WPC K2 ~/|~/!6;#~";)/Δ[@#VBB-bޜ DH&*QU* V͕FJEO.%pǎ@u忳`NTE&WNyFuUFw$kh=m\vSJii$40e@SBOaݣj=⌙j\Re OQCEftfnCm{KܖV.Ug|LWr   #S9X#XX.S9D.Michael_Swiney_,J.,concurringanddissenting (x f #S9XX#XXS9     ` Irespectfullydissent,inpart,fromthemajoritysOpinion.Iconcurinthemajoritys ( OpinionthattheTrialCourtproperlygrantedtheDefendantssummaryjudgmentastoanyclaimof  DwightHuntbaseduponhislackofstandingorcapacity.However,Idissentfromthemajoritys  Opinionthattheaffidavitof_Ervin_ԀwasinsufficientunderTenn.R.Civ.P.17.01tosupplythe  requisiteratificationtoallowthismattertoproceedwith_Ervin_ԀasthePlaintiff.Idisagreewiththe  majorityasIbelieveTenn.R.Civ.P.17.01isdesigned#S9XXh#XXS9forexactlythistypesituation.Themajority t  saysthatPlaintiffisan interloperwithnoconnectiontotherightsassertedinthecomplaint.I `!  agreewiththatstatement,butIthinkPlaintiffhereisnodifferentfromanyotherplaintiffwhoisnot L"! arealpartyininterestyetcommencesalawsuit.Ibelieve,byitsownterms,thatTenn.R.Civ.P. 8#" 17.01isapplicabletoasituationsuchasthisonewheretheoriginalplaintiffisnottherealpartyin $$t# interestbecausehehasnorightinthecauseofactionassertedinthecomplaint. %` $    ` IbelievetheoperativelanguageinTenn.R.Civ.P.17.01isasfollows: &8"& 8  8`   Noactionshallbedismissedonthegroundthatitisnotprosecuted ($( inthenameoftherealpartyininterestuntilareasonabletimehas )$) beenallowedafterobjectionforratificationorcommencementby,or *%* joinderorsubstitutionof,therealpartyininterest;andsuch +&+  ratification,joinder,orsubstitutionshallhavethesameeffectasifthe p,', _actionhadbeencommencedinthenameoftherealpartyininterest.  (Emphasisadded.)` x` x       ` Rule17.01,byitsownterms,makesadistinctionbetween ratificationand joinder t orsubstitution.Ervinsaffidavitspecificallystatesthatheratifiesthissuitand confirm[s],from ` thedateoffilingoftheComplaintforward,myjoininginthislawsuit.Sincetheterm ratification L  ispartofRule17.01,Ibelieveithasmeaningdistinctfrom joinder,orsubstitution.Ibelievethis 8  liberalinterpretationisappropriateastherehasbeennoprejudicetotheDefendantswho hadnotice, $ t fromthebeginningofthesuit,ofthenatureofthecauseofactionandthatitwasbeingpressed  ` against...[them].Chapmanv.King,572S.W.2d925,928(Tenn.1978).  L     ` Anadditionalbasisformydissentisthat,atleastaccordingtotheStatementof $  Evidencecontainedintherecord,HuntorallyaskedtheCourttoamendthepleadingspursuantto   Rule17tojoinorsubstituteanynecessaryparties.ApparentlytheTrialCourtdeniedthisoral   motion.ThemajorityacknowledgesthatTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02(1)permitsapartytoraisemotions   orallyatahearingortrial.Infact,themajorityhasdeterminedthatDefendantCarterCountydidnot   waivethedefenseofcapacityorthattheactionwasnotbroughtinthenameoftherealpartiesin p interestbecause CarterCountyraisedthosedefensesorallyattrial.Idonotdisagreewiththe \ majoritythatCarterCountyraisedthosedefensesorally,althoughatahearingonthemotionsrather H thanattrial.Whileitwasnotraised,IalsonotethatTenn.R.Civ.P.Rule56requiresthatamotion 4 forsummaryjudgment,whichiswhattheseDefendantsmotionswere, shallbeservedatleast  p thirty(30)daysbeforethetimefixedforthehearing.Clearly,ifCarterCountyorallyraisedthose  \ defensesatthemotionhearing,itwasntdonethirty(30)daysbeforethehearing.Theother H Defendant,Franklin,however,diddoso. 4    ` Givenallthis,IfindtroublingthefactthatapparentlytheTrialCourtallowedCarter   Countysoralmotionforsummaryjudgmentatthehearingonthemotionsandgrantedthatmotion  whileatthesametimedenyingPlaintiffsoralmotiontobeallowedtojoinandorsubstituteany  necessaryparties.Ibelievethiswascontrarytoaliberalinterpretation,asisappropriate,ofTenn.  R.Civ.P.17.01,andwasreversibleerror.Chapman,572S.W.2dat928. l    ` Forallofthesereasons,Iwouldholdthatthelawsuitwascorrectlydismissedasto D! Huntsclaims,butthatthesuitshouldbeallowedtocontinuewithErvinjoinedorsubstitutedasthe 0"  Plaintiff. #l!    `     h     ___________________________________ )$(    `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE