WPCJ :SCX8=W,"Y0yK%`|'ו_nIζ'붸j9w=v# T.kwч]:^]݋ֳmjaN+kVa*!@1z!j>"c[ui[5.;V]]aֹ1vٯ:>B "[ŏ)WJ.{v!oLT㐒GZ% 3fX)n{GLsN W.IC |KQv?SH ؚc`j6Pu,/{~|X c5Rעqt(ފǬ,&,AjNAm !84kh-j`EJUZ 8:ȊNNcv$]K"rl:,Վ$_b\Śb %\U@b 0 0DS U+N N  z 9 U: ^ EwQ4Ui/N mE#U&Nvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K** ASu 0 0D[ A(9 Z(Times New Roman (ڥ$..8B}dd8    R5RfA+!dRR5{f|!dfA+'E|{fcWE'4Wcy4YyB}Y(#$  0  ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  R($  R_2Rf\dRR_2{ydf\f}y{<f} < e    1  *e  _ԀAfterthedismissalorderbecamefinal,appellantsfiledsuitagainstPrimeFocus,Inc.,thealleged  indispensableparty.Subsequently,appellantsattemptedtoamendthecomplainttoaddBruceandD&Casparties w defendant,butthisattemptwasdenied. 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.wpt,cAZ"Arial Regular+s ^p++Y9Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xU HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(G2($ ڥ!.8C<d XXd8    R)Rf6[dRR){0ydf6[Vy{0VyAiyb AiC< b      0  =p C< d(3$ ڥ!.8C<d XXd8    R)Rf6[dRR){0ydf6[Vy{0VyAiyb AiC< b  VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ ڥ!.8C<d XXd8    R)Rf6[dRR){0ydf6[Vy{0VyAiyb AiC< b  ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK ڥ!.8C<d d8    R_2Rf\dRR_2{ydf\f}y{<f} < e  _  88X Xdd 8  @  eINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#e  #Ԉ +   November6,2001Session V XXe #eXX#_YONA_ԀBOYD,etal.v.DONALDBRUCE,M.D.,etal.XXe   ] @@ ADirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  f @@No.992350IITheHonorableCarolMcCoy,Chancellor  V @@*AV) ` dE<` A &  @@TTNo.M200003210_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember5,2001 %  AV) ` dE<` A      XXXX  ThisisanappealofthetrialcourtsorderdenyingplaintiffsreliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.  60.01.Weaffirmthetrialcourt.  #XXXX##eXXР#XXe Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedand t Remanded  d   #eX #XX.eW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers, D J.andHollyKirbyLillard,joined. 4 DavidE.Danner,Nashville,ForAppellants,YonaBoydandBrendaCollier d ThomasL.Whiteside,Nashville,ForAppellees,DonaldBruce,M.D.andD&CPropertyMgmt. D Corp. 4 #eXX# OPINION XXe  ; #eXX #XXe    Plainitffappellants,YonaBoydandBrendaCollier,filedsuitagainstDonaldBruce, "D! M.D.( Bruce)andD&CPropertyManagementCorp.( D&C)onAugust19,1999inthe #4" ChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyseekingcompensationbasedonanallegedemployeremployee $$ # relationship.ByorderenteredDecember8,1999,thechancerycourtdismissedplaintiffssuitfor %!$ failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedandforfailuretojoinanindispensableparty. &"% Noappealwastakenfromthisorder. #  1       '"&   (#'   OnFebruary25,2000,appellantsfiledamotiontosetasidetheDecember8,1999orderof   dismissalpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02.ThismotionwasdeniedbyorderenteredMarch22,  2000.Noappealwastakenfromthisorder.    OnOctober20,2000,appellantsfiledamotiontoamendtheDecember8,1999order p pursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.60.01todeletethephrase failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcan `  begrantedfromsaidorder.ByorderenteredJanuary8,2001,thecourtdeniedappellantsmotion. P  Thisorderdenyingthemotionisthebasisofthisappeal,andtheonlyissueforreviewiswhether @  thetrialcourterredindenyingtheappellants60.01motion. 0    AmotionforreliefunderRule60.02addressesitselftothesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge, `  andthescopeofreviewiswhetherthetrialjudgeabusedthatdiscretion. Underwoodv.ZurichIns. P  Co. ,854S.W.2d94,97(Tenn.1993); Dayv.Day ,931S.W.2d936(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). @  Obviously,thescopeofreviewisthesamewhenreliefissoughtpursuanttotheprovisionsofRule 0  60.01tomodifythelanguageofacourtorder.Theruleprovides:   8  8`    Rule60.01.ClericalMistakes` x` x 8  8`    Clericalmistakesinjudgments,ordersorotherpartsofthe  record,anderrorsthereinarisingfromoversightoromissions,maybe  correctedbythecourtatanytimeonitsowninitiativeoronmotion  ofanypartyandafersuchnotice,ifany,asthecourtorders.During p thependencyofanappeal,suchmistakesmaybesocorrectedbefore ` theappealisdocketedintheappellatecourt,andthereafterwhilethe P appealispendingmaybesocorrectedwithleaveoftheappellate @ court.0` x` x Intheinstantcase,theappellantshaveaskedthetrialcourttodeletethelanguageconstitutingthe ` basisofthetrialcourtsruling,i.e.,thatthecomplaintfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbe P granted.Thetrialcourtcertainlyiscognizantofthereasonforitsruling,andthedenialof @ appellantsmotionunderthesecircumstancesinnowaycouldbeconsideredanabuseofdiscretion 0 bythetrialcourt.     Theappealinthiscaseistotallywithoutmerit.Therearenodebatablequestionsoflaw,nor "  arethereanydisputedfacts.Theresimplyisnojusticiablequestionpresentedinthisappeal. See #! Davisv.GulfIns.Group ,546S.W.2d583(Tenn.1977).Appellantsfailedtoappealtheprevious $" denialbythecourtoftheirRule60.02motion,butneverthelessdecidedtofilethisappealofthetrial % # courtsdenialoftheirRule60.01motion.Thisisafrivolousappeal. p&!$   Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourt P(#& foradeterminationofdamagesdueappelleespursuanttoT.C.A. Xɘ0XXX#XX0X Xɘ#XXXXԀ271122(2000).Costsofappeal @)$' anddamagesasdeterminedbythetrialcourtareassessedagainsttheappellants,YonaBoydand 0*%( BrendaCollier,andtheirsureties,forwhichexecutionmayissue,if_necessary.#XXXX##eXXV #XXe_  +p&)  ,`'* Ї   `     h   __________________________________________     `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.