecution.ThetrialcourtreinstatedthecasetoitsdocketonOctober18,1993. RealizingthathehadneverobtainedserviceofprocessonMs.Sadler,theDamronslawyerissuedanothersummonsonOctober19,1993.Thissummonswasalsoreturnedunservedwiththenotation NottobefoundinRutherfordCounty.WhentheDamronslawyerdiscoveredthatMs.SadlerhadmovedtotheFederalRepublicofGermany,heattemptedtoserveherdirectlyusingapluriessummonsmailedtoheraddressinStuttgartbytheTennesseeSecretaryofState.ThereturnreceiptcardboreasignatureofapersonotherthanMs.Sadler. OnApril27,1994,Ms.Sadlermadeaspecialappearancetocontestpersonaljurisdictionandtheadequacyofserviceofprocess.TheDamronslawyeragaintooknoactiononthecase.OnNovember18,1994,thetrialcourtclerkagainnotifiedhimthatthecasewouldbedismissedforlackofprosecutionifitwasnotmovedalong.WhentheDamronslawyerdidnotrespondtothisnoticeinatimelymanner,thetrialcourtdismissedthecaseforthesecondtimeonJanuary20,1995.OnMarch31,1995,thetrialcourtsetasidethedismissalandsetthecasefortrialonJuly19,1995. Ms.Sadlerrenewedhermotiontodismissthecomplaintforlackofpersonaljurisdictionandforinsufficientserviceofprocess,pointingoutthatthemethodtheDamronslawyerchosetoserveherwithprocesswasineffectiveundertheHagueConventionontheServiceAbroadofJudicialandExtrajudicialDocuments.TheDamronslawyerfiledanuntimelyresponsetothismotion.OnMay25,1995,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdismissingthecomplaintbecausetheprocessdidnotcomplywiththeHagueServiceConventionandbecausetheDamronshadfailedtoperfectserviceonMs.SadlerinatimelymannerasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.3. Onthisappeal,theDamronsassertthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegiventhemmoretimetoperfectserviceofprocessonMs.Sadler.TheyalsoassertthattheirlawyershouldhavebeenexcusedfromcomplyingwithTenn.R.Civ.P.3becausehehadmistakenlybelievedthattheoriginalsummonshadbeenservedbasedonatelephoneconversationwith apersonintheclerksoffice.Finally,theyassertthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavereliedonTenn.R.Civ.P.3todismisstheircomplaintsinceMs.Sadlerdidnotincludethisdefenseinhermotiontodismiss. ThemajorityhasdecidedtovacatethedismissaloftheDamronscomplaintonseveralnovelgrounds.First,itconcludesthatMs.SadlercannotrelyontheHagueServiceConventionbecauseshefailedtooffer satisfactoryevidenceoftheFederalRepublicofGermanyslimitingdeclarationsoflimitationswithregardtotheserviceofjudicialdocumentsunderArticle10oftheHagueServiceConvention.Second,itconcludesthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavedismissedtheDamronscomplaintbasedonTenn.R.Civ.P.3.However,themajoritysurprisinglyconcludesthattheDamrons cannotrelyontheoriginalcommencement[oftheaction]totollthestatuteoflimitationsandinvitesthetrialcourttodismisstheDamronscomplaintagain uponproperpresentationoftheaffirmativedefenseofstatuteoflimitations.@ II.  Ms.SadlermovedtodismisstheDamronscomplaintforinsufficiencyofserviceofprocess.SheassertedthatservicebycertifiedmailthroughTennesseesSecretaryofStatewasineffectivebecausethismethodofservicewasnotallowedbytheFederalRepublicofGermanysreservationstotheHagueServiceConvention.Ms.Sadlerprovidedthetrialcourtwithallthedocumentsnecessarytosupporthermotion.Themajorityhasdecidedtoreversethetrialcourtbecausethesedocumentswerenotincludedintherecordonappeal.ThisreasoningisdifficulttocomprehendbecausetheverysamedocumentscanbeeasilyfoundinthelawlibraryoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtandbecausethedeficiencyintherecordcouldhavebeeneasilycuredbysupplementingtheappellaterecordinaccordancewithTenn.R.App.P.24(e). TheHagueServiceConventionisamultilateraltreatyformulatedin1965bytheTenthSessionoftheHagueConferenceonPrivateInternationalLaw. 4   כItspurposeistoprovideasimplerwaytoserveprocessabroad,toassurethatdefendantsinforeignjurisdictionsreceiveactualandtimelynoticeofsuit,andtofacilitateproofofforeignservice.VolkswagenwerkAktiengesellschaftv.Schlunk,486U.S.694,698,108S.Ct.2104,2107(1988).ItisthesupremelawofthelandbecausetheUnitedStatesisasignatory.SeeZichermanv.KoreanAirLinesCo.,___U.S.___,___,116S.Ct.629,634(1996);AirFrancev.Saks,470U.S.392,406,105S.Ct.1338,Ϝ1346(1989);UnitedStatesv.Rauscher,119U.S.407,41819,7S.Ct.234,Ϝ23940(1886).Accordingly,thefulltextoftheconventionisincludedwiththeannotationstoFed.R.Civ.P.4inTitle28oftheUnitedStatesCodeAnnotated. 5    Thirtytwocountries,includingtheFederalRepublicofGermany,haveratifiedtheHagueServiceConvention.Article10oftheconventionpermitstheserviceofjudicialdocumentsbymail directlytopersonsabroadunlessthestateofdestinationobjectstothisprocedure.WhentheFederalRepublicofGermanyratifiedtheconvention,itobjectedtothemethodsofserviceprovidedforinArticles8and10.TheGermangovernmentsdeclarationstated:8 8 Servicethroughdiplomaticorconsularagents(Article8oftheConvention)isthereforeonlypermissibleifthedocumentistobeserveduponanationaloftheStatesendingthedocument.ServicepursuanttoArticle10oftheConventionshallnotbeeffected. 