ÿWPCË BY˜F^Iøô@ù¬Î”õH—Ž®*ÂÙ¼`ç‹Då˜æºéákÚ†>’Ñ05õ…]˜Ü]Š/iÛWKL'$€þéŒtøCÝôòܽ!åÌ Í“™|­FOìÿí¹)µDo‹¾›ˆ³‘&b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0D0Ntv 0c~EáUNããUB1¦ss 1u 72ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽbÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 0ëÈÈÈÈ B³³ 0¤Ð D3t D-§ 0KÔÔ ASÆr 0¤8 0DÜ A« ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»$h+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularHEô*ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regularô\  `*Times New RomanTT œÝ ƒRj—$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X¬•X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€It€has€likewise€been€held€that€service€on€the€county€sheriff€was€insufficient€service€on€theÐ ° Ðcounty,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.04(7).€€òòFreeman€v.€Shannonóó,€No.€W1999„1597„COA„R3„CVÐ œì Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€7,€2000),€no€perm.€app.€filed.€3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- ù-(|G2j—$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5X»»Ô d(|3Mõ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Mõ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K» »d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ç»»»ÔÑ8€5XXdê» »d 8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@ëë ìàJuly€10,€2001€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡X¬•X»¼çÔÌò òÔ#†¼ç»XX¬•Ÿ#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€EX€REL,€PERNIE€BARGER,€ET€AL.,€v.€CITY€OFÐ Ò" ÐHUNTSVILLE,€TENNESSEE,€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€EX€REL,Ð æ 6 ÐGEORGE€BRAWNER,€SR.,€ET€AL.,€v.€CITY€OF€HUNTSVILLE,Ð ú J ÐTENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X¬•X»¼çÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÓåÓÌà@^ ^ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Scott€CountyˆÐ ^  Ðà@s s ìàNos.€8087€and€8119€€€€€€Hon.€Billy€Joe€White,€JudgeˆÐ úJ  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€AUGUST€17,€2001€Ð Ò"  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` A߈Ð ¾  ÐÌà@¶¶ìàNo.€E2001„00395„COA„R3„CV€ˆÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á Ðó óÌÌThe€Trial€Court€held€service€of€process€on€the€Cityððs€Mayor€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.04(8)€wasÐ xÈ Ðinsufficient.€€On€appeal,€we€affirm.Ð d´ ÐÔ#†¼ç»XX¬•á#ÔÔ‡X¬•X»¼çÔÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ (x ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼ç»àX¬•'#ÔÔ‡X¬•X.¼çÔ,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Houston€M.€Goddard,Ô#†¼ç»àX¬•ð#ÔÔ‡X¬•X.¼çÔÐ ì< ÐP.J.,óó€andòò€Charles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,Ô#†¼ç»àX¬•~#ÔÔ‡X¬•X.¼çÔ€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌDavid€L.€Buuck,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant.Ð ° ÐÌAndrew€R.€Tillman,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee.Ð ˆ!Ø  ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ç»XX¬•ü#ÔÔ‡X¬•X»¼çԈР8%ˆ $ ÐÌòòóóÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€dismissed€this€action€for€insufficient€service€of€process,€and€plaintiffsÐ ü'L#' Ðhave€appealed.€€The€action€was€brought€against€the€City€of€Huntsville,€and€the€Summons€states€thatÐ è(8$( Ðit€was€served€upon€the€City€ð ðat€Mayor€Charles€Sextonððs€Office.ðð€The€City€filed€a€Motion€to€Dismiss,Ð Ô)$%) Ðstating€there€was€no€personal€service€on€the€Mayor,€but€rather€that€copies€of€the€Summons€andÐ À*&* ÐComplaint€were€simply€left€at€the€Mayorððs€office,€and€argue€that€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.04(8)€requiresÐ ¬+ü&+ Ðpersonal€service€on€the€Mayor.€Ð ˜,è', Ðà  àÐ „-Ô(-ý Ðà  àà ` àOther€plaintiffs€then€filed€a€òòquo€warrantoóó€proceeding€against€the€City,€and€theÐ ° ÐSummons€in€this€case€states€that€the€process€server€ð ðleft€a€copy€with€defendant.ðð€The€City€filed€aÐ œì ÐMotion€to€Dismiss€in€this€action.€€These€two€actions€were€consolidated€on€appeal.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€support€of€its€Motions,€the€City€filed€an€Affidavit€of€Cynthia€Reynolds,€whichÐ `° Ðstates€that€she€was€the€City€Recorder€for€Huntsville,€and€that€the€processes€were€left€with€her€at€theÐ L œ ÐMayorððs€office,€but€the€Mayor€was€not€present.€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àReynolds€in€her€deposition€which€was€filed,€testified€that€she€had€worked€as€CityÐ  ` ÐRecorder€for€15€years,€and€that€Charles€Sexton€had€been€the€Mayor€at€the€time€the€lawsuits€wereÐ ü L  Ðfiled,€and€that€he€was€also€working€for€the€Scott€County€Road€Department.€She€testified€that€SextonÐ è 8  Ðcame€to€the€office€nearly€every€day,€but€that€his€schedule€was€unpredictable.€She€further€testified€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Summons€and€Complaints€at€issue€were€left€with€her,€and€that€she€gave€them€to€the€Mayor.€€SheÐ À  Ðfurther€testified€that€she€did€not€tell€the€process€servers€that€she€was€authorized€to€accept€service,€butÐ ¬ü  Ðrather€she€told€one€of€them€that€he€should€find€the€Mayor,€and€that€she€didnððt€think€she€could€acceptÐ ˜è  Ðservice.Ð „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€facts€in€this€case€are€not€in€dispute,€and€the€issue€involved€is€a€question€of€lawÐ \¬ Ðwhich€is€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€by€this€Court€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òó óòòÔ‡X5XXX¬•ÔóóòòUnion€Carbide€Corp.Ð H˜ Ðv.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2d€87€(Tenn.€1993).Ô#†X¬•XXX52#Ôò òÐ 6† Ðà  àó óÌà  àà ` àTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€4.04(8)€requires€that€service€may€be€made€uponÐ  \ Ða€municipality€by€delivering€a€copy€of€the€summons€and€complaint€to€the€ð ðchief€executive€officerÐ øH Ðthereof,€or€to€the€city€attorney.ðð€€In€this€case,€a€copy€of€the€summons€and€complaint€were€left€at€theÐ ä4 Ðmayorððs€office,€but€were€not€personally€delivered€to€the€mayor.€€Plaintiffs€argue€that€such€service€wasÐ Ð  Ðsufficient€under€the€authority€of€òòGarland€v.€Seaboard€Coastline€R.€Co.óó,€658€S.W.2d€528€(Tenn.Ð ¼  Ð1983).€€In€òòGarlandóó,€the€Court€adopted€the€construction€used€by€the€federal€courts€in€determining€theÐ ¨ø Ðsufficiency€of€service€of€process€on€business€entities,€wherein€the€federal€courts€had€held€that€serviceÐ ”ä Ðcould€be€made€upon€a€representative€of€the€company€who€was€ð ðso€integrated€with€the€organizationÐ €Ð Ðthat€he€will€know€what€to€do€with€the€papers.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€531.€€Thus,€the€Court€held€that€service€on€aÐ l¼ Ðcompany€was€sufficient€if€it€was€made€upon€a€person€whom€one€could€reasonably€imply€hadÐ X ¨ Ðauthority€to€receive€service.€€òòId.€óó€Plaintiffs€argue€that€because€service€was€made€upon€the€cityÐ D!” Ðrecorder,€who€is€ð ða€representative€so€integratedðð€with€the€City€that€she€would€know€what€to€do€withÐ 0"€  Ðthe€papers,€and€who€could€reasonably€be€thought€to€have€authority€to€accept€same,€the€process€wasÐ #l! Ðsufficient€and€proper.Ð $X" Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àWe€note,€however,€that€the€Courtððs€decision€in€òòGarlandóó€as€well€as€the€federal€casesÐ à%0!$ Ðrelied€upon€dealt€strictly€with€service€on€companies€and€the€subsections€of€Rule€4.04€which€applyÐ Ì&"% Ðthereto.€€òòGarlandóó€made€no€mention€of€service€upon€municipalities,€and€there€have€been€no€casesÐ ¸'#& Ðciting€òòGarlandóó€which€deal€with€the€issue€before€us.€€There€appears€to€be€an€absence€of€authority€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€issue€of€sufficiency€of€service€on€a€municipality€in€this€jurisdiction,€except€for€the€case€of€òòLegleuÐ )à$( Ðv.€Clarksville€Dept.€of€Electricityóó,€944€S.W.2d€364€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€wherein€this€Court€heldÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€service€upon€an€officer€of€the€Clarksville€Department€of€Electricity€was€insufficient€to€giveÐ h+¸&* Ðnotice€to€the€City€of€Clarksville,€and€was€thus€insufficient€service€on€the€City€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Ð ° ÐCiv.€P.€4.04.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.04(8)€is€specific,€in€that€delivery€must€be€upon€the€chief€executiveÐ œì Ðofficer,€i.e.€the€mayor,€and€such€was€not€done€in€this€case.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThis€Court€has€recognized€that€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€are€ð ðlawsðð€which€mustÐ `° Ðbe€construed€in€the€same€manner€as€statutes,€such€that€if€the€language€of€the€rule€is€plain,€clear,€andÐ L œ Ðunambiguous,€the€courtððs€duty€is€to€simply€to€enforce€the€rule€as€written.€€òòFirst€Tennessee€Bank,€N.A.Ð 8 ˆ Ðv.€Doughertyóó,€963€S.W.2d€507€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€Ð $ t Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€they€should€not€be€held€to€the€technical€requirements€of€the€RuleÐ ü L  Ðbecause€it€is€clear€that€the€City€had€notice€of€the€claims.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02,€however,Ð è 8  Ðspecifically€allows€the€defense€of€insufficiency€of€process€to€be€raised€in€a€Motion€to€Dismiss,€suchÐ Ô$  Ðas€was€done€in€this€case.€€Moreover,€it€is€clear€that€once€this€defense€has€been€raised,€any€otherÐ À  Ðparticipation€in€the€lawsuit€by€the€defendant€does€not€constitute€a€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€òòToler€v.€City€ofÐ ¬ü  ÐCookevilleóó,€952€S.W.2d€831€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð ˜è  Ðò òà  àó óÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€also€argue€that€the€Trial€Court€should€have€held€an€evidentiary€hearingÐ pÀ Ðbefore€ordering€that€the€case€be€dismissed.€The€Trial€Court,€however,€had€the€benefit€of€the€Ð \¬ ÐReynoldsðð€Affidavit,€as€well€as€the€deposition€testimony€of€the€process€servers,€Ms.€Reynolds,€andÐ H˜ Ðthe€Mayor,€and€the€facts€were€not€in€dispute.€€There€is€no€indication€that€an€evidentiary€hearingÐ 4„ Ðwould€have€aided€the€court€in€any€way,€as€all€of€the€pertinent€facts€were€before€it.€€Moreover,€theÐ  p ÐMotion€to€Dismiss€was€not€heard€for€two€years,€and€plaintiffs€made€no€efforts€to€correct€the€allegedÐ  \ Ðdefect€in€service.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€hold€the€directive€under€the€Rule€is€clear€and€that€on€the€facts€before€us€theÐ Ð  Ðservice€was€insufficient€pursuant€to€the€unambiguous€directives€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.04.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€assess€the€cost€of€theÐ ”ä Ðappeal€to€the€appellants,€Barger,€Brown,€Lloyd,€Stonecipher,€Brawner,€Marlow,€Pemberton€andÐ €Ð ÐRyan.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ç»XX¬• #ÔòòóóÔ‡X¬•X»¼çÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.óó