WPCu. .d;f\ee$;%`U"PX (ڟSW>Gi>dV/|J\ì%rUnxμ?Ա'r>G߾N)J;A-{!44?Og17%]aF#}\={鱣*jE7?}8v҆IBV<D)p-1|<83iYxH>A5M9#;w鯻Oz,\Zg¾LZ_xRu[[D:hLVX U,M'5Ջj"ރ(&'<ȷ[7B˨x~PJp'}qjW\LUf!ܳE+$ 1>Qr,gX|YهjC CjY+ytwS['rO}c/$ Z҃ǁ0IFp*_`(n9l)w?U>r 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0o 0` 0N 0< 0$ 0  0 0 0 0 0p 0L 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0w 0U 00 0 ! 0<! 0T! 09" 0# 0~# 0K$ 0@$ 0 % 0% 0:Y&& 0(U>`) 1e) 7* 1i* 7z** 0*#N+UN- %]-Mc-(g-N-^ - 1u- 72.wD.4H.\. m^.\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLEILLELA satisfied Microsoft Office UserL0A satisfied Microsoft Office User .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  64 '4Heading 1XXX       XXX<:Default Para<  :Body Text I2 X X <MM :Body Text I1   5+` ` ` <DL!5  5+ 4 <DL!5  <AA :Body Text In X 5+4 44 <DL!5  5+ 4 <DL!56$$ 4Body Text       XXX:$$ 8Body Text 2    XXX: 8Body Text 3 87X 6Block Text X     44L     5+ 4 <DL!50> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number  * l)..      3X:XX3XX:XX3X:  _! !X!(  hXX:X:Xh+X:XXX:'$ !!$  'R  (*  X:XX+X:(2 l$ 15!..      3X:XX3XX:XX3X:  \  `&Times New Roman 35;AGMSY_1A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a., i. 35;CKQW]c2A.(a)(1)1.a.i.1.a.. i.#|x(5$..      3X:XX3XX:XX3X:HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular3XY) 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)9i)sM)rtyBar<U 15!..      3X:XX3XX:XX3X:  _       XX8:XXdd8)# XX:    #T  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHEMIDDLEDISTRICT  OFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLE#T݌ 2 Ќ  X:X      XX:$@     $  _Ceilia_ԀF.Hallv.MetropolitanGovernmentofDavidsonCounty, F Tennessee,etal$݌ R  Ќ   @  X:X DirectAppealfromtheDavidsonCountyChanceryCourt D  No.9823281ChancellorEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle * z ____________  ` No.M199901590_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober25,_2000_ ,  ____________       4 OnSeptember11,1997,Dr.BillM.Wise,DirectorofSchoolsforthe   MetropolitanNashvillePublicSchools,sentAppellantCeciliaF.Hall( Ms.Hall)a t  letterinformingherthathehadpresentedchargesagainsthertotheMetropolitanBoard Z ofPublicEducation( Board)recommendingherdismissal.Ms.Hallrequestedin @ writingahearingbeforetheBoardconcerningthechargesbroughtagainsther.The &v BoardconvenedforthehearingonMarch17,1998.Beforethehearingthetwoparties  \ reachedwhattheythoughtwasanadequatesettlement.However,theproposed B settlementagreementwasneversignedbyMs.Hall.Subsequently,theBoardterminated ( Ms.HallonJune1,1998.Ms.HallfiledaPetitionforWritofCertiorariwiththe  DavidsonCountyChanceryCourtseekingjudicialreviewpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.  495513.TheBoardfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgmentonthegroundsthatMs.  Hallwaivedherrighttohearingandwasproperlyterminated.Thetrialcourtgrantedthe p Boardsmotion.OnOctober28,1999,Ms.HallfiledaNoticeofAppealandthis V litigationresulted. < %   %   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtPartIII X Reversed% ; ݌ > Ќ  Ash,SpecialJudgeDonR.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJudge !  CRAWFORDandJudgeFARMER,joined. "  Brenda_Rhoton_ԀLittleandStephenC,_Crofford_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant, l$" CeciliaF.Hall. R% # _WM_.Michael_Safley_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,MetropolitanGovernment 'n"% ofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty,Tennessee,etal. (T#&  h-(, _X:XXX:      &    OPINION  Ԍ  Ќ  X:XXX:  ' ,B.4 <DL!XBI. |   X  ,     Ms.HallwasatenuredteacherwiththeMetropolitanNashvillePublicSchools. H OnSeptember11,1997,theDirectorofSchools,BillWise( Dr.Wise),notifiedMs. . ~ HallhewasrecommendingherterminationtotheBoard.TheBoardsentMs.Halla  d letterlistingthechargesagainstherandtherecommendationfordismissal.Thecharge  J againstMs.Hallwasinsubordination.Thisallegationwasbasedonherrepeatedfailure  0 tofollowBoardprocedureregardingcorporalpunishment.TheBoardschargeof    insubordinationstates: D݌    Ќ X  X      ` ThechargeofinsubordinationisjustifiedbyMs.Hallsrepeated x   ` Failuretocomplywithregulations,policiesand/ordirectivesofthe ^   ` MetropolitanBoardofPublicEducation,herassignedschoolsand D   ` Principalsconcerningtheimpositionofcorporalpunishment.Ms.Hall *z   ` hashadnumerousopportunitiestobringherconductintocompliance `  X E( <DL!4X!Ewithsaidregulations,policiesand/ordirectives,buthascontinuously F failedtodoso. ,  E+ 4 <DL!  X!E   4 OnOctober7,1997,Ms.Hallrequestedaformalhearingconcerningthecharges  filedagainstherbeforetheBoard.TheBoardmetonMarch17,1998,toconductthe  hearing.Asettlementconferencewasheldpriortothehearing,whereasbothparties t reachedanoralsettlementagreementregardingthechargespresentedagainstMs.Hall. Z ThesettlementagreementwasreachedinthepresenceofHall,Dr.Wise,andcounselfor @ bothoftheparties.Ms.Hallagreed,interalia,toforegotheBoardhearingandreturnto &v workasaclassifiedemployee.  \      4 ThesettlementagreementwascondensedtowritingbytheBoardscounsel,and ( senttoMs.HallandMs.Fontecchio( AttorneyFontecchio),Hallspreviousattorney.  Hallneversignedthepurportedsettlementagreement.Ms.Hallallegedthatthe  agreementdifferedsubstantiallyfromtheproposedsettlementagreedtoonMarch17,   1998.Thesettlementdocumentstated Ms.Hallwillresignorelsebeterminated p!  immediatelyforinsubordination,withoutrequestingaBoardhearing,ifsheeveragain V"! imposescorporalpunishmentonaMetropolitanPublicSchoolstudentwithoutfollowing <#" theMetropolitanBoardofPublicEducationspolicyconcerningtheimpositionof "$r# corporalpunishment. %X $      4 Thesettlementdiscussionincludedthefactthatthesettlementwasreachedinlieu &$"& ofthehearing.InadepositionadministeredbytheBoard,AttorneyFontecchioprovided ' #' thefollowing: (#(       , (039/ /""  ,E.4 <DL!X!E  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E2  Q  .3   `   DidtheyevercommunicatetoMs.Hall,theybeingcounselformetroorDr. l*%* Wise,thatifyoudontsignthesettlementagreementwellbesendingtoyou, R+&+ youwillbeforfeitingyourrighttoahearing? ݌ 8,', Ќ ' X!` ` X!'   XB+4 44 <DL!X!B -n(- / /""  ,XH.4 <DL!444X!H  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E#2  A  .3   `   Thediscussionwasthatbyenteringintotheagreementthatnightatthe  hearing,shewaswaivingherrighttoahearing,andinsteadwewereentering  intotheagreementthatnight.Therewasnodiscussionaboutwhatwasgoing | tohappenthenextday.Whateverwasgoingtohappenthenextday. b Whateverwasgoingtohappenthenextdaywassimplygoingtomemorialize H whatactuallyinfacttookplacethatnight.##݌ . ~ Ќ X*444X!` ` X!*   !  XE+` ` ` <DL!444X!E   H+ 4 <DL!` ` ` X!H!&  !&'݌̌ X'444X!X!'   !  XE+` ` ` <DL!444X!E   H+ 4 <DL!` ` ` X!H!*(  (R.,FontecchioDepo.,pp.3839).!*( )݌  J Ќ X'444X!X!'   E+4 44 <DL!444X!E/ /""  ,XH.4 <DL!444X!H  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E;*2  Q  .3   `   8Wasthereadiscussionabouttheabilitytowaiveorreleasecertainhearing    rights?;*+݌    Ќ X*444X!` ` X!*    XE+` ` ` <DL!444X!E   / /""  ,K.4 <DL!` ` ` X!K  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E -2  A  .3   `   Yes --݌ x  Ќ -` ` ` X!` ` X!-    XH+4 44 <DL!` ` ` X!H . (00, / /""  ,XH.4 <DL!444X!H  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E/2  Q  .3   `   Whatwasthediscussionasyou"thediscussionthatwasheldonthat?/0݌ D  Ќ X*444X!` ` X!*   E+4 44 <DL!444X!E , (00. / /""  ,XH.4 <DL!444X!H  ,E(` ` <DL!4X!E22  A  .3   `   Therewasadiscussionabout"Imtryingtoremember.Therewasa ` discussionamongallpresent,thatthisagreementwasacompromiseand F settlement,andthatitwasbeingenteredintobythepartiesinlieuofa , hearing,andthatbydoingthisMs.Hallwaswaivingherrighttoahearing.23݌  Ќ X*444X!` ` X!*   XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E(R.,FontecchioDepo.,p.69).   4 Ms.HallallegesthattherewasnocommunicationafterMarch17,1998,from Z MetroLegalortheBoard,informingherthatifshedidnotmakeasecondrequestfora @ hearing,shewouldnotreceivethehearingaspreviouslyrequested.OnMarch23,1998, &v adocumentmemorializingthesettlementagreementandaletterwassenttoAttorney  \ Fontecchio.TheletterprovidedinstructionsforMs.Halltoreviewandexecutethe B settlementagreement.Ms.Halldidnotsigntheproposedagreement.OnApril8,1998, ( theBoardsentanotherletterinquiringaboutthestatusoftheagreement.Thereafter,  AttorneyFontecchiosenttheBoardscounselonApril10,1998,aletterstating:     4 Uponreceiptofyourproposedsettlement,Idiscusseditwithmyclient, p!  " XB+4 44 <DL!X!B  "R:  andatthetimeshefeltsheneededsometimetothinkaboutallofthe V"! ramificationsofthiscasebeforeauthorizingmetosigntheagreement."R::݌ <#" Ќ X' X!444X!'  XB+4 44 <DL!X!BIwillletyouknowassoonasIhearsomethingfromher.Ifshechooses %X $ nottofollowthroughwiththeagreementwhichwereached,thenitismy %>!% assumptionthatshewillberetaininganotherattorneytorepresenther.I &$"& willletyouknowifandwhenIhavefurtherinformation. ' #'  X  E+ 4 <DL!444X!E 4 WithoutcommunicationfromeitherMs.HallorAttorneyFontecchio,onJune1, )$) 1998,Dr.WisesentMs.Hallnoticeofherterminationforfailuretosignthesettlement l*%* agreementregardingthechargesagainsther.TheletterfromDr.Wiseprovides: R+&+  4 Pursuanttoyourrequest,ahearingwasscheduledbeforetheMetropolitan -n(-  4 boardofPublicEducationconcerningthechargesthathavebeenbrought   4 againstyou.OnMarch17,1998,immediatelypriortothehearing,youand   4 yourattorneyrequestedanopportunitytomeetwithmetoseeifthematter |  4 hadbeenresolvedbyagreementandthatthehearingwouldnotbeheld. b  4 Subsequently,adocumentmemorializingthetermsoftheagreementwas . ~  4 preparedbytheMetropolitanDepartmentofLawandprovidedtoyourattorney.  d  4 However,youneversignedtheagreement,reportedtoworkinaccordancewith  J  4 termsoftheagreement,requestedanotherhearing,normadeanyotheroverture  0  4 totheSchoolSystem.AstheBoardhadpreviouslycertifiedthechargesas     4 providinggroundsfortermination,effectivetodayyouremploymentwiththe     4 MetropolitanPublicSchoolshasbeenterminated.    4 Subsequently,Ms.HallfiledaPetitionforWritofCertiorariinretaliationtothe ^  Boardsaction.Duringthependencyofthetrial,Ms.Hallsresponsetotheundisputed D  factsprovidedthefollowing: *z   XB+4 44 <DL!X!BPetitionerscounselwasoftheopinionthatthedocumentreflectedthetermsof F thesettlement,butneededclarificationononepoint.RESPONSE:Disputed.Ms. , Fontecchiotestifiedthatthedocumentreflectedsometermsofthesettlement  negotiations,andneededsomeclarifyinglanguage.Shefurthertestifiedthatthe  document,aswritten,wasinconsistentwithherunderstandingoftheverbal  agreementreached. t  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!EThetrialcourtgrantedSummaryJudgmentinfavoroftheBoard.Thisappealfollowed. @  ,E.4 <DL!X!EII.  \  X ,H+ 4 <DL!4X!HThefirstissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingthe ( Boardsummaryjudgmentbasedonagenuineissueofmaterialfact.Judicialreviewof  thetrialcourtsdecisiontograntsummaryjudgmentisdenovo,thus,nopresumptionof  correctnessisattachedtotheirjudgment. Warrenv.EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,   723(Tenn.1997).ThatreferenceleadstoTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03: judgmentsoughtshall p!  berenderedforthwithifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,and V"! admissionsonfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissue <#" astoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatterof "$r# law.Ifthecourtfindsthereisnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthemovingpartyis %X $ entitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,thecourtmustaffirmsummaryjudgmentheld %>!% bythetrialcourt. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.1993).Summaryjudgment &$"& mustbedeniedwhenthereisalegitimatedisputeastoanymaterialfact. Id. 󀀀 ' #'  (#( Whenevaluatingsummaryjudgmentmotions,theCourtin Byrd establishedthree )$) elementstohelpmakeadetermination: (1)whetherafactualdisputeexists;(2)whether l*%* thatfactismaterial;and(3)whetherthatfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial. Id. at214. R+&+ Thepartyseekingsummaryjudgmentcarriestheburdenofpersuadingthecourtthatno 8,', genuineissuesofmaterialfactexist. Id. at215.Furthermore,providedthemovingparty -n(- satisfiestheirburden,theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfacts  toshowthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfact. Id.    | Moreover,thecourtwillfindadisputedfactmaterialif itmustbedecidedin b ordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected. Id. at H 215.Additionally,whentheevidenceestablishesadisputedmaterialfact,thecourtmust . ~ thendeterminewhetherthefactrevealsagenuineissue. Id. Theappropriatetestto  d determineagenuineissueiswhetherareasonablejurycandecideafactinfavorofone  J partyortheother. Id. Further,thecourtmustviewtheevidenceinafavorablelightto  0 thenonmovingpartywhenmakingthisdetermination. Id.         Inthiscase,theheartofthelitigationhingesonMs.Hallsresponsetothe   undisputedfacts.(supra)Ms.Hallsresponsetotheundisputedfactsclearlyindicatethat x  AttorneyFontecchiotestifiedthatthewrittendocumentpresentedtoherwasinconsistent ^  withherunderstandingoftheverbalagreementtheyreachedonMarch17,1998.When D  AttorneyFontecchioopinedatthedepositionthattermsofthesettlement,albeitone *z  point,neededclarificationcreatedagenuineissueofmaterialfact.LiketheCourtin `  Byrd ,weareoftheopinionthatthesefactsarematerialbecausethey mustbedecided F inordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaim. ,   Furthermore,anenforceableoralcontractdoesnotexistwhentherearediffering  versionsofthecontractbecauseofalackofmutualassentbetweentheparties. Castelli  v.Lien ,910S.W.2d420,(Tenn.App.1995).Here,therecordreflectsthatbothparties t disagreeastothecircumstancessurroundingthesettlementagreementanditsterms. Z Therefore,weconcludethatagenuineissueofmaterialfactdoesexistandthetrialcourt @ erredingrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheBoard. &v  X ,E.4 <DL!X!EIII. (  ,H+ 4 <DL!4X!H XThesecondissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherthefirstrequestforahearing  remainedalivethroughoutthesubsequentproceedingleadingtoMs.Hallstermination.   T.C.A.495512providesprocedurestobefollowedconcerningthetermination. p!   X 4 AtenuredteachersrightsandobligationstoahearingsetforthinT.C.A.495 <#" 512provide,inpertinentpart: "$r# " XB+4 44 <DL!X!B  "]  (a)Ateacher,havingreceivednoticeofchargespursuantto495511,may, %>!% withinthirty(30)daysafterreceiptofnotice,demandahearingbeforetheboard, &$"& asfollows:"]^݌ ' #' Ќ X' X!444X!'  XB+4 44 <DL!X!B(1) Theteachershallgivewrittennoticetothesuperintendentofthe (#( teachersrequestforhearing (emphasisadded); )$) (2)Thesuperintendentshall,withinfive(5)daysafterreceiptofrequest,indicate l*%* theplaceofsuchhearingandsetaconvenientdate,whichdateshallnotbelater R+&+  thanthirty(30)daysfollowingreceiptofnoticedemandingahearing; 8,', (3)Theteachermayappearatthehearingandpleadtheteacherscauseinperson   orbycounsel;  (4)Theteachermaypresentwitnesses,andshallhavefullopportunitytopresent | theteacherscontentionsandtosupportthemwithevidenceandargument. The b teachershallbeallowedafull,complete,andimpartialhearingbeforethe H board,includingtherighttohaveevidencedeemedrelevantbytheteacher . ~ includedintherecordofthehearing,evenifobjectedtobytheperson  d conductingthehearing (emphasisadded);  J ****     XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E XItisawellestablishedruleoflawinTennesseethatareleasemustbeinwriting   andsignedbytheparties. Simpsonv.Moore ,65Tenn.371(Tenn.1873).Here,Ms. x  Halldidnotsigntheproposedagreementnordidshesignareleasewaivingherrightsto ^  ahearing.ThatbringsustotheintegralpartofouranalysisofwhetherMs.Hallis D  entitledtohaveherhearingreconvenedbecauseofthecircumstancessurroundingthe *z  settlement.TheBoardcontendsthatHallwaivedherrighttoahearingandthather ` terminationwasproper.WearenotpersuadedbytheBoardsargument. F  , Whilethestatutedoesnotspeaktothespecificcircumstancespresentedinthis  case,neverthelesstheburdenisontheteachertogivewrittennoticeforahearing.  AlthoughtheproposedsettlementalludedtothefactthatMs.Hallwouldforegoa  hearing,asettlementwasneverreached.Thewaiverwascontingentupontheparties t reachingasettlement.Itseemsinequitabletomaketherequestforahearingbein Z writing,butthesubsequentwaivernotbeinwriting. @  &v Thetrialcourtinmakingtheirdeterminationextrapolatedprinciplesand  \ effectivelyformedanewrequirementforasecondrequestforahearing.Accordingly, B thetrialcourtstated: (   & X   ! 44LX!!  X&Yk  Extrapolatingfromtheseprinciplestothecaseatbar,theCourt  concludesthatitwasthepetitionersobligation,aftershewaived   theoriginalhearing,toformallyrequest,inatimelymanner, p!  anotherhearingifshebelievedthatthereleasewasnotin V"! conformitywiththeagreementandthesettlementwasvoid.&Ykk݌ <#" Ќ X   ! X!44!  X "$r# Absentanyclearstatutorylanguage,thetrialcourtmaydeduceprinciplesoflaw %X $ ifnoauthorityexists,however,thestatuteprovidesthatonceanindividualmakesa %>!% formalrequestforhearing,thathearingmusttakeplace.Further,thestatuteissilentof &$"& anylanguagerequiringMs.HalltomakeasecondrequestforahearingbeforetheBoard. ' #' Inessence,thetrialcourthadnostatutoryauthoritytoinfertheseprinciplesandadd (#( additionalnonstatutoryrequirementsontenuredteachers. )$)  l*%* IV. R+&+   8,', WeconcludethatMs.Hallsinitialrequestforahearingremainedalive   throughouttheproceedings.Additionally,weareoftheopinionthatMs.Halldidnot  waiveherrighttoahearinganddoesnottherebyprecludeherfrompursuinghercase. | Further,wefindthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactpresentandthetrialcourterred b infindingsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheBoard.Inviewoftheforegoing,the H judgmentofthetrialcourtbelowisreversedandthecaseremandedforfurther . ~ proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsofthisappealareassessedagainstthe  d Board.  J   0         Ѐ    x     <      D      L   !!H!   <      D JudgeDonR.Ash D   *z   X