WPCD # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 @ 0lH 0D 0J 0TB 0^ 0h 0r\ 0| 0J 0 1u` U, 0dU,eU>B)DC AM;U* v~ D3< Bov 0@_ AO 0D D/ B'HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ UӀyJ 3|x((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`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G<  9p`(Arial !"  &&   YYY FILED&X August16,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.&AppellateCourtClerk   !"   $       Rule15.03wasamended,effectiveJuly1,1995.Theamendedversionevidencesalegislativeintenttoavoidtheharshresultsufferedbyplaintiffsinthisandpriorcases.TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure15.03nowprovides:8 15.03.RelationBackofAmendments .Whenevertheclaimordefenseassertedinamendedpleadingsaroseoutoftheconduct,transaction,oroccurrencesetforthorattemptedtobesetforthintheoriginalpleading,theamendmentrelatesbacktothedateoftheoriginalpleading.Anamendmentchangingthepartyorthenamingofthepartybyoragainstwhomaclaimisassertedrelatesbackiftheforegoingprovisionissatisfiedandif,withintheperiodprovidedbylawforcommencinganactionorwithin120daysaftercommencementoftheaction,thepartytobebroughtinbyamendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionthatthepartywillnotbeprejudicedinmaintainingadefenseonthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butforamistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwouldhavebeenbroughtagainsttheparty.@ PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`++++'dxd dStyl{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'\` ` pX\RA'\ћ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON@ _______________________________________________________  ) LINDAGRANTHAMand  ) MadisonCountyCircuitCourt WILBURNGRANTHAM , ) No.C9446 )̀Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) )̜L%'$;+'h|`  `LߛVS. ) C.A.NO.02A019506CV00142 ) JACKSONMADISONCOUNTY  ) GENERALHOSPITALDISTRICT , ) )̀Defendant/Appellant. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofMadisonCountyatJackson. HonorableWhitLafon,Judge JerryD.Kizer,Jr. , DaleConder,Jr. RAINEY,KIZER,BUTLER,REVIERE&BELL,P.L.C.,Jackson,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendant/Appellant. JamesT.Sanderson , WilliamG.Hatton ,JAMEST. JIMSANDERSON&ASSOCIATES,P.C.,Bolivar,TennesseeAttorneysforPlaintiffs/Appellees.OPINIONFILED: REVERSEDANDREMANDED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) HIGHERS,J. :(Concurs)̛  ` ` XӜ Inthiscase,DefendantAppellant,JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrict,( HospitalDistrictor Defendant)appealsthetrialcourtsjudgmentgrantingtheMotiontoAmendComplaintfiledbyPlaintiffsAppellees,LindaandWilburnGrantham( Granthamsor Plaintiffs). OnFebruary20,1993,LindaGranthamallegedlyfellinaparkinglotownedbytheHospitalDistrict.OnFebruary18,1994,theGranthamsinitiatedthisactionforMrs.GranthamspersonalinjuriesandMr.Granthamslossofconsortium,namingJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalasthesoledefendant.OnFebruary23,1994,acopyoftheComplaintandSummonswereservedonJimMoss,thePresidentandChiefAdministrativeOfficeroftheHospitalDistrict. TheHospitalDistrictfiledaMotiontoDismissand/orforSummaryJudgment,assertingthat JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalwasnotalegalentityandwasnotcapableofbeingsued.Plaintiffs,inturn,filedaMotiontoAmendComplainttoname JacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrictasdefendant.TheHospitalDistrictopposedPlaintiffsMotiontoAmendComplaint,arguingthatRule15.03T.R.C.P.wouldnotallowanamendmenttoaddanewpartydefendanttorelatebacktothedateoftheoriginalcomplaintwhentheaddedpartyreceivesnoticeoftheoriginalcomplaintafterthestatuteoflimitationshasrun. ThetrialcourtgrantedPlaintiffsMotiontoAmendanddeniedDefendantsMotiontoDismissand/orforSummaryJudgment.OnJuly17,1996,thisCourtgrantedtheHospitalDistrictsapplicationforainterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule9T.R.A.P. ThesoleissueforreviewasweperceiveitiswhetherthetrialcourterredinallowingtheGranthamstoamendtheircomplaint,afterthestatuteoflimitationshasexpired,toincludethepropernameoftheHospitalDistrictinthestyleofthecase. AtthetimethePlaintiffssuitwasfiledtheversionofRule15.03oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurethatwasineffect (   ׀provided:8  15.03.RelationBackofAmendments .Whenevertheclaimordefenseassertedintheamendedpleadingsaroseoutoftheconduct,transactionoroccurrencesetforthorattemptedtobesetforthintheoriginalpleading,theamendmentrelatesbacktothedateoftheoriginalpleading.Anamendmentchangingthepartyagainstwhomtheclaimisassertedrelatesbackiftheforegoingprovisionissatisfiedandif,withintheperiodprovidedbylawforcommencingtheactionagainsthim,thepartytobebroughtinbyamendment(1)hasreceivedsuchnoticeoftheinstitutionoftheactionthathewillnotbeprejudicedinmaintaininghisdefenseonthemerits,and(2)kneworshouldhaveknownthat,butforamisnomerorothersimilarmistakeconcerningtheidentityoftheproperparty,theactionwouldhavebeenbroughtagainsthim.Exceptasabovespecified,nothinginthisruleshallbeconstruedtoextendanyperiodoflimitationsgoverningthetimeinwhichanyactionmaybebrought. Moreover,theAdvisoryCommissionCommentsonRule15.03stated:8  Underpriorlaw,anamendmentwhichaddedanewpartyplaintifforsubstitutedapartyplaintiff,relatedbacktotheinstitutionoftheoriginalsuit,andthuscouldbemadeeventhoughanapplicablestatuteoflimitationswouldhavebarredanewsuitbytheneworsubstitutedparty[ Whitsonv.TennesseeCent.R.R. ,163Tenn.35,40S.W.2d396(1930); Mosierv.Lucas ,30Tenn.App.498,207S.W.2d1021(1947); Goganv.Jones ,197Tenn.436,273S.W.2d700(1954)].Butwheretheamendmentsoughtreliefagainstanewpartydefendantafterthestatuteoflimitationshasbarredanewsuit,suchdefendantcouldsuccessfullypleadthebar[ Mellonv.AmericanFlour&GrainCo. ,9Tenn.App.383(1929)].8  UnderRule15.03,anamendmentchangingthepartyagainstwhomaclaimisassertedwillrelatebacktothedateoftheoriginalpleadingandthusavoidthebarofanystatuteoflimitationsif,andonlyif,thepartybroughtinbyamendmentreceivesnotice,beforethestatutehasrun,thatthesuithasbeenbroughtandthatheknowsorshouldhaveknownthatbutformisnomerorsimilarmistakethesuitwouldhavebeenbroughtagainsthim.Theruledoesnot,therefore,raiseanypossibilitythatapersonwhohashadnoreasontoknowthatheisexpectedtorespondtoaclaimwillbebroughtintoasuitaftertheapplicablestatuteoflimitationshasrun. UndertheversionofRule15.03,ineffectatalltimespertinenttothiscase,itisclearthatanewpartydefendantsoughttobeaddedbyamendmentmustreceivenoticeofthelawsuitbeforethelimitationperiodexpires,inorderfortheamendmenttorelatebacktothefilingofthecomplaint. Schiavonev.Fortune, 477U.S.21,30,106S.Ct.2379,2385,91L.Ed.2d18,28(1986); Dukev.ReplogleEnterprises ,891S.W.2d205,206(Tenn.1994); Allenv.RiverEdgeMotorLodge ,861S.W.2d364,365(Tenn.App.1993); Smithv.SoutheasternProperties,Ltd. ,776S.W.2d106,109(Tenn.App.1989). Noticemeansnoticethatalawsuithasbeenfiled. Smith ,776S.W.2dat109. WhilePlaintiffsoriginalComplaintwastimelyfiled,itisundisputedthatthestatuteoflimitationshadrunwhentheHospitalDistrictreceivednoticeoftheoriginalComplaintonFebruary23,1995.Therefore,underRule15.03,Plaintiffsclaimistimebarred.Consequently,weholdthatthetrialcourterredinallowingthePlaintiffstoamendtheirComplainttoname JacksonMadisonCountyHospitalDistrictasdefendant. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandthiscauseremanded.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellees,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` X ___________________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________HIGHERS,J.(Concurs)