ÿWPCë/ …# VUNa %¯ 0 Nµ 0 Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , ®; †é o mq Nˆ 0DŠ 0JÎ 0T 0^l 0hÊ 0r2 0|¤ 0†  0¦ 1u6 0d«U"> D3MB)€DC© 0@ì AM,U*y,£…ÏÝT­1Þ@ði0Ò™"mk%v~Ø&vÓV( B). AOF.Æ•. 0D[/ D/Ÿ/ BÎ/˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ(í€"  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2ƒ~$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XtÛX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- LMNO[PQRSTÓ€^DÒ >¤¤x¤šš3|x^McCRACKENChernauBurnsedLeitnerWarnerMoffittChaffinNapolitanMcCracken v. Brentwood UMC - Opinion Ì#4 ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New RomanWWWW'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌJuly€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€filed€an€amended€complaint€on€June€20,€1994,€adding€an€engineeringÏfirm€as€another€defendant.Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€church€is€an€unincorporated,€not„for„profit,€Ô_ÔreligiousÔ_Ô€association;€while€theÏfoundation€is€a€separate€corporation€that€administers€the€churchððs€endowment.€€The€foundationÏowns€no€property.Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€do€not€authorize€ð ðmotions€to€reconsider.ðð€ÏWe€construe€this€motion€to€be€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€request€for€an€interlocutory€appeal€was€unnecessary€because€the€trial€court€hadÏdesignated€its€February€13,€1995€order€as€final€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€ÏThe€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€were€entitled€to€an€appeal€as€of€right€from€this€order.€€€Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€would€not€have€been€entitled€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€relief€hadÏtheir€predicament€been€caused€by€their€lawyersðð€ignorance€or€mistaken€understanding€of€theÏprocedural€rules.€€òòÔ_ÔBivinsÔ_Ô€v.€Hospital€Corp.€of€Am.,€óó910€S.W.2d€441,€446€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1995);€òòÔ_ÔAlgeeÔ_Ô€v.€State€Farm€Ins.€Co.,€óó890€S.W.2d€445,€449€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔKilbyÔ_Ô€v.ÏÔ_ÔSivleyÔ_Ô,óó€745€S.W.2d€284,€287€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€€Ì _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€May€31,€1995€order€denying€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ôðð€application€for€an€interlocutoryÏappeal€overlooked€the€fact€that€the€trial€courtððs€April€20,€1995€order€disposed€of€theÏÔ_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ôðð€motion€to€reconsider€and€that€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€had€not€filed€a€notice€of€appeal.€ÏThese€oversights€did€not€affect€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ôðð€ability€to€file€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€from€theÏApril€20,€1995€order€because€our€order€was€not€entered€until€after€the€expiration€of€the€time€forÏfiling€the€notice€of€appeal.Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€was€amended€in€1995€to€extend€the€notice€period€to€ð ð120€daysÏafter€commencement€of€the€action.ðð€€The€effect€of€this€amendment€is€the€same€as€the€1991Ïamendment€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€15(c)(3)€which€was€to€mitigate€the€harsh€result€of€òòÔ_ÔSchiavoneÔ_Ô€v.ÏFortune,óó€477€U.S.€21,€30,€106€S.€Ct.€2379,€2384€(1986).€€The€amendment€cannot€be€appliedÏretroactively€to€complaints€filed€before€its€July€1,€1995€effective€date.€Ì cÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòBut€seeóó€òòBell€v.€P€&€B€Mfg.€Corp.,€óó107€Ô_ÔF.R.D.Ô_Ô€371,€374€(W.D.€Tenn.€1985).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€žÎ¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àÔ€)„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE̜ـ€ÙßR€.0,A1-j|Àýä` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÔ€)¼ÔÌÌÌÌÓ ` °œXÓó óSHIRLEY€JEAN€Ô_ÔMcCRACKENÔ_Ôà à)Ìand€ALAN€Ô_ÔMcCRACKENÔ_Ô,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94372ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ01A01„9511„CV„00531›ÌBRENTWOOD€œUNITEDà à›à àœ)ÌMETHODIST€CHURCH,›à àà àœ)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appellantsóó:à àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌStanley€M.€Ô_ÔChernauÔ_Ôà àà àà àà àFrank€ThomasÌLinda€F.€Ô_ÔBurnsedÔ_Ôà àà àà àà àà àÔ_ÔLeitnerÔ_Ô,€Warner,€Ô_ÔMoffittÔ_Ô,ÏWilliams,€Ô_ÔChernauÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔChaffinÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔBurnsedÔ_Ôà àà àà àà àDooley€&ÏÔ_ÔNapolitanÔ_ÔÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€)„Ôò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€)¼ÔÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÑ „ ÑÑ „ ÑÓ€ÓÔ€)„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€)¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€a€woman€who€broke€both€ankles€in€a€fall€at€church.€ÏThe€woman€and€her€husband€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€WilliamsonÏCounty€against€the€church€and€others.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€churchððsÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€based€on€the€statute€of€limitations€and€the€jointÏenterprise€rule.€€The€woman€and€her€husband€perfected€this€appeal€afterÏobtaining€post„judgment€relief€from€an€inappropriate€interlocutory€appeal.€ÏWe€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€the€post„judgmentÏrelief€but€erred€in€summarily€dismissing€the€complaint.€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àShirley€Jean€and€Alan€McCracken€are€members€of€the€BrentwoodÏUnited€Methodist€Church.€€On€June€20,€œ1993,›€less€than€one€month€afterÏjoining€the€church,€Ms.€McCracken€fell€as€she€was€entering€the€churchððs€newÏsanctuary€from€an€older€portion€of€the€building€containing€the€churchððsÏclassrooms.€€Persons€entering€the€sanctuary€at€that€location€œhad€to›€climb€aÏflight€of€stairs€and€then€pass€through€a€doorway€where€there€was€a€2ðð€inchÏchange€in€the€elevation€of€the€floor.€€Ms.€McCracken€stumbled€œand€fell€when›Ïshe€caught€one€of€her€shoes€on€the€œthreshold,›€œbreaking›€both€ankles€andÏœinjuring›€her€œshoulder.›ÌÌà àœMs.›€McCrackenððs€ankle€injuries€required€several€surgeries,€and€she€wasÏrequired€to€undergo€rehabilitation€for€nearly€one€year€before€regainingÏreasonable€mobility.€€The€McCrackens€were€reluctant€to€assert€a€claim€againstÏthe€church;€however,€the€churchððs€business€administrator€and€senior€pastorÏassured€them€that€the€church€carried€adequate€insurance€for€injuries€on€churchÏproperty.€€Accordingly,€the€McCrackens€submitted€a€claim€to€the€churchððsÍinsurance€company€and€received€$5,000€to€help€defray€some€of€their€medicalÏexpenses.ÌÌà àThe€McCrackens€retained€a€lawyer€who€continued€settlement€discussionsÏwith€the€churchððs€insurance€company.€€When€it€became€evident€that€aÏsatisfactory€settlement€was€not€forthcoming,€œthe€McCrackens›€filed€suit€on€JuneÏ17,€1994€„€three€days€before€the€statute€of€limitations€would€have€run€on€theirÏclaims.€€The€complaint€named€as€defendants€the€Brentwood€United€MethodistÏChurch€Ñ d ÑÑ 8 ÑFoundation,€Inc.€œ(the€"foundation")€and›€the€architect€and€constructionÏcompany€that€œdesigned›€and€constructed€the€sanctuary.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€church€first€learned€of€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ôðð€lawsuit€on€June€20,€1994Ïwhen€a€œNashville€newspaper€reporter›€œtelephoned›€the€senior€pastor€œto€get›€aÏcomment€about€the€case.€€The€summons€and€the€McCrackensðð€originalÏcomplaint€were€œserved›€on€the€churchððs€financial€administrator€œon›€June€28,Ï1994.€€The€administrator€recognized€immediately€that€the€McCrackens€hadÏsued€the€œfoundation€rather€than€the€Brentwood€United€Methodist€Church€(theÏð ðchurchðð).× ƒ2 ××  ×€€In€his€June€28,€1994€letter€transmitting€the€complaint€andÏsummons€to€the€churchððs€insurance€company,€the€administrator€stated:€ð ðTheÏplaintiff€has€sued€the€wrong€entity.€€Would€this€present€grounds€for€theÏdismissal€of€this€case?ððÌÌà àOn€July€28,€1994,€the€foundation€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€theÏgrounds€that€it€owned€no€property€and€that€it€was€not€involved€with€theÏconstruction€of€the€new€church€building.€€Approximately€ten€days€later,€theÏMcCrackens€requested€permission€to€file€a€second€amended€complaint€for€theÏpurpose€of€adding€the€church€as€a€defendant.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏmotion,€and€the€McCrackens€filed€their€second€amended€complaint€onÏSeptember€22,€1994.€€One€week€later,€the€church€moved€for€summaryÏjudgment€based€on€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ28„3„104(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€filed€a€memorandum€opinion€on€February€1,€1995,Ïgranting€the€churchððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€two€grounds.€€First,Ïthe€trial€court€determined€that€the€McCrackens€could€not€take€advantage€of€theÏrelation€back€provisions€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€and,€therefore,€that€theirÏclaims€against€the€church€in€their€second€amended€complaint€were€time„barred.€€Second,€the€trial€court,€relying€on€the€joint€enterprise€defense,€€heldÏthat€the€McCrackens€could€not€sue€the€church€because€it€was€anÏunincorporated€association€of€which€they€were€members.€€The€February€13,Ï1995€summary€judgment€order€stated€specifically€that€the€order€constituted€aÏfinal€judgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02€on€all€claims€against€the€church.€€ÌÌà àThe€McCrackens€requested€the€trial€court€to€ð ðreconsiderðð€its€decision€toÏgrant€the€summary€judgment× ƒ3 ××  ×€and,€in€the€alternative,€to€grant€them€permissionÍto€pursue€an€interlocutory€appeal.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€On€April€20,€1995,€the€trial€court€deniedÏthe€motion€to€reconsider€but€granted€the€McCrackens€permission€to€pursue€anÏinterlocutory€appeal.€€This€court€denied€the€McCrackensðð€application€for€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€on€May€31,€1995,€because€they€were€entitled€to€an€appealÏas€of€right.€€òòMcCracken€v.€Brentwood€United€Methodist€Church,óó€App.€No.Ï01A01„9505„CV„00204€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€31,€1995).€€ÌÌà àOn€June€13,€1995,€the€McCrackens€requested€this€court€to€grant€reliefÏfrom€their€failure€to€file€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€AprilÏ20,€1995€order.€€On€June€22,€1995,€we€denied€the€motion€but€suggested€that€itÏwould€be€appropriate€to€seek€this€relief€from€the€trial€court.€€òòMcCracken€v.ÏBrentwood€United€Methodist€Church,óó€App.€No.€01A01„9505„CV„00204Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€21,€1995).€€On€July€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€vacated€andÏre„entered€the€portion€of€its€April€20,€1995€order€denying€the€McCrackensððÏmotion€to€reconsider.€€Thereafter,€the€McCrackens€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€onÏJuly€21,€1995.€€ÌÌ›à@ àò òII.€ó óÌà@ àòòò òTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€Relief€from€Judgmentó óóóÌÌà àWe€turn€first€to€the€churchððs€assertion€that€the€McCrackens€are€notÏentitled€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€relief€from€their€failure€to€file€a€notice€ofÏappeal€within€thirty€days€following€the€entry€of€the€trial€courtððs€April€20,Ï1995€order€denying€their€motion€to€reconsider€the€summary€judgment.€€TheÍchurch€asserts€that€the€Ñ Ü ÑÑ ° ÑMcCrackensðð€erroneous€pursuit€of€an€interlocutoryÏappeal€is€not€the€type€of€mistake,€inadvertence,€or€excusable€neglect€thatÏwarrants€extraordinary€relief€from€the€judgment.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àThe€filing€requirements€for€notices€of€appeal€in€civil€cases€areÏmandatory€and€jurisdictional.€€òòThandiwe€v.€Traughber,óó€909€S.W.2d€802,€804Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòJohn€Barb,€Inc.€v.€Underwriters€at€Lloyds€of€London,óóÏ653€S.W.2d€422,€424€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€While€neither€the€trial€nor€theÏappellate€courts€may€waive€or€expand€the€time€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal,ÏòòFirst€Natððl€Bank€v.€Goss,óó€912€S.W.2d€147,€148€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€a€trialÏcourt€may€grant€an€appellant€relief€from€an€untimely€notice€of€appeal€inÏunusual€or€compelling€circumstances.€€œòòSee€Moody›€v.€Moody,óó€681€S.W.2d€545,Ï546€(Tenn.€1984);€òòJerkins€v.€McKinney,óó€533€S.W.2d€275,€œ280›€(Tenn.€1976);ÏòòJefferson€v.€Pneumo€Servs.€Corp.,óó€699€S.W.2d€181,€184„85€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1985).€€This€relief€generally€takes€the€form€of€vacating€and€re„entering€theÏfinal€order.ÌÌà àParties€seeking€œTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€relief›€must€substantiate€theirÏrequest€œby›€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòDavidson€v.€Davidson,óó€916€S.W.2dÏ918,€œ923›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòDuncan€v.€Duncan,óó€789€S.W.2d€557,€œ563›Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€These€requests€are€addressed€to€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion,€and€thus€appellate€courts€review€decisions€œregarding›€Tenn.€R.€Civ.ÏP.€60.02€relief€using€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€òòUnderwood€v.€ZurichÏIns.€Co.,óó€854€S.W.2d€€94,€œ97›€(Tenn.€1993);€òòBanks€v.€Dement€Constr.€Co.,€óó817ÏS.W.2d€16,€œ18›€(Tenn.€1991);€òòDay€v.€Day,óó€931€S.W.2d€936,€œ939›€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1996);€òòMarr€v.€Montgomery€Elevator€Co.,óó€922€S.W.2d€526,€œ528›€(Tenn.ÍCt.€App.€1995);€òòJohn€Barb,€Inc.€v.€Underwriters€at€Lloyds€of€London,óó€653ÏS.W.2d€at€424.ÌÌà àThis€case€presents€one€of€the€rare€circumstances€warranting€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€60.02€relief.€€The€McCrackensðð€failure€to€file€a€timely€notice€of€appealÏœfollowing›€the€April€20,€1995€order€was€not€just€a€product€of€their€lawyersððÏfailure€to€appreciate€the€significance€of€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02€designationÏin€the€February€13,€1995€order.€œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€€It€was€also€caused€by€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€to€grant€them€an€interlocutory€appeal€even€though€œthe›€February€13,Ï1995€order€was€final.€€The€procedural€posture€of€the€appeal€would€have€beenÏclear€had€the€trial€court€denied€the€McCrackensðð€application€for€interlocutoryÏappeal€on€the€ground€that€they€were€entitled€to€appeal€as€of€right.€€€However,Ïthe€order€granting€the€interlocutory€appeal€could€œhave›€induced€theÏMcCrackensðð€lawyer€to€conclude€that€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€was€no€longerÏnecessary.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€theÏMcCrackens€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€relief€œto›€enable€them€to€file€a€timelyÏnotice€of€appeal€from€its€April€20,€1995€order.Ô_Ôœ× ƒ6 ××  ×›Ô_ÔÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àòòò òRelation€Back€Under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03óóó óÌÌà àThe€McCrackens€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€they€couldÏnot€take€advantage€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03's€relation€back€provision€becauseÏthe€church€did€not€have€notice€of€their€suit€before€the€statute€of€limitationsÏexpired.€€They€insist€that€the€church€received€timely€notice€of€the€suit€when€itsÏsenior€pastor€received€a€telephone€call€from€a€newspaper€reporter€requestingÏcomment€about€their€suit.€€While€this€notice€was€extremely€informal,€we€findÏthat€it€satisfies€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03's€requirements.ÌÌà àPlaintiffs€who€file€their€lawsuit€at€or€near€the€end€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€period€face€a€difficult€predicament€if€they€make€a€mistakeÏœregarding›€the€name€œof›€the€defendant.€€œTo›€avoid€the€statute€of€limitationsÏextinguishing€their€claim€against€misnamed€defendants,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03Ïpermits€these€plaintiffs€to€amend€their€complaint€to€correct€the€misnomer€andÏprovides€that€the€amendment€will€relate€back€to€the€filing€of€the€originalÏcomplaint€œunder€certain›€œconditions.›ÌÌà àAt€all€times€pertinent€to€this€case,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€provided:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhenever€the€claim€or€defense€asserted€in€theÏamended€pleadings€arose€out€of€the€conduct,Ïtransaction€or€occurrence€set€forth€or€attempted€to€beÏset€forth€in€the€original€pleading,€the€amendmentÏrelates€back€to€the€date€of€the€original€pleading.€€AnÏamendment€changing€the€party€against€whom€a€claimÏis€asserted€relates€back€if€the€foregoing€provision€isÏsatisfied€and€if,€within€the€period€provided€by€lawÏfor€commencing€the€action€against€him,€the€party€toÏbe€brought€in€by€amendment€(1)€has€received€suchÏnotice€of€the€institution€of€the€action€that€he€will€notÍbe€prejudiced€in€maintaining€his€defense€on€theÏmerits,€and€(2)€knew€or€should€have€known€that,€butÏfor€a€misnomer€or€other€similar€mistake€concerningÏthe€identity€of€the€proper€party,€the€action€wouldÏhave€been€brought€against€him.€€Except€as€aboveÏspecified,€nothing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€toÏextend€any€period€of€limitations€governing€the€timeÏin€which€any€action€may€be€brought.ÌÌÓ€ÓThus,€the€relation€back€feature€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€works€only€when€theÏfollowing€conditions€exist:€(1)€the€claim€must€arise€out€of€the€same€conduct,Ïtransaction,€or€occurrence€involved€in€the€original€complaint;€(2)€the€party€toÏbe€brought€in€by€the€amendment€must€not€be€prejudiced€in€maintaining€itsÏdefense,€and€(3)€the€party€to€be€brought€in€by€amendment€either€knew€orÏshould€have€known€it€would€have€been€sued€had€it€not€been€for€the€misnomerÏor€similar€mistake.€€òòLease€v.€Tipton,óó€722€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1986);ÏòòTurner€v.€Aldor€Co.€of€Nashville,€Inc.,óó€827€S.W.2d€318,€321„22€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1991).€€ÌœÌ›à àTimely€notice€is€the€linchpin€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03.€€òòFloyd€v.ÏRentrop,óó€675€S.W.2d€165,€168€(Tenn.€1984).€€The€cases€construing€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€15.03€have€focused€on€the€content€of€the€notice,€the€time€within€whichÏthe€notice€must€be€received,€and€the€persons€who€must€receive€the€notice.€ÏAccordingly,€the€courts€have€held€that€the€notice€must€be€notice€of€the€lawsuitÏrather€than€merely€notice€of€the€underlying€injuryœ.€€òòSmith€v.€SoutheasternÏProperties,€Ltd.,óó€776€S.W.2d€106,€109€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€The€noticeÏmust€also€be€received€before€the€running€of€the€applicable€statute€ofÍlimitations.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€òòDuke€v.€Replogle€Enters.,óó€891€S.W.2d€205,€206„07€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòAllen€v.€River€Edge€Motor€Lodge,óó€861€S.W.2d€364,€365€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1993).€€Finally,€in€addition€to€notifying€the€defendant,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï15.03€permits€notifying€the€defendantððs€attorney€but€not€the€employees€of€theÏdefendantððs€insurance€company.€€òòBraswell€v.€Carothers,óó€863€S.W.2d€722,€726Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(holding€that€notice€to€the€defendantððs€lawyer€satisfiesÏTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03);€òòSmith€v.€Southeastern€Properties,€Ltd.,€óó776€S.W.2dÏat€110€(holding€that€notice€to€adjustors€employed€by€the€defendantððs€insuranceÏcompany€does€not€satisfy€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03).× ƒ8 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€courts€have€not€definitively€decided€what€type€or€form€of€noticeÏsatisfies€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03's€requirements.€€The€rule€requires€notice,€notÏservice.€€òòSee€Montgomery€v.€United€State€Postal€Serv.,€óó867€F.2d€900,€903€(5thÏCir.€1989).€€Since€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€must€be€construed€liberally€to€enableÏcourts€to€hear€and€decide€cases€on€their€merits,€òòFloyd€v.€Rentrop,óó€675€S.W.2dÏat€168;€òòOsborne€Enters.,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Chattanooga,óó€561€S.W.2d€160,€163Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977),€the€current€prevailing€view€is€that€the€notice€requiredÏby€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€may€be€either€formal€or€informal.€€òòSeeóó€òòKorn€v.ÏRoyal€Caribbean€Cruise€Line,€Inc.,óó€724€F.2d€1397,€1399€(9th€Cir.€1984);ÏòòKinally€v.€Bell€of€Pennsylvania,€óó748€F.€Supp.€1136,€1141€(E.D.€Pa.€1990);€3ÏJames€W.€Moore,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€15.15[4]€(2d€ed.€1996);€6AÍCharles€A.€Wright,€et€al.,€òòFederal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€1498,€at€116€(2dÏed.€1990).€€€ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€requires€more€than€mere€awareness€that€a€suitÏhas€been€filed.€€òòSeeóó€òòKeller€v.€Prince€Georgeððs€County,óó€923€F.2d€30,€33„34€(4thÏCir.€1991).€€€Unofficial,€informal€notice€that€a€lawsuit€has€been€filed€coupledÏwith€knowledge€of€the€facts€on€which€the€lawsuit€is€based€may€suffice€as€longÏas€the€ruleððs€other€requirements€are€satisfied.€€Parties€seeking€to€invoke€theÏrelation€back€provisions€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€must€also€demonstrate€thatÏthe€party€to€be€added€by€amendment€will€not€be€prejudiced€in€maintaining€itsÏdefense€and€that€the€party€knew€or€should€have€known€that€it€would€have€beenÏsued€had€it€not€been€for€the€misnomer€or€other€similar€mistake.€ÌÌà àThe€church€concedes€that€the€telephone€conversation€between€its€seniorÏpastor€and€the€newspaper€reporter€occurred€before€the€statute€of€limitationsÏran€on€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ôðð€claim.€€Nonetheless,€it€asserts€that€the€conversationÏdoes€not€qualify€as€notice€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€because€the€seniorÏpastor€did€not€have€authority€to€receive€notices€of€this€sort€and€because€theÏsubstance€of€the€conversation€was€too€vague.€€Both€assertions€are€not€wellÏtaken.€€ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€envisions€that€the€newly€added€defendant€mustÏreceive€actual€notice€of€the€lawsuit.€€Accordingly,€an€individual€defendant€orÏthe€defendantððs€attorney€must€receive€the€notice.€€When€the€defendant€is€anÏorganization,€the€notice€may€be€given€to€any€person€within€the€organizationÏwith€apparent€authority€to€receive€the€notice.€€òòSeeóó€òòGarland€v.€SeaboardÍCoastline€R.R.,óó€658€S.W.2d€528,€530„31€(Tenn.€1983)€(holding€that€service€ofÏprocess€may€be€made€on€a€person€so€integrated€in€the€organization€that€he€orÏshe€will€know€what€to€do€with€the€papers).€€The€churchððs€senior€pastor€plays€aÏsignificant€role€in€the€secular€and€religious€affairs€of€the€church.€ÏAccordingly,€it€is€reasonable€for€us€to€infer€that€he€is€one€of€the€personsÏwithin€the€organization€who€would€know€what€to€do€with€notice€that€a€lawsuitÏhas€been€filed€against€the€church.ÌÌà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03€does€not€require€the€McCrackens€to€serve€theÏchurch€with€process€or€to€provid€the€church€with€a€detailed€summary€of€theÏallegations€in€their€complaint.€€The€senior€pastor€conceded€that€he€was€awareÏthat€Ms.€McCracken€had€fallen€at€the€church,€and€he€specifically€recalled€thatÏthe€newspaper€reporter€asked€questions€relating€to€the€newly€filed€lawsuit.€ÏEven€though€the€telephone€call€was€not€in€writing,€it€provided€the€seniorÏpastor€with€actual€notice€that€the€McCrackens€had€filed€a€lawsuit€against€theÏchurch€seeking€damages€for€the€injuries€stemming€from€Ms.€McCrackenððs€fall.€€ÌÌà àThe€evidentiary€materials€submitted€in€support€of€and€in€opposition€toÏthe€summary€judgment€motion€contain€the€following€undisputed€facts.€€TheÏchurch,€through€its€senior€pastor,€received€actual€notice€before€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€ran€that€the€McCrackens€had€filed€a€lawsuit€based€on€Ms.ÏMcCrackenððs€fall€at€the€church.€€The€church€was€not€prejudiced€in€defendingÏagainst€the€suit€because€it€knew€about€Ms.€McCrackenððs€fall€as€soon€as€itÏhappened.€€It€also€knew€that€its€insurer€had€been€negotiating€a€settlement€withÏthe€McCrackensðð€lawyer€for€quite€some€time.€€Finally,€the€church€knew€thatÏthe€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€were€looking€to€the€church€for€damages€and,€as€the€businessÍadministratorððs€June€28,€1994€memorandum€underscores,€that€theÏMcCrackensðð€lawyer€had€mistakenly€named€the€foundation€as€a€defendantÏrather€than€the€church.€€These€undisputed€facts€establish€all€the€conditionsÏrequired€for€the€operation€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€15.03's€relation€back€provision.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€Joint€Enterprise€Defenseó óóóÌÌà àThe€McCrackens€also€take€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€theirÏcomplaint€against€the€church€on€the€ground€that€members€of€anÏunincorporated€religious€association€cannot€recover€from€the€association€forÏdamages.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€was€fully€consistent€with€the€decisionalÏlaw€as€it€stood€at€the€time.€€òòSeeóó€òòFain€v.€OððConnell,óó€No.€03A01„9403„CV„00082,€1994€WL€577404,€at€*1„2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€21,€1994),€òòrevððd,€óó909ÏS.W.2d€790€(Tenn.€1995);€òòShropshire€v.€Pure€Holiness€Church€of€God,óó€App.ÏNo.€03A01„9101„CV„00022,€1991€WL€121460,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€10,Ï1991)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€app.€filed).€€However,€after€the€trial€courtÏgranted€the€churchððs€summary€judgment,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏannounced€that€the€joint€enterprise€defense€was€not€a€blanket€defense€toÏpremise€liability€suits€brought€by€members€of€unincorporated€religiousÏassociations.ÌÌà àWhile€this€case€was€on€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversedÏthe€Eastern€Sectionððs€òòFain€v.€OððConnellóó€decision.€€Even€though€the€court€notedÏfactual€distinctions€between€the€òòFainóó€case€and€the€òòShropshireóó€case,€it€pointedÏout€that€the€Ñ d ÑÑ 8 Ñdefendant€in€òòFainóó€had€never€asserted€that€the€plaintiff€ð ðhad€anyÏresponsibility€for€or€right€of€control€over€the€maintenance€of€the€.€.€.€parishÍfacilities.ðð€€òòFain€v.€OððConnell,óó€909€S.W.2d€790,€794€(Tenn.€1995).€€NotingÏthat€it€did€not€favor€immunity€from€tort€liability,€the€court€unequivocallyÏrejected€any€defense€in€actions€of€this€sort€ð ðwhich€is€based€on€the€legal€form€ofÏthe€organization€rather€than€the€actual€degree€of€fault€of€the€member.ðð€€òòFainÏv.€OððConnell,óó€909€S.W.2d€at€794„95.ÌÌà à€€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€òòFainóó€decision€has€prompted€theÏWestern€Section€of€this€court€to€reverse€at€least€one€other€summary€judgmentÏbased€on€the€òòÔ_ÔShropshireÔ_Ôóó€reasoning.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔVilesÔ_Ô€v.€Kelly,óó€App.€No.€02A01„9508„CV„00186,€1996€WL€605158,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€23,€1996)€(No€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€11€app.€filed).€€In€light€of€the€absence€of€pleading€or€proof€that€theÏÔ_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€had€any€responsibility€for€or€right€to€control€the€design,Ïconstruction,€or€maintenance€of€the€premises€of€the€Brentwood€UnitedÏMethodist€Church,€the€summary€judgment€in€this€case€must€meet€the€sameÏfate.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ô€post„judgment€relief€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€and€reverse€the€summaryÏjudgment€dismissing€the€Ô_ÔMcCrackensÔ_Ôðð€claims€against€the€Brentwood€UnitedÏMethodist€Church.€€We€also€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion€and€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€theÏBrentwood€United€Methodist€Church€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€mayÏissue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌBEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€JUDGE