ÿWPCg 3# ÚUNå %3 0c9U<œw@Ø4,; 0§C 0Jê 0T4 0^ˆ 0hæ 0rN 0|À 0†< 0 1uR 0dÇ 0@+ D3k Bž 0D» U>ÿ B)= DCf AM© U*ö AQ Æq 0D7 0D{ D/¿ Bî _ ¬jv~vÓ”˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman DDEUFGUHîIÓ€JUKÓ€WZ§aö":`3|xZ(W(3’x$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xä#XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAugustÏ4,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€òòex€parteóó€communications€are€improper,€ò òòòsee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.Ï10,€Canon€3A€(4);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€The€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility,ÏDR€7„110,€the€clients€were€probably€not€aware€of€this€fact.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€,ÎXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òTHE€TERMINIX€INTERNATIONAL€ÌCOMPANY,€L.P.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€106626„1ÌÙ€*ÙßR€'/&A1-j|‘ö` à. `€€@ÿRßVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€A.€No.€02A01„9701„CH„00028ÌÌò òSTEPHAN€TAPLEY€andÌDENFORD€TAPLEY,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellees.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àDavid€M.€Rudolph;€Martin,€Tate,€Morrow€&€Marston€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€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:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE€(Not€participating)ó óÌÌ›Ñ „ ÑÑ „ ÑÑ7€,ÎXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€arises€out€of€an€action€brought€by€a€company€to€enforceÏcovenants€not€to€compete€against€two€former€employees.€€Plaintiff,€TheÏTerminix€International€Company,€L.P.€(Terminix),€appeals€from€the€order€of€theÏtrial€court€setting€aside€the€default€judgment€against€the€defendants,€StephanÏTapley€and€Denford€Tapley€(the€Tapleys),€dismissing€the€action€for€lack€ofÏvenue,€and€dismissing€the€petitions€to€hold€the€Tapleys€in€contempt€forÏviolating€a€permanent€injunction.€€Ìà àTerminix€is€a€limited€partnership€in€the€business€of€providing€pestÏcontrol€and€extermination€services,€and€its€principal€place€of€business€is€locatedÏin€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€Stephan€Tapley€and€Denford€Tapley€worked€as€at„willÏservice€technicians€for€Red€Wing€Pest€Control€(Red€Wing).€€In€October€1990,ÏTerminix€purchased€Red€Wing,€and€the€Tapleys€became€employees€atÍTerminixððs€Chattanooga,€Tennessee€office.€€On€November€19,€1990,€StephanÏTapley€and€Denford€Tapley€each€signed€employment€agreements€with€covenantsÏnot€to€compete€in€return€for€their€continued€employment€with€Terminix.€OnÏMarch€22,€1995,€Stephen€Tapley€voluntarily€terminated€his€employment€withÏTerminix.€€Three€days€later,€on€March€25,€1995,€Danford€Tapley€voluntarilyÏterminated€his€employment€with€Terminix.€€On€April€1,€1995,€the€TapleysÏbegan€doing€business€as€ð ðKingððs€Pest€Controlðð€in€Chattanooga€in€directÏcompetition€with€Terminix.Ìà àOn€November€21,€1995,€Terminix€filed€a€verified€complaint€in€theÏChancery€Court€of€Shelby€County,€Tennessee€against€the€Tapleys€on€the€groundsÏof€breach€of€contract€and€tortious€interference€with€business€relations.€€TheÏcomplaint€seeks,€òòinter€aliaóó,€temporary€and€permanent€injunctive€relief€to€enforceÏthe€covenant€not€to€compete€in€the€Tapleysðð€employment€agreements.€€Also€onÏNovember€21,€1995,€the€court€issued€a€temporary€restraining€order€essentiallyÏprohibiting€the€Tapleys€from€violating€their€employment€agreements.€€The€courtÏalso€granted€expedited€discovery€to€all€parties.€€A€hearing€on€the€temporaryÏinjunction€was€scheduled€for€€December€7,€1995.€€€A€private€process€serverÏserved€the€Tapleys€with€the€complaint€at€their€place€of€business€on€NovemberÏ25,€1995.€€The€Tapleysðð€depositions€were€noticed€and€scheduled€to€take€place€onÏNovember€30,€1995€at€Terminixððs€Chattanooga€office.€€Ìà àThe€Tapleys€did€not€appear€for€their€depositions€and€did€not€file€anÏobjection€or€motion€for€protective€order€prior€to€the€depositions.€€In€addition,Ïtheir€attorney€did€not€notify€Terminix€that€they€would€not€appear€at€theÏscheduled€times.€€On€December€5,€1995,€Terminix€filed€a€motion€for€sanctionsÏagainst€the€Tapleys€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€37.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÏmotion€for€reasonable€expenses€and€attorneysðð€fees€in€the€amount€of€$2,182.62.€€€€€€€Ìà àOn€December€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€aÏtemporary€injunction€prohibiting€the€Tapleys€from€(1)€soliciting€or€servicingÏany€Terminix€customers€or€former€customers€in€violation€of€their€employmentÏagreements;€(2)€competing€with€Terminix€in€the€territorial€area€prohibited€byÏthe€employment€agreements;€and€(3)€otherwise€taking€any€action€in€violation€ofÏthe€employment€agreements.€€The€Tapleys€did€not€appear€at€the€temporaryÏinjunction€hearing.€€Ìà àThe€Tapleys€did€not€file€an€answer€to€the€complaint€within€thirty€daysÏafter€€its€service.€€On€January€9,€1996,€Terminix€filed€a€motion€for€defaultÏjudgment€against€the€Tapleys€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55€based€on€the€theirÏfailure€to€file€an€answer€or€otherwise€defend€against€the€complaint.€€TerminixÏalso€requested,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€court€issue€a€permanent€injunction€prohibitingÏthe€Tapleys€from€violating€their€employment€agreements€for€an€eighteen„monthÏperiod€commencing€from€the€date€of€the€courtððs€order.€€Terminix€gave€theÍTapleys€and€their€attorney€separate€notice€of€the€hearing€by€mail.€€On€JanuaryÏ19,€1996,€the€trial€court€granted€Terminixððs€motion€for€default€judgment€andÏissued€a€permanent€injunction€enjoining€the€Tapleys€from€the€following:Ìà8 àà8 à(a)€soliciting€or€servicing€Terminix€customers€orÏformer€customers€within€a€one€hundred€(100)€mileÏarea€in€any€county,€or€counties,€and€in€whatever€stateÏor€states€that€are€serviced€by€the€Chattanooga€officeÏof€Terminix€for€an€eighteen€(18)€month€periodÏcommencing€from€the€date€of€the€Courtððs€judgmentÏorder;€(b)€competing€with€Terminix€within€a€oneÏhundred€(100)€mile€area€in€any€county,€or€counties,Ïand€in€whatever€state€or€states€that€are€serviced€byÏthe€Chattanooga€office€of€Terminix€for€an€eighteenÏ(18)€month€period€commencing€from€the€date€of€theÏCourtððs€judgment€order;€and€(c)€otherwise€violatingÏtheir€Employment€Agreements€dated€November€19,Ï1990€with€Terminix€for€an€eighteen€(18)€monthÏperiod€commencing€from€the€date€of€the€CourtððsÏjudgment€order.ÌÌœOn›€that€same€day,€Terminix€mailed€the€Tapleys€and€their€attorney€a€copy€of€theÏcourtððs€order.€€Ìà àAfter€the€default€judgment€had€been€entered,€counsel€for€TerminixÏreceived€by€mail€the€Tapleysðð€answer€to€the€complaint,€which€was€postmarkedÏJanuary€17,€1996.€€The€trial€judge€received€a€copy€of€the€answer€in€the€mail€onÏJanuary€22,€1996,€however,€this€answer€was€not€filed€with€the€court.€€The€recordÏindicates€that,€on€the€advice€of€their€attorney,€the€Tapleys€disobeyed€theÏinjunction€and€continued€to€do€business€in€competition€with€Terminix.€ÏTerminix€became€aware€that€Stephan€Tapley€was€violating€the€injunction€and,Ïon€May€6,€1996,€filed€a€petition€to€hold€him€in€contempt€of€court.€€TerminixÏlater€received€information€that€Denford€Tapley€was€violating€the€injunction€and,Ïon€May€24,€1996,€filed€a€separate€petition€to€hold€him€in€contempt€of€court€asÏwell.€€Terminix€served€both€contempt€petitions€on€the€Tapleys€and€theirÏattorney,€and€the€trial€court€set€a€contempt€hearing€for€June€7,€1996.€€On€JuneÏ1,€1996,€the€Tapleys€discovered€that€their€attorney€had€been€suspended€fromÏthe€practice€of€law€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€They€sought€newÏrepresentation,€and€on€June€7,€1996,€Marcus€Nahon,€an€attorney€in€Memphis,Ïspecially€appeared€on€their€behalf€at€the€contempt€hearing.€€At€Nahonððs€request,Ïthe€court€continued€the€contempt€hearing€until€June€24,€1996.€€Ìà àThe€Tapleys€then€filed€a€motion€to€declare€the€default€judgment€void,€aÍmotion€objecting€to€the€improper€venue,€and€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€defaultÏjudgment€on€the€grounds€that€reasons€existed€justifying€relief€from€the€defaultÏjudgment,€that€the€default€judgment€was€void,€and€that€the€default€judgmentÏwould€not€have€been€entered€but€for€the€excusable€neglect€of€the€Tapleys€inÏrelying€on€the€promises€of€their€former€counsel.€€In€support€of€the€latterÏmotion,€the€Tapleys€submitted€affidavits€stating€that€they€spoke€with€theirÏformer€attorney€on€a€weekly€basis€during€the€time€he€represented€them,€and€heÏrepeatedly€assured€them€that€he€was€adequately€defending€their€position€andÏthat€it€was€perfectly€legal€to€continue€doing€business€as€Kingððs€Pest€Control.€ÏThe€Tapleys€further€stated€that€their€former€attorney€told€them€that€he€hadÏtalked€to€the€judge€in€Shelby€County,€that€he€had€filed€an€answer€in€their€case,Ïand€that€the€default€judgment€had€no€effect.€€à àÌà àOn€June€24,€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€a€consent€order€temporarilyÏmodifying€the€injunction€to€allow€the€Tapleys€to€operate€their€business.€€AfterÏseveral€hearings,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€August€7,€1996€settingÏaside€the€default€judgment,€dismissing€the€action€based€on€a€lack€of€venue,€andÏdismissing€the€petitions€requesting€that€the€Tapleys€be€held€in€contempt.€€Ìà àTerminix€appeals€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court,€and€presents€three€issuesÏfor€our€review:€1)€whether€the€defendants€waived€the€issue€of€venue;€2)€whetherÏthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€setting€aside€a€default€judgment€pursuantÍto€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(5)€based€on€the€inexcusable€neglect€of€defendantsððÏcounsel€when€the€defendants€were€in€admitted€contempt€of€that€same€defaultÏjudgment;€and€3)€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€dismissingÏTerminixððs€petitions€for€contempt€against€the€defendants.€€Ìà àOn€January€14,€1997,€the€Tapleysðð€new€counsel€moved€for€permission€toÏwithdraw€as€counsel€of€record€based€on€the€Tapleysðð€failure€to€communicateÏwith€him€concerning€their€case.€€The€trial€court€granted€this€motion€on€JanuaryÏ27,€1996,€and€the€Tapleys€have€not€presented€a€brief€in€support€of€theirÏposition€in€this€appeal.Ìà àWe€first€address€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€setting€aside€the€defaultÏjudgment€against€the€Tapleys.€€Under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55.02,€the€trial€court€mayÏset€aside€a€default€judgment€for€good€cause€shown€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€60.02.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€60.02€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò60.02.€€Mistakes€ð"ð€Inadvertence€ð"ð€ExcusableÏNeglect€ð"ð€Fraud,€etc.€ð"ð€ó óOn€motion€and€upon€suchÏterms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€or€theÏpartyððs€legal€representative€from€a€final€judgment,Ïorder€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)Ïmistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect;Ï(2)€fraud€(whether€heretofore€denominated€intrinsicÏor€extrinsic),€misrepresentation€or€other€misconductÏof€an€adverse€party;€(3)€€the€judgment€is€void;€(4)€€theÏjudgment€has€been€satisfied,€released€or€discharged,€orÏa€prior€judgment€upon€which€it€is€based€has€beenÏreversed€or€otherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€no€longerÏequitable€that€a€judgment€should€have€prospectiveÏapplication;€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€reliefÍfrom€the€operation€of€the€judgment.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€To€obtain€relief€from€a€default€judgment,€the€party€mustÏsatisfy€the€court€that€the€party€is€entitled€to€relief€based€on€one€of€the€groundsÏin€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€and,€unless€the€default€judgment€is€void,€that€it€has€aÏmeritorious€defense€to€the€plaintiffððs€suit.€€ò òòòSee€Patterson€v.€Rockwell€Intððló óóó,€665ÏS.W.2d€96,€100€(Tenn.€1984);€òòò òNelson€v.€Simpsonó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€483,€485€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1991).€€A€motion€to€set€aside€a€default€judgment€addresses€itself€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€discretion,€and€the€trial€courtððs€decision€will€not€be€overturnedÏexcept€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€ò òòòNelsonó óóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€485€(citationsÏomitted).€ò òòò€ó óóóTrial€courts€should€grant€relief€whenever€any€reasonable€doubt€existsÏconcerning€whether€the€default€judgment€should€be€set€aside.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€485„86Ï(citations€omitted).€€à àÌà àThe€Tapleys€filed€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment€under€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€60.02€asserting€that€reasons€existed€justifying€relief€from€theÏoperation€of€the€judgment,€that€the€default€judgment€was€void,€and€that€theÏdefault€judgment€would€not€have€been€entered€but€for€the€excusable€neglect€ofÏthe€Tapleys€in€relying€on€the€promises€of€their€previously€retained€counsel.€€Ìà àTerminix€contends€that€the€trial€court€set€aside€the€default€judgmentÏbased€on€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02(5),€however,€from€our€review€of€the€transcript,Ïwe€believe€that€the€trial€court€set€aside€the€default€judgment€pursuant€to€RuleÍ60.02(1)€based€on€the€Tapleysðð€excusable€neglect€in€relying€on€their€firstÏattorney€who€had€been€suspended€from€the€practice€of€law€and€did€not€informÏthem€of€his€suspension.€€As€a€general€rule,€Tennessee€courts€have€held€that€anÏattorneyððs€negligence€is€not€excusable€neglect€and€that€such€negligence€will€beÏimputed€to€the€client,€with€the€clientððs€only€recourse€being€a€malpractice€actionÏagainst€the€attorney.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBarber€&€McMurry,€Inc.€v.€Top„Flite€Dev.ÏCorp.ó óóó,€720€S.W.2d€469,€471€(Tenn.€App.€1986)€(holding€that€an€attorneyððsÏpreoccupation€with€other€business€is€not€grounds€for€relief€from€a€defaultÏjudgment);€ò òòòMunday€v.€Brownó óóó,€617€S.W.2d€897,€900€(Tenn.€App.€1981)€(holdingÏthat€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€from€default€judgment€because€noticeÏto€an€attorney€of€filing€of€motions€and€orders€is€constructive€notice€to€theÏclient,€even€when€the€client€did€not€have€actual€notice).€€Ìà àAlthough€there€are€no€state€court€cases€in€Tennessee€specificallyÏaddressing€a€situation€such€as€the€one€in€the€present€case,€there€are€cases€fromÏother€jurisdictions€holding€that€an€attorneyððs€gross€negligence€will€not€beÏimputed€to€the€client,€and€may€be€considered€excusable€neglect€entitling€a€partyÏto€relief€from€a€judgment,€when€the€attorney€has€been€suspended€from€theÏpractice€of€law€and€failed€to€inform€the€client€of€the€suspension.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,Ïò òòòValley€Bank€of€Frederick€v.€Roweó óóó,€851€P.2d€267,€269€(Colo.€App.€1993)€(holdingÏthat€good€cause€existed€to€set€aside€summary€judgment€because€of€attorneyððsÍgross€negligence€where€attorney€did€not€inform€client€of€attorneyððs€suspensionÏfrom€practice€of€law);€òòò òReno€v.€International€Harvester€Co.ó óóó,€115€F.R.D.€6,€8€(S.D.ÏOhio€1986)€(holding€that€parties€are€not€bound€by€the€acts€of€their€attorneys€inÏcases€of€gross€neglect€and€abandonment).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€Tapleys€diligently€contacted€their€previously€retainedÏattorney€regarding€their€case.€€Their€attorney€specifically€assured€them€that€heÏwas€adequately€defending€their€cause.€€He€further€assured€them€that€he€hadÏfiled€an€answer€and€had€even€spoken€with€the€judge€in€Shelby€County.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÏMoreover,€he€failed€to€inform€the€Tapleys€that€he€had€been€suspended€from€theÏpractice€of€law.€€This€fraud€committed€upon€the€Tapleys€by€their€formerÏattorney€constitutes€gross€neglect€and€distinguishes€this€case€from€those€casesÏin€which€an€attorney€is€merely€negligent€in€handling€a€clientððs€case.€ÏAdditionally,€the€Tapleys€asserted€meritorious€defenses€to€Terminixððs€claim€forÏbreach€of€contract,€including€a€lack€of€consideration.€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€setting€aside€the€default€judgment.€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àAfter€setting€aside€the€default€judgment,€the€trial€court€dismissed€theÏaction€based€on€a€lack€of€venue.€€Terminix€contends€that€the€Tapleys€waived€theÏissue€of€venue€by€allowing€a€default€judgment€to€be€entered€against€them.€ÍVenue€is€either€local€or€transitory,€depending€on€the€subject€matter€of€the€causeÏof€action.€€ò òòòState€v.€Graperó óóó,€155€Tenn.€565,€569,€4€S.W.2d€955€€(1927).€€ò ò€€ó óAs€aÏgeneral€rule,€venue€is€a€personal€privilege€of€the€defendant€and€is€waived€if€theÏdefendant€does€not€timely€object.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.08;€ò òòòMetropolitanÏDev.€&€Hous.€Agency€v.€Brown€Stove€Works,€Inc.ó óóó,€637€S.W.2d€876€(Tenn.€App.Ï1982).€€In€local€actions€or€in€transitory€actions€that€have€been€localized€byÏstatute,€however,€a€court€does€not€have€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€anÏaction€that€is€brought€in€the€wrong€venue.€€òòò òCurtis€v.€Garrisonó óóó,€211€Tenn.€339,Ï364€S.W.2d€933€(1963).Ì€€€à àIn€this€case,€Terminixððs€action€is€couched€in€terms€of€both€contract€andÏtort.€€A€cause€of€action€for€breach€of€contract€or€a€tort€is€a€transitory€cause€ofÏaction.€€òòò òFive€Star€Exp.,€Inc.€v.€Davisó óóó,€866€S.W.2d€944,€945€(Tenn.€1993).€€TheÏvenue€for€transitory€causes€of€action€is€provided€for€in€T.C.A.€ðð€20„4„101:Ìò òÓÓà8 àà8 à20„4„101.€€Transitory€actions.€€ð"ðó ó€(a)€In€all€civilÏactions€of€a€transitory€nature,€unless€venue€isÏotherwise€expressly€provided€for,€the€action€may€beÏbrought€in€the€county€where€the€cause€of€action€aroseÏor€in€the€county€where€the€defendant€resides€or€isÏfound.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€If,€however,€the€plaintiff€and€defendant€both€resideÏin€the€same€county€in€this€state,€then€such€action€shallÏbe€brought€either€in€the€county€where€the€cause€ofÏaction€arose€or€in€the€county€of€their€residence.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€Where€the€action€is€brought€either€in€the€countyÏwhere€the€cause€of€action€arose€or€in€the€countyÍwhere€the€defendant€resides,€process€may€be€sent€toÏanother€county€as€in€local€action,€and€it€shall€not€beÏnecessary€nor€required€that€the€defendant€be€in€theÏcounty€of€action€either€when€the€action€isÏcommenced,€or€during€the€time€between€theÏcommencement€of€the€action€and€service€of€process.€ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€20„4„101€(1994).€€The€purpose€of€T.C.A.€ðð€20„4„101€was€to€localizeÏtransitory€actions€to€the€extent€that€the€plaintiff€and€defendant€live€in€the€sameÏcounty.€€òòò òHaynes€v.€Woodsó óóó,€151€Tenn.€163,€167,€268€S.W.€632€(1924).Ìà àThe€record€in€this€case€indicates€that€the€Tapleys€entered€into€theirÏcontracts€with€Terminix€in€Hamilton€County,€Tennessee,€that€one€of€theÏdefendants€resides€in€Hamilton€County€while€the€other€resides€in€Georgia,€andÏthat€the€alleged€breach€of€the€contracts€occurred€in€Hamilton€County.€ÏConsequently,€Hamilton€County,€not€Shelby€County,€was€the€proper€venue€inÏwhich€to€bring€this€lawsuit.€€T.C.A.€ðð€20„4„101(a).€Ìà àOnce€a€default€judgment€is€set€aside,€a€court€may€properly€consider€theÏdefenses€raised€by€the€parties€in€their€motions€or€pleadings.€€Although€venue€isÏgenerally€a€personal€privilege€and€may€be€waived,€the€Tapleys€filed€a€motionÏobjecting€to€the€improper€venue€once€they€became€aware€of€the€entry€ofÏdefault.€€In€so€doing,€they€preserved€their€objection€to€venue.€€The€cases€citedÏby€Terminix€on€this€issue€are€not€controlling,€and€Terminixððs€contention€thatÏthe€Tapleys€waived€this€objection€is€without€merit.€€The€trial€court€properlyÏdismissed€the€action€based€on€improper€venue.Ìà àTerminix€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€dismissed€itsÏpetitions€to€hold€the€Tapleys€in€contempt.€€In€light€of€our€conclusion€that€theÏtrial€court€properly€dismissed€the€action€based€on€improper€venue,€the€trialÏcourt€also€properly€dismissed€Terminixððs€petitions€to€hold€the€Tapleys€inÏcontempt.€€€€à àÌà àAccordingly,€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€all€respects.€€Costs€are€assessedÏagainst€the€appellant.ÌÓӜ̛œÌ›à 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 óÌÌÌò òCONCUR:Ìó óÌœ____________________________________›Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€œJUDGEó óÌÌÌò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó ó€(Not€participating)