ÿWPC¬$ 3ÕñpK•e;m<ê.q°Æa`ñvZ|+»ê„šˆz=w2:5²ÀÀP@ãKpGU°¨km_Ñ2-ãWwQÆIx^™2ß"¸“? Õ‹™…:N×þ/â5yÖòfËs¤@/ãû›‚©ÂÕŠ?R]€ßUÕB˜øê#°OW²÷)ÓÙãµ2bÊK¨k-¾§š¡Ÿãã*þÞ]"ú`¥à¬ˆ@ÞH M€–vÍç¬Ð°çOTVcu6r/´n?ùù„ÀÐ ߌ¢ Z«ãß dåÉ`í£ÿNýF+µÉƒÔuN@%Ïaó$¸1Ø}ʱ`…Y'Pw  ‘BfØÄPvT†‡V÷*)´9Öì¸}¢z€Qê+›mz›öî'S™Ð9¬ 5è+¢©H ¿."`>U¹¤0WöfÁCQÓ¿§Ð´O‘-ààÒr' PªÔÜÏÒ*W¹Bp©kWT]ÞøÒ\î ®À¸Ácûh[äº1”Á(­Õ’7.æÇî)qòE1Ô12½(UÝ&³ôª£FkË®ìt˜f¿7ð46îCìÛ´–i`íÂûœžçC¼‚Ä> Y:~o.Ó:¬Ëx0Á?ð,¨K‡ãÚ_ÀáÓrssÌWM.ûb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ ƨ ÆnÆ4Æú 0 DÀN ÖEéëTóGèccWKKKKKKKKKKKKKKÿ¢¢¢¢b¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ 0 ë©©©© B” ” 0¤± D3U! D-ˆ! 0Kµ!µ! AS"ÆS" 0¤# 0D½# A«$»Äš%-â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG* ¡ì§3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Ý ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Plaintiffs€attempted€to€serve€the€second€complaint€on€Dr.€McGraw€through€the€Secretary€of€State.€€TheÐ ° ÐSecretary€of€State€could€not€accomplish€service€because€Dr.€McGraw€had€moved€and€left€no€forwarding€address.€€ItÐ tÄ Ðappears€Dr.€McGraw€was€never€served€with€the€second€complaint€and€Plaintiffs€eventually€dismissed€him€from€thisÐ 8ˆ Ðlawsuit.€€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$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Crowder€also€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€supporting€affidavit€claiming€there€was€no€genuineÐ ° Ðissue€of€material€fact€with€regard€to€the€allegations€of€medical€malpractice.€€In€response,€Plaintiffs€filed€the€affidavit€ofÐ tÄ ÐDr.€Robert€Slotnick.€€Crowderððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€denied€and€that€ruling€is€not€before€us€on€appeal. ÌÝ ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Although€the€second€attorney€also€represented€Plaintiffs€when€the€new€lawsuit€was€filed€against€Grindstaff,Ð ° ÐReece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals,€it€does€not€appear€Plaintiffs€attempted€to€file€a€Rule€4.03(2)€affidavit€with€regard€to€anyÐ tÄ Ðprocess€that€was€sent€via€certified€mail€in€the€second€lawsuit.€€  JÝ ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€express€no€opinion€on€whether€this€service€was€effective€on€the€individual€defendants€because€the€personsÐ ° Ðwho€signed€for€the€certified€mail€were€not€the€actual€named€defendants.€€ Ý ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€affidavit€filed€in€òòLasheróó€was€not€a€Rule€4.03(2)€affidavit.€€The€affidavit,€which€set€forth€the€specifics€ofÐ ° Ðthe€service€of€process,€was€the€plaintiffððs€attempt€to€set€forth€the€information€required€by€then€existing€Rules€4.01(2)€andÐ tÄ Ð4.03(1).€€This€information€should€have€been€included€in€the€return€of€service€filed€with€the€court€two€years€previously.€Ð 8ˆ ÐAlthough€òòLasheróó€does€not€involve€the€late€filing€of€a€Rule€4.03(2)€affidavit,€it€is€nevertheless€helpful€because€it€addressesÐ üL Ða€plaintiffððs€belated€attempt€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€4.€€ ÞÝ ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Because€we€conclude€the€failure€to€file€the€Rule€4.03(2)€affidavit€rendered€service€of€process€insufficient,Ð ° Ðwe€need€not€address€whether€the€failure€of€the€person€accomplishing€service€to€endorse€his€or€her€signature€on€theÐ tÄ Ðoriginal€summons€and€provide€the€date€of€mailing€of€the€certified€mail€and€the€date€of€receipt€was€sufficient,€in€and€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðitself,€to€likewise€render€service€ineffective.€€òòSeeóó€òòLasher€v.€Robertsonóó,€No.€03A01„9402„CV„00075,€1994€Tenn.€App.Ð üL ÐLEXIS€604€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€24,€1994),€òòsupraóó. MÝ ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Effective€July€1,€1998,€Rule€3€was€amended€to€delete€the€words€ð ðor€is€not€returned.ðð€€This€amendment€doesÐ ° Ðnot€affect€the€clear€applicability€of€òòStempaóó€to€the€present€case.€€ õÝ ƒR3ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€returns€are€somewhat€difficult€to€read.€€It€appears€that€one€or€two€Defendants€may€have€been€served€onÐ ° ÐJuly€29,€1998.€€Whether€these€one€or€two€Defendants€were€served€on€July€28€or€July€29€is€not€pertinent€to€this€appeal.€Ð tÄ ÐFor€ease€of€reference€only,€we€will€assume€the€certified€mail€to€each€Defendant€was€signed€for€on€July€28.- ù-(|G23ß$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¥­ò»»Ô d(|3z$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3z$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼å»»»ÔÑ8€A9XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î”åÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼å»îî” #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€22,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XA9X»¼åÔÌò òÔ#†¼å»XXA9ô#ÔSHERYL€FAULKS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€DR.€BRENDA€CROWDER,€òòet€alóó.ó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ€XA9X»¼åÔà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Carter€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@øøìàNos.€C7178€&€C7715€€€€€€Jean€Anne€Stanley,€JudgeÐ  \ ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ä 4  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E„2001„01175„COA„R3„CVÐ Ë  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓWhen€this€medical€malpractice€suit€was€originally€filed,€counsel€for€Sheryl€Faulks€and€BruceÐ žî  ÐZabower€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€instructed€the€court€clerk€not€to€have€process€served.€€Process€was€notÐ ŠÚ Ðreissued€until€approximately€nine€months€later.€€When€process€was€reissued€and€served€via€certifiedÐ vÆ Ðmail,€Plaintiffs€failed€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€4.03(2)€pertaining€to€return€of€theÐ b² Ðservice€of€process.€€Three€of€the€four€Defendants€then€were€nonsuited,€but€a€new€lawsuit€againstÐ Nž Ðthese€Defendants€was€filed.€€The€lawsuits€were€consolidated.€€The€three€Defendants€in€the€secondÐ :Š Ðlawsuit€filed€Motions€to€Dismiss€based€upon€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€remainingÐ &v ÐDefendant€in€the€original€suit€filed€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€challenging€the€effectiveness€of€service€ofÐ b Ðprocess.€€The€Trial€Court€dismissed€both€Complaints€based€on€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€comply€with€RuleÐ þN Ð4.03(2).€€We€reverse€and€remand.€Ð ê: ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€JudgmentÐ Â Ðof€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed;€Case€Remanded.Ð ®þ ÐÓ  ÓÌó óòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.,óóÐ †Ö Ðand€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€joined.Ð r  ÐÌDavid€W.€Blankenship,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants€Sheryl€Faulks€and€Bruce€Zabower,Ð J"š! ÐParents€and€Next€Kin€of€Madison€Faulks„Zabower,€deceased,€Sheryl€Faulks€and€Bruce€Zabower.Ð 6#†" ÐÌJimmie€C.€Miller€and€Nancy€Eastridge,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee€Dr.€Richard€Reece.Ð %^ $ ÐÌJeffrey€M.€Ward€and€Thomas€J.€Garland,€Greeneville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee€Dr.€Brenda€Crowder.Ð æ&6"& ÐÌCharles€T.€Herndon,€IV,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Dr.€Robert€Grindstaff.Ð ¾($( ÐÌM.€Lacy€West€and€Julia€C.€West,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Sycamore€Shoals€Hospital,Ð –*æ%* ÐInc.Ð  ‚+Ò&+ýÿ Ðà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàò òòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThese€two€medical€malpractice€lawsuits€assert€a€claim€which€accrued€on€or€beforeÐ `° ÐNovember€5,€1996,€the€day€Plaintiffsðð€five€day€old€son€died€after€being€diagnosed€with€hypoplasticÐ L œ Ðleft€heart€syndrome.€€On€October€31,€1997,€Plaintiffs€filed€suit€against€Dr.€Brenda€CrowderÐ 8 ˆ Ð(ð ðCrowderðð),€Dr.€Robert€Grindstaff€(ð ðGrindstaffðð),€Dr.€Richard€Reece€(ð ðReeceðð),€Dr.€James€K.Ð $ t ÐMcGraw€(ð ðMcGrawðð),€and€Sycamore€Shoals€Hospital,€Inc.€(ð ðSycamore€Shoalsðð).€€Along€with€theÐ  ` ÐComplaint€and€five€summonses,€the€attorney€for€Plaintiffs€enclosed€a€cover€letter€to€the€court€clerkÐ ü L  Ðstating€they€were€ð ðnot€seeking€service€at€this€time.ðð€€As€a€result,€the€summonses€were€issued,€but€noÐ è 8  Ðattempt€was€made€to€serve€the€complaint€and€summonses€on€Defendants.€€The€attorney€who€filedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€lawsuit€later€explained€the€reason€service€was€not€sought€when€the€Complaint€was€filed€wasÐ À  Ðbecause€he€was€having€trouble€obtaining€a€complete€set€of€medical€records€and€could€not€have€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmerits€of€the€case€evaluated€until€a€complete€set€was€obtained.€€He€stated€service€of€process€neverÐ ˜è  Ðwas€sought€while€he€was€attorney€of€record.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€May€22,€1998,€Crowder€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€alleging€ineffective€and/or€lackÐ \¬ Ðof€service€of€process׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€Crowder€never€had€been€served€with€process,€per€the€instructions€ofÐ H˜ ÐPlaintiffsðð€counsel.€€Crowder€apparently€learned€the€lawsuit€had€been€filed€from€an€article€in€the€localÐ 4„ Ðnewspaper.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffsðð€original€attorney€obtained€different€employment€and€withdrew€from€theÐ øH Ðcase€as€attorney€of€record.€€The€case€was€assigned€to€a€different€attorney€in€the€same€law€firm.€€AfterÐ ä4 Ðnew€counsel€took€over€the€case,€summonses€were€reissued€for€all€five€Defendants€on€July€23,€1998.€Ð Ð  ÐPlaintiffs€sought€to€serve€Defendants€via€certified€mail.€€With€regard€to€the€four€individualÐ ¼  ÐDefendants,€the€return€receipts€for€the€certified€mail€were€signed€by€someone€other€than€the€actualÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€on€July€28,€1998.׃*Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€return€receipts€showing€who€signed€for€the€certified€mail€thenÐ ”ä Ðwere€attached€to€a€Motion€to€Non„Suit€filed€on€July€28,€1998.€€In€that€motion,€Plaintiffs€sought€toÐ €Ð Ðnonsuit€all€Defendants€òòexceptóó€Crowder.€€The€motion€states€ð ðPlaintiffs€are€serving€a€copy€of€theÐ l¼ ÐMotion€for€Non„Suit€on€each€of€the€defendants€pursuant€to€Rule€41€of€the€Tennessee€Code€of€CivilÐ X ¨ ÐProcedure.ðð€€The€Certificate€of€Service€indicates€only€that€a€copy€of€the€motion€was€being€served€onÐ D!” ÐDefendants.€€An€order€granting€the€Motion€to€Non„Suit€was€entered€on€August€7,€1998,€grantingÐ 0"€  ÐPlaintiffs€a€nonsuit€pursuant€to€Rule€41.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.Ð #l! Ðâ âÐ $X" Ðà  àà ` àSince€Crowder€is€the€only€remaining€defendant€in€the€original€lawsuit,€we€will€discussÐ ° Ðâ âwhat€happened€with€this€case€separately€until€we€discuss€the€Courtððs€eventual€dismissal€of€bothÐ œì Ðlawsuits.€€On€August€10,€1998,€the€Trial€Court€heard€oral€argument€on€Crowderððs€motion€to€dismissÐ ˆØ Ðbased€on€the€original€summons€that€was€filed€but€never€served.€€The€Trial€Court€orally€deniedÐ tÄ ÐCrowderððs€motion€to€dismiss€after€hearing€argument€from€the€parties,€but€an€Order€was€never€enteredÐ `° Ðreflecting€the€Courtððs€judgment.€€On€August€25,€1998,€Crowder€filed€an€Answer€claiming,€amongÐ L œ Ðother€things,€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run€because€the€action€was€not€properly€commencedÐ 8 ˆ Ðwithin€the€applicable€time€limit.€€Crowder€did€not€claim€ineffective€service€of€process€as€to€theÐ $ t Ðservice€of€process€sent€via€certified€mail€on€July€23,€1998.€€On€September€11,€1998,€Crowder€refiledÐ  ` Ðher€motion€for€summary€judgment€asking€the€Trial€Court€to€reconsider€the€previous€denial€of€thisÐ ü L  Ðmotion.€€This€second€motion€for€summary€judgment,€as€with€the€first,€challenged€only€the€lack€ofÐ è 8  Ðservice€when€the€suit€was€originally€filed€and€did€not€address€the€July€23,€1998,€reissuance€of€processÐ Ô$  Ðand€attempted€service€via€certified€mail.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€August€6,€1999,€a€new€lawsuit€was€filed€against€Grindstaff,€Reece,€McGraw׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€andÐ ˜è  ÐSycamore€Shoals.€€Grindstaff,€Reece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals€filed€separate€motions€to€dismiss€and/orÐ „Ô  Ðfor€summary€judgment,€asserting€the€new€complaint€was€not€filed€timely€and€was€barred€by€theÐ pÀ Ðapplicable€statute€of€limitations.€€These€Defendants€essentially€claimed€the€first€lawsuit€was€neverÐ \¬ Ðproperly€commenced,€and,€therefore,€the€statute€of€limitations€was€not€tolled€and€the€second€lawsuitÐ H˜ Ðwas€filed€too€late.€€More€specifically,€it€was€asserted€the€time€lapse€between€when€the€complaint€wasÐ 4„ Ðfiled€and€when€service€was€actually€attempted€rendered€the€service€of€process€ineffective.€€TheseÐ  p ÐDefendants€also€claimed€Plaintiffs€failed€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.03(2)€in€the€originalÐ  \ Ðlawsuit€for€two€reasons.€€First,€there€was€no€affidavit€setting€forth€Plaintiffsðð€compliance€with€theÐ øH Ðrule.€€Second,€the€person€accomplishing€service€did€not€endorse€his€or€her€signature€on€the€originalÐ ä4 Ðsummons€and€provide€the€date€of€mailing€the€certified€mail€and€the€date€of€receipt.€€In€GrindstaffððsÐ Ð  Ðmotion€to€dismiss,€he€further€alleged€service€was€ineffective€because€the€certified€mail€was€servedÐ ¼  Ðon€someone€other€than€Grindstaff€himself.€€Sycamore€Shoals€alleged€Plaintiffs€failed€to€comply€withÐ ¨ø ÐRule€4.03(2)€in€both€the€original€and€the€second€lawsuit.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€two€lawsuits€were€consolidated.€€On€May€5,€2000,€Plaintiffs,€who€once€again€hadÐ l¼ Ðobtained€new€counsel,€responded€to€the€various€motions€by€filing€a€Rule€4.03(2)€affidavit€of€theirÐ X ¨ Ðsecond€attorney,€the€one€who€represented€them€when€process€was€reissued€in€the€first€lawsuit€andÐ D!” Ðsent€via€certified€mail€in€July€of€1998.€€This€affidavit€pertained€only€to€the€process€that€was€issuedÐ 0"€  Ðin€July€of€1998.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð #l! ÐÐ $X" Ðà  àà ` àThe€Judge€who€had€orally€denied€Crowderððs€motion€to€dismiss€in€August€of€1998€didÐ ° Ðnot€seek€re„election.€€The€pending€motions€were€heard€by€Judge€Jean€A.€Stanley,€who€stated€becauseÐ œì Ðan€Order€was€never€entered€after€the€hearing€on€August€10,€1998,€ð ðthis€Court€has€reconsidered€Dr.Ð ˆØ ÐCrowderððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€at€the€same€time€as€the€other€defendants.ðð€€In€February€of€2000,€JudgeÐ tÄ ÐStanley€ruled€on€Defendantsðð€argument€that€the€nine€month€delay€between€the€time€the€initial€suitÐ `° Ðwas€filed€in€October€of€1997€and€when€process€was€finally€sent€via€certified€mail€in€July€of€1998Ð L œ Ðrendered€this€process€ineffective€for€statute€of€limitations€purposes.€€According€to€the€Trial€Court,Ð 8 ˆ ÐPlaintiffs€had€one€year€in€which€to€have€process€reissued,€and€since€this€occurred€within€one€year€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€initial€filing€of€the€Complaint,€it€was€not€ineffective€based€on€the€delay.€€Accordingly,€the€TrialÐ  ` ÐCourt€refused€to€dismiss€any€of€the€Defendants€on€this€basis.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àGrindstaff,€Reece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals,€however,€also€had€filed€motions€to€dismissÐ Ô$  Ðbased€on€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€comply€with€Rule€4.03(2).€€At€the€hearing€in€February€2000,€the€TrialÐ À  ÐCourt€reserved€ruling€on€these€issues€and€asked€that€these€matters€be€briefed€by€the€parties.€€AfterÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€issues€were€briefed€by€the€parties,€an€Order€was€entered€on€June€22,€2000.€€In€that€Order,€theÐ ˜è  ÐTrial€Court€discussed€the€return€of€service€made€in€July€of€1998€in€the€first€lawsuit,€stating€thatÐ „Ô  Ðð ð[a]ttached€to€each€green€card€was€the€summons€upon€which€was€checked€a€space€for€service€byÐ pÀ Ðcertified€mail€but€which€contained€no€signature.€€It€is€undisputed€that€attorney€Conway€did€not€attachÐ \¬ Ðan€affidavit.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€went€on€to€conclude€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àRule€4.03€states€that€certain€things€òòshallóó€be€done.€€These€includeÐ  p Ðendorsement€of€the€summons€and€filing€of€the€affidavit€of€the€personÐ  \ Ðmaking€service.€€The€Rule€does€not€state€a€time€limit€for€the€filing€ofÐ øH Ðsuch€affidavit€but€the€Court€cannot€believe€that€the€law€contemplatesÐ ä4 Ðthat€such€affidavit€be€filed€almost€two€years€after€service€by€mail€hasÐ Ð  Ðbeen€attempted.€€(emphasis€in€original).м ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€then€entered€an€Order€granting€the€motions€to€dismiss€of€Grindstaff,Ð ”ä ÐReece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals€ð ðon€the€grounds€of€insufficient€return€of€summonsðð.€€Crowder€quicklyÐ €Ð Ðfiled€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€or€to€make€additional€findings€of€fact.€€In€this€motion,Ð l¼ ÐCrowder€asked€the€Trial€Court€to€dismiss€the€lawsuit€against€her€for€same€reason€the€second€lawsuitÐ X ¨ Ðagainst€the€other€three€Defendants€was€dismissed.€€Approximately€three€weeks€later,€on€July€28,Ð D!” Ð2000,€Crowder€filed€a€Rule€12.02(5)€motion€to€dismiss€claiming€the€July€1998€process€wasÐ 0"€  Ðineffective€for€lack€of€a€proper€endorsement€and€because€no€affidavit€had€been€filed.€€PlaintiffsÐ #l! Ðresponded€by€arguing,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€motion€ð ðcomes€too€late.€€The€defendant€Crowder€has€had€everyÐ $X" Ðopportunity€to€file€such€a€motion€and€failed€to€do€so.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€granted€Crowderððs€motionÐ ô$D # Ðto€dismiss.€€Plaintiffs€appeal€the€dismissal€of€both€lawsuits.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€standard€of€review€as€to€the€granting€of€a€motion€to€dismiss€is€set€out€inòò€Stein€v.Ð )à$( ÐDavidson€Hotel€Co.óó,€945€S.W.2d€714,€716€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€òòSteinóó,€our€Supreme€Court€explained:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€Rule€12.02(6),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.,€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€toÐ ° Ðstate€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted€tests€only€the€legalÐ œì Ðsufficiency€of€the€complaint,€not€the€strength€of€a€plaintiff's€proof.€Ð ˆØ ÐSuch€a€motion€admits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€and€material€avermentsÐ tÄ Ðcontained€in€the€complaint,€but€asserts€that€such€facts€do€notÐ `° Ðconstitute€a€cause€of€action.€€In€considering€a€motion€to€dismiss,Ð L œ Ðcourts€should€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,Ð 8 ˆ Ðtaking€all€allegations€of€fact€as€true,€and€deny€the€motion€unless€itÐ $ t Ðappears€that€the€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€herÐ  ` Ðclaim€that€would€entitle€her€to€relief.òò€€Cook€v.€Spinnaker's€ofÐ ü L  ÐRivergate,€Inc.óó,€878€S.W.2d€934,€938€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€consideringÐ è 8  Ðthis€appeal€from€the€trial€court's€grant€of€the€defendant's€motion€toÐ Ô$  Ðdismiss,€we€take€all€allegations€of€fact€in€the€plaintiff's€complaint€asÐ À  Ðtrue,€and€review€the€lower€courts'€legal€conclusions€òòde€novoóó€with€noÐ ¬ü  Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Owens€v.Ð ˜è  ÐTruckstops€of€Americaóó,€915€S.W.2d€420,€424€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCookóó,Ð „Ô  Ðòòsupraóó.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€first€address€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€none€of€the€Defendants€wereÐ H˜ Ðentitled€to€dismissal€on€their€claim€that€the€July€1998€service€of€process€was€ineffective€because€itÐ 4„ Ðwas€not€attempted€for€nine€months€after€the€original€Complaint€was€filed.€€Defendants€argue,€òòinterÐ  p Ðaliaóó,€they€were€entitled€to€dismissal€because€the€attorney€who€filed€the€lawsuit€instructed€the€courtÐ  \ Ðclerk€not€to€serve€process€and,€thus,€process€was€not€issued€ð ðforthwithðð€as€required€by€Rule€4.01.€Ð øH ÐWe€recently€addressed€this€very€issue€in€òòStempa€v.€Walgreen€Co.óó,€70€S.W.3d€39€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ä4 Ð2001),€which€involved€a€strikingly€similar€situation.€€In€òòStempaóó,€the€plaintiffs€filed€their€lawsuit€onÐ Ð  ÐMay€1,€1998.€€Immediately€after€filing€the€lawsuit,€counsel€for€the€plaintiffs€instructed€the€court€clerkÐ ¼  Ðnot€to€issue€any€summonses€ð ðyet.ðð€€No€summonses€were€issued€until€April€29,€1999.€€òòIdóó.€at€41.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€and€the€plaintiffs€appealed,€arguing€their€lawsuit€was€filed€timelyÐ ”ä Ðsince€the€summonses€were€reissued€within€one€year€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.€€The€applicableÐ €Ð Ðversion€of€Tenn€R.€Civ€P.€3€in€òòStempaóó€provided€that€an€action€was€ð ðcommencedðð€by€filing€aÐ l¼ Ðcomplaint€with€the€clerk€of€the€court.€€Rule€3€further€provided,€in€relevant€part,€that€ð ð[i]f€processÐ X ¨ Ðremains€unissued€for€30€days€or€is€not€served€or€is€not€returned׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€within€30€days€from€issuance,Ð D!” Ðregardless€of€the€reason,€the€plaintiff€cannot€rely€upon€the€original€commencement€to€toll€the€runningÐ 0"€  Ðof€a€statute€of€limitations€unless€the€plaintiff€continues€the€action€by€obtaining€issuance€of€newÐ #l! Ðprocess€within€one€year€from€issuance€of€the€previous€process€or,€if€no€process€is€issued,€within€oneÐ $X" Ðyear€of€the€filing€of€the€complaint.ðð€€òòStempaóó,€70€S.W.3d€at€42.€€Notwithstanding€the€ill„advisedÐ ô$D # Ðactions€of€the€attorney€in€instructing€the€court€clerk€not€to€issue€any€summonses,€we€concludedÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðbecause€Plaintiffs€had€process€issued€within€one€year€of€the€filing€of€the€Complaint,€they€are€entitledÐ Ì&"% Ðto€rely€on€the€original€filing€date€to€toll€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Accordingly,€theirÐ ¸'#& Ðlawsuit€was€not€subject€to€dismissal€on€that€basis.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€43.€Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€original€complaint€was€filed€on€October€31,€1997.€€ProcessÐ ° Ðwas€issued€but€was€not€served€within€30€days.€€According€to€Rule€3,€in€order€to€rely€upon€the€originalÐ œì Ðcommencement€to€toll€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€Plaintiffs€had€to€continue€the€actionÐ ˆØ Ðby€obtaining€issuance€of€new€process€ð ðwithin€one€year€from€issuance€of€the€previous€process.ðð€€ThisÐ tÄ Ðwas€unquestionably€accomplished€when€summonses€were€reissued€on€July€23,€1998.€€Applying€ourÐ `° Ðholding€in€òòStempaóó€to€the€facts€in€the€present€case,€we€conclude€the€Trial€Court€was€correct€in€denyingÐ L œ ÐDefendantsðð€motions€to€dismiss€insofar€as€they€claimed€they€were€entitled€to€dismissal€becauseÐ 8 ˆ Ðservice€of€process€was€not€attempted€until€nine€months€after€the€complaint€was€filed.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€address€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€the€July€1998€service€of€processÐ ü L  Ðwas€ineffective€because€Plaintiffs€failed€to€comply€with€Rule€4.03(2).€€Plaintiffs€argue€Grindstaff,Ð è 8  ÐReece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals€had€time€to€challenge€sufficiency€of€process€in€the€first€lawsuit€beforeÐ Ô$  Ðthe€nonsuit€was€entered€and€became€final€30€days€later.€€Since€they€did€not€avail€themselves€of€thisÐ À  Ðopportunity,€Plaintiffs€contend€they€are€barred€in€the€second€lawsuit€from€challenging€the€sufficiencyÐ ¬ü  Ðof€process€in€the€first€lawsuit.€€We€disagree.€€These€Defendants€were€not€served€initially€when€theÐ ˜è  Ðlawsuit€was€filed.€€The€certified€mail€service€was€not€received€until€July€28,€1998.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€That€very€sameÐ „Ô  Ðday€is€when€Plaintiffs€filed€the€Motion€to€Non„Suit€which€was€granted€ten€days€later.€€It€isÐ pÀ Ðnonsensical€to€require€a€defendant€who€was€just€served€with€process€to€file€a€motion€to€dismiss€whenÐ \¬ Ðthe€plaintiff€sought€to€have€the€claim€dismissed€on€the€exact€same€day€the€defendant€became€awareÐ H˜ Ðof€the€lawsuit.€€In€addition,€the€nonsuit€was€granted€before€these€three€Defendants€were€even€requiredÐ 4„ Ðto€respond€to€the€Complaint.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àRule€4.03(2)€provides€as€follows:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhen€process€is€served€by€mail,€the€original€summons,€endorsed€asÐ Ð  Ðbelow;€an€affidavit€of€the€person€making€service€setting€forth€theÐ ¼  Ðperson's€compliance€with€the€requirements€of€this€rule;€and,€the€returnÐ ¨ø Ðreceipt€òòshall€be€sent€to€and€filed€by€the€clerkóó.€€The€person€makingÐ ”ä Ðservice€shall€endorse€over€his€or€her€signature€on€the€originalÐ €Ð Ðsummons€the€date€of€mailing€a€certified€copy€of€the€summons€and€aÐ l¼ Ðcopy€of€the€complaint€to€the€defendant€and€the€date€of€receipt€ofÐ X ¨ Ðreturn€receipt€from€the€defendant.€€If€the€return€receipt€is€signed€byÐ D!” Ðthe€defendant,€or€by€a€person€designated€by€Rule€4.04€or€by€statute,Ð 0"€  Ðservice€on€the€defendant€shall€be€complete.€€If€not,€service€by€mailÐ #l! Ðmay€be€attempted€again€or€other€methods€authorized€by€these€rules€orÐ $X" Ðby€statute€may€be€used.€€(emphasis€added).Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€recently€addressed€whether€service€of€process€is€effective€when€no€affidavit€hasÐ Ì&"% Ðbeen€filed€in€accordance€with€Rule€4.03(2)€in€òòMetzger€v.€Heritage€Auto€Outlet,€LLCóó,€No.€E2000„Ð ¸'#& Ð02221„COA„R9„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€690€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€18,€2001)(no€Rule€11€app.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðfor€perm.€to€appeal€filed).€€In€òòMetzgeróó,€plaintiffs€filed€requests€for€admissions€along€with€theÐ ° Ðcomplaint.€€Defendant€did€not€respond€to€the€requests€for€admissions€within€the€time€permitted€byÐ œì Ðthe€rules,€so€the€trial€court€deemed€them€to€be€admitted.€€We€granted€a€Rule€9€interlocutory€appeal.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€issue€on€appeal€was€when€the€time€in€which€to€respond€to€the€requests€for€admissions€began€toÐ tÄ Ðrun€since€the€plaintiffs€did€not€file€an€affidavit€in€accordance€with€Rule€4.03(2).€€The€defendantÐ `° Ðcontended€ð ðthat€because€the€service€of€process€was€ineffective,€not€having€been€supported€by€anÐ L œ Ðaffidavit€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€4.03(2),€time€for€responding€to€the€request€did€not€begin€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðrun€until€the€date€[defendant]€filed€its€answer,€thus€making€a€general€appearance€in€the€case.ðð€Ð $ t ÐòòMetzgeróó,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€690€*€3.€€We€agreed€that€process€was€not€effective€because€noÐ  ` ÐRule€4.03(2)€affidavit€had€been€filed,€held€the€responses€were€timely,€reversed€the€trial€courtððsÐ ü L  Ðjudgment,€and€remanded€for€further€proceedings.€€òòMetzgeróó,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€690€*€1.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€file€a€Rule€4.03(2)€affidavit€rendered€the€serviceÐ À  Ðof€process€ineffective,€unless€this€defect€was€cured€when€the€affidavit€eventually€was€filed€over€oneÐ ¬ü  Ðyear€and€nine€months€later.€€Plaintiffs€argue€even€if€the€July€1998€process€would€have€beenÐ ˜è  Ðineffective€because€no€affidavit€was€filed,€this€defect€was€cured€when€the€affidavit€eventually€wasÐ „Ô  Ðfiled.€€As€set€forth€above,€the€certified€mail€was€received€on€July€28,€1998.€€The€affidavit€was€notÐ pÀ Ðfiled€until€May€5,€2000,€over€one€year€and€nine€months€later.€€By€the€time€the€affidavit€was€filed,Ð \¬ Ðthree€of€the€four€defendants€had€been€nonsuited€from€the€original€lawsuit.€€Although€Rule€4.03(2)Ð H˜ Ðdoes€not€set€forth€a€specific€time€in€which€the€affidavit€must€be€filed,€we€hold€the€requirements€ofÐ 4„ ÐRule€4.03(2)€must€be€met€within€a€reasonable€time€in€order€for€process€to€be€effective.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àA€similar€situation€was€addressed€by€this€Court€in€òòLasher€v.€Robertsonóó,€No.€03A01„Ð øH Ð9402„CV„00075,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€604€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€24,€1994)(perm.€to€appealÐ ä4 Ðdenied€Mar.€6,€1995).€€In€òòLasheróó,€the€plaintiff€filed€suit€against€two€defendants€on€April€8,€1991.€Ð Ð  ÐWhen€process€was€returned€unserved,€alias€summonses€were€issued.€€The€alias€summonses€wereÐ ¼  Ðreturned€to€the€court€on€May€23,€1991,€and€July€2,€1991.€€Neither€of€the€returns€complied€with€theÐ ¨ø Ðthen€existing€version€on€Rule€4.€€Apparently,€one€defendant€was€not€served€at€all€and€the€otherÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€was€not€served€within€thirty€days.€€òòLasheróó,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€604€at€**€1,€2.€€AfterÐ €Ð Ðplaintiff€sued€and€served€his€uninsured€motorist€carrier,€the€individual€defendants€filed€motions€toÐ l¼ Ðdismiss€based€on€insufficient€return€of€process.€€Plaintiff€responded€by€filing€an€affidavit€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðprocess€server€with€the€court€in€an€attempt€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€4.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€affidavitÐ D!” Ðwas€filed€on€July€8,€1993,€approximately€two€years€after€service€was€attempted.€€The€Trial€Court€heldÐ 0"€  Ðservice€of€process€was€insufficient€in€accordance€with€Rule€4,€and€granted€the€defendantsðð€motionÐ #l! Ðto€dismiss.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€dismissal,€stating:€Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Plaintiff€asserts€that€the€Trial€Court€could€have€exercisedÐ à%0!$ Ðits€discretion€to€allow€proof€of€the€service€of€process€to€be€amendedÐ Ì&"% Ðunless€it€clearly€appeared€that€material€prejudice€would€result€to€theÐ ° Ðsubstantial€rights€of€the€party€against€whom€the€process€issued.€€TheÐ œì ÐPlaintiff€is€correct€that€the€Court€is€empowered€to€utilize€its€discretionÐ ˆØ Ðin€these€matters.€€The€Plaintiff€neglects€to€recognize€that€the€Court€didÐ tÄ Ðexercise€its€discretion€rejecting€the€Plaintiff's€arguments.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌòòLasheróó,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€604€at€**€9,€10.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€Trial€Court€exercised€its€discretion€when€it€concluded€the€RuleÐ  ` Ð4.03(2)€affidavit€came€too€late.€€We€agree€with€the€Trial€Court,€and€hold€that€the€filing€of€the€RuleÐ ü L  Ð4.03(2)€affidavit€over€one€year€and€nine€months€after€service€was€attempted€and€a€voluntaryÐ è 8  Ðdismissal€taken€as€to€those€Defendants€is€not€within€a€reasonable€amount€of€time,€and€we€affirm€theÐ Ô$  ÐTrial€Courtððs€decision€in€this€regard.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€concluded€the€service€of€process€on€July€28,€1998,€was€ineffective€becauseÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€failure€to€comply€with€Rule€4.03(2),€we€now€must€decide€if€this€defect€mandates€dismissal€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€various€Defendants.€€Because€the€procedural€aspects€of€the€lawsuit€against€Crowder€are€differentÐ pÀ Ðfrom€those€of€the€other€Defendants,€we€will€discuss€her€lawsuit€separately.€€Plaintiffs€contendÐ \¬ ÐCrowder€waived€any€challenge€to€insufficiency€of€the€July€1998€process.€€Crowder€disagrees,Ð H˜ Ðclaiming€she€did€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€process€and,€even€if€she€did€not,€Plaintiffs€waived€thisÐ 4„ Ðargument€by€raising€it€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€we€point€out€it€was€not€until€July€28,€2000,€before€Crowder€filed€her€RuleÐ øH Ð12.02(5)€motion€to€dismiss€based€on€insufficient€return€of€the€July€1998€process.€€Plaintiffs€timelyÐ ä4 Ðresponded€to€this€motion€contending,€among€other€things,€the€motion€ð ðcomes€too€late.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€Crowder€has€had€every€opportunity€to€file€such€a€motion€and€failed€to€do€so.ðð€€AlthoughÐ ¼  Ðthis€argument€was€not€addressed€by€the€Trial€Court,€Plaintiffs€timely€raised€this€argument€in€the€TrialÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€and€it€was€not€waived.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àPrior€to€filing€the€Rule€12.02(5)€motion€just€discussed,€Crowder€had€filed€a€motionÐ l¼ Ðto€dismiss€asserting€she€never€was€served€with€initial€process.€€This€motion€was€filed€on€May€22,Ð X ¨ Ð1998,€and€challenged€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€issue€process€when€the€lawsuit€was€filed.€€We€have€alreadyÐ D!” Ðdetermined€that€Plaintiffs€complied€with€Rule€3€when€they€had€process€reissued€on€July€23,€1998.Ð 0"€  ÐTwo€months€after€Crowder€filed€her€first€motion€to€dismiss,€Plaintiffs€had€process€reissued€andÐ #l! Ðattempted€service€via€certified€mail,€but€failed€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€4.03(2)Ð $X" Ðregarding€return€of€service.€€Crowder€never€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€challenging€sufficiency€ofÐ ô$D # Ðservice€or€return€of€service€with€regard€to€the€process€reissued€in€July€1998.€€Her€first€motionÐ à%0!$ Ðchallenged€only€the€lack€of€service€when€the€complaint€originally€was€filed.€€Crowder€filed€herÐ Ì&"% ÐAnswer€on€August€25,€1998.€€In€her€Answer,€Crowder€did€not€claim€insufficient€service€and€returnÐ ° Ðof€process€as€to€the€process€that€was€reissued€and€returned€to€the€Trial€Court€in€July€1998.€€CrowderÐ œì Ðnever€raised€this€defense€until€she€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€on€July€5,€2000,€andÐ ˆØ Ðagain€in€her€Rule€12.02(5)€motion€to€dismiss€filed€on€July€28,€2000,€almost€2€years€after€the€filingÐ tÄ Ðof€her€Answer.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€Crowderððs€Rule€12.02(5)€motion€comes€too€late,€relying€in€large€partÐ 8 ˆ Ðon€òòGoodner€v.€Sassóó,€No.€E2000„00837„COA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€27€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $ t ÐJan.€16,€2001)(no€Rule€11€app.€for€perm.€to€appeal€filed).€€In€òòGoodneróó,€the€complaint€was€filed€onÐ  ` ÐMay€5,€1998,€but€the€defendant€was€not€served€until€July€9,€1998.€€An€alias€summons€was€issued€onÐ ü L  ÐJuly€16,€1998.€€The€defendant€filed€an€answer€to€the€original€complaint€on€July€28,€1998,€raising€asÐ è 8  Ðan€affirmative€defense€the€late€service€of€process.€€On€August€19,€1998,€the€defendant€was€servedÐ Ô$  Ðwith€the€alias€summons€and€complaint.€€After€the€parties€engaged€in€discovery€for€over€one€year,Ð À  Ðdefendants€then€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€claiming€the€alias€service€of€process€was€untimely.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€court€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€In€reversing€the€dismissal€of€the€complaint,€we€observed:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€specifically€addressÐ pÀ Ðthe€defense€of€insufficient€process.€€Rule€12.02€provides€that€thisÐ \¬ Ðdefense,€among€others,€ð ðshall€be€asserted€in€the€responsive€pleading,ððÐ H˜ Ðor€ð ðmay€at€the€option€of€the€pleader€be€made€by€motion€in€writing.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐRule€8€sets€out€the€general€rules€of€pleadings,€which€apply€to€theÐ  p Ðaffirmative€defenses,€including€insufficiency€of€process.€€Rule€8.03Ð  \ Ðrequires€that€ð ða€party€shall€set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€short€andÐ øH Ðplain€terms€relied€upon€to€constitute€.€.€.€an€avoidance€or€affirmativeÐ ä4 Ðdefense.ðð€€The€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€also€provide€for€the€waiverÐ Ð  Ðof€such€a€defense.€€Rule€12.08€states€that€ð ð[a]€party€waives€allÐ ¼  Ðdefenses€and€objections€which€the€party€does€not€present€either€byÐ ¨ø Ðmotion€as€hereinabove€provided,€or,€if€the€party€has€made€no€motion,Ð ”ä Ðin€the€partyððs€answer€or€reply.ðð€€Ð€Ð` x` x Ðà  àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAs€a€general€rule,€defects€in€process,€service€of€process,€andÐ X ¨ Ðreturn€of€service€may€be€waived.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ D!” ÐProcedure€expressly€state€that€where€the€issue€is€not€raised€properly,Ð 0"€  Ðthe€defendant€waives€the€objection.€€The€failure€of€a€defendant€toÐ #l! Ðchallenge€insufficiency€of€process€in€accordance€with€Rule€8.03€willÐ $X" Ðconstitute€a€waiver€of€the€matter€raised€in€a€motion.€€òòBarker€v.€HeekinÐ ô$D # ÐCan€Co.óó,€804€S.W.2d€442€(Tenn.€1991),€òòaccord:€óó€òòGoss€v.€Hutchinsóó,Ð à%0!$ Ð751€S.W.2d€821€(Tenn.€1988).€€€It€is€also€generally€held€that€aÐ Ì&"% Ðdefendant€may€also,€by€his€conduct,€be€estopped€to€object€that€properÐ ¸'#& Ðservice€was€not€made.€€See€generally,€72€C.J.S€òòProcessóó€ðð€99€(1987);Ð ¤(ô#' Ð108€ALR€Fed€887€(19**).€€Such€conduct€may€include€participating€inÐ )à$( Ðdiscovery,€òòMartin€v.€Millsóó,€138€F.R.D.€151,€153€(S.D.€Ga.€1991);Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòFederal€Deposit€Insurance€Corp.€v.€Densonóó,€139€F.R.D.€346,€348Ð h+¸&* Ð(S.D.€Miss.€1990),€in€addition€to€failing€to€raise€the€issue€ofÐ ° Ðinsufficiency€of€service€clearly€or€with€the€necessary€specificity.€€SeeÐ œì ÐòòBarkeróó€at€443,€and€òòGreen€v.€Mapco€Petroleum,€Incò ò.ó óóó,€133€F.R.D.€506Ð ˆØ Ð(W.D.€Tenn.€1990).ÐtÄ` x` x Ðà  àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àDefendant€adequately€responded€to€the€first€service€of€processÐ L œ Ðthat€was€served€late,€by€raising€the€issue€in€his€Answer€to€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐPlaintiffs'€Complaint.€€However,€due€to€this€defect€in€service,€theÐ $ t ÐPlaintiffs€issued€an€alias€process,€and€upon€service,€the€defendant€didÐ  ` Ðnot€timely€respond€to€that€summons€and€complaint.€€The€partiesÐ ü L  Ðengaged€in€discovery,€and€defendant€waited€until€one€year€had€passedÐ è 8  Ðbefore€filing€his€motion€for€summary€judgment,€raising€the€issue€of€Ð Ô$  Ðinsufficiency€of€process.€€We€hold€that€because€defendant€did€notÐ À  Ðtimely€and€adequately€raise€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€process,€andÐ ¬ü  Ðinstead€engaged€in€discovery€while€waiting€for€the€statute€ofÐ ˜è  Ðlimitations€to€run,€[he]€waived€this€defense€and€is€estopped€fromÐ „Ô  Ðraising€the€defense€in€his€motion.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌòòGoodneróó,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€27€at€**€2„5.€€We€went€on€to€note€that€the€answer€was€filed€afterÐ H˜ Ðthe€first€service€of€process,€but€before€the€second€service€of€process.€€Therefore,€the€answer€could€Ð 4„ Ðnot€have€addressed€the€second€service€of€process.€€òòIdóó.€at€*6.€€According€to€òòGoodneróó,€the€rules€requireÐ  p Ða€party€to€set€forth€affirmatively€facts€in€short€and€plain€terms€which€are€being€relied€upon€toÐ  \ Ðconstitute€an€avoidance€or€affirmative€defense.€€òòIdóó.€at€**6„7.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€This€CourtÐ øH Ðin€òòGoodneróó€then€concluded€if€ð ðthe€defendant€wished€to€object€to€the€second€service€of€process,€heÐ ä4 Ðwas€required€to€again€comply€with€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€he€failed€to€do.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*7.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€and€in€light€of€our€opinion€in€òòGoodneróó,€we€conclude€CrowderÐ ¨ø Ðfailed€to€raise€timely€any€objection€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€service€of€process€which€occurred€in€JulyÐ ”ä Ðof€1998.€€Crowderððs€motion€in€May€of€1998€could€not€have€addressed€the€service€attempted€in€JulyÐ €Ð Ðof€1998.€€If€Crowder€wished€to€object€to€the€July€1998€service,€she€was€required€to€comply€with€theÐ l¼ ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€By€waiting€to€make€her€motion€until€July€of€2000,€after€having€answeredÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Complaint€in€August€of€1998,€she€waived€the€affirmative€defense€of€insufficiency€of€service€andÐ D!” Ðreturn€of€process€as€to€the€July€1998€service.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissalÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€Complaint€against€Crowder€based€on€insufficient€return€of€service€of€process.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àUnlike€Crowder,€Defendants€Grindstaff,€Reece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals€timely€raisedÐ ô$D # Ðtheir€defense€to€the€July€1998€service€of€process.€€We€previously€concluded€the€Trial€Court€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðcorrect€when€it€held€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€comply€with€Rule€4.03(2)€rendered€the€July€1998€serviceÐ Ì&"% Ðof€process€defective.€€What€we€must€decide,€then,€is€whether€the€Trial€Court€properly€dismissed€theÐ ¸'#& ÐComplaint€against€these€Defendants€based€on€this€defective€service€of€process€resulting€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrunning€of€the€statute€of€limitations€before€Plaintiffs€filed€their€second€suit€against€these€threeÐ )à$( ÐDefendants.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àAfter€the€Trial€Court€entered€judgment€dismissing€Grindstaff,€Reece,€and€SycamoreÐ ° ÐShoals,€our€Supreme€Court€decided€òòFrye€v.€Blue€Ridge€Neuroscience€Center,€P.C.óó,€70€S.W.3d€710Ð œì Ð(Tenn.€2002).€€In€òòFryeóó,€the€issue€presented€to€the€Court€and€its€resolution€of€this€issue€are€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€process€issued€upon€a€second€complaintÐ `° Ðsatisfies€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€when€the€plaintiff€failedÐ L œ Ðto€serve€process€on€the€original€complaint.€€After€careful€consideration€of€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€and€applicable€case€law,€we€hold€that€a€plaintiffÐ $ t Ðmay€rely€upon€the€initial€filing€date€to€satisfy€a€statute€of€limitations€if€that€plaintiff,Ð  ` Ðhaving€failed€to€issue€or€serve€process€within€thirty€days€of€filing€the€complaint,Ð ü L  Ðcontinues€the€action€by€issuing€new€process€on€the€original€complaint€as€required€byÐ è 8  ÐRule€3.€€In€addition,€a€plaintiff€may€request€a€voluntary€dismissal€within€the€one„yearÐ Ô$  Ðtime€period€under€Rule€3,€without€having€served€process,€and€still€rely€on€the€originalÐ À  Ðdate€of€commencement€to€satisfy€a€statute€of€limitations€if€the€plaintiff€serves€a€copyÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€Notice€of€Voluntary€Dismissal€and€the€complaint€on€the€defendant€as€requiredÐ ˜è  Ðby€Rule€41.01.€€Because€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€failed€to€comply€with€either€RuleÐ „Ô  Ð3€or€Rule€41.01,€the€plaintiff€may€not€rely€on€the€filing€date€of€the€original€complaintÐ pÀ Ðfor€purposes€of€satisfying€the€applicable€one„year€statute€of€limitations.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌòòFryeóó,€70€S.W.3d€at€711.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€both€the€present€case€and€in€òòFryeóó,€there€was€ineffective€service€of€process€on€a€firstÐ  \ Ðcomplaint,€a€nonsuit,€then€the€filing€of€a€second€complaint.€€Based€on€these€facts€and€in€accordanceÐ øH Ðwith€òòFryeóó,€in€order€for€Plaintiffs€in€the€present€case€to€rely€on€the€original€commencement€of€the€first€Ð ä4 Ðlawsuit€to€toll€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations€as€to€these€three€Defendants,€one€of€two€thingsÐ Ð  Ðmust€have€occurred.€€First,€Plaintiffs€could€have€had€process€reissued€in€the€òòoriginalóó€lawsuit€inÐ ¼  Ðaccordance€with€Rule€3.€€Plaintiffs€never€effectively€served€these€three€Defendants€in€the€firstÐ ¨ø Ðlawsuit,€but€rather€nonsuited€the€case€and€had€process€issued€in€the€second€lawsuit.€€Thus,€in€orderÐ ”ä Ðto€rely€on€the€original€commencement,€in€accordance€with€òòFryeóó,€Plaintiffs€must€show€that€theyÐ €Ð Ðnonsuited€the€first€action€within€the€one€year€time€period€provided€in€Rule€3€òòandóó€they€served€a€copyÐ l¼ Ðof€the€Notice€of€Voluntary€Dismissal€and€the€Complaint€on€these€three€Defendants.€€The€recordÐ X ¨ Ðbefore€us€shows€Plaintiffs€nonsuited€the€first€action€within€the€one€year€period€under€Rule€3.€Ð D!” ÐUnfortunately,€we€cannot€determine€from€the€record€whether€Plaintiffs€served€both€a€copy€of€theÐ 0"€  ÐNotice€of€Voluntary€Dismissal€and€the€Complaint€on€Defendants€when€the€first€lawsuit€against€theseÐ #l! Ðthree€Defendants€was€nonsuited€as€required€by€òòFryeóó.€€This€issue€was€not€addressed€by€the€Trial€CourtÐ $X" Ðwhich€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€the€òòFryeóó€opinion€at€the€time€of€its€final€judgment.€€We,€therefore,Ð ô$D # Ðreverse€the€granting€of€the€motions€to€dismiss€of€Grindstaff,€Reece,€and€Sycamore€Shoals,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðremand€this€case€to€the€Trial€Court€for€a€determination€as€to€whether€Plaintiffs€complied€with€RuleÐ Ì&"% Ð41.01€in€accordance€with€òòFryeóó.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThere€are€two€other€issues€raised€on€appeal.€€First,€Grindstaff€argues€he€is€entitled€toÐ )à$( Ðdismissal€because€the€service€in€July€of€1998€was€ineffective€for€yet€another€reason,€namely€becauseÐ |*Ì%) Ðit€was€served€on€someone€other€than€Grindstaff€himself.€€€Second,€Sycamore€Shoals€urges€this€CourtÐ h+¸&* Ðto€affirm€dismissal€of€the€lawsuit€against€them€because€Plaintiffs€failed€to€file€a€Rule€4.03(2)Ð ° Ðaffidavit€in€the€second€lawsuit.€€Depending€upon€the€Trial€Courtððs€resolution€of€the€remanded€issue,Ð œì Ðthese€additional€matters€may€or€may€not€need€to€be€addressed.€€In€any€event,€these€issues€were€notÐ ˆØ Ðdecided€by€the€Trial€Court€due€to€its€resolution€of€the€other€issues.€€We,€therefore,€express€no€opinionÐ tÄ Ðon€these€issues€and€remand€them€and€any€other€remaining€issues€not€decided€by€the€Trial€Court€forÐ `° Ðfurther€consideration€by€the€Trial€Court,€as€necessary.Ð L œ ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€granting€Defendantsðð€motions€to€dismiss€is€reversed.€Ð ü L  ÐThis€case€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€further€proceedings€as€necessary€consistent€with€thisÐ è 8  Ðopinion.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€equally€to€the€four€Appellees,€Dr.€Richard€Reece,€Dr.€BrendaÐ Ô$  ÐCrowder,€Dr.€Robert€Grindstaff,€and€Sycamore€Shoals€Hospital,€Inc.Ð À  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________________Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ  \ Ð