WPC :`/_ΡQAg39şBHjWuŬb֡Q8؁ƹ)>rf3ǿҔ‚œc<ʚ%?;!whM' {$oJ#?*1\ fsJGi}ET&x# ';l%_:eXYPM)S~Rbq^Le!,YYF %ʙrT m>X}K\r!cw{Z7:r`L`7cT\ KfW̥l 䃆k[ Ym=E<$ ǖN1cًs!ȥQ@"M}  vuz=%IΙc`!z//CzM-(<#b#\ % ^ # 0/ U N w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ' 1NtUNv 0cE' 1)}( 1U> 1u 72b 0 B 0 D3t D- 0K ASr 08 0D A HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0bK)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(bk1 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.  R$      1     _A drawisapartialpaymentforworkcompletedinaconstructioncontract.Inthiscase,a drawrequest  wouldbesubmittedtotheChurch.TheChurchsrepresentativewouldcheckandapproveallorpartofthe draw x requestandthoseapprovedfundswouldbepaidtoGCCA. s R$      2     _Whilethereisdisagreementbetweenthepartiesovertheexactamountowedunderboththefirstandsecond   drawrequest,neitherpartydisputesthatatleastsomeamountwasowedtoGCCAunderthesecond draw.  R$      3     _Afterthisappealwasfiled,GCCAaskedthiscourttograntapartialdismissalonthebasisthattheappealwas  nottimelyfiledbecausethetrialcourthadgrantedGCCAsMotiontoStrike.ItwasGCCAscontentionthatthe x grantingofthismotionnullifiedtheChurchsMotiontoAlter/NewTrialand,assuch,noappealwasfiledwithinthe @ required30daysaftertheentryoffinaljudgment.Thiscourtdeniedtherequeststatingthatthetimelyfilingofa X motion,regardlessofitsultimatedispositioninthetrialcourt,tollsthe30dayperioduntilthatmotionisdecided.  R$      4     _TheAppellantpresentedseveraladditionalissuesfordecisionbythiscourt,includingrequestingseveral  interpretationsofthecontractlanguage.However,theseissueshavenobearingonourdecisioninthiscase,andwe x declinetoaddressthem.\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  D d(|3 $ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _  d8#XXdd8  @ 7dINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#d7 #Ԉ ,   September19,2000Session X X#Xd #dXX##GENERALCONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTORSASSOCIATION,INC.  ` d/b/aGENERALCONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTORASSOCIATES,INC. ( x v.GREATERSAINTTHOMASBAPTISTCHURCH,etal.X#Xd  @  @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty H  @@No.1055792Floyd_Peete_,Chancellor 8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A X  @@TTNo.W199900829_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober9,_2000_ W  AV) ` dE<` A 7    XlEXXX#Thisappealarisesfromabuildingcontractdispute.OwnerandtheGeneralContractordisagreed 6 onseveralissuesofcostandconstruction.Whenthedisputecouldnotbesettled,thepartiessued " eachotherforbreachofcontract.TheGeneralContractorwasawardedajudgmentandtheOwner  filedaMotiontoAlterorAmend/NewTrialnotsignedbytheOwnerstrialattorney.TheGeneral  ContractorfiledaMotiontoStriketheOwnersmotion,statingthatanattorneyofrecordhadnot  filedthemotionwithintherequiredperiod.UponreceivingacopyoftheGeneralContractors  motion,theOwnerstriallawyersignedthemotion.Nevertheless,thetrialcourtgrantedtheMotion n toStrike.Onappeal,Ownerarguedthatanundisputedattorneyofrecordhadsignedthemotion Z aspermittedundertheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Weagreethatthetrialcourtsgranting F oftheMotiontoStrikewasinerrorandremandthiscaseforconsiderationoftheOwnersMotion 2 toAlterorAmend/NewTrial. n   #X#XXXlE{##dXX##X#Xdo Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversed;and J Remanded   :   #dX# #X#X.dDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S. "! andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. # " JamesH._Kee_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,GreaterSaintThomasBaptistChurch. % $ ReginaC.MorrisonandJamesW.Hodges,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,General z'"& ConstructionContractorsAssociation,Inc.d/b/aGeneralConstructionContractorAssociates,Inc. j(#'   OPINION #dXX# #X#Xd J*%) #dXX##X#XdXlEXXX#     InMay,1994,GeneralConstructionContractorsAssociation,Inc.,d/b/aGeneral *,z'+ ConstructionContractorAssociates,Inc.(_GCCA_)enteredintoacontractwithGreaterSaint -f(, ThomasBaptistChurch(Church)toconstructachurchfacilityinMemphis,Tennessee.  ConstructionbeganonthisfacilityinAugustofthesameyear.Problemsduringtheconstruction  increasedthecostofthejob,andadisputearosebetween_GCCA_ԀandtheChurchoverwhowas  responsibleforpayingtheseincreases.Thedisputewassettledwithaverbalagreementbythe t Churchtopaypartoftheincreasedcosts.Toavoidfutureproblems,itwasdecidedthatall ` remainingcorrespondencebetween_GCCA_ԀandtheChurchshouldpassthroughasurety L  company.Thiscompanywouldalsopayanybillsrelatedtothesitework,andreceive_GCCA_s 8  invoicesandpaythem.Alsoduringthismeeting,Churchapprovedthepaymentofthefirst $ t  drawtothesuretycompany.  #  1      ׀  `   InmidOctober,_GCCA_Ԁceasedworkonthesitestatingthatadditionsorcorrectionstothe  8  plansandspecificationswouldbeneededbeforeconstructioncouldcontinue.Shortlythereafter, $  _GCCA_Ԁsubmittedasecond drawapplicationtothesuretycompany,includingsomeitems   includedfromthefirst drawrequest,butnotyetpaid.TheChurchdidtakestepstocheckthe   second drawrequest,thoughitneverpaidanymoneyonit.  #  2      ׀InNovember,anattorneyforthe   Churchrequested,pursuanttoitscontractrights,copiesofdocumentsrelatedto_GCCA_s   constructionwork._GCCA_Ԁrespondedwithaletterstatingitwasowedseveralthousanddollars p bytheChurchthroughitsfailuretopayits drawrequestsandthat [_GCCA_Ԁwould]not \ continuetodoalloftheworkandnotbecompensated._GCCA_Ԁthenreferredallfuture H correspondencefromtheChurchtoitslegalcounsel.InDecember,Churchnotified_GCCA_Ԁit 4 wasterminatingthecontractfor nonperformance._GCCA_Ԁthenfiledamechanicslientoattach  p theproperty.Itlaterfiledthisactionseekingnotonlythelienamount,butlostprofits,and  \ additionaldamages.TheChurchfiledacounterclaimagainst_GCCA_Ԁallegingbreachofcontract H andseekingdamage. 4   Thetrialcourt,sittingwithoutajury,foundthattheChurch,andnot_GCCA_,had   breachedthecontractbetweentheparties.Assuch,theChurchwasdeniedreliefand_GCCA_Ԁwas  granteddamages.TheChurch,throughattorneyJames_Kee_,filedaMotiontoAlteror  Amend/NewTrialonDecember30,1998.ItisapparentfromtherecordthattheChurch  intendedMr._Kee_ԀtohandletheposttrialprocessandreplaceMr.RandyGardner,theChurchs l trialattorney. X    OnJanuary14,1999,_GCCA_ԀfiledaMotiontoStriketheChurchsposttrialmotionon 0"  thebasisthatan attorneyofrecordhadnotproperlyfiledtheChurchsmotionwithinthe #l! required30dayperiodafterthefinaljudgmentinthecase.Afterreceivingacopyof_GCCA_s $X" motion,Mr.GardneraddedhissignaturealongsideMr._Kee_sontheChurchsMotiontoAlter $D # orAmend/NewTrial.Uponthetrialcourtsconsiderationofthisissue,thecourtgranted %0!$ _GCCA_sMotiontoStriketheChurchsmotion.TheChurchthenfiledaMotionto  Reconsiderwiththetrialcourt,askingittoreviewitsdecisiontogrant_GCCA_sMotionto  Strike.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtdeniedtheMotiontoReconsiderandreaffirmedthe  MotiontoStrike.Thisappealfollowed.  #  3       t     Uponourexaminationofthepresentedissues,wefindonlyoneofconsequenceinthis L  appeal.x  #  4       8   (5h83  8 `  ` x` x  (Uf88"3"    34&2Uf  I  .3  0 `   Didthetrialcourterrinitsrulinggranting_GCCA_sMotiontoStrikeof  ` ChurchsMotiontoAlter/NewTrial?34&m&݌ L ` (#` (# Ќ    SignatureIssue $      Weonlyaddressinthisopinionthetrialcourtsdecisiongranting_GCCA_sMotionto   StriketheChurchsMotiontoAlter/NewTrial.InitsMotiontoStrike,_GCCA_ԀstatedthatMr.   _Kee_Ԁwasnotan attorneyofrecordwhenhefiledtheChurchsMotiontoAlterorAmend/New   Trial.Assuch,_GCCA_ԀarguedthattheChurchsmotiondid notcomplywiththeTennessee p requirementsregardingsignatureandcertificationofacounselofrecord,andshouldbe \ stricken.ThefailurebytheChurchtocomplywiththeserequirementswastheonlybasisof H _GCCA_smotion.[_GCCA_ԀMotiontoStrike]_GCCA_ԀdidnotaddressMr.Gardnerssubsequent 4 signatureonthemotion.ThetrialcourtagreedthattheChurchsMotiontoAlteror  p Amend/NewTrialshouldbestrickenandgranted_GCCA_smotion.  \   Uponreviewoftherecord,wefindthatMr._Kee_sstatusinthisissueisirrelevant.There 4 isnodisputethatMr.GardnerwasanattorneyofrecordoftheChurch.Inaddition,thereisno   disputethatMr.Gardneraddedhissignaturetothemotionuponbeingnotifiedof_GCCA_s   MotiontoStrike.Rule11.01oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurestates:  #X#XXXlE#XlEXXX#8   ` Everypleading,writtenmotion,andotherpapershallbesignedbyatleast  oneattorneyofrecordintheattorney'sindividualname,or,ifthepartyisnot H representedbyanattorney,shallbesignedbytheparty.Eachpapershallstatethe  ` signer'saddressandtelephonenumber,andTennesseeBoardofProfessional  ( Responsibilitynumber,ifany.Exceptwhenotherwisespecificallyprovidedby !   ruleorstatute,pleadingsneednotbeverifiedoraccompaniedbyaffidavit.An h"! unsignedpapershallbestricken unlessomissionofthesignatureiscorrected  promptlyafterbeingcalledtotheattentionoftheattorneyorparty.x    Tenn.R.Civ.P.11.01(emphasisadded).Mr.Gardnerpromptlyaddedhissignaturetothe X ChurchsMotiontoAlterorAmend/NewTrialassoonashewasnotifiedofhisfailuretosign   it.Assuch,itiscleartothiscourtthatMr.Gardner,asanundisputedattorneyofrecord,did  properlysigntheChurchsmotionaspermittedunderRule11.01.Assuch,thetrialcourterred `  ingranting_GCCA_sMotiontoStriketheChurchsMotiontoAlterorAmend/NewTrial. ( x #X#XXXlEV/#XlEXXX#  Ourdecisioninthisissuebringsarelatedquestionbeforethecourt.Asthetrialcourt  ,  granted_GCCA_sMotiontoStriketheChurchsMotiontoAlterorAmend/NewTrial,itnever    consideredtheChurchsmotiononitsmerits.Rule4(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellate    Procedurestates:   8   ` #X#XXXlE5#XlEXXX#(b)TerminationbySpecifiedTimelyMotionsinCivilActions. Ina x  civilaction,ifatimelymotionundertheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureis h  filedinthetrialcourtbyanyparty:(1)underRule50.02forjudgmentin T  accordancewithamotionforadirectedverdict;(2)underRule52.02toamendor @ makeadditionalfindingsoffact,whetherornotanalterationofthejudgment ,| wouldberequiredifthemotionisgranted;(3)underRule59.02foranewtrial; h (4)underRule59.04toalteroramendthejudgment; thetimeforappealforall T partiesshallrunfromtheentryoftheorderdenyinganewtrialorgrantingor @ denyinganyothersuchmotion.#X#XXXlE7#XlEXXX#(    Tenn.R.App.P.4(b)(emphasisadded).Itisclearuponreviewofthisrulethatanappealmay  onlybemadetothiscourtupon theentryoftheorderdenyinganewtrialorgrantingordenying  anyothersuchmotion. Id.;seealsoEvansv.Wilson ,776S.W.2d939(Tenn.1989).  Nosuch  orderhasbeenenteredinthiscase.Assuch,thiscourthasnochoicebuttoremandthiscaseto p thetrialcourtforitsrulingontheChurchsoriginalMotiontoAlterorAmend/NewTrial. \   Conclusion 4     Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforits  !\  consideration oftheChurchsMotiontoAlterorAmend/NewTrial.Followingarulingbythe !H! trialcourtonthemotion,eitherpartywouldhavetheoptiontoperfectatimelyappeal.Costson "8" appealaretaxedagainsttheappellee,GeneralConstructionContractorsAssociation,Inc.,and #$# theirsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. $ $ #X#XXXlE*;#   `     h     ___________________________________ t(#(    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE