ÿWPCž kJ~ªž1Ýwy`*O$승ob‚ÊvõôçŸÕ7'-†¦²2g Iÿ3=¤s"›®¿ üŸ­_펨A´"„YH+®õq÷Ê<:€¼{–Seqå; ø“‰|€g¯ï6¿\ãÑHÊž×[×¼Qay3ÌìZœ?+îÚè¦ÂuvóBQ{ã×PbÅ^½¤Jã1¤@QóeÜ%l©‚M¤™Š‡ßFKhŹ‘ ×ÃÍ„Y)é£Lä@‚Ü£ÒCË/!`œ“Œ´Ð}3ö 3QŸÒ3‚‡åpcUkGíø‰uÐ ²l§^©¤[mžEš2h [媤BÜÊø©2uŠk¡„L>’¥¸wX÷œzµ9Ózˮؓœ¹0ÕU G##ü\‚-5¦?¼ßfUPô~P&æ@|e&?Êœº9¤Gèš@D Ó<ˆË'õÛM[ÁjÐ_zŽÐIÁ*TH~Y¹Lèµ’x$Ôx«-¼I,m…î´²âSÛˆGß}Sã™ 7*p+j¼ÔCâ9À›.˜fbSŒŠ£UÒƒ Eu Kßh× Êq¹Û!w@ÿ—JLÜ…¡ô¿‰<€Lä]Âc~s·åÉ…Žófì5lºÝJß|(-ùƒ˜Ñeù¶;“… ìt™`# @U NK %™ 0(Ÿw@Ç4  * D bL :T Ž 0P U:à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à AQ Æk 0D1 1 0Du u D/¹ Bè B D3" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 0DU U U U U U U U U A™ D? BGW˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ŠD‹ŒIŽDI‘’Ó€œÕcl&tttttt3|xœwaiver- ù- 0Ñ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ øÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X©^XXXÔÔ€6XX©^ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X©^X6ÔÐ  ÐÌApril€7,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"T$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡¼|¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ foÑÓ'€Ð‡XDè“X°œX'Óœñœññœññœññ’ñœñ’ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñœññ’ññ’ñDOYLE›€SHIRT€MANUFACTURINGà D à)Ð ° Ðñœñœßt€ )>.*jxH€` `€€@E<@` 8ttxPtÀð € tß›ñœñCORP.,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà D à)Ð À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà D à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚XD˜‘X€Ð‡XDè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à D à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð à0 Ðà Ø àà D à)à  à01„A„01„9711„CH„00670Ð ð@ Ðv.à Ø àà D à)Ð  P Ðà Ø àà D à)à  àPutnam€ChanceryÐ  ` ÐT.€MICHAEL€œO'MARA,›€et€al,€à D à)à  àNo.€96„409Ð  p Ðà Ø àà D à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à D à)Ð @  Ðà Ø àà D à)ÌÌÌÔ#†XV-X¼¼|8#ÔÔ‡»ü»XXV-ÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ €Ð  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€PUTNAM€COUNTYÌÌAT€COOKEVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€VERNON€NEAL,€CHANCELLORÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚XD˜‘X9ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSAMUEL€J.€HARRISÌP.€O.€Box€873ÌCookeville,€Tennessee€€38503ÌÔ#†XV-X»»ü0#ÔÔ‡¼|¼XXV-Ôà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÐ °&"  ÐÌÌÌTOM€CORTSÌP.€O.€Box€198985ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219„8985Ìà Ø àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌñ’ñÑ foÑÑ7€V-XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ foÑÑ#€O@Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  Ññ’ñÌWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ à:0639 ÐÑ foÑÑ7€V-XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ’ñÑ foÑÑ7€¦XXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  Ññ’ñÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†XV-X¼¼|#ÔÔ‡°-°XXV-ÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†XV-X°°- #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ӜԀ¼|¼XXV-Ôà  àThis›€appeal€involves€the€requirement€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ T¤ ÐProcedure€11.01€that€pleadings€be€signed€by€an€attorney€or€by€a€party€if€that€partyÏis€not€represented€by€an€attorney.€€Finding€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€comply€withÏRule€11€within€the€statutory€period€of€limitations,€the€Putnam€County€ChanceryÏCourt€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€œcourt.Ì›ÌÓ  Ó€€I.ÌÓ¡ Óà  àThe€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€On€October€23,€1996,€Doyle€ShirtÏManufacturing€Corporation€("Doyle")€filed€a€complaint€against€T.€MichaelÏO'Mara€alleging€attorney€malpractice€for€Mr.€O'Mara's€alleged€failure€to€file€aÏtimely€adversary€proceeding€in€a€bankruptcy€case€on€behalf€of€Doyle.€€TheÏpresident€of€Doyle,€Robert€Roggen,€who€is€not€an€attorney,€signed€this€complaint.€ÏOn€November€5,€1996,€Mr.€O'Mara€filed€an€answer€to€Doyle's€complaint€assertingÏthe€following€affirmative€defense:€€"Complaint€is€void€in€as€much€as€theÏComplaint€has€not€been€signed€by€an€attorney€and€a€corporation€cannot€proceedÏpro€se."€€The€first€evidence€of€Doyle's€attorney's€presence€in€these€proceedingsÏwas€on€December€20,€1996€when€this€attorney€filed€a€notice€of€appearance€and€aÏmotion€to€amend€the€complaint.ÌÌà  àMr.€O'Mara€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€the€grounds€that€Doyle'sÏcomplaint€was€"void€because€it€was€not€signed€by€an€attorney€and€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€bringing€a€complaint€had€now€run."€€In€Mr.€O'Mara's€supportingÏaffidavit,€he€stated€that€Doyle€had€agreed€with€his€recommendation€not€to€file€theÏadversary€proceeding.€€Nevertheless,€Mr.€O'Mara€claims€that€on€October€23,€1995,Ïhe€sent€by€facsimile€a€letter€to€Doyle€with€the€information€that€he€had€not€filed€anÏadversary€proceeding.€€The€next€day,€on€October€24,€Mr.€O'Mara€received€a€letterÏfrom€Joan€Ranney€of€Doyle€which€acknowledged€receipt€of€the€October€23€letterÏand€stated€that€Mr.€O'Mara's€"failure€to€[take€the€above€action]€has€forever€barredÏthe€corporation€from€the€possibility€of€recovering€the€losses€incurred€by€[the]Ïembezzlement."€€Therefore,€it€is€Mr.€O'Mara's€position€that,€as€of€October€24,Ï1995,€Doyle€knew€that€Mr.€O'Mara€had€not€filed€the€adversary€proceeding€andÐ ¼9 5@ Ðthus€Doyle's€cause€of€action€had€accrued.€€Since€Doyle€failed€to€file€a€validÏcomplaint€signed€by€an€attorney€within€one€year€from€the€accrual€of€its€action€onÏOctober€24,€1995,€the€complaint€was€properly€dismissed.ÌÌà  àJoan€Ranney's€affidavit€was€filed€as€an€exhibit€to€Doyle's€memorandumÏopposing€summary€judgment.€€Ms.€Ranney€claims€that€as€the€secretary€for€RobertÏRoggen,€she€was€directed€to€obtain€legal€counsel€to€pursue€Doyle's€claim€againstÏMr.€O'Mara.€€She€stated€that€both€she€œand€Mr.›€Roggen€were€unaware€that€theÏcomplaint€had€to€be€signed€by€an€attorney.€€Ms.€Ranney€maintains€that€she€madeÏevery€effort€to€obtain€counsel€from€her€home€or€office€in€Las€Vegas,€NevadaÏbefore€October€24,€1996.€€However,€she€was€unsuccessful€as€attorneys€wereÏunwilling€to€take€the€case€due€to€the€nature€of€the€case€as€well€as€their€friendshipÏwith€Mr.€O'Mara.€€She€stated€that€Doyle€retained€its€present€attorney€œñˆñbyñˆññ‰ñonñ‰ñ›€NovemberÏ22,€1996.€ÌÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€Mr.€O'Mara€stating€that€hisÏmotion€was€well€taken.€€On€appeal,€Doyle€presents€one€issue€for€our€review:ÌÓ€Óà8  àWhether€a€complaint€alleging€attorney€malpractice,€which€wasÏsigned€only€by€the€non„lawyer€president€of€a€corporateÏplaintiff,€and€where€said€plaintiff€was€unable€to€obtain€legalÏcounsel€before€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€mayÏbe€amended€so€as€to€relate€back€as€a€timely€filed€pleading?Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€‹ÓThe€essence€of€Doyle's€argument€on€appeal€is€that€this€court€should€reconsider€orÏdistinguish€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court's€holding€in€òòò òOld€Hickory€EngineeringÐ À'#* Ðand€Machine€Co.€v.€Henryó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€782€œ(Tenn.1996).›€€Ð [)«$, ÐÓ  ÓœÌII.›ÌÓÓà  àIn€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó,€the€court€held€"that€a€corporation€cannot€act€pro€se€inÐ &.v)2 Ða€court€proceeding€nor€can€it€be€represented€by€an€officer€or€other€non„lawyerÏagent."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€786.€€As€in€our€case,€the€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó€complaint€had€been€signedÐ Y1©,6 Ðand€filed€by€the€non„lawyer€president€of€the€plaintiff€corporation.€€The€court€statedÏthat€"[t]he€plaintiff's€insistence,€that€the€signing€of€the€complaint€by€its€presidentÏconstitutes€compliance€with€Rule€11's€provision€that€a€pleading€may€be€signed€byÏthe€party,€is€not€consistent€with€policy€or€precedent.