6   כ̛̛̛̜Asaresultofthisaction,serviceofjudicialdocumentsinGermanymustbeaccomplishedthroughthecentralauthoritiesdesignatedbytheGermangovernment.SeeHagueServiceConvention,arts.3through6,20U.S.T.at36263. ThereisnoquestionthatallthesedocumentswereprovidedtothetrialcourtandtotheDamronslawyerwellinadvanceofthehearingonMs.Sadlersmotiontodismiss.Thus,thetrialcourtproperlyexerciseditsdiscretionunderTenn.R.Evid.202(b)(5) 7   ׀toconsidernotonlythetextoftheHagueServiceConventionbutalsothetermsoftheFederalRepublicofGermanysratificationoftheconvention.NoteventheDamronslawyerdisputesthathisattempttoserveMs.SadlerinGermanywasinconsistentwiththeFederalRepublicofGermanysreservationstotheHagueServiceConvention. 8   כThus,themajoritysdiscomfortwiththetrialcourtsdecisiononthisissueisnotonlymysteriousbutalsogroundless.@ III.  Actionsforpersonalinjuriesmustbecommencedwithinoneyearafterthecauseofactionaccrued.Tenn.CodeAnn.283104(a)(1)(Supp.1995).AccordingtotheversionofTenn.R.Civ.P.3ineffectduringalltimesrelevanttothisproceeding, 9   8 8 Allcivilactionsarecommencedbyfilingacomplaintandsummonswiththeclerkofthecourt.Anactioniscommencedwithinthemeaningofanystatuteoflimitationsuponsuchfilingofacomplaintandsummons,whetherprocessbeissuedornotissuedandwhetherprocessbereturnedservedorunserved.Ifprocessremainsunissuedfor30daysorifprocessisnotservedorisnotreturnedwithin30daysfromissuance,regardlessofthereason,theplaintiffcannotrelyupontheoriginalcommencementtotolltherunningofastatuteoflimitationsunlesstheplaintiffeither:8 8 0 (1) Continuestheactionbyobtainingissuanceofnewprocesswithin6monthsfromissuanceofthepreviousprocessor,ifnoprocessissued,within6monthsfromthefilingofthecomplaintandsummons,or8 8 0 (2) Recommencestheactionwithin1yearfromissuanceoftheoriginalprocessor,ifnoprocessissued,within1yearfromthefilingoftheoriginalcomplaintandsummons.TherecordestablishesbeyondanydoubtthattheDamronslawyerdidnottakeadvantageofeitherofthesafetynetprovisionsinTenn.R.Civ.P.3 :   כand,therefore,thattheDamronsclaimsagainstMs.Sadlerarebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.SeeGregoryv.McCulley,912S.W.2d175,177(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). EventhoughtheyacknowledgethattheDamronssuitagainstMs.SadlerwillsurelybedismissedbecauseitwasnotcommencedwithinthetimerequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.283104(a)(1),themajoritytakesthetrialcourttotaskforbasingitsdecisiontodismissthecomplaintonthefailureoftheDamrons'lawyertocomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.3.Icannotunderstandthisreasoning. Trialcourtsmay,ontheirownmotion,dismisscomplaintsthatdonotstateacauseofaction.Donaldsonv.Donaldson,557S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1977).Theyshouldexercisethispowersparinglyandwithgreatcaretoprotecttherightsoftheparties.Harrisv.BaptistMemorialHosp.,574S.W.2d730,731(Tenn.1978).Courtsentertainingthepossibilityofdismissingacomplaintsuasponteforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedshouldconstruethepleadingsliberallyintheplaintiffsfavor.Huckebyv.Spangler,521S.W.2d568,571(Tenn.1975). Complaintsbasedonclaimsthatarebarredbythestatuteoflimitationsdonotstateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. ;   ׀Thepapersbeforethetrialcourt,includingthecomplaintandthethreesummonses,establishthattheDamronscomplaintwastimebarredbecausetheiroriginalsummonswasunservedandbecausetheirlawyerdidnoteitherrenewthesummonswithinsixmonthsorrecommencethesuitwithinoneyear. Inmostcircumstances,plaintiffsshouldbegivennoticeofthedefensesassertedagainsttheirclaimsinordertogivethemanopportunitytorespond.Underthefactsofthiscase,however,theDamronswerenotprejudicedbyMs.SadlersfailuretomentionTenn.R.Civ.P.3inhermotiontodismissorbythetrialcourtsdecisiontorelyonTenn.R.Civ.P.3inadditiontoothergroundstodismisstheircomplaint.NothingcouldhavebeendoneatthatstageoftheproceedingstochangethefactthattheirlawyerseffortstoserveMs.SadlerdidnotcomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.3. ThemajorityhasvacatedtheorderdismissingtheDamronscomplaintandhasremandedthecaseforfurtherproceedings.IthasalsoinvitedMs.SadlertoamendhermotiontodismisstoassertspecificallythattheDamronsclaimsarebarredbythestatuteoflimitationsandhasstatedthattheamendedmotion,ifpermittedbythetrialcourt,willbesuccessful.Icannotfathomthepurposeofthisneedlessremandinlightofthetrialcourtsacknowledgedpowertodismissacomplaintsuasponteforfailuretostateaclaim.      ____________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE