ÿWPCM 7# UN %k 0cqU<Ôw@4Pds 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ 0hw 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã 0dX B¼ 0@Ù D3 0§L 0Dó U>7 B)u DCž AQá Æ2 0Dø 0D< D/€ B¯ AMÌ U*^Cy¡¬U6Æv~üvÓz˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;1˜$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XcXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman 12E34U5U6U7î89Ó€E ìSï"‡ <¸ ¤3|xE2 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 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd(W(3Oõ$¤¤Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XT XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd* (Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ17,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€These€dates€are€obviously€typographical€errors€because€the€record€isÏclear€that€the€first€order€was€entered€on€July€1,€1996,€and€the€second€order€wasÏentered€on€July€18,€1996.Ì ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€It€appears€that€the€order€entered€was€the€copy€of€the€order€that€HawkððsÏlawyer€sent€to€Star€Truckððs€lawyer€on€June€24,€1996€because€it€contains€theÏsame€certificate€of€service€signed€by€Hawkððs€lawyer€on€June€24,€1996.Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€œÑXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òSTAR€TRUCK€AND€TRAILER,€INC.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Circuit€No.€76588ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„611„CV„00267ÌÌò òJIM€HAWK€TRUCK€TRAILERS,€INC.,€ÌÙ€*ÙßR€/1(A1-j|´2` à. `€€@ÿRßÌó óà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNT€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€DððARMY€BAILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌà@ àStephen€H.€Price;€Farris,€Warfield€&€Kanaday€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àJames€T.€Allison€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòDISMISSEDó óÌÌóóà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌ›Ñ 8 ÑÑ 8 ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€long„arm€jurisdiction€over€a€nonresident€corporateÏdefendant.€€The€plaintiff,€Star€Truck€and€Trailer,€Inc.€(Star€Truck),€appeals€fromÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€granting€the€defendantððs,€Jim€Hawk€TruckÏTrailers,€Inc.ððs€(Hawk),€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction.Ìà àOn€March€6,€1996,€Star€Truck€filed€a€complaint€against€Hawk€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Shelby€County,€Tennessee€seeking€damages€for€breach€ofÏcontract.€€The€complaint€avers€that€Star€Truck€is€a€Tennessee€corporation€andÏthat€Hawk€is€an€Iowa€corporation.€€The€complaint€alleges€that,€several€daysÏbefore€September€10,€1995,€Star€Truckððs€president€called€Hawk€and€arranged€toÏbuy€four€1993€Capacity€Spotter€Tractors€for€$24,500.00€each.€€On€SeptemberÏ10,€1995,€Hawk€completed€a€Sales€Order€and€Security€Agreement€thatÍdescribed€the€parties,€the€merchandise,€and€the€terms€of€the€sale.€€Hawk€signedÏthe€contract€and,€with€Star€Truckððs€permission,€signed€Star€Truckððs€name€as€theÏbuyer.€€A€copy€was€mailed€to€Star€Truckððs€offices€in€Memphis€where€StarÏTruckððs€president€signed€the€contract.€€The€parties€agreed€that€Hawk€wouldÏdeliver€the€tractors€to€Star€Truck€within€sixty€days€of€September€10,€1995.Ìà àThe€complaint€alleges€that,€at€the€time€the€contract€was€signed,€theÏtractors€were€rented€to€third€parties€by€Hawk,€and€Hawk€needed€to€have€theÏtractors€returned€before€it€could€deliver€them€to€Star€Truck.€€During€OctoberÏand€November€1995,€the€parties€spoke€several€times€by€telephone€about€theÏcondition€of€the€tractors€and€the€upcoming€delivery.€€Hawk€did€not€deliver€theÏtractors€on€the€agreed€upon€delivery€date,€but€on€December€21,€1995,€HawkÏsent€a€letter€to€Star€Truck€stating€that€the€tractors€would€be€delivered€betweenÏJanuary€7€and€10,€1996.€€The€tractors€were€not€delivered€by€these€dates€either.Ìà àThe€complaint€alleges€that€in€anticipation€of€the€delivery,€Star€TruckÏarranged€to€sell€the€tractors€to€Guaranteed€Performance€Service€for€$32,000.00Ïeach.€€On€January€29,€1996,€three€of€the€four€tractors€were€sent€to€GuaranteedÏPerformance€by€Hawk.€€The€fourth€tractor€was€scheduled€for€delivery€a€few€daysÏlater.€€On€February€3,€1996,€Star€Truck€sent€a€check€for€$73,500.00€to€Hawk€inÏDavenport,€Iowa€as€payment€for€the€first€three€tractors.Ìà àStar€Truck€avers€that€Guaranteed€Performance€informed€Star€Truck€thatÍit€was€going€to€purchase€the€three€tractors€directly€from€Hawk.€€Star€TruckÏcalled€Hawk€to€investigate,€and€Hawk€denied€that€it€was€selling€the€tractorsÏdirectly€to€Guaranteed€Performance.€€Star€Truck€requested€that€the€fourthÏtractor€be€delivered€directly€to€its€office€in€Memphis.€€On€February€5,€1996,ÏStar€Truck€attempted€to€pick€up€the€other€three€tractors€from€GuaranteedÏPerformance,€but€Hawkððs€manager€refused€to€release€them.€€After€GuaranteedÏPerformance€refused€to€cooperate,€stating€that€Star€Truck€had€no€legal€right€toÏthe€tractors,€Star€Truck€stopped€payment€on€the€$73,500.00€check.Ìà àThe€complaint€further€alleges€that€Hawk€breached€the€September€10,Ï1995€contract€by€refusing€to€deliver€the€four€tractors.€€Star€Truck€claimsÏdamages€of€daily€rent€starting€on€December€12,€1995€and€damages€for€the€lostÏprofit€from€the€sale€to€Guaranteed€Performance€that€was€not€consummated.Ìà àThe€complaint€avers€that€the€circuit€court€has€jurisdiction€over€HawkÏpursuant€to€the€Tennessee€long„arm€statute,€specifically,€T.C.A.€ðð€20„2„201Ï(1994)€and€T.C.A.€ðð€20„2„214€(1994).€Ìà àOn€April€17,€1996,€Hawk€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€personalÏjurisdiction€asserting€that€Hawk€was€an€Iowa€corporation€with€no€office€orÏagent€in€Tennessee€and€that€it€did€not€have€the€ð ðminimum€contactsðð€withÏTennessee€required€to€establish€personal€jurisdiction.€€In€support€of€its€motion,ÏHawk€filed€the€affidavit€of€Scott€Kulhanek,€the€general€manager€of€Hawk.€€InÍopposition€to€the€motion,€Star€Truck€filed€exhibits€that€documented€priorÏbusiness€transactions€between€the€parties€and€evidence€of€other€businessÏconducted€in€Tennessee€by€Hawk.€€Scott€Kulhanek€filed€a€second€affidavitÏexplaining€Hawkððs€business€connections€in€Tennessee.€€Ìà àOn€June€21,€1996,€the€trial€court€heard€arguments€on€the€motion€toÏdismiss€and,€by€orders€entered€on€July€1,€1996€and€July€18,€1996,€granted€theÏmotion€€for€lack€of€€personal€jurisdiction€over€Hawk.€€Star€Truck€has€appealedÏand€presents€one€issue€for€review:€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏthe€complaint€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction€over€Hawk.€€Hawk€presents€anÏadditional€issue€for€review:€€whether€Star€Truck€timely€filed€its€notice€of€appeal.Ìà àWe€will€first€consider€Star€Truckððs€issue.€€Because€Hawk€is€a€corporateÏnonresident€of€Tennessee,€Star€Truck€filed€the€suit€in€Tennessee€pursuant€to€theÏprovisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€20„2„214(a)€(1994),€which€provide€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò20„2„214.€€Jurisdiction€of€persons€unavailable€toÏpersonal€service€in€state€„„€Classes€of€action€toÏwhich€applicable.€„„€ó ó(a)€Persons€who€areÏnonresidents€of€Tennessee€and€residents€of€TennesseeÏwho€are€outside€the€state€and€cannot€be€personallyÏserved€with€process€within€the€state€are€subject€to€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€courts€of€this€state€as€to€any€actionÏor€claim€for€relief€arising€from:Ìà8 àà8 à(1)€The€transaction€of€any€business€within€the€state;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€à àà à*€€€à àà à*€€à àà à€*€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€Any€basis€not€inconsistent€with€the€constitutionÍof€this€state€or€of€the€United€States;ÌÌÓÓà àT.C.A.€ðð€20„2„201€(1994)€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ìò òÓÓà8 àà8 à2„20„201.€€Foreign€corporations€subject€to€actions.Ï„„ó ó€(a)€Any€corporation€claiming€existence€under€theÏlaws€of€the€United€States€or€any€other€state€or€of€anyÏcountry€foreign€to€the€United€States,€or€any€businessÏtrust€found€doing€business€in€this€state,€shall€beÏsubject€to€suit€here€to€the€same€extent€thatÏcorporations€of€this€state€are€by€the€laws€thereof€liableÏto€be€sued,€so€far€as€relates€to€any€transaction€had,€inÏwhole€or€in€part,€within€this€state€or€any€cause€ofÏaction€arising€here,€but€not€otherwise.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Tennessee€long„arm€statute€confers€jurisdiction€to€the€full€extentÏallowable€under€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€theÏConstitution€of€the€United€States.€€òòò òSouthland€Express,€Inc.€v.€Scrap€MetalÏBuyers€of€Tampa,€Inc.ó óóó,€895€S.W.2d€335,€338€(Tenn.€App.€1994).Ìà àIn€determining€whether€a€court€may€assert€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€over€aÏnonresident€defendant,€due€process€requires€that€the€defendant€have€certainÏð ðminimum€contactsðð€with€the€forum€state€ð ðsuch€that€the€maintenance€of€theÏsuit€does€not€offend€traditional€notions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice.ðð€Ïòòò òInternational€Shoe€Co.€v.€Washingtonó óóó,€326€U.S.€310,€316,€66€S.€Ct.€154,€158,€90ÏL.€Ed.€95€(1945);€òòò òJ.I.€Case€Corp.€v.€Williamsó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€530,€531„32€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€The€Due€Process€Clause€requires€ð ðfair€warning€that€a€particular€activityÏmay€subject€[the€defendant]€to€the€jurisdiction€of€a€foreign€sovereign.ðð€€òòò òBurgerÍKing€Corp.€v.€Rudzewiczó óóó,€471€U.S.€462,€472,€105€S.€Ct.€2174,€2182,€85€L.€Ed.€2dÏ528€(1985)€(quoting€ò òòòShaffer€v.€Heitneró óóó,€433€U.S.€186,€218,€97€S.€Ct.€2569,Ï2587,€53€L.€Ed.€2d€683€(1977)€(Stevens,€J.€concurring)).€€€Ìà àCourts€recognize€two€types€of€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction:€€generalÏjurisdiction€and€specific€jurisdiction.€€ò òòòThird€Natððl€Bank€in€Nashville€v.€WedgeÏGroup€Inc.óóó ó,€882€F.2d€1087,€1089€(6th€Cir.€1989);€ò òòòShoneyððs€Inc.€v.€Chic€CanÏEnterprisesóóó ó,€922€S.W.2d€530,€537€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€When€a€state€exercisesÏpersonal€jurisdiction€over€a€defendant€in€a€suit€not€arising€out€of€or€related€toÏthe€defendantððs€contacts€with€the€forum,€the€state€is€exercising€ð ðgeneralÏjurisdictionðð€over€the€defendant.€€òòò òHelicopteros€Nacionales€De€Columbia,€S.A.€v.ÏHallóóó ó,€466€U.S.€408,€414€n.€9,€104€S.€Ct.€1868,€1872€n.€9,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€404Ï(1984).€€When€a€state€exercises€personal€jurisdiction€over€a€defendant€in€a€suitÏarising€out€of€or€related€to€the€defendantððs€contacts€with€the€forum,€the€state€isÏexercising€ð ðspecific€jurisdictionðð€over€the€defendant.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€414€n.€8,€104€S.€Ct.Ïat€1872€n.€8.Ìà àWe€will€first€examine€general€personal€jurisdiction.€€For€a€court€toÏexercise€general€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€over€a€nonresident€defendant€withoutÏviolating€the€requirements€of€the€Due€Process€Clause,€the€proof€must€show€thatÏthe€defendant€maintains€ð ðcontinuous€and€systematicðð€contacts€with€the€foreignÏstate.€€ò òòòInternational€Shoe€Co.óóó ó,€326€U.S.€at€317,€66€S.€Ct.€at€159;€ò òòòJ.I.€Case€Corp.óóó ó,Í832€S.W.2d€at€532.€€ð ðWhile€it€has€been€held€in€cases€.€.€.€that€continuousÏactivity€of€some€sort€within€a€state€is€not€enough€to€support€the€demand€thatÏthe€corporation€be€amenable€to€suits€unrelated€to€that€activity,€there€have€beenÏinstances€in€which€the€continuous€corporate€operations€within€a€state€wereÏthought€to€be€so€substantial€and€of€such€a€nature€as€to€justify€suit€against€it€onÏcauses€of€action€arising€from€dealings€entirely€distinct€from€those€activities.ðð€Ïò òòòInternational€Shoe€Co.óóó ó,€326€U.S.€at€318,€66€S.€Ct.€at€159.€€Ìà àStar€Truck€asserts€that€Hawkððs€business€activities€in€Tennessee,Ïconsidered€as€a€whole,€constitute€ð ðcontinuous€and€systematicðð€contacts.€€In€itsÏbrief,€Star€Truck€categorized€Hawkððs€business€activities:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àHawkððs€general€business€activities€in€TennesseeÏfall€into€at€least€six€(6)€categories:€€(1)€advertisementÏand€the€solicitation€of€business€in€Tennessee€on€aÏregular€and€continuing€basis;€(2)€the€purchase€inÏsubstantial€volume€of€platform€trailers€manufacturedÏin€Tennessee€on€a€systematic€and€continuous€basis;Ï(3)€visits€to€Tennessee€by€its€agents€and€employees€toÏpick€up€the€trailers€manufactured€in€Tennessee;€(4)Ïsales€of€ð ðSpotterðð€tractors€and€truck€parts€to€aÏTennessee€customer;€(5)€purchases€of€ð ðSpotterððÏtractors€from€a€Tennessee€dealer;€and€(6)€paymentsÏmade€directly€to€a€Tennessee€dealer.à àà àÌÌÓÓà àWe€will€examine€Hawkððs€general€business€contacts€with€Tennessee€in€theÏsame€manner€as€Star€Truck.€€First,€Hawk€claims€that€Star€Truck€advertises€andÏsolicits€business€in€Tennessee€on€a€regular€and€continuing€basis.€€HawkÍadvertises€in€òòAmerican€Truckeróó,€a€monthly€magazine€with€the€subtitle,€ð ðNationalÏNetwork€of€Truck€Trader€Magazines.ðð€€It€appears€that€the€magazine€is€a€listingÏof€trucks€and€trailers€for€sale€by€various€dealers€across€the€nation.€€TheÏmagazine€in€which€Hawk€advertised€the€€tractors€was€the€ð ðSouth€CentralÏEdition€Serving€Texas,€Oklahoma,€Louisiana€and€Arkansas.ðð€€Star€TruckÏsubscribes€to€the€publication€and€called€Hawk€as€a€result€of€the€advertisementÏin€the€publication.€€Ìà àStar€Truck€asserts€that€the€òòAmerican€Truckeróó€is€distributed€in€every€state,Ïincluding€Tennessee,€but€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€other€than€HawkððsÏadvertisement€in€the€ð ðSouth€Central€Edition.ðð€€The€record€does€not€containÏevidence€that€shows€that€Hawks€solicits€business€in€Tennessee€ð ðthroughÏadvertising€reasonably€calculated€to€reach€the€State.ðð€€ò òòòSee€World„WideÏVolkswagen€Corp.€v.€Woodsonóóó ó,€444€U.S.€286,€295,€100€S.€Ct.€559,€566,€62€L.€Ed.Ï2d€490€(1980).Ìà àStar€Truck€next€argues€that€Hawk€purchases€a€substantial€volume€ofÏplatform€trailers€manufactured€in€Tennessee€on€a€continuous€and€systematicÏbasis.€€Hawk€purchased€263€platform€trailers€from€Great€Dane€Trailers,€IncððsÏ(Great€Dane)€manufacturing€plant€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€from€January€1,€1995Ïthrough€May€1996.