WPC O:jHt0}+eU ?`"|]zPg`#=g:/qjN s/YJ:AL҉Pn,my ^W>~93e'a KB?#B4fEǮD./y ΛU(zh\q*TfŦ!;;-K;A?#Fqi_{Zd<ݶָ|@Ɋ B;&o,Rьc?n4\_&oPY1=OWҶ\tDX米Xgz| :ÚgN ;IVuV$T# % ^ 0 UNi w 4 z I  * m, 9C |B 0DNEO23UNeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeb 0 B 0 D3g D- 0K A\n 04 0D A D5 BHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0%u+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_++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|xU / RA$      3    _NoquestionisraisedonappealastothetimelinessoftheappealorastohowasecondRule59motion  suspendedthefinalityoftheOctober25,1999order.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    E RA$      1    _Formersection262102concerningpersonalpropertyselectivelyexemptfromseizurewastransformedto  262103bythe2000ReplacementofVolume4AofTennesseeCodeAnnotated. ( RA$      2    _CourtofAppealsRule10:  8  ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodify t theactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhaveno 8 precedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinion,itshallbedesignated L "MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany  reasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.#~###'O Z 6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2A$ !.8Ldd8         0   d(|3ǎ$ !.8Ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`N<<C xdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǎ$ !.8Ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK)!dxdxP Pd !.8Ldd8     _  L8}XXdd8  @ HLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#LH #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsDecember14,2000 L X}XL #LXX}#CHARLESBOBOv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENT J OFCORRECTIONS,etal.X}XL   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.974136IIIEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.M200000517_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember21,_2001_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A      Appellant,aprisoninmate,filed,intheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCounty,aPetitionforWritof   CertiorariquestioningdisciplinaryactionsagainsthimbytheDepartmentofCorrections.The  petitionwasdismissedbytheChancellorwithcostsassessedagainstAppellant.Appellantthen x soughtexemptionofhisinmatetrustaccountfromexecutionforcostsassertingthatTennesseeCode d AnnotatedSection262103renderedhistrustaccountandpersonalpropertytoavalueof$4,000 P exemptfromexecutionforcourtcosts.TheChancellorheldTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection < 262103tobeinapplicable,andweaffirmtheChancellor. #  1       (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  P   #LX}#X}X.LWilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH._Cantrell_,_P.J._,M.S.and ( PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined.  CharlesBobo,MountainCity,Tennessee,ProSe.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andDawn t  Jordan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,TennesseeDepartment `!  ofCorrection,NortheastCorrectionalComplexandStatePrisonDisciplinaryBoard. L"!   MEMORANDUMOPINION #  2      #LXX}/ #X}XL $$t#  %` $ #LXX}} #  X}XL  OnDecember15,1997,CharlesBobofiledaPetitionforWritofCertioraritoreview  disciplinaryactiontakenagainsthimbytheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrections.    OnJanuary7,1999,theChancellordismissedtheactionwithoutprejudiceforfailureof t Appellanttoprosecutesame,assessingthecourtcostsagainstAppellant.OnMarch19,1999, ` Appellantfileda ClaimforExemptionFromExecutionofCourtCostsPursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ262 L  102,etseq.. 8    OnJune18,1999,theChancellordeniedAppellantsapplicationforexemptionforhisfailure  ` tocomplywithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection262114inthathehadnotfiled,underoath,a  L  listofallitemsheownedandchosetodeclareexempt,alongwithavalueforeachitemclaimed.  8  OnJuly19,1999,AppellantfiledhisTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureRule59MotiontoAlter $  orAmend,accompaniedbydocumentationpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection262114,   whichdocumentincludedwithintheclaimed$4,000exemption,hisinmatetrustfund.OnOctober   25,1999,theChancellorheldthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection262102wasinapplicableto   thecollectionofcourtcostsanddeniedexemption.     OnNovember24,1999,AppellantfiledasecondRule59Motionrearguingthesamepoint. \ OnFebruary16,2000,thecourtenteredjudgmentdenyingthismotiontoalteroramend. H   AppellantappealedtheFebruary16,2000judgment.  #  3        p   TheopinionofthisCourtinDavidPalmerv.TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,No. H M200002351_COA_ԄR3CV,2001WL1386091(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.8,2001),releasedon 4 November8,2001,is_dispositive_Ԁoftheonlyissuedinvolvedinthiscase.     InPalmer,thisCourtheldthat_T.C.A._Ԁ262101,etseq.didnotapplytocourtcostsassessed  againstthoseresponsibleforinstitutinglitigation.SaidthePalmercourt:  8   ` Wehavedeterminedthatthroughoutourhistorythelegislatureintendedthat l costsoflitigationaretobetheresponsibilityofthepersoninstitutingthelitigation X  unlessrelievedthereofbythejudgmentofthecourt.Theintentismanifestedagain D! bytheprovisionsofthe1978legislation,partofwhichisthesubjectexemption 0"  statute,indicatingthatthelegislationisdirectedatdefendantjudgmentdebtors. #l! Placingthisdeterminationwiththeexplicitprovisioninthepaupersoathstatutethat $X" merelysuspendsthepaymentofcostsuntil taxedbythecourt,wereachthe $D # conclusionthatthelegislativeintent,asexpressedbytheordinarymeaningofthe %0!$ languageused,isthatapersonwhoisallowedtocommenceasuitwithoutgiving &"% securityforthecostsisnotrelievedoftheobligationtopaythecostsbyvirtueofthe '#& exemptionstatute.(#'   ЇPalmer,2001WL1386091,at4.    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuch  furtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainsttheappellant, t CharlesBobo,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. ` Ѐ   `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE