ÿWPCA …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í  w@ 0„X 0DÜ n­ Í 0JÍ 0T 0^k 0hÉ 0r1 0|£ 0† 0¥ 1u5U,ª 0dÖ B:U,WU6ƒB)¹ D3âDC AMX 0@¥U*åBúQv~KvÓÉ AOœÆë 0D± D/õ B$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÂZË ¡Ó 3|xJ 6D7D8U9E:U;E<=>Ó€J(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òJune€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€note€that€an€answer€was€filed€after€the€default€judgment€was€enteredÏand€after€the€chancellor€had€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€The€answer€wasÏfiled€after€the€record€had€been€lodged€in€this€court.€€Hence,€our€conclusionÏthat€no€meritorious€defense€was€presented€or€considered€by€the€trial€court.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ä ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€i”XXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€,/+;+'h|­v` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCYNTHIA€HOLCOMB,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àœGREENE›€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9511„CH„00414Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€DENNIS€H.€INMANÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌKYLE€PARKINS€and€wife,€GLORIA€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌPARKINS,€and€ANDREW€JOHNSON€€€€€)ÌBANK,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌÌFRANCIS€X.€SANTORE,€JR.,€Santore€and€Santore,€Greenville€forÏappellant.ÌÌÌJERRY€W.€LAUGHLIN€and€JOHN€T.€MILBURN€ROGERS,€Rogers,€Laughlin,ÏNunnally,€Hood€and€Crum,€Greenville€for€appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThe€appellee,€Mrs.€Parkins,€filed€a€motion€pursuant€to€RuleÏ60.02,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€for€relief€from€aÏdefault€judgment€entered€against€her€in€favor€of€the€appellant,ÏCynthia€Holcomb.€€Ms.€Holcomb€has€appealed€claiming€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€granting€the€motion.€€We€reverse€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThere€are€no€material€facts€in€dispute.€€The€record€reflectsÏthat€Ms.€Holcomb€contracted€with€Kyle€Parkins,€Gloria€Parkins'Ïhusband,€whereby€Mr.€Parkins€was€to€construct€a€home€for€Ms.ÏHolcomb.€€She€gave€Mr.€Parkins€a€check€for€twenty„five€thousandÏdollars€($25,000.00),€allegedly€an€advance€on€the€constructionÏcontract.€€Mr.€Parkins€began€some€preliminary€work€towards€theÍconstruction€of€the€house,€but€never€proceeded€to€any€materialÏdegree.ÌÌà àMr.€Parkins€approached€Ms.€Holcomb€about€borrowing€some€moneyÏfrom€her€to€pay€for€work€done€elsewhere.€€She€gave€him€fortyÏthousand€dollars€($40,000.00)€in€addition€to€the€twenty„fiveÏthousand€dollars€previously€advanced€and€in€return€he€gave€her€aÏcheck€for€forty€thousand€dollars€($40,000.00).€€He€told€her,Ïhowever,€not€to€cash€the€check€until€he€told€her€to€do€so.€€Sub…stantial€time€passed€with€no€work€being€done€by€Mr.€Parkins€forÏMs.€Holcomb.€€When€inquiries€were€made€about€cashing€the€check,ÏMr.€Parkins€gave€a€variety€of€excuses€as€to€why€the€check€shouldÏnot€be€cashed.€€Eventually,€Ms.€Holcomb€attempted€to€cash€theÏcheck.€€After€several€attempts,€she€was€unable€to€cash€the€checkÏdue€to€insufficient€funds€in€Mr.€œParkins'›€account.ÌÌà àMs.€Holcomb€then€turned€to€an€attorney€for€legal€advice.€ÏAgain€Mr.€Parkins€was€given€an€opportunity€to€make€the€check€goodÏbut€failed€to€do€so.€€Ms.€Holcomb€filed€suit€against€Mr.€ParkinsÍand€his€wife,€Gloria€Parkins,€the€appellee,€and€others€who€are€notÏparties€to€this€appeal.ÌÌà àConstable€Gary€Cutshaw€served€Mr.€Parkins€with€a€complaintÏand€summons.€€Mr.€Parkins€volunteered€to€take€the€summons€to€Ms.ÏParkins€and€later€returned€it€to€Constable€Cutshaw€containing€aÏsignature€which€he€represented€to€be€that€of€Ms.€Parkins.€€It€was,Ïin€fact,€a€forgery€admittedly€done€by€Mr.€Parkins.ÌÌà àAccording€to€Ms.€Parkins,€she€knew€about€the€lawsuit€butÏbelieved€that€it€involved€only€her€husband.€€Constable€CutshawÏlater€explained€to€Ms.€Parkins€that€he€had€a€summons€ostensiblyÏbearing€her€signature€and€that€she€was€involved€in€the€lawsuit.€ÏWhen€asked€if€she€wished€him€to€bring€her€a€copy€of€the€summonsÏand€complaint,€she€declined.ÌÌà àApparently,€Ms.€Parkins€took€no€measures€to€defend€herselfÏand€a€default€judgment€was€entered€against€both€Mr.€and€Ms.ÏParkins€for€sixty„eight€thousand,€four€hundred€fifty„six€dollarsÍand€fifty„one€cents€($68,456.51)€in€compensatory€damages€and€threeÏthousand€dollars€($3,000.00)€in€punitive€damages.ÌÌà àMs.€Parkins€became€aware€of€the€judgment€after€an€executionÏhad€been€issued€thereon.€€She€filed€a€motion€to€stay€the€executionÏand€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment.€€After€a€hearingÏon€the€motions,€the€trial€court€issued€a€temporary€restrainingÏorder€against€Ms.€Holcomb€restraining€her€from€further€executionÏagainst€Ms.€Parkins,€conditioned€upon€payment€of€a€cash€bond€inÏthe€amount€of€eighty€thousand€dollars€($80,000.00)€into€the€Regis…try€of€the€court.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€court€ordered€theÏdefault€judgment€set€aside€conditioned€upon€the€bond€describedÏabove€remaining€with€the€court.ÌÌà àAn€interlocutory€appeal€was€granted€by€the€trial€court.ÏApplication€was€then€made€to€this€court€and€this€court€allowed€theÏappeal.€We€now€have€the€case€before€us€on€a€multitude€of€issuesÏpresented€by€Ms.€Holcomb.€€In€sum€and€substance,€however,€theÍdispositive€issue€is€whether€or€not€the€court€abused€its€discre…tion€in€granting€the€Rule€60.02€relief.ÌÌà àà àRule€60.02,€T.R.C.P.,€provides€in€pertinent€part€asÏfollows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€mayÏrelieve€a€party€or€his€legal€representative€from€a€finalÏjudgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:Ï(1)€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€ne…glect;€(2)€fraud€...€(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€(4)€theÏjudg‚ment€has€been€satisfied€...;€or€(5)€any€other€reasonÏjustifying€relief€from€the€operation€of€the€judgment.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIt€is€well„settled€that€a€motion€for€relief€from€a€judgmentÏpursuant€to€Rule€60€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court;€the€scope€of€review€on€appeal€is€whether€theÏtrial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòœToney›€v.€œMueller›€Companyóó,€810ÏS.W.2d€145€(Tenn.€1991);€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.óó,€845€S.W.2dÏ94€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€judgment€was€not€void.€ÏIn€so€doing,€he€accredited€the€testimony€of€Constable€CutshawÍfully.€€In€his€memorandum€opinion,€the€court€made€the€followingÏobservations:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à...€Here,€Mrs.€Parkins€not€only€knew€of€the€suitÏand€her€involvement€in€it,€òòshe€was€advised€by€ConstableÏCutshaw€that€he€had€in€hand€a€summons€bearing€her€signa…tureóó.€€(Emphasis€in€original).€€She€was€pointedly€askedÏby€the€constable€if€she€wished€to€bring€to€her€addition…al€copies€of€the€summons€and€complaint,€and€she€de…clined.€€The€constable€then€noted€on€the€summons€that€heÏ"verified"€Mrs.€Parkins"'s€acceptance€of€service.ÌÌà8 àà àHad€Mrs.€Parkins€not€had€this€conversation€withÏConstable€Cutshaw€or,€having€had€the€conversation,€toldÏhim€that€her€purported€signature€was€a€forgery,€theÏburden€would€have€been€upon€Mr.€Cutshaw€to€properlyÏserve€her€with€process.€€But€having€learned€from€CutshawÏthat€she€was€a€named€defendant,€and€knowing€that€he€hadÏin€his€possession€a€document€purporting€to€bear€herÏsignature,€and€then€declining€his€offer€to€bring€to€herÏadditional€copies€of€the€papers,€she€tacitly€suggestedÏto€Cutshaw€that€she€considered€herself€as€having€beenÏserved€with€the€papers.€€She€therefore€should€not€beÏallowed€to€claim€that€she€was€not€served.€€The€situationÏin€this€case€is€more€akin€to€that€described€in€theÏKentucky€case€of€òòGray€v.€Jackson€Purchase€ProductionÏCredit€Associationóó,€691€S.W.2d€904€(Ky.€App.€1985).€ÏòòGrayóó€at€the€very€least€stands€for€the€proposition€thatÏone€may€be€estopped€from€denying€that€there€has€been€aÏproper€service€of€process.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà8 àà àThis€judgment€is€not€void;€Mrs.€Parkins'€actionsÏestop€her€from€attacking€the€sufficiency€of€service€ofÏprocess€upon€her.€€To€state€it€succinctly,€Mrs.€ParkinsÏknew€that€she€had€been€sued€and€she€disdained€ConstableÏCutshaw's€offer€to€bring€her€additional€copies€of€theÏsuit€papers.€...ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌÓ ` ܇XœÈ“X ÓÓÓÌà àAfter€having€found€that€the€judgment€was€not€void,€the€courtÏwas€concerned€with€the€question€of€what€effect€granting€Ms.ÏParkins€relief€would€have€œon›€a€motion€for€Mr.€Parkins€for€reliefÏshould€he€so€ask.€€As€above€noted,€he€resolved€the€issue€by€œpro…viding›€for€a€bond€sufficient€to€protect€the€plaintiff€should€theÏplaintiff€ultimately€prevail.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€judgment€is€not€void.€ÏWithout€serious€question,€Ms.€Parkins€is€estopped€under€the€devel…oped€facts€in€this€case€from€denying€service€of€process.€€We€haveÏfound€no€authority€in€this€jurisdiction€directly€in€point,€òòi.eóó.,Ïthat€an€estoppel€can€be€applied€to€prevent€a€party€defendant€fromÍdenying€service€of€process,€however,€there€is€no€reason€why€theÏordinary€rules€of€estoppel€should€not€be€applied.ÌÌà àEstoppel€requires€as€a€minimum€(1)€reliance€upon€the€state…ment€or€actions€of€another€without€opportunity€to€know€the€truthÏand€(2)€action€based€on€that€reliance€which€results€in€detrimentÏto€the€one€acting.€òòW.€F.€œHolt›€Co.€v.€A€&€E€Electric€Company,€Incóó.,Ï665€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€òòCampbell€v.€Precision€RubberÏProds.€Corpóó.,€737€S.W.2d€œ283€(Tenn.€App€1987).›€€Obviously€here,Ïthe€appellee,€Ms.€Parkins€had€the€opportunity€to€know€the€truth.€ÏThe€appellant,€on€the€other€hand€did€not€have€such€an€opportunity.€ÏObviously,€the€appellant€relied€upon€the€facts€created€by€theÏactions€of€Ms.€Parkins€in€proceeding€to€judgment€and€applicationÏfor€execution.€€Further,€some€prejudice€or€detriment€will€accrueÏto€the€appellant€in€that€she€will€be€likely€to€incur€additionalÏattorney's€fees€and€expenses€for€further€trial.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€a€party€can€be€estopped€from€denying€service€ofÏprocess€under€proper€circumstances.€€We€agree€with€the€judgment€ofÍthe€trial€court€that€this€is€a€proper€case€for€the€application€ofÏestoppel.ÌÌà àHaving€determined€that€the€judgment€is€not€void,€the€onlyÏgrounds€for€relief€pursuant€to€Rule€60.02€available€to€Ms.€ParkinsÏmust€necessarily€be€under€enumerated€ground€(5),€òòi.eóó.,€any€otherÏreason€justifying€relief€from€operation€of€the€judgment.ÌÌà àWhile€by€his€own€admission,€Mr.€Parkins€forged€the€signatureÏof€Ms.€Parkins,€she€was€aware€at€all€times€after€Constable€CutshawÏ"verified€on€3„22„95€with€Mrs.€Parkins"€that€a€lawsuit€was€pendingÏand€that€she€was€a€party.€€She€deliberately€chose,€as€did€Mr.ÏParkins,€to€disregard€the€action,€hence,€a€default€judgment€wasÏproperly€entered.ÌÌà àWe€must€now€decide,€if€in€the€interest€of€justice,€the€de…fault€judgment€should€be€set€aside€as€to€Ms.€Parkins.€€The€Tennes…see€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€should€be€construed€liberally€toÏgrant€relief€from€default€judgments.€€òòTennessee€Dept.€of€HumanÍœServs›.€v.€œBarbee›óó,€689€S.W.2d€863,€867€(Tenn.€1985).€Ordinarily,Ïpersons€seeking€post„judgment€relief€from€a€default€judgment€mustÏshow€that€they€have€grounds€entitling€them€to€relief€and€that€theyÏhave€a€meritorious€defense.€€òòNelson€v.€Simpsonóó,€826€S.W.2d€483,Ï485€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€Parties€asserting€that€a€default€judg…ment€is€void€need€not,€however,€assert€or€prove€that€they€have€aÏmeritorious€defense.€€òòPatterson€v.€œRockwell›€œInt'l›óó,€665€S.W.2d€96,Ï100„101€(Tenn.€1984).ÌÌà àA€judgment€is€not€void€simply€because€it€is€wrong.€To€beÏfound€void,€a€judgment€must€have€been€rendered€by€a€court€lackingÏjurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€or€the€parties€or€acting€inÏsome€other€manner€inconsistent€with€the€requirements€of€due€pro…cess.€òòœMagnavox›€Co.€v.€Boles€&€œHite›€œConstr›.€Coóó.,€583€S.W.2d€611,Ï613€(Tenn.€App.€1979).ÌÌà àHaving€heretofore€determined€that€the€judgment€in€this€caseÏis€not€void,€we€must€look€to€see€if€the€appellee€has€demonstratedÏthat€she€has€a€meritorious€defense.€€Our€examination€of€the€recordÍreflects€that,€unfortunately€for€Ms.€Parkins,€she€chose€to€restÏher€case€on€the€proposition€that€the€judgment€was€void.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€No€otherÏdefense€was€asserted,€meritorious€or€otherwise.ÌÌœ›à àUnder€the€circumstances€reflected€by€the€record€in€this€case,Ïwe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÏin€setting€aside€the€default€judgment.€€Accordingly,€we€reverseÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€this€case€for€suchÏother€and€further€action€as€may€be€necessary€and€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.ÌÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGary€Wade,€Judge,€by€designationÌÇÑ  ÑœÑ7€9_XXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌCYNTHIA€HOLCOMB,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àGREENE€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9511„CH„00414Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€DENNIS€H.€INMANÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌKYLE€PARKINS€and€wife,€GLORIA€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌPARKINS,€and€ANDREW€JOHNSON€€€€€)ÌBANK,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Greene€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏremand€this€case€for€such€other€and€further€action€as€may€beÏnecessary€and€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM›