WPC, u7K3WDB)Oh|1H10M٠,f/IH˯4:g&|ImvNɪ4]nA>͜ A.C0F踘"csIL\A}eCq_H;ߖ]ntwIg n #.^d*^r(<]Voۉ+eݾS8(g1]fۤUfqISmȫûIε$y ɫBh6A^暍%:SOcOE(q $ix٤Wh;.[ -f[&{JdV`D0.̗'b>\_u)#}S#bIu2_쁒Iz(uq^ U6bl=κ\Dl6oVߐpb#MAmȾـrz# F UNQ % 0( UF UP UFc wL 4  3 0 lK 0 D UF wAUFUFUF%-BUFTUFMUFYUF ! BQ!n!UF^##UF%%UF&&UF()U:=* D3w*w*w* 0D********************************************************************************** AO*=+=+ 0D, D/G, Bv,HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<4 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<: 9Z .Courier New Regular D  D    U D   D Ӏh&3|x  )  $    2    XTXXXXXTThatRuleprovidesthatapartymayfileamotiontodismissfor lack P  ofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.Rule12.02(1),Tenn.R.Civ.P.((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular m  $    4    XTXXXXXTT.C.A.266104providesasfollows: P    8 ` (a)Acopyofanyforeignjudgmentauthenticatedinaccordancewiththeactsofcongressorthestatutesofthisstatemaybefiledintheofficeoftheclerkofanycircuitorchancerycourtofthisstate. ` `    8 ` (b)Theclerkshalltreattheforeignjudgmentinthesamemannerasajudgmentofacourtofrecordofthisstate. ` `    8 ` (c)Ajudgmentsofiledhasthesameeffectandissubjecttothesameprocedures,defensesandproceedingsforreopening,vacating,orstayingasajudgmentofacourtofrecordofthisstateandmaybeenforcedorsatisfiedinlikemanner.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular z  $    3    XTXXXXXTAcertifiedcopyoftheCaliforniajudgmentwasapparentlyattachedto P  thepetition;butitwasnot authenticatedinaccordancewiththeactsofcongressorthestatutesof[Tennessee].SeeT.C.A.266104(a).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    1    XTXXXXXTThepetitionwasfiledpursuanttotheUniformEnforcementofForeign P  JudgmentsAct,T.C.A.266101,etseq.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular     $    6    XfXXXXXfSeeCal.Civ.Proc.Code683.120(West1999).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    5    XfXXXXXfTennesseehaslongrecognizedtheconceptofrevivingajudgment.See P  T.C.A.254101,etseq.and283110(2).Seealso FirstTennesseeBank   NatlAssnv.White ,C/ANo.03A019711CV00514,1998Tenn.App.Lexis579  t (Tenn.App.,E.S.,filedAugust20,1998).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular v  $    7    XfXXXXXfTheapplicableprovisionofCaliforniasCodeofCivilProcedure P  providesasfollows:  8 ` (b)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthisarticle,thefilingoftheapplicationrenewsthejudgmentintheamountdeterminedunderSection683.150andextendstheperiodofenforceabilityofthejudgmentasrenewedforaperiodof10yearsfromthedatetheapplicationisfiled. ` `  Cal.Civ.Proc.Code683.120(b)(West1999).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    9    XfXXXXXfApartofTourtesdefensetotherenewedjudgmentisembodiedinhis P  assertioninhisaffidavitthat [t]hefirsttimeԀIreceivedanyNoticeof   thisCaliforniaRenewalwaswhenIreceivedpapersfromHartslawyerinCaliforniasometimearoundthe27thdayofJanuary,1997.##Thisaffidavit `  provestoomuch.Inouropinion,thedocumentthatTourtemustbereferringtoistheProofofServicefiledintheCaliforniacourtonJanuary27,1997,  p andsignedbyanindividualwhoseaddressisthesameastheaddressofHartscounsel300DrakesLandingRd.,Ste.250,Greenbrae,California94904.SincethisdocumentwasservedinfullcompliancewithCalifornialawregardingrenewalofjudgments,andsincewefindthatTourteacknowledges,underoath,thathereceivedit,wefindnodisputeintherecordastowhetherTourtewasproperlyservedwiththerequisitenoticeintherenewalofjudgmentproceeding.IfTourteistobesuccessfulinhisdefensetotherenewedjudgment,hemustshowthattheoriginaljudgmentisvoidorsubjecttosomeotherdefectthatcanbeproperlyraisedunderhisRule60.02motion.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular d   $    5    !X&XXX!mXX&Tennesseehaslongrecognizedtheconceptofreviverofjudgment.See P  T.C.A.254101,etseq.and283110(2).Seealso FirstTennesseeBank   NatlAssnv.White ,03A019711CV00514,1998Tenn.App.Lexis579(Tenn.App.,  t E.S.,filedAugust20,1998).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    5    #XfXXX#XXfTennesseehaslongrecognizedtheconceptofreviverofjudgment.See P  T.C.A.254101,etseq.and283110(2).Seealso FirstTennesseeBank   NatlAssnv.White ,C/ANo.03A019711CV00514,1998Tenn.App.Lexis579  t (Tenn.App.,E.S.,filedAugust20,1998).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    6    %XfXXX%XXfSeeCal.Civ.Proc.Code683120(West1999).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    8    'XfXXX'X'XfWestressthatourfindingofnoserviceislimitedtoouranalysisof P  thesummaryjudgmentissue.Onremand,thetrialcourtwillhavetoascertain,inthefirstinstance,wherethepreponderanceoftheevidenceliesonthequestionofwhetherornotTourtewasproperlyservedwithprocessintheoriginalCaliforniaaction.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular )X^\ XXX)(  X)X^\   Ad FILED)  )(   July28,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.)  )AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛP XTXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7P r(*<,(j 8 `@EQ  tt0"HP rߛ @| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  @$ATKNOXVILLEDONALDHART,    h   )C/ANO.03A019901CH00004 T    `     h   )   ` PlaintiffAppellee,  )     `     h   )   `     h   )v.   `     h   )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE 2     `     h   )KNOXCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT   `     h   )   `     h   )   `     h   )RONALDTOURTE,    h   ) `     `     h   )HONORABLESHARONJ.BELL,   ` DefendantAppellant.)CHANCELLORForAppellant    h     ForAppellee : KENNETHR.KRUSHENSKI h     RONCUNNINGHAM 6 Rogers,Hurst&Krushenski    Finkelstein,Kern,Steinberg&   LaFollette,Tennessee h     Cunningham      `     h     Knoxville,Tennessee@$X&XXXT  XX&OPINION    XTX  Ԉ F3(1 AFFIRMEDINPARTVACATEDINPART P    P     REMANDED `     h      p      x Susano,J. ^:09 P    P        ` ThiscaseinvolvesapetitionfiledbyDonaldHart( Hart)seekingtoregister  #  1      ׀ajudgmentobtainedbyHartagainst   МRonaldTourte( Tourte)intheStateofCalifornia.ThetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoHartwhiledenyingseveralmotionsfiledbyTourte.Tourteappeals,raisingthreeissueswhichpresentthefollowingquestionsforourconsideration:  8 ` 1.DidthetrialcourterrindenyingTourtesmotiontodismiss,whichmotionwasbasedonthegroundthatHartspetitionwasfiledbeyondthetenyearperiodoflimitationsonjudgmentssetforthinT.C.A.283110? ` `    8 ` 2.DidthetrialcourterrindenyingTourtessecondmotiontodismiss,whichmotionwasbasedonthegroundthatthepriororderoftheKnoxCountyCircuitCourtdismissingHartsearlierfiledpetitiontoregisteractsasabartohisrefilingtoregisterandenforcetheCaliforniajudgment? ` `    8 ` 3.DidthetrialcourterringrantingHartsmotionforsummaryjudgmentandindenyingTourtesmotionforrelieffromtheCaliforniajudgmentunderRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.? ` `  @*I   ` OnDecember31,1986,Hartobtainedadefaultjudgmentintheamountof$12,189.74plusinterestagainstTourteintheMontereyCounty,California,MunicipalCourt.InJuly,1994,afterlocatingTourteinKnoxCounty,HartfiledapetitioninϜCircuitCourtseekingtodomesticatetheCaliforniajudgment.UponTourtesmotion,theCircuitCourtdismissedtheactionpursuanttoRule12.02(1),Tenn.R.Civ.P.,   #  2      כcitingHartsfailure 4*3 toattachaproperlyauthenticatedcopyoftheCaliforniajudgment  #  3      כtohispetition,asrequiredbyT.C.A.266104.  #  4      כ      ` OnDecember16,1996,HartsoughtfurtherreliefintheCaliforniacourtbyfilingan ApplicationforandRenewalofϜJudgment,seekingtorenewtheCaliforniajudgmentofDecember31,1986.   "     #  5      כ Apparently,w W ithoutfurther court proceedings,the X  judgmentwasrenewedeffectiveDecember16,1996. h $h  #  6      כTherecord   beforeuscontainsadocumententitled ProofofServicefiledintheCaliforniacourtonJanuary27,1997.Thatdocument,signedbyaG.M.Rose,recites,underoath,thatonJanuary23,1997,hemailedacopyofHarts ApplicationforandRenewalofJudgmentandassociatedcourtdocumentstoTourteandhiscounselattheirrespectiveaddresses,whichaddressesaresetforthintheProofofService.Oneoftheassociateddocuments isaprintedformentitled NoticeofRenewalofJudgment, d# signedbytheClerkoftheCaliforniaMunicipalCourt.Amongotherthings,theNoticemakesfourrecitations:   8 ` 1. Thisrenewalextends theperiodof T enforceabilityofthejudgmentuntil10yearsfromthedatetheapplicationforrenewalwasfiled. ` `    8 ` 2. Ifyouobject tothisrenewal,youmaymakea j  motiontovacateormodifytherenewalwiththiscourt. ` `    8 ` 3.Youmustmakethismotionwithin 30days after    serviceofthisnoticeonyou. ` `    8 ` 4.AcopyoftheApplicationforandRenewalof ` Judgmentisattached....<` `  Ӝ(Emphasisanditalicsinoriginal).Thepartiesagreethat  TourtetooknoactionintherenewalproceedinginCalifornia.   ` OnApril24,1997,HartfiledapetitionintheKnoxCountyChanceryCourtseekingtoregistertherenewedCaliforniaϜjudgment.AfterfilingananswertoHartspetition,Tourtefiledanumberofmotions:amotiontodismissonthegroundthatHartscauseofactionwasfiledbeyondthetenyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicabletojudgments,assetforthinT.C.A.283110;amotiontodismissonthegroundthattheCircuitCourtsearlierorderofdismissalhadbeenonthemeritsandthusoperatedasa bartoanyfurtherlitigationonthisJudgmentintheStateofTennessee;andamotionforrelieffromtheCaliforniajudgmentunderRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.   ` WithregardtohisRule60.02motion,Tourtecontended,amongotherthings,thattheCaliforniajudgmentwasvoidbecausehehadnotbeenproperlyservedwithprocessintheoriginal h9/8 Californiaactionortherenewalactioninthatstate.Tourteattachedtothismotionanaffidavitinwhichhestates,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` IneverwasservedwithanylegalpapersconcerninganylawsuitfiledbyDonaldHarteitheragainstmyself,ormycorporation....IwasneverservedbyanyprocessserverwithlegalpapersandIneverreceivedacopyoftheCaliforniaJudgmentthatwasattachedto[Harts]CivilActionthatwasfiledinKnoxCountyCircuitCourtin1994.AcollectionagencyinKnoxCountycontactedmebycorrespondencedatedMay6,1994,aboutthisdebt.ThatwasthefirsttimeIhadheardanythingaboutthismattersince1986.IlivedinCaliforniauntilJuneof1987andIwasnevercontactedbyDonaldHart,oranylegalrepresentativeofhisaboutanylawsuit.... ` `    8 ` WithregardtothecurrentactionpendinginChanceryCourtinKnoxCounty...IwouldfurtheraddthattothebestofmyknowledgeIdonotrecallbeingservedwithanyNotice,orCaliforniaProcessregardingtherenewalofthe1986CaliforniaJudgment.ThefirsttimeIreceivedanyNoticeofthisCaliforniaRenewalwaswhenIreceivedpapersfromHartslawyerinCaliforniasometimearoundthe27thdayofJanuary,1997.PriortothistimeIdonotrecalleverbeingservedwithanypapersfromCalifornia,nordoIrecalleverreceivinganycertifiedmailatmyaddresswithanylegalpapersfromCalifornia. ` `     ` Hartfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.TourtethenfiledaresponsethatcontainedessentiallythesameargumentsϜthathadbeensetforthinhisthreemotions.Afterhearingargumentonalloftheabovemotions,butwithoutreceivingevidence,theChanceryCourtdeniedTourtestwomotionstodismiss,aswellashisRule60.02motion;itthengrantedjudgmenttoHartonhismotionforsummaryjudgment.  J8-7 @tt)II   ` WeturnfirsttoTourtesissueregardingthestatuteoflimitations.HecontendsthatbecauseHartsactionwasfiledintheChanceryCourtonApril24,1997,morethantenyearsafterentryoftheoriginalCaliforniajudgmentonDecember31,1986,itisbarredbyoperationofT.C.A.283110.Thatsectionprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` Thefollowingactionsshallbecommencedwithinten(10)yearsafterthecauseofactionaccrued: ` `  @XX%***  8 ` (2)Actionsonjudgmentsanddecress[sic]ofcourtsofrecordofthisoranyotherstateorgovernment;.... ` `  )   ` WefindTourtescontentiontobewithoutmerit.ItisclearfromtherecordthatHartisrelyingontherenewaloftheCaliforniajudgmentonDecember16,1996.UnderCalifornialaw,  #  7      כ %! thatrenewedjudgmentistreatedasanewjudgmentasofthedateoffilingoftheapplicationforrenewalDecember16,1996.Thisbeingthecase,thedateof accru[al]forthepurposeofthestatuteoflimitationsunderTennesseelaw,seeT.C.A.28 ,R") 3110(2),isDecember16,1996,which,aswehavepreviouslypointedout,istheeffectivedateoftherenewedjudgmentunderCalifornialaw.Obviously,HartsfilinginTennesseeonApril 1b'/ 24,1997,waswellwithinthetenyearperiodoflimitationswhenthatperiodismeasuredfromtheaccrualdateofDecember16,1996.   ` TheChanceryCourtwascorrectindenyingTourtesmotiontodismissbasedonthestatuteoflimitationsgroundXfXXXf.#XfXXXf/#ԛ \  @88)III   ` WenextturntoTourtesissueregardingthedoctrineofresjudicata.HecontendsthattheCircuitCourtsorderof  dismissalofMarch27,1994,isresjudicataastotheclaim p assertedintheinstantlitigation.RelyingonT.C.A.266104,Tourtearguesthatthe [f]ailuretofileaproperlyauthenticatedjudgmentundertherequirementsofthe[UniformEnforcementofForeignJudgmentsAct,T.C.A.XfXXXf266101,et |#, seq.#XfXXXf1#],whichresultsinadismissalofthePlaintiffsPetition 4%  toregisterhisJudgmentshouldbeconsideredfataltothePlaintiffscauseofaction.Tourtealsoarguesthat itshouldbeagainstthepublicpolicyoftheStateofTennesseetoallowaForeignJudgmentcreditormorethanoneattempttousetheCourtsofthisStatetoenforcehisForeignJudgment.   ` WecannotagreewithTourtespositionregardingthisissue.Generallyspeaking,thedoctrineofresjudicata barsa 2P(0 secondsuitbetweenthesamepartiesortheirpriviesonthesamecauseofactionwithrespecttoallissueswhichwereorcouldhavebeenlitigatedintheformersuit. Richardsonv.Tennessee 7`-6 Bd.ofDentistry ,913S.W.2d446,459(Tenn.1995)(quoting Goeke |9,/8 v.Woods ,777S.W.2d347,349(Tenn.1989)).Itiswellsettled P  thatthedoctrineofXfXXXfresjudicata#XfXXXfN6#Ԁisimplicatedonlywherethe   priorjudgmenthasconcludedtherightsofthepartiesonthe   merits. Richardson ,913S.W.2dat459; A.L.KornmanCo.v. < MetropolitanGovtofNashville&DavidsonCounty ,391S.W.2d X 633,636(Tenn.1965).Intheinstantcase,itisclearthattheCircuitCourtdismissedHartsfirstcomplaintonanonmeritsground,i.e.,Hartsfailuretoattachaproperlyauthenticated |,  copyoftheCaliforniajudgmenttohispetitionforregistration.Wethereforeholdthatthedoctrineofresjudicatadoesnot  precludeHartfromfilingapetitiontodomesticatetherenewedCaliforniajudgmentintheChanceryCourt,andthattheChanceryCourtproperlydeniedTourtessecondmotiontodismiss.DespiteTourtesargumenttothecontrary,whichargumentisunsupportedbyanyauthority,wefailtoseehowthisholdingcanbeviewedasaviolationofthepublicpolicyofthisstate.@tt)IV   ` WenextconsidertheproprietyoftheChanceryCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoHart.XfXXXfInthisanalysis,wereview P,"( thetrialcourtsgrantofHartsmotionagainstthestandardofRule56,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Thatruleprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8 ` ...[the]judgmentsoughtshallberenderedforthwithifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw....9`/8` `  ЇRule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.   ` Whenreviewingagrantofsummaryjudgment,anappellatecourtmustdecideanewifjudgmentinsummaryfashionisappropriate. #XfXXXfp;#XfXXXfCowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth ,816S.W.2d \  741,744(Tenn.1991); Gonzalezv.AlmanConstr.Co. ,857S.W.2d x(  42,4445(Tenn.App.1993).Sincethisdeterminationonlyinvolvesaquestionoflaw,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsjudgment. Robinsonv.Omer , L 952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997); Hembreev.State ,925S.W.2d h 513,515(Tenn.1996).Inmakingourdetermination,wemustviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwemustdrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993). 8" Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactandiftheundisputedmaterialfactsentitlethemovingpartytoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Rule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Byrd ,847S.W.2dat211.#XfXXXf>#ԀInouranalysis, [t]he )$ evidenceofferedbythenonmovingpartymustbetakenastrue. Id .at215. ,0"(    ` InevaluatingHartsmotionforsummaryjudgment,wemusttakeallofthestatementscontainedinTourtesaffidavit,quotedearlierinthisopinion,astrue.Werecognizethattherecordcontainsevidencetothecontrary;however,inthecontextofsummaryjudgment,suchevidencemustbedisregarded. Id .at 6X,4 21011.TakingthestatementscontainedinTourtesaffidavitastrue,wefind,forthepurposeofsummaryjudgment,thathewas  :/8 notservedwithprocessintheoriginalCaliforniaproceeding.&  #  8      כ P  ItisclearthatTourtestestimonyraisesagenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingwhethertherewasproperserviceofprocessastotheunderlyingjudgmentwhichwasrenewedintheϜmostrecentCaliforniaproceedingtheproceedinguponwhichHartnowrelies.Accordingly,weholdthattheChanceryCourterredingrantingfullsummaryjudgmenttoHart.Rule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Byrd ,847S.W.2dat211.IfTourtewasnot   properlyservedintheoriginalCaliforniaproceedingsandhesaysunderoaththathewasnotthejudgmentinthatcaseisvoid.Wearenotpreparedtoholdthatavoidjudgmentcanformthebasisforavalidjudgmentwhenthelatterjudgment,althoughanewjudgmentunderCalifornialaw,isnothingmorethanarenewaloftheearlierjudgment.Thisistrueeveniftherenewalprocedurewasundertaken,aswefind,infullcompliancewithapplicableCalifornialaw.  #  9      כAjudgmentthatisvoidbecause #4 itwasobtainedwithoutinpersonamjurisdictionoverthe 0%  defendantisvoidforallpurposesincludingrenewal.  @*& @*V   ` TourtealsocontendsthatthiscourtshouldreversetheChanceryCourtsdenialofhisRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,motion,andthatweshouldsetasideorrefusetoenforcetheCaliforniajudgment.Inthiscontext,Tourtereliesinpartuponthestatementscontainedinhisaffidavit,inwhichhedenieshavingbeenengagedinanybusinessenterprisewithHartsoastorenderϜhimliableinanywaytoHart,and,aspreviouslystated,denieshavingbeenservedwithprocessintheoriginalCaliforniaaction.   ` XfXXXfAmotionforrelieffromajudgmentunderRule60.02 ` addressesthesounddiscretionthetrialjudge;thus,thescopeofreviewonappealiswhetherthetrialjudgeabusedhisorherdiscretion. Underwoodv.ZurichIns.Co. ,854S.W.2d94,97 d# (Tenn.1993); Toneyv.MuellerCo. ,810S.W.2d145,147(Tenn. 0%  1991).#XfXXXfM# &"    ` Foreignjudgmentsordinarilyareentitledtofullfaithandcreditinthecourtsofthisstate. BiogenDistributors, ,!( Inc.v.Tanner ,842S.W.2d253,256(Tenn.App.1992).Wehave -|#* previouslystatedthat [t]herearealimitednumberofcircumstanceswhereaforeignjudgmentmaybedeniedfullfaithandcredit. Benhamv.Fisher ,650S.W.2d759,760(Tenn.App. 2(0 1983).T.C.A.266104(c)providesthatforeignjudgmentsare subjecttothesameprocedures,defensesandproceedingsforreopening,vacating,orstayingasajudgmentofacourtofrecordofthisstateandmaybeenforcedorsatisfiedinlike 9p/8 manner. Id; seealso BiogenDistributors ,842S.W.2dat256. P  Thus, thegroundsandproceduresforvacatingorreopeningforeignjudgmentsarethosecontainedinTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02. Id. Apartyseekingtoattackthevalidityofaforeignjudgment t$ bearsa sternandheavyburden. Id. ; Dementv.Kitts ,777 @ S.W.2d33,36(Tenn.App.1989).Issuesoffactunderlyingtheforeignjudgmentmaynotformthebasisofsuchanattack, Benham ,650S.W.2dat760;butthejudgmentwillnotbeafforded d  fullfaithandcreditwheretheforeigncourtlackedjurisdiction. Id.; seealso Dement, 777S.W.2dat36.     ` TourteisentitledtochallengetherenewedCaliforniajudgmentonthebasisthattheCaliforniacourtlackedin  personamjurisdictionoverhimwhenitrendereditsoriginal  h judgmentthejudgmentwhoserenewalledtothefilingoftheinstantaction.However,heisnotentitledtoattacktherenewedjudgmentonthegroundthathewasnotproperlyservedintherenewalproceedingbecause,aswehavepreviouslyindicated,thetrialcourtwascorrectingrantingsummaryjudgmentastothispartofTourtesRule60.02motionsincetheundisputedfactsshowthathewasservedintherenewalproceedinginfullcompliancewithCalifornialaw.TotheextentthatTourteassertsotherpropergroundsunderRule60.02,heisentitledto /%, ahearingonthoseothergrounds;buthecannotattempttore 18'. litigatethefactsunderlyingthecauseofactionthatledtotheoriginalCaliforniajudgment.ThatisnottheofficeofaRule 4*2 60.02motion.See Benham ,650S.W.2dat760.Totheextentthat 6`,4 hisRule60.02motionattemptstodoso,itwasproperlysubjecttothetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoHart. (:/8 Ї   ` WerejectHartsargumentthatTourtewaivedhisrighttochallengethevalidityoftheCaliforniajudgmentwhenhefailedtoattackitintheCaliforniarenewalproceeding.WearenotpreparedtoholdthatTourte,aresidentofasovereignstate,wholivessome2,400milesfromthesiteofthecourtintheforumstate,wasrequiredtoparticipateinarenewalproceedingintheforumstateinordertoestablishthathewasϜnotservedwithprocessintheoriginalproceeding;orforeverwaivehisrighttocontestthevalidityoftheunderlyingϜjudgment.Inouropinion,suchaholdingwouldoffendtheϜ traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjusticeembodiedintheconceptofproceduraldueprocessfoundintheFourteenthAmendmenttotheFederalConstitution.See Burnhamv. ` SuperiorCourtofCalifornia ,495U.S.604,622,110S.Ct.2105, ,  211617,109L.Ed. 2d 631(1990)(citing InternationalShoeCo.v. ! Washington ,326U.S.310,316,66S.Ct.154,158,90L.Ed.95 #t (1945)).               `  񛀛  Intheinstantcase,Hartisattemptingtouseacourtofthisstatetoenforcehisjudgment.ThisiscertainlyappropriateundertheUniformEnforcementofForeignJudgmentsϜAct , . T.C.A.266101,etseq.;but,bythesametoken,itis -#* likewiseappropriatethatTourtebeaffordedanopportunitytoresorttothesamecourttopursuehisattackonthevalidityofϜtheprofferedjudgment,underthewellestablishedlawpertainingtoreliefunderRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.ThisshouldbedoneatahearingatwhichthetrialcourtreceivestestimonyandotherevidencebearingonsuchofthegroundsraisedinTourtesmotionascanbeproperlyassertedunderRule60.02. 9\/8 Ї  P   @tt)  VI  .     ` Somuchofthetrialcourtsjudgmentasdeniestheappellants two motionstodismissisaffirmed.ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtgrantingHartsummaryjudgmentisaffirmed(1)astoTourtesassertionthathewasnotproperlyservedwithprocessintherenewalofjudgmentproceedinginCalifornia,and(2)astoallpartsofTourtesRule60.02motionthatattempttorelitigatethefactsunderlyingthecauseofactionthatledtotheoriginalCaliforniajudgment.TheremainderofthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttoHartisvacated.ThiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforahearingontheremaininggroundsofTourtesRule60.02motion,consistentwiththisopinion. C c ostsonappealaretaxedagainsttheappellee.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.