€€A€corporation€is€an€artificialÏentity,€which€'cannot€act€or€speak€except€through€natural€persons€dulyÐ T9¤4@ Ðauthorized.'"€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€785€(quoting€òòò òGreat€Am.€€Indem.€Co.€v.€Utility€Contractors,Ð ° ÐInc.ó óóó,€21€Tenn.€App.€463,€471,€111€S.W.2d€901,€907€(1937)).€€To€hold€otherwiseÐ K› Ðwould€permit€the€corporation's€president€to€engage€in€the€unauthorized€practiceÏof€law.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€7,€ðð€1.01.€€In€explaining€the€policy€considerationsÐ ~ Î Ðbehind€its€decision,€the€court€cited€cases€noting€the€skill,€training,€character,Ïsupervision€and€discipline€that€is€necessary€for€and€should€accompany€the€practiceÏof€law.€€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€785„86€(citing€òòò òThird€Nat'l€Bank€v.€CelebrateÐ I™  ÐYourself€Prod'ns,€Inc.ó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€704,€706„07€œ(Tenn.App.1990)›€and€òòò òNicolletÐ ä4  ÐRestoration,€Inc.€v.€Turnhamó óóó,€486€N.W.2d€753,€754€(Minn.1992)).Ð Ï  Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€evidence€establishes€and€Doyle€does€not€disputeÏthat€it€knew€about€its€cause€of€action€on€October€24,€1995€when€it€sent€a€fax€toÏMr.€O'Mara€stating€that€his€conduct€had€"forever€barred"€Doyle€from€a€certainÏlegal€remedy.€€œñ‹ñTñ‹ññ‹ñ›ñ‹ññŠñAs›€referred›€to›€above,›€tñŠñhe›€statute€of€limitations€for€attorney€œmal„practice›€is€one€year€fromÏthe€date€of€accrual.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28-3-104(a)(2)€œ(Supp.1998).›€€Therefore,Ïthe€issue€is€whether€Doyle's€filing€on€October€25,€1996€or€its€Motion€to€AmendÏits€Complaint€on€December€20,€1996€satisfied€the€requirements€of€Rule€11.€€InÏlight€of€the€clear€holding€of€the€supreme€court€in€Old€Hickory€which€was€basedÏupon€very€similar€facts,€we€find€that€Doyle's€complaint€signed€by€its€non„attorneyÏcorporate€president€was€inadequate.€€œÌ›Ìà  àIn€addition,€we€decline€Doyle's€invitation€to€reconsider€the€SupremeÏCourt's€ruling.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€is€an€intermediate€appellate€court€whoseÏduty€is€to€"apply€the€law€as€promulgated€by€the€legislature€or€as€announced€by€theÏSupreme€Court.€€This€Court€is€bound€by€the€Supreme€Court's€decisions€under€theÏdoctrine€of€stare€decisis€and€in€no€way€is€it€the€function€of€this€court€toÏintentionally€reverse€the€holding€of€the€Supreme€Court."€€òòò òHollingsworth€v.€SafecoÐ 2.‚)4 ÐIns.€Co.ó óóó,€782€S.W.2d€477,€479„80€œ(Tenn.App.1988).›€€€Ð Í/+6 ÐÌà  àWe€must€next€address€the€issue€of€whether€Doyle's€attempt€to€correct€itsÏfiling€brought€its€complaint€within€Rule€11€compliance.€€In€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó,€œñŒñ937›Ð ˜4è/< ÐS.W.2dÐ ˜4è/< Ðat€786,Ð ˜4è/< ÐñŒñthe€courtÐ ˜4è/< Ðcited€the€following€amendment€to€Rule€11€as€"declarative€of€the€policy€andÏpractice€regulating€court€proceedings€in€that€particular":€€"AnÌunsigned›€paper€shall€be€stricken€unless€omission€of€the€signature€is€correctedÐ c9³4B Ðpromptly€after€being€called€to€the€attention€of€the€attorney€or€œparty."€€Tenn.›€R.€Civ.ÏP.€11.01.€€The€principle€of€this€amendment€means€that€"the€status€of€[a]€complaintÏ[signed€by€a€non„attorney€corporate€president]€on€the€date€it€was€filed€was€asÏthough€it€contained€no€signature,€and,€because€of€that€deficiency,€it€was€subjectÏto€being€stricken€from€the€record."€€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€786.€€The€òòò òOldÐ  ` ÐHickoryó óóó€court€stated€that€"[t]he€construction€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiff€in€thisÐ « û  Ðcase€is€that€the€plaintiff€was€notified€of€the€fatal€deficiency€in€the€complaint€by€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€dismiss€on€April€13,€1994,€and€the€plaintiff€took€no€actionÏuntil€its€attorney€filed€a€notice€of€appearance€on€May€20,€1994."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€The€courtÐ vÆ  Ðfound€that€this€was€"not€'prompt'€action."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Ð a ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€viewing€the€evidence€in€a€light€most€favorable€toÏDoyle,€it€was€notified€of€the€complaint's€deficiency€on€November€5,€1996,€whenÏMr.€O'Mara€filed€an€answer€to€Doyle's€complaint€arguing€as€an€affirmativeÏdefense€that€the€complaint€was€void€because€it€had€not€been€signed€by€an€attorneyÏand€a€corporation€cannot€proceed€pro€se.€€While€Ms.€Ranney€states€that€Doyle'sÏattorney€was€retained€by€November€22,€1996,€the€first€action€taken€by€thisÏattorney€was€on€December€20,€1996,€when€he€filed€a€notice€of€appearance€and€aÏmotion€to€amend€the€complaint.€€The€particular€facts€in€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó€areÐ l!¼$ Ðinstructive.€€There,€the€court€found€that€a€37„day€delay€was€not€"prompt€action."€ÏIn€light€of€the€court's€conclusion,€we€can€not€say€that€the€45„day€delay€in€theÏinstant€case€was€"prompt€action."ÌÌà  àDoyle€insists€that€the€facts€of€this€case€are€distinguishable€from€those€inÐ g)·$. Ðòòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó€due€to€the€particular€nature€of€an€attorney€malpractice€action.€€InÐ ÿ*O&0 ÐDoyle's€words,€the€significance€of€the€distinction€arises€from€a€situation€"whereÏthe€reality€of€the€legal€marketplace€makes€it€exceedingly€difficult€to€obtain€legalÏcounsel."€€Under€the€statute,€Doyle€had€one€year€to€find€an€attorney.€€WeÏrecognize€that€this€task€may€have€required€œññsomeñññŽñconsiderableñŽñ›€effort€especially€since€the€searchÏwas€made€from€Doyle's€office€in€Nevada.€€However,€we€are€convinced€that€oneÏyear€was€a€reasonable€amount€of€time€in€which€Doyle€could€have€found€andÏretained€an€attorney.€€ÌÓ  ÓœÌÐ Z9ª4B ÐIII.›ÌÓ>1Óà  àFinally€we€address€Mr.€O'Mara's€contention€that€this€is€a€frivolousÏappeal€because€the€facts€here€are€so€similar€to€those€in€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó.€€SectionÐ à0 Ð27-1-122€of€the€Tennessee€Code€allows€this€court€to€award€damages€for€theÏprosecution€of€a€frivolous€appeal.€€"A€frivolous€appeal€is€one€that€is€'devoid€ofÏmerit,'€òòò òCombustion€Engineering,€Inc.€v.€Kennedyó óóó,€562€S.W.2d€202€œ(Tenn.1978),›Ð « û  Ðor€one€in€which€there€is€little€prospect€that€it€can€ever€succeed."€€òòò òSee€IndustrialÐ F–  ÐDev.€Bd.€of€Tullahoma€v.€Hancockó óóó,€901€S.W.2d€382,€385€œ(Tenn.App.1995)›Ð á1  Ð(citing€òòò òBlack's€Law€Dictionaryó óóó,€601(5th€œEd.1979)).›€€While€the€facts€are€veryÐ |Ì  Ðsimilar,€they€are€not€œidenticalññ.€€ññññ›€in€that€the€instant€case€involves€legal€malpractice.€ÏBased€upon€this€factual€distinction,€wñññ‘ñWñ‘ñe€find€that€this€appeal€is€not€frivolous.ÌÓ  Ó€ÌIV.›ÌÓJ5Óà  àIn€conclusion,€we€affirm€the€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment€toÏthe€defendant€below,€Mr.€O'Mara.€€We€find€that€the€complaint€filed€by€Doyle€onÏOctober€23,€1996€was€inadequate€under€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€and€under€theÏcase€of€òòò òOld€Hickory€Engineering€and€Machine€Co.€v.€Henryó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€782Ð §÷ Ðœ(Tenn.1996).›€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€Doyle's€motion€to€amend€its€complaintÏ45€days€after€being€notified€of€the€complaint's€defect€did€not€constitute€promptÏaction€in€light€of€the€court's€holding€in€òòò òOld€Hickoryó óóó.€€€While€we€do€not€find€thatÐ r!Â$ ÐDoyle's€appeal€was€frivolous,€it€is€our€opinion€that€the€costs€of€appeal€should€beÏtaxed€to€Doyle.ÌÌÓ€Óà  àà ¼ à_______________________________ÌÔ€X¦XX¼¼Ì'Ôà  àà ¼ àWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ å(5$- ÐÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRES.€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEœ