WPC /# UN % 0(w@)4i} 0J 0T 0^2 0h 0r 0|j 0 0l 1u 0dqU>B) 0@< D3| B DC AM U*\  v~ v AQ/ 0D 0D9 D/} BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DVVDӀB\J#3|x2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("$    """"'dxd d7Border 1dd* #C << G<  9p`(Arial !  +"  %%   YYY FILED%X November14,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.%AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva *+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd ! .   ݛ\RA'\   \RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON   򀀀̜SUSIEBUCHANAN,  )       )  Plaintiff/Appellee,    ) ShelbyCircuitNo.76079T.D.̜*R$&#A1-j|*7`  `@Rߛ      )vs.      )       )MEMPHISLIGHT,GAS&WATER ) AppealNo.02A019610CV00245 DIVISION,     )      )  Defendant/Appellant.   )  ̀@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@ ATMEMPHIS,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEJAMESE.SWEARENGEN,JUDGEForthePlaintiff/Appellee:   FortheDefendant/Appellant:BrettB.Stein JamesF.GreerMemphis,Tennessee   Memphis,Tennesseè       REVERSEDANDDISMISSED      HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.CONCUR:̜ALANE.HIGHERS,J.DAVIDR.FARMER,J.  7XXdXXd7  @ OPINION  Thiscaseinvolvesa denovo appealfromgeneralsessionscourttocircuitcourt.Theplaintiffobtainedadefaultjudgmentingeneralsessionscourt.Onappealtocircuitcourt,thedefendantsoughttoasserttheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Thetrialcourtruledthatthedefendanthadwaivedthedefensebyfailingtoraiseitinthegeneralsessionscourt.Wereverse. ThePlaintiff/AppelleeSusieBuchanan( Buchanan)filedacivilwarrantintheGeneralSessionsCourtinShelbyCounty.SheallegedthatonNovember9,1992,MemphisLight,Gas,andWater( MLG&W)damagedherpropertyinMemphis,Tennessee.ShesoughtdamagesundertheTennesseeGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct(TGTLA),TennesseeCodeAnnotated2920101etseq.BuchananscivilwarrantinGeneralSessionsCourtwasfiledonOctober12,1995.MLG&WdidnotappearinGeneralSessionsCourttocontesttheclaim,anddefaultjudgmentwasenteredfortheplaintiffonFebruary14,1996.MLG&WappealedtotheCircuitCourtfortheThirtiethJudicialDistrictatMemphis. OnJune28,1996,MLG&WfiledamotiontodismissinCircuitCourt,assertingthattheplaintiffsclaimwasbarredbecauseshefailedtofileherlawsuitwithintheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsperiod.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotiontodismiss.Aninterlocutoryappealwasgranted,pursuanttoRule9oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.TheissueonappealiswhetherMLG&WisbarredonappealtotheCircuitCourtfrompleadingtheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsasadefense,ifthedefensewasnotraisedintheGeneralSessionsCourt.Buchanandoesnotdisputethatherlawsuitwasfiledmorethanoneyearafterthedateoftheaccidentatissueinthiscase. Thisappealinvolvesaquestionoflaw.Wereviewthetrialcourtslegalconclusions denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). SeeCarvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). ThepartiesdonotdisputethattheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsundertheTGTLAisaoneyearstatuteoflimitations. See Tenn.CodeAnn.2920305(b)(1997).Buchananacknowledgesthatherlawsuitwasfiledmorethanoneyearaftertheaccidentatissue.Therefore,theonlyissueraisedinthisinterlocutoryappealiswhetherMLG&WwaiveditsstatuteoflimitationsdefensebynotraisingitinGeneralSessionsCourt.̜Ǜ Inthisappeal,BuchananreliesonTennesseeCodeAnnotated1615505(1994),whichprovides:8 Objectionstothejurisdictionofthegeneralsessionscourt,beforewhichthewarrantisreturned,shallbemadebeforethehearing,ortheywillbeconsideredaswaived.BuchananassertsthatthisstatutetakespriorityoverTennesseeCodeAnnotated2011108(1994),whichstates:8 Inappealsfromcourtsofgeneralsessions,thecircuitcourtshallsupplyanydefectintheproceedingsoftheinferiorjurisdiction,asthoughthesuithadbeencommencedinthecircuitcourt.ӜBuchanansargumentiswithoutmerit.MLG&WsasserteddefensedoesnotinvolvethejurisdictionoftheGeneralSessionsCourt;Section1615505isnotapplicable.AnappealfromGeneralSessionsresultsina denovo trialintheCircuitCourtthereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessinthelowercourtsjudgment.Thecaseistriedasiftherehadbeennopreviousproceeding. HohenbergBros.v.MissouriPacificR.R.Co. ,586S.W.2d117,119(Tenn.App.1979). ThisCourtsdecisionin WachoviaBankCardServicesv.Overton ,No.03A019510CV00373,1996WL64004(Tenn.App.Feb.15,1996)isanalogous.In Wachovia ,theplaintifffiledalawsuitinGeneralSessionsCourt,butfailedtoobtainserviceofprocessonthedefendant.OnappealtoCircuitCourt,theplaintiffarguedthatbyappealingthejudgmenttoϜCircuitCourt,thedefendantenteredageneralappearanceandtherebysubmittedtotheCourtsjurisdiction.Thisargumentwasrejected:8 SincetheappealfromSessionsCourtwasforatrial denovo ,andtheRulesofCivilProcedurebecameapplicabletothecaseuponappeal,theRulesallowthedefendanttoraisealldefenses,includingachallengetopersonaljurisdictionoftheCourtineitherapretrialmotionoraresponsivepleading. ӜId. ,at**2(citing Landersv.Jones ,872S.W.2d674,676(Tenn.1994)).  Therefore,thetrialcourtinthiscaseerredindenyingMLG&WsmotiontodismissonthebasisthatMLG&WwaiveditsstatuteoflimitationsdefensebynotraisingitinGeneralSessionCourt.Thetrialcourtsdecisionmustbereversed.SinceitisundisputedthatBuchananfiledherlawsuitbeyondtheapplicableoneyearstatuteoflimitations,onremand,Buchananslawsuitmustbedismissed.̜Ǜ Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecauseisremandedforentryofanorderdismissingAppelleeslawsuit.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellee,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.ӛ     򀀀     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.  CONCUR:򀀀̜ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 󀀀 DAVIDR.FARMER,J.