WPC1  1F x\u0Fu &ߋXe 5oZ,] z &D}2p|Mg-fPvpKW,x8[+( NwhΕbBCuV;:Kw'0 H:Ћ,4*&xPָ2h+uF)&a>Mly=eYnqZ>I(G$3SmGq_jC1\9Mcbaxk=-- 6ƹkQTY-$a2Sn!jrP4|E#@k㈧C 'lGw U#'Q 4 Juxj_Xm`Znط֩~.{A??Ň,w5%mo#NώK杛m oi(~hpQѕQGi><ߓ#P rTsZpHq6=!T'\bIψQ&ٳk6*# LUNW % 0(w@4'6>9?U:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AQ 0D 0D 0DQ Q D/ B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  I    DPPӀy&,,,,,,3|x ""   X\VXXX ClX X\V   Ad FILED X\VX Cl  July1,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh  / 4 #Xd#,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd !  zXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T-dXXX-r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rt )>.*jxs` `@ELM` 8ttxP( tߛCARLMILLIKEN,   t   )     l      t   )?8dX,XdXX?  Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  AppealNo. 0     )  01A019806CV00271 @ v.    )      P     )    ` STEVENFELDT,LORIFELDT,  )  SumnerCircuit  p andROBERTGASKIN,  )  No.17935C 0  Individually,  ) @      )   P    Defendants/Appellees.  ) `    COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORSUMNERCOUNTY,ATGALLATIN,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLETHOMASGOODALL,JUDGE  WALTERH.STUBBS554WestMainStreetGallatin,Tennessee37066  ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANTCURTISM.LINCOLN175EastMainStreet,2ndFloorHendersonville,Tennessee37075  ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES  AFFIRMEDINPART,REVERSEDINPART,andREMANDED  WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE :063 Ї   zOPINION    4   t7FkXXdXXd7z E  dR^xX8dX,XE ThiscaseinvolvesanappealfromtheSumnerCountyCircuitCourts  p denovoreviewofacasefromGeneralSessionsCourt,inwhichonlyoneoftheGeneralSessionsDefendantsperfectedanappealtocircuitcourt.H 8d" ,X  dR^xXHE8d" ,X 8d" ,XE " CarlMillikenfiledsuitintheGeneralSessionsCourtforSumnerCountyonDec.2,1997.Accordingtothewarrantthedefendants,StevenandLoriFeldtwerecalledtoansweraclaim fordamagesforbreachofcontract,misrepresentation,eitherintentionalornegligent,andviolationoftheTennesseeResidentialPropertyDisclosureAct,arisingfrommaterialdefectsinroofofpropertyat102JackstaffDrive,HendersonvilleTennessee37075. " Althoughnoverbatimtranscriptisavailablefromthatproceeding,therecordbeforeusrevealsthatMr.MillikenobtainedajudgmentinGeneralSessionsCourtfor$7,500,againsttheFeldtsandagainstthirdpartydefendantRobertGaskin,thecontractorwhohadallegedlyrepairedtheroofinquestion.Inthesameproceeding,Mr.andMrs.FeldtobtainedajudgmentoverandagainstMr.Gaskininthesameamount. " FromtheactionoftheGeneralSessionsCourtStevenFeldtaloneperfectedanappealtotheCircuitCourtofSumnerCounty,HonorableThomasGoodallpresiding.Withregardtoitsdenovoappellatejurisdictionoverthecontroversy,theCircuitCourtfoundasfollows:8 " [T]heappealoftheHusband/Defendant,STEVENFELDT,wasalsoanappealoftheWife/Defendant,LORIFELDT,andfurther,thattheappealprocessbroughtalltheparties,includingtheThirdPartyDefendantintheDefendants,FELDT,caseandcodefendantintheMillikenCase,ROBERTGASKIN,beforetheCourt. " "  Regardingthesubstantiveissuesinthetrial,thecourtdismissedMr.MillikensclaimagainstMr.andMrs.Feldt,andorderedMr.GaskintorepairMr.Millikens H509 roofwithinthirtydaysofthedateofjudgment. " Fromtheseactionsofthetrialcourt,Mr.Millikenappeals.ThetrialcourterredinfindingthattheappealfromGeneralSessionsCourtbySteveFeldtaloneservedtobringLoriFeldtandRobertGaskinbeforetheCircuitCourt.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection275108provides:Ӝ 8 " 27-5-108.Generalsessionscourt B8dX ,X8d" ,XB8  8 !!(a)Anypartymayappealfromanadversedecisionofthegeneralsessionscourttothecircuitcourtofthecountywithinaperiodoften(10)daysoncomplyingwiththeprovisionsofthischapter.      8    ! ! 8  8 !!(b)Thisprovisionallowingten(10)daysinwhichtoperfectanappealshallapplyineverycountyofTennessee,anyprovisionofanyprivateacttothecontrarynotwithstanding,itbeingthelegislativeintenttoestablishauniformperiodoften(10)daysinwhichanysuchappealmaybeperfectedinanycountyinTennessee.      8    ! ! 8  8 !!(c)Anyappealshallbehearddenovointhecircuitcourt.    8  8 !!    8  8 !!(d)Ifnoappealistakenwithinthetimeprovided,thenexecutionmayissue.      Tenn.CodeAnn.275108(1980).B8dX" ,X8dX ,XB    Theeffectofthisstatuteisplaininatwopartylawsuitappealedfromgeneralsessionstocircuitcourt.Theapplicationbecomescomplexwhenthegeneralsessionsactionconcernsmultiplepartiesdefendantorpartiesplaintiff.Appelleesarguethatallpartieswereproperlybeforethecircuitcourt.TheyurgethatStevenFeldtsimplyfailedtoincludehiswifeonthenoticeofappealformwhenhefiledit.TheyarguethatthefailureofMr.FeldttoincludeMrs.Feldtasanappellantwasexcusableneglectandthatthecircuitcourtwasfreetoallowanamendmenttothenoticeofappeal.Asauthorityforthisproposition,AppelleesrelyonthecaseofWarev.MeharryMedicalCollege,898S.W.2d181(Tenn. @0+1 1995).Suchrelianceismisplaced.Wareconcernedtheeffectofthemonetary 1(-3 jurisdictionallimitoftheGeneralSessionsCourtonthedenovoappellateproceedingbeforethecircuitcourt.AdoptingthedissentingopinionofJudgeKochintheCourtofAppeals,theSupremeCourtheld: 619 8  8 !!Thisappealpresentsanopportunitytoconsiderthecontinuingsoundnessofthejudgemadelimitsonthecircuitcourtsjurisdictionincasesappealedfromthegeneralsessionscourt.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasnotconfrontedthisissuedirectlysincetheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurebecameeffectivealmosttwentyfiveyearsago.Presentlitigationrealityindicatesthatlimitingthecircuitcourtsjurisdictiontothatofthegeneralsessionscourtinterfereswiththecircuitcourtsabilitytoresolveallclaimsefficientlyonthemeritsinoneexpeditiousproceeding.@      Warev.MeharryMedicalCollege,898S.W.2d181,183(Tenn.1995). `  B8d" ,X8dX" ,XB " AstheWareopinionindicates,theapplicationoftheTennesseeRules X ofCivilProceduretocasesappealedtothecircuitcourtpromotesjudicialeconomyandtheabilitytoaddressthemeritsofacontroversyinasingleproceeding.TheunderlyingpresumptioninWareisthatthepartiesareproperlybeforethecourton   appeal.TheonlycaseinourjurisprudenceaddressingtheproprietyofhearingdenovoappealswherelessthanallofthegeneralsessionspartiessufferingadversejudgmentshaveperfectedappealtothecircuitcourtisBravermanv.RobertsConst.  Co.,Inc.748S.W.2d433(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Theruleissquarelyput: a 0 provisionfordenovotrialinthecircuitcourtmustbetakentomeanadenovotrialastothepartiesbeforethatcourtbyappeal.Bravermanat437.Appelleesnoted `!  inoralargumentaswenoteuponreviewingtherecord,thatthetrialcourtapparentlybelievedtheruleofBraverman,hadbeenoverruled.Thereisnocitation $$ tothesupposedoverrulingauthority.  Toourknowledgethisrulehasnotbeenaltered,andwefindnoreasontoreaddresstherulehere. " Theperfectionofappealtocircuitcourtisaccomplishedbycompliancewiththestatute,andisjurisdictionalineffect.SeeLovev.CollegeLevel ,'. AssessmentServices,Inc.,928S.W.2d36,38(Tenn.1996).Thisholdingseems  .p)0 inconsistentwiththestatementinWarethatcircuitcourtshavecorrectlyallowed /+2 theadditionofpartiestoactionsonappealfromgeneralsessions.ThesoleauthorityforthelatterstatementisthecaseofCookev.NeighborhoodGrocery,173 28.6 Tenn.681,122S.W.2d438(1938);citedinWarev.MeharryMedicalCollege, 4/8   t447v"XXdXXd7    t447v"XXdXXd7   t447v"XXdXXd7   t447v"XXdXXd7  898S.W.2d181,185fn.6(Tenn.1995).TheactualamendmentinCookewasto 6h1:  t447KXXdXXd7   t447v"XXdXXd7  allowasuccessfulgeneralsessionsplaintiffsuinginhistradenametoincludehis  personalnameintheabsenceoftheunsuccessfuldefendantwhohadinfactproperlyperfectedappealtothecircuitcourt.Cookev.NeighborhoodGrocery,173 0 Tenn.681,122S.W.2d438(1938).  Clearlysuchisnotthesituationinthecaseatbar.NoristhisasituationinwhichtheindividualfiledapaupersoathbutfailedtoformallyappearbeforetheJudgeoftheGeneralSessionsCourtandprayforanappeal.SeeSpencerv.DixieFin.Co.,205Tenn.at487,327S.W.2dat302(1959). @  TheappealbondwasfiledinthenameofStevenFeldt.  Thecasewasdocketed,andnorequestwasmadetocorrectthisallegederroruntilthedateoftrial.ThefailuretoperfectappealinconformitywithstatutoryrequirementsisnotaninformalityinthecontemplationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection1615729.SeeWare,supra.ThustheonlypartiesproperlybeforethecircuitcourtwereMr. 8 StevenFeldtandMr.CarlMilliken.Thefindingofthetrialcourttothecontrarymustbeandisherebyreversed. " AsforthesubstantiveissueregardingthedismissalofsuitagainstMr.StevenFeldt,ourstandardisclear.Thetrialcourtmadespecificfindingsoffactwhichthiscourtmustpresumearecorrectabsentapreponderanceofevidencetothecontrary.Tenn.R.Civ.P.13(1999).WefindnosuchpreponderanceagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatStevenFeldthadnowayofknowingtherewasanydamagetotheroofthathadnotbeenrepaired. " Appellantsfinalissueconcernsthefailureofthetrialcourttoawarddamagesbasedondiminutionofvalue.Sinceweaffirmthetrialcourt'sdismissalastotheonlysourceofsucharemedy,wedonotreachthatissuehere.TheeffectofthiscourtsrulingdoesnothingtoimperilMr.MillikensabilitytoobtainthedamagesawardedinGeneralSessionsCourt.  InviewofourfindingthatMr.GaskinwasnotproperlybeforethetrialcourtandofouraffirmanceofthetrialcourtsdismissalastoStevenFeldt,thejudgmentoftheGeneralSessionsCourtremainseffectiveastoCarlMilliken,LoriFeldtandRobertGaskin.Theactionsofthetrialcourtareaffirmedinpart,reversedinpartandremandedforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedequally 6h1> againstthelitigantsStevenFeldtandCarlMilliken.XKX 8 "  " "  B8d" ,X8d" ,XB "    ___________________________________________ "    WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,P.J.,M.S._________________________________________PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGÈn# XXK8#