€€Scott€Kulhanek,€Hawkððs€General€Manager,€submitted€anÏaffidavit€explaining€Hawkððs€relationship€with€Great€Dane.€€Hawk€has€aÍfranchise/dealership€agreement€with€Great€Dane€of€Savannah,€Georgia.€€GreatÏDane€is€a€manufacturer€of€semi„trailers€with€factories€in€Savannah,€Georgia;ÏBrazil,€Indiana;€Terre€Haute,€Indiana;€Memphis,€Tennessee;€and€Wayne,ÏNebraska.€€Hawk€purchases€Great€Dane€trailers€in€Wayne,€Brazil,€and€Memphis,Ïbut€the€majority€are€purchased€from€Wayne€or€Brazil.€€The€prices€and€terms€forÏthe€sales€are€established€in€Savannah,€Georgia,€and€specific€price€concessions€areÏnegotiated€in€Kansas€City.€€Hawk€sends€the€payments€for€the€trailers€toÏSavannah.€à à€Ìà àMere€purchases,€even€if€occurring€at€regular€intervals,€are€not€enough€toÏwarrant€a€stateððs€assertion€of€òòin€personamóójurisdiction€over€a€nonresidentÏcorporation€in€a€cause€of€action€not€related€to€those€purchase€transactions.€Ïò òòòHelicopteros€Nacionalesó óóó,€466€U.S.€at€418,€104€S.€Ct.€at€1874.€€We€believe€thatÏany€connection€with€Tennessee€from€Hawkððs€purchase€of€Great€Dane€trailers€isÏð ðrandom,ðð€ð ðfortuitous,ðð€or€ð ðattenuatedðð€at€best.€€ò òòòSee€Burger€King€Corp.óóó ó,€471ÏU.S.€at€475,€105€S.€Ct.€at€2183.Ìà àStar€Truck€asserts€that€Hawkððs€agents€and€employees€visit€Tennessee€toÏpick€up€the€trailers€manufactured€in€Tennessee€by€Great€Dane.€€In€his€affidavit,ÏScott€Kulhanek€stated,€ð ðWhen€a€Great€Dane€trailer€purchased€by€Hawk€hasÏbeen€manufactured€in€Memphis,€either€the€end„use€customer€or€an€outsideÏcarrier€typically€picks€up€the€trailer€in€Memphis.ðð€€However,€he€admitted€that,Íon€a€few€occasions,€a€Hawk€driver€has€picked€up€the€trailers€in€Memphis.Ìà àIt€is€ð ðclear€that€purchases€and€òòrelated€tripsóó,€standing€alone,€are€not€aÏsufficient€basis€for€a€Stateððs€assertion€of€jurisdiction.ðð€€ò òòòHelicopteros€Nacionalesó óóó,Ï466€U.S.€at€417,€104€S.€Ct.€at€1874€(citing€ò òòòRosenberg€Bros€&€Co.€v.€CurtisÏBrown€Co.óóó ó,€260€U.S.€516,€43€S.€Ct.€170,€67€L.€Ed.€372€(1923))€(emphasisÏadded).€€The€casual€presence€of€a€corporate€agent€or€even€his€or€her€conduct€ofÏsingle€or€isolated€items€of€activities€in€a€state€in€the€corporationððs€behalf€areÏnot€enough€to€subject€it€to€suit€on€causes€of€action€unconnected€with€theÏactivities€there.€€ò òòòInternational€Shoe€Co.óóó ó,€326€U.S.€at€317,€66€S.€Ct.€at€159.€€TheÏbrief€presence€of€Hawkððs€representatives€in€Tennessee€is€not€a€significantÏcontact€with€the€œstate,›€and€in€no€way€does€it€enhance€the€nature€of€HawkððsÏcontacts€with€Tennessee.€€ò òòòSee€Helicopteros€Nacionalesó óóó,€466€U.S.€at€418,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€1874.Ìà àFinally,€Star€Truck€claims€that€Hawk€established€minimum€contacts€withÏTennessee€through€sales€of€Spotter€tractors€and€truck€parts€to€a€TennesseeÏcustomer,€through€purchases€of€Spotter€tractors€from€a€Tennessee€dealer,€andÏthrough€payments€made€directly€to€a€Tennessee€dealer.€€We€note€that€theÏTennessee€customer€and€the€Tennessee€dealer€in€each€instance€is€Star€TruckÏitself.€€Star€Truck€asserts€that€Hawk€transacted€business€with€it€in€TennesseeÏfrom€November€1993€until€the€filing€of€this€suit€on€March€6,€1996.€€The€recordÍreveals€four€transactions€between€Star€Truck€and€Hawk.€€In€November€1993,ÏHawk€purchased€a€used€1988€Spotter€tractor€from€Star€Truck€for€$34,500.00.€ÏIn€June€1995,€Hawk€purchased€a€1989€Capacity€tractor€from€Star€Truck€forÏ$33,500.00.€€In€September€1995,€Star€Truck€agreed€to€buy€the€four€SpotterÏtractors€that€are€in€issue€in€this€case.€€Finally,€in€October€1995,€Star€TruckÏordered€$1,083.16€in€unrelated€truck€parts€from€Hawk.€€Hawk€paid€cash€forÏboth€of€its€purchases€directly€to€Star€Truck,€and€it€appears€that€none€of€theÏtransactions€involved€a€warranty€or€a€continuing€relationship.Ìà àThe€September€1995€transaction€is€the€one€that€gave€rise€to€this€cause€ofÏaction€and€will€be€discussed€in€detail€when€we€consider€specific€òòin€personamóóÏjurisdiction.€€The€other€three€transactions€are€isolated€dealings€with€one€entityÏin€Tennessee.€€We€do€not€believe€that€these€three€forays€into€Tennessee€byÏHawk€are€substantial€or€that€they€are€of€such€a€nature€as€to€justify€suit€againstÏHawk€on€an€unrelated€transaction.€€ò òòòSee€International€Shoe€Co.óóó ó,€326€U.S.€at€318,Ï66€S.€Ct.€at€159.Ìà àWe€conclude€that€Hawkððs€general€contacts€with€Tennessee,€even€whenÏviewed€as€a€whole,€are€not€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€general€òòinÏpersonamóójurisdiction.€€Hawk€has€not€maintained€ð ðcontinuous€and€systematicððÏcontacts€with€Tennessee.€€ò òòòInternational€Shoe€Co.óóó ó,€326€U.S.€at€317,€66€S.€Ct.€atÏ159;€ò òòòJ.I.€Case€Corp.óóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€at€532.€Ìà àHowever,€in€the€absence€of€general€jurisdiction€resulting€from€continuousÏand€systematic€contacts€with€the€forum€state,€specific€òòin€personamóójurisdictionÏstill€may€be€found€when€a€commercial€actor€purposely€directs€his€activitiesÏtoward€citizens€of€the€forum€state€and€litigation€results€from€injuries€arisingÏout€of€or€relating€to€those€activities.€€ò òòòBurger€King€Corp.óóó ó,€471€U.S.€at€472,€105€S.ÏCt.€at€2182;€ò òòòJ.I.€Case€Corp.óóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€at€532.€€In€such€a€case,€ð ðtheÏdefendantððs€conduct€and€connection€with€the€forum€State€are€such€that€heÏshould€reasonably€anticipate€being€haled€into€court€there.ðð€€ò òòòWorld„WideÏVolkswagen€Corp.óóó ó,€444€U.S.€at€297,€100€S.€Ct.€at€567;€ò òòòShoneyððs,€Inc.óóó ó,€922ÏS.W.2d€at€536.Ìà àWhen€a€controversy€is€related€to€or€œð ðarises›€out€œofðð›€a€defendantððs€contactsÏwith€the€forum,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€said€that€a€œð ðrelationship›Ïamong€the€defendant,€the€forum,€and€the€œlitigationðð€is›€the€essential€foundationÏof€òòin€personamóójurisdiction.€€òòò òHelicopteros€Nacionalesóóó ó,€466€U.S.€at€414,€104€S.€Ct.Ïat€1872€(quoting€ò òòòShaffer€v.€Heitneróóó ó,€433€U.S.€186,€204,€97€S.€Ct.€2569,€2579,Ï53€L.€Ed.€2d€683€(1977)).Ìà àIn€ò òòòMasada€Investment€Corp.€v.€Allenóóó ó,€697€S.W.2d€332€(Tenn.€1985),€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€faced€the€question€of€jurisdiction€of€a€malpracticeÏsuit€against€a€Texas€lawyer€who€had€prepared€an€inaccurate€deed€for€the€transferÏof€real€estate€in€Memphis,€Tennessee€at€the€request€of€a€Tennessee€resident.€€òòò òId.óóó óÍat€333.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€three„pronged€test€had€been€developed€to€determineÏthe€outer€limits€of€personal€jurisdiction€based€on€aÏsingle€act:€€the€defendant€must€purposefully€availÏhimself€of€the€privilege€of€acting€in€or€causing€aÏconsequence€in€the€forum€State;€the€cause€of€actionÏmust€arise€from€the€defendantððs€activities€there;€andÏdefendantððs€acts€or€consequences€must€have€aÏsubstantial€connection€with€the€forum€to€make€theÏexercise€of€jurisdiction€reasonable.òòò ò€€Southern€MachineÏCo.€v.€Mohasco€Industries,€Inc.ó óóó,€401€F.2d€374,€381Ï(6th€Cir.€1968).€€Subsection€(6)€[of€the€TennesseeÏlong„arm€statute]€changed€the€long„arm€statute€from€aÏð ðsingle€actðð€statute€to€a€ð ðminimum€contactsðð€statuteÏwhich€expanded€the€jurisdiction€of€Tennessee€courtsÏto€the€full€limit€allowed€by€due€process.€€òòò òShelbyÏMutual€Ins.€Co.€v.€Mooreó óóó,€645€S.W.2d€242,€245Ï(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€That€decision,€quoting€extensivelyÏfromòòò ò€Gullett€v.€Qantas€Airways€Ltd.ó óóó,€417€F.Supp.€490Ï(M.D.€Tenn.€1975),€noted€that€the€ò òòòMohascoóóó ó€test€wasÏnow€too€restrictive.€€The€òòò òMooreó óóó€court€noted€thatÏthree€primary€factors€are€to€be€considered€inÏdetermining€whether€the€requisite€minimum€contactsÏwere€present:€€the€quantity€of€the€contacts,€theirÏnature€and€quality,€and€the€source€and€connection€ofÏthe€cause€of€action€with€those€contacts.€€Two€lesserÏfactors€to€be€considered€are€the€interest€of€the€forumÏState€and€convenience.€€The€òòò òMooreó óóó€court€concluded:Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThe€phrase€ð ðfair€play€andÏsubstantial€justiceðð€must€be€viewed€inÏterms€of€whether€it€is€fair€andÏsubstantially€just€to€both€parties€to€haveÏthe€case€tried€in€the€state€where€theÏplaintiff€has€chosen€to€bring€the€action.€ÏIn€each€case,€the€quality€and€nature€ofÏthose€activities€in€relation€to€the€fair€andÏorderly€administration€of€the€law€must€beÏweighed.€€As€stated€above€in€òòò òQantasó óóó,€thisÍmust€involve€some€subjective€valueÏjudgment€by€the€courts.€€Ìà àà à645€S.W.2d€at€246.ÌÌÓÓòòò òMasada€Investment€Corp.óóó ó,€697€S.W.2d€at€334„35.€€The€ò òòòMasadaó óóó€CourtÏconcluded€that€ð ð[b]y€willfully€and€knowingly€choosing€to€prepare€legalÏdocuments€which€would€be€filed€in€Tennessee€and€be€of€great€consequence€here,ÏAllen€purposely€availed€himself€of€the€privilege€of€doing€business€within€thisÏstate.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó óat€335.€€The€Court€stated€that€ð ðTennessee€has€substantial€interest€inÏthe€outcome€of€this€litigation€and€is€the€most€convenient€forum€since€thisÏaction€involves€a€Tennessee€defendant,€WTFF,€Tennessee€property,€and€isÏcontrolled€by€Tennessee€law.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó óÌà àWe€believe€that€the€case€before€us€is€very€different€from€ò òòòMasadaóóó ó.€€HawkÏis€an€Iowa€corporation€with€its€principal€office€in€Council€Bluffs,€Iowa.€€HawkÏhas€never€been€registered€to€do€business€in€Tennessee€and€has€never€had€anÏoffice€or€an€agent€located€in€Tennessee.€€The€property€involved€is€personalÏproperty€that€was€to€be€delivered€from€Vermont€and€Massachusetts€toÏPennsylvania.€€Finally,€the€contract€that€was€allegedly€breached€had€a€provisionÏthat€it€was€to€be€ð ðgoverned€by€the€laws€of€the€state€where€accepted€by€theÏSeller.ðð€The€contract€was€accepted€by€Hawk€in€Iowa,€and€payment€was€to€beÏreceived€by€Hawk€in€Iowa.€€€€€Ìà àAfter€an€examination€of€the€three€primary€factors€established€in€ò òòòMasadaóóó óÍto€determine€if€the€requisite€minimum€contacts€are€present,€we€conclude€thatÏit€would€be€a€violation€of€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€to€subject€Hawk€to€specific€òòin€personamóójurisdiction€in€Tennessee.€€Ìà àIn€ò òòòJ.I.€Case€Corp.óóó ó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€sameÏquestion€of€òòin€personam€óójurisdiction.€€ò òòòJ.I.€Case€Corp.ó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€at€530„31.€€InÏthat€case,€the€defendant,€Earl€Dean€Williams,€was€an€Arkansas€farmer€whoÏwanted€to€purchase€a€land€excavator,€which€is€a€large€piece€of€farm€equipment,Ïfrom€Case,€the€plaintiff.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€531.€€Case€filed€suit€against€Williams€after€aÏcontroversy€developed€regarding€the€amount€of€the€lease€payment€under€theirÏagreement.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€After€this€Court€found€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€òòinÏpersonamóó€jurisdiction€over€Williams,€the€Supreme€Court€reversed,€finding€thatÏthe€trial€court€had€specific€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€533Ìà àThe€Court€found€jurisdiction€under€the€following€circumstances:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€initial€contact€between€the€parties€occurred€atÏCaseððs€equipment€exhibit€at€the€fair€in€Tennessee;€theÏinstruments€controlling€the€transaction€between€theÏparties€were€prepared€and€executed€by€Case€inÏTennessee;€financing€for€the€balance€due€under€theÏagreement€was€furnished€by€a€company€located€inÏTennessee;€the€agreement€executed€by€the€partiesÏcontemplated€that€payments€due€under€the€agreementÏwould€be€made€in€Tennessee;€and€parts€and€labor€forÏthe€repair€and€maintenance€of€the€equipment€underÏthe€warranty€agreement€were€to€be€furnished€in€orÏfrom€Tennessee.€€The€cause€of€action€alleged€dealsÏdirectly€with€the€relationship€between€the€parties€andÍtheir€duties€and€rights€under€the€instrumentsÏexecuted.€€€€ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€€We€believe€that€the€facts€of€the€instant€case€are€distinguishable€once€again.€ÏIn€this€case,€the€transaction€was€completed€by€telephone€and€facsimile€andÏthrough€the€mail;€the€contract€was€prepared€in€Iowa€and€was€to€be€governed€byÏIowa€law;€it€was€a€cash€transaction€payable€in€Iowa;€and€it€was€an€ð ðas€isðð€saleÏwith€no€warranties.€€Hawkððs€contacts€with€Tennessee€as€a€result€of€this€contractÏdo€not€constitute€a€continuing€relationship€with€the€state.Ìà àStar€Truck€argues€that€Hawk€has€established€a€presence€in€Tennessee€andÏthat€it€is€fair€for€Hawk€to€be€subject€to€suit€in€Tennessee€because€HawkÏpurposely€availed€itself€of€the€benefits€of€a€market€in€Tennessee.€€Star€TruckÏclaims€that€the€parties€have€established€a€course€of€dealing€and€that€Hawk€couldÏhave€reasonably€anticipated€being€sued€in€Tennessee.Ìà àIn€òòò òBurger€King€Corp.ó óóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhere€a€forum€seeks€to€assert€specificÏjurisdiction€over€an€out„of„state€defendant€who€hasÏnot€consented€to€suit€there,€this€ð ðfair€warningððÏrequirement€is€satisfied€if€the€defendant€hasÏð ðpurposefully€directedðð€his€activities€at€residents€ofÏforum,€òòò òKeeton€v.€Hustler€Magazine,€Inc.ó óóó,€465€U.S.Ï770,€774,€104€S.€Ct.€1473,€1478,€79€L.€Ed.€2d€790Ï(1984),€and€the€litigation€results€from€alleged€injuriesÏthat€ð ðarise€out€of€or€relate€toðð€those€activities,Ïòòò òHelicopteros€Nacionales€de€Colombia,€S.A.€v.€Halló óóó,Ï466€U.S.€408,€414,€104€S.€Ct.€1868,€1872,€80€L.€Ed.€2dÏ404€(1984).€.€.€.€€And€with€respect€to€interstateÍcontractual€obligations,€we€have€emphasized€thatÏparties€who€ð ðreach€out€beyond€one€state€and€createÏcontinuing€relationships€and€obligations€with€citizensÏof€another€stateðð€are€subject€to€regulation€andÏsanctions€in€the€other€State€for€the€consequences€ofÏtheir€activities.€€òòò òTravelers€Health€Assn.€v.€Virginiaó óóó,Ï339€U.S.€643,€647,€70€S.€Ct.€927,€929,€94€L.€Ed.€1154Ï(1950).€€See€alsoòòò ò€McGee€v.€International€LifeÏInsurance€Co.ó óóó,€355€U.S.€220,€222„223,€78€S.€Ct.€199,Ï200„201,€2€L.€Ed.€2d€223€(1957).€.€.€.€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àIn€defining€when€it€is€that€a€potential€defendantÏshould€ð ðreasonably€anticipateðð€out„of„state€litigation,Ïthe€Court€frequently€has€drawn€from€the€reasoning€ofÏòòò òHanson€v.€Dencklaó óóó,€357€U.S.€235,€253,€78€S.€Ct.€1228,Ï1239„1240,€2€L.€Ed.€2d€1283€(1958):Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àð ðThe€unilateral€activity€of€those€whoÏclaim€some€relationship€with€aÏnonresident€defendant€cannot€satisfy€theÏrequirement€of€contact€with€the€forumÏState.€€The€application€of€that€rule€willÏvary€with€the€quality€and€nature€of€theÏdefendantððs€activity,€but€it€is€essential€inÏeach€case€that€there€be€some€act€byÏwhich€the€defendant€purposefully€availsÏitself€of€the€privilege€of€conductingÏactivities€within€the€forum€State,€thusÏinvoking€the€benefits€and€protections€ofÏits€laws.ðð€€Ìà8 àà8 àà àThis€ð ðpurposeful€availmentðð€requirementÏensures€that€a€defendant€will€not€be€haled€into€aÏjurisdiction€solely€as€a€result€of€ð ðrandom,ððÏð ðfortuitous,ðð€or€ð ðattenuatedðð€contacts,€òòò òKeeton€v.ÏHustler€Magazine,€Incó óóó.,€465€U.S.,€at€774,€104€S.€Ct.,Ïat€1478;òòò ò€World„Wide€Volkswagen€Corp.€v.€Woodson,Ïsupraó óóó,€444€U.S.,€at€299,€100€S.€Ct.,€at€568,€or€of€theÏð ðunilateral€activity€of€another€party€or€a€thirdÏperson,ðð€òòò òHelicopteros€Nacionales€de€Colombia,€S.A.€v.ÏHall,€supraó óóó,€466€U.S.,€at€417,€104€S.€Ct.,€at€1873.€ÏJurisdiction€is€proper,€however,€where€the€contactsÍproximately€result€from€actions€by€the€defendantÏhimself€that€create€a€ð ðsubstantial€connectionðð€withÏthe€forum€State.òòò ò€€McGee€v.€International€LifeÏInsurance€Co.,€supraó óóó,€355€U.S.,€at€223,€78€S.€Ct.,€atÏ201;òòò ò€see€also€Kulko€v.€California€Superior€Court,Ïsupraó óóó,€436€U.S.,€at€94,€n.€7,€98€S.€Ct.,€at€1698,€n.€7.€ÏThus€where€the€defendant€ð ðdeliberatelyðð€has€engagedÏin€significant€activities€within€a€State,€òòò òKeeton€v.ÏHustler€Magazine,€Inc.,€supraó óóó,€465€U.S.,€at€781,€104ÏS.€Ct.,€at€1481,€or€has€created€ð ðcontinuingÏobligationsðð€between€himself€and€residents€of€theÏforum,€òòò òTravelers€Health€Assn.€v.€Virginiaó óóó,€339€U.S.,€atÏ648,€70€S.€Ct.,€at€929,€he€manifestly€has€availedÏhimself€of€the€privilege€of€conducting€business€there,Ïand€because€his€activities€are€shielded€by€ð ðthe€benefitsÏand€protectionsðð€of€the€forumððs€laws€it€isÏpresumptively€not€unreasonable€to€require€him€toÏsubmit€to€the€burdens€of€litigation€in€that€forum€asÏwell.€€Ìòòò òÌÓÓBurger€King€Corp.ó óóó,€471€U.S.€at€472„76,€105€S.€Ct.€at€2182„84.Ìà àWe€disagree€with€Star€Truck€that€the€parties€established€a€course€ofÏdealing.€€The€other€three€transactions€between€the€parties€were€separate€andÏdistinct€from€the€one€at€issue.€€We€do€not€believe€that€Hawk€has€engaged€inÏð ðsignificant€activitiesðð€in€Tennessee€or€has€a€ð ðsubstantial€connectionðð€withÏTennessee,€and€it€is€clear€from€the€contract€that€the€parties€do€not€haveÏð ðcontinuing€obligations.ðð€€We€also€find€that,€from€the€circumstances,€HawkÏshould€not€have€reasonably€anticipated€being€haled€into€court€in€Tennessee.€€ÏHawk€simply€did€not€have€€sufficient€ð ðminimum€contactsðð€with€Tennessee€toÏsubject€Hawk€to€suit€in€this€state,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€granting€theÍmotion€to€dismiss.€€Ìà àWe€will€now€address€Hawkððs€issue€asserting€that€the€notice€of€appeal€wasÏuntimely€filed.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€motion€to€dismiss€was€heard€by€theÏtrial€court€on€June€21,€1996.€€The€court€entered€an€order€on€July€1,€1996Ïgranting€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Subsequently,€on€July€18,€1996,€the€courtÏentered€the€exact€order€again.€€Star€Truck€filed€its€notice€of€appeal€on€AugustÏ12,€1996.€€On€October€28,€1996,€the€court€entered€an€order€titled,€ð ðOrderÏSubstituting€Final€Judgment€Dated€June€17,€1996€In€Place€Of€Final€JudgmentÏDated€June€1,€1996,× ƒ2 ××  ×ðð€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€on€the€oral€Motion€ofÏPlaintiff€to€substitute€the€Final€Judgment€ForÏDefendant€entered€by€the€Court€on€June€17,€1996,€inÏplace€of€the€Final€Judgment€entered€by€the€Court€onÏJune€1,€1996.€€After€hearing€argument€of€counsel€forÏboth€parties,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€JuneÏ17,€1996,€Order€should€stand,€and€the€June€1,€1996,ÏOrder€be€withdrawn.ÌÌà8 àà8 àIT€IS,€HEREBY€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€ANDÏDECREED:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àThat€the€Final€Judgment€entered€on€June€17,€1996,€beÏsubstituted€for€the€Final€Judgment€entered€on€June€1,Ï1996,€and€the€June€1,€1996,€Order€be€withdrawn.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€scenario€of€how€two€identical€orders€were€entered€œcan›€be€gleanedÍfrom€the€partiesðð€œbriefs›€and€oral€arguments.€€Hawk€was€represented€by€NashvilleÏcounsel,€and€Star€Truck€was€represented€by€Memphis€counsel.€€Hawkððs€counselÏprepared€and€sent,€on€or€about€June€24,€1996,€an€order€to€the€court€clerk€œthatÏwas›€eventually€entered€July€1,€1996.€€Hawkððs€counsel€certified€that€a€copy€of€theÏorder€was€sent€to€Star€Truckððs€lawyer€on€June€24,€1996.€€Apparently€the€courtÏclerk€presented€the€order€to€the€judge€for€signature€and€then€entered€the€orderÏon€July€1,€1996.€€On€July€18,€1996,€Star€Truckððs€lawyer,€apparently€unaware€thatÏan€order€had€already€been€entered,€proceeded€to€enter€the€same€order.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€If€theÏorder€was€effectively€entered€July€1,€1996,€then€the€July€18,€1996€order€was€aÏnullity.€€Therefore,€our€first€inquiry€should€be€whether€the€July€1,€1996€orderÏwas€effectively€entered.Ìà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€58€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àEntry€of€a€judgment€or€an€order€of€final€disposition€isÏeffective€when€a€judgment€containing€one€of€theÏfollowing€is€marked€on€the€face€by€the€clerk€as€filedÏfor€entry:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€the€signatures€of€the€judge€and€all€parties€orÏcounsel,€orÌà8 àà8 àà à(2)€the€signatures€of€the€judge€and€one€party€orÏcounsel€with€a€certificate€of€counsel€that€a€copy€of€theÏò òòòproposed€order€óóó óhas€been€served€on€all€other€parties€orÏcounsel,€orÌà8 àà8 àà à(3)€the€signature€of€the€judge€and€a€certificateÏof€the€clerk€that€a€copy€has€been€served€on€all€otherÏparties€or€counsel.ÌÌà8 àà8 àWhen€requested€by€counsel€or€pro€se€parties,€the€clerkÏshall€mail€or€deliver€a€copy€of€the€entered€judgment€toÏall€parties€or€counsel€within€five€fays€after€entry.€€InÏthe€event€the€residence€of€a€party€is€unknown€andÏcannot€be€ascertained€upon€diligent€inquiry,€theÏcertificate€of€service€shall€so€state.€€Following€entry€ofÏjudgment,€the€clerk€shall€make€appropriate€docketÏnotations€and€shall€copy€the€judgment€on€the€minutes,Ïbut€failure€to€do€so€will€not€affect€validity€of€the€entryÏof€judgment.€€ÌÌÓÓœTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€58€(emphasis›€added).€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€July€1€orderÏcontained€the€signature€of€the€judge,€the€signature€of€counsel€for€one€of€theÏparties,€together€with€a€certificate€of€that€counsel€that€a€copy€of€the€proposedÏorder€had€been€served€on€opposing€counsel.€€Therefore,€the€order€was€effectivelyÏentered€as€of€July€1,€1996,€and€the€€duplicate€order€entered€July€18,€1996€was€aÏnullity.Ìà àNext,€our€inquiry€must€be€to€determine€the€effect€of€the€order€ofÏOctober€28,€œ1996,›€which€purports€to€substitute€the€July€18,€1996€order€for€theÏJuly€1,€1996€order.Ìà àThe€order€states€on€its€face€that€it€was€pursuant€to€an€oral€motion€madeÏby€Star€Truck.€€Since€no€date€is€specified€as€to€the€oral€motion,€we€presume€itÏwas€made€in€open€court€on€the€date€of€the€entry€of€order,€October€28,€1996.€ÍHowever,€the€courtððs€jurisdiction€to€consider€such€a€motion€exists€for€only€30Ïdays€after€the€entry€of€a€final€judgment.€€œò òòòParks€v.€McGuireó óóó,€270€S.W.2d€347,Ï348€(Tenn.€1954).€€Therefore,€the€court€had€no€jurisdiction€to€enter€this€orderÏof€October€28,€1996.€€Ìà àAfter€thirty€days,€however,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€governs€the€trial€courtððsÏjurisdiction€over€a€case.€€ò òòòAlgee€v.€State€Farm€General€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€890€S.W.2d€445,Ï447€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€If€we€attempt€to€consider€the€motion€made€by€StarÏTruckððs€counsel€in€October,€1996€as€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€motion,€we€areÏfaced€with€further€obstacles.€€First,€the€motion€is€not€in€writing€as€required€byÏthe€rules,€and€second,€the€motion€could€not€be€considered€by€the€trial€courtÏsince€the€appeal€to€this€Court€was€pending.€€ò òòòSee€Spence€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€883ÏS.W.2d€586€(Tenn.€1994).€€€In€ò òòòSpenceó óóó,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]€trial€court€has€no€jurisdiction€to€consider€a€RuleÏ60.02€motion€during€the€pendency€of€an€appeal.€€If€aÏparty€wishes€to€seek€relief€from€the€judgment€duringÏthe€pendency€of€an€appeal,€he€should€apply€to€theÏappellate€court€for€an€order€of€remand.€€We€stressÏthat€because€the€trial€court€will€most€likely€be€in€aÏbetter€position€to€quickly€assess€the€merits€of€such€aÏmotion,€leave€should€be€freely€granted€by€the€appellateÏcourt€if€the€motion€is€not€frivolous€on€its€face.ÌÌòòò òId.óó€ó óat€596.ÌÌÓÓà àAccordingly,€the€October€28,€1996€order€is€void.€€The€final€order€in€thisÏcase€was€entered€July€1,€1996,€and€the€notice€of€appeal€was€filed€on€August€12,Í1996,€which€is€more€than€30€days€after€the€entry€of€the€final€judgment.€€TheÏtime€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€cannot€be€extended.€€T.R.A.P.€2.€€Without€aÏvalid€notice€of€appeal,€this€Court€has€no€jurisdiction.€€Therefore,€the€appeal€isÏdismissed€and€costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€appellant.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óœÔ€4ÔÔ€4Ô