WPC LZoӃÌ !4n nZRZ/WS~cpmN[m^&Sj?p4sƪ4k] zzeDiZ ]Gmހ4ӕ G Den~<$"vҿX p0e^p٩kS릎Pv"=zڝJf+Kw"*$6Yv٣T+63!Ǘ`q,kYVGr(('gޥ݉!.*43-u' M QL=bY=vsNV%, L?oYMXa -uem mL0EﳣL86DcPLwNz#ةG*!a^}u4!pB8}i _+tfTF%|_pqH*! Lm5fiub#\ % U@# 0c UN 9 ^ A zM  w 4     N  0DN m UN7EU@b 0 B 0 D3@ D-s 0K AS> 0 0D AHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(hH  Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular 1zZ+  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptK+43|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  U(I Z6Times New Roman Regular(I Z(Times New Roman   R,$      1     _ӱ  X%X ӱԀDyncorpstatedinitsanswerthatMr.Johnsonearnedanetincomeof$528.15weeklyand  thatitwould send25%.Inthelinerequestinganactualdollarfigure,theanswerstatedthat our  systemautomaticallyfiguresitoutforus.WheretheformularequestedthenumberofMr.  Johnsonschildrenundertheageofsixteen,Dyncorpmarked ?intheprovidedspace.#XXXX%~## XXŝ# R,$      2     _ԀXX AlthoughDyncorpfiledananswer,thenecessaryinformationwasnotincluded.- -(|G2,$ !.8Fd d 8         0  5 d(|3 $ !.8Fd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8Fd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8K4d d8     1_  118%XXdd 8  @ 1INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#1+#Ԉ &   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSAUGUST6,2001 L XX1 #1XX#ANCROFINANCECOMPANYv.KEVINJOHNSONv.DYNCORPXX1  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.CT00043600(1);TheHonorableJohnR.McCarroll,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200002709_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober23,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisappealinvolvesthedismissalofapetitionforwritsofcertiorariandsupersedeasbroughtbya x  garnisheeincircuitcourt.Afterthegarnisheefailedtoattendahearingingeneralsessionscourt, d afinaljudgmentwasentered.Insteadofappealingthejudgmentasamatterofrighttothecircuit P court,thegarnisheepetitionedthecourtforwritsofcertiorariandsupersedeas.Thecircuitcourt < dismissedthegarnisheespetition.Becausethegarnisheefailedtoshowpropergroundsforwrits (x ofcertiorariandsupersedeasinlieuofanappeal,weaffirmthedecisionofthecircuitcourt.  d  #1XXŞ#XX1 Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  (   #1X #XX.1AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly  KirbyLillard,J.,joined.  T.LangWiseman,PaulHagerman,Memphis,TN,forAppellantDyncorp t W.RayJamieson,Memphis,TN,forAppelleeAncroFinanceCompany L   OPINION #1XX#XX1 $"t! #1XXŘ #XX1  @FactsandProceduralHistory #L#   AncroFinancialCompany(Ancro)obtainedajudgmentagainstKevinJohnson(Mr. %$!% Johnson)ingeneralsessionscourtonDecember4,1996.Thejudgment,totaling$7,384.10plus &"& interestandcosts,wasneversatisfied.Morethantwoyearslater,onJuly22,1999,Mr.Johnson '"' beganemploymentwithDyncorp.TofulfillthejudgmentagainstMr.Johnson,Ancrocausedtobe (#( issuedawritofgarnishmentonthewagesearnedbyMr.JohnsonatDyncorponJuly29,1999.The )$) writindicatedthatthetotalamountowedbyMr.Johnsonhadincreasedto$15,378.98duetointerest p*%* andrelatedcosts. \+&+   H,',   Dyncorpfiledananswertothewritofgarnishment,whichwasreceivedbythegeneral   sessionscourtclerkonAugust12,1999.Theanswerincludedaformulatocalculatethespecific  dollaramounttobewithheldfromMr.Johnsonswages.Dyncorp,however,failedtofollowthe  formulaandomittedinformationneededtocalculatetheexemptportionsofMr.Johnsonswages. t Specifically,DyncorpfailedtoindicatethenumberofMr.Johnsonschildrenundertheageof ` sixteenthatresidedinTennesseeasrequiredbysection262214oftheTennesseeCode. L  Accordingly,thetotalamounttobewithheldfromMr.Johnsonscheckandremittedtothecourt 8  wasnevercalculatedorstatedintheanswer. #  1       $ t   Mr.JohnsoncontinuedemploymentwithDyncorpuntilAugust27,1999,approximatelyone  L  monthaftertheissuanceofthewrit.Dyncorp,however,atnotimewithheldfundsorremittedfunds  8  tothecourtclerkasrequiredbysection262214oftheTennesseeCode.Dyncorpsfailureresulted $  fromamodificationofitscomputersoftware,whichcausedMr.Johnsonsgarnishmentstobe   droppedfromthecomputersystem.AncromadeseveralcallstoDyncorptoinquireastowhy   Dyncorpnever answeredorremittedthegarnishedfundstothecourt.8 #  2      ׀AncroallegesthatDyncorp   neverprovidedasatisfactoryreasonforitsfailure.     OnOctober27,1999,thegeneralsessionscourtenteredaconditionaljudgmentagainst \ Dyncorpfor$15,378.89,thetotalamountstillowedbyMr.Johnson.Ancrofiledascirefaciaswith H thecourt,whichstatedthatahearingwouldbeheldonJanuary5,2000,forDyncorptoshowcause 4 whytheconditionaljudgmentshouldnotbecomefinal.Dyncorpsregisteredagentwasproperly  p servedwiththescirefaciasonNovember30,1999andforwardedittoDyncorp.Dyncorp,however,  \ believingittobeanothergarnishment,turneditovertoitspayrolldepartmentandneverresponded. H AfterDyncorpfailedtorespondtothescirefaciasorattendthehearing,thecourtdeclaredthe 4 conditionaljudgmentfinal.ThefinaljudgmentagainstDyncorptotaled$15,433.39.     Dyncorpneverappealedthefinaljudgmenttothecircuitcourt.Instead,aftertheissuance  ofalevyagainstDyncorpforthejudgmentamount,Dyncorpfiledapetitionforcertiorariand  supersedeaswiththecircuitcourt,askingthecircuitcourttosetasideandvacatethefinaljudgment.  Dyncorpallegedinitspetitionthatthegeneralsessionscourtlackedgroundstogranttheconditional l judgmentand,consequently,erredindeclaringthejudgmentfinal. X    AncrofiledananswertoDyncorpspetitionandamotiontodismiss.Ancrosanswerand 0"  motionindicatedthatDyncorp,havingfailedtoappealthegeneralsessionsjudgment,lacked #l! groundsforfilingapetitionforcertiorariandsupersedeas.Further,AncroallegedthatDyncorps $X" failuretoremitthegarnishedfundstothecourtorrespondtothescirefaciasservedasaproper $D # foundationforthegeneralsessionscourtsrulingagainstDyncorp.Afterthepartiesfailedtoreach  asettlement,onSeptember29,2000,thecircuitcourtdismissedDyncorpspetitionforcertiorariand  supersedeas.Dyncorpnowappealsthecircuitcourtsdismissalofitspetition.  Ѐ t    `     h StandardofReview  `   Writsofcertiorariandsupersedeasarenotgrantedasamatterofright.Boycev.Williams, 8  389S.W.2d272,277(Tenn.1965).Rather,thedecisiontoissueawritofcertiorariandsupersedeas $ t liesinthesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.Id.󀀀Accordingly,ourreviewislimitedtodetermining  ` whetherthecircuitcourtabuseditsdiscretionindismissingDyncorpspetitionforcertiorariand  L  supersedeas.  8     LawandAnalysis $       Writsofcertiorariandsupersedeasshouldnotbeconsideredgeneralsubstitutesforappeal.   Instead,asstatedbythisCourtinUseltonv.Price,292S.W.2d788(Tenn.Ct.App.1956):   0  [T]hewellknownrulewaslaiddownthat,theremedybycertioraricannotberesortedtoas p asubstituteforappeal,exceptwhenacaseismadeoutinthepetitionshowingthattheappeal \ wasdefeatedH(#(#   1)Bytheoppressiveorerroneousactofthecourtorjustice. 4   2)Bythewillfulornegligentactoftheclerk.  p   3)Bythecontrivanceorprocurementoftheadverseparty.  \   4)Byinevitableaccident. H   5)Bytheblamelessmisfortuneofthepetitioner. 4 Id.at794.Dyncorpspetitionforcertiorariandsupersedeasappearfromtherecordtohavearisen   asasubstituteforanappeal.Accordingly,wemustdeterminewhetherthecircuitcourtabusedits  discretioninlightoftheparametersgiveninUselton.    Thereareonlytworelevantgroundsforgrantingcertiorariinlieuofanappealinthiscase: l inevitableaccidentsandtheblamelessmisfortuneofapetitioner.Dyncorp,however,hasfailedto X  providedanyevidencethatitsappealwasdefeatedoneithersuchgrounds.Dyncorpwasproperly D! servedwiththescirefaciasthatindicatedahearingwouldbeheldonJanuary5,2000atwhichtime 0"  Dyncorpcouldshowcausewhytheconditionaljudgmententeredagainstitshouldnotbecomefinal. #l! Dyncorp,however,failedtorespondtothescirefaciasorattendthehearing.Further,andmore $X" importantly,Dyncorpfailedtoappealthejudgmentevenafterithadnoticethatthejudgmentwould $D # becomefinal.WithnootherevidenceprovidinggroundsforgrantingDyncorpspetitioninlieuof %0!$ appeal,wehavenobasistoconcludethatthecircuitcourtabuseditsdiscretion. &"%   ThisCourtwaspresentedwithaverysimilarsituationinGeneralMotorsAcceptanceCorp. (#' v.Dennis,675S.W.2d489(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).InDennis,adefendantingeneralsessionscourt )$( failedtoattendahearingafterbeingproperlyservedwithprocess.Id.at490.Thedefendants |*%) failuretoattendthehearingresultedfromamutualmistakeofthedefendantandhisattorney. h+&* Insteadofappealing,however,thedefendantpetitionedthecircuitcourtforwritsofcertiorariand  supersedeas.Citingtheneedforgroundstoawardwritsofcertiorariandsupersedeas,thecircuit  courtdeniedthedefendantsrequest.TheDenniscourtstated, [n]eglectonthepartofpetitioner  isnotagroundtograntthewritsofcertiorariandsupersedeas.Id.at491(citationsomitted). t   Therecordprovidesnoindicationthatthepetitionersfailuretoappealthegeneralsessions L  finaljudgmentresultedfromanythingotherthanneglect.Thus,nogroundsexistforgranting 8  Dyncorpspetitionforcertiorariandsupersedeas.Accordingly,wepretermitissuesraisedby $ t DyncorpconcerningthemeritsofthegeneralsessionsjudgmentorwhetherDyncorpsactionsatthe  ` generalsessionslevelwereexcusable.  L     Conclusion   8        Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthedecisionofthecircuitcourt.Costs   onappealareassessedagainstDyncorp,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      `     h     #1XX #XX1   `     h     ___________________________________  \    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE#XXXX{#