WPCR g1}T Cݒ旰@ NV/x`y)~ }ߋ ʌ եCNߒуB= ,$0QE>lfI!dw z#D% tgk#u~)ڠPgmatY9 !^/x ]=Ӹ_nЀ":R*G 'T,Cg'(,,Y)LC D,0 ca_N{'!_6y)]Ou$fxtB%X"FrFƫ(5^_\M͔eXIcg4L7f$ATWt&l SV#@㌦C%X}9PZr&8XeZDŽ330Y!_X K;_tTW c_djRJlf%y}]<ȑ*cf~T /Keb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;==EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 0Dc AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0hy<) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular ;):i+00 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(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   - -(|G2!$ !.8Mudd8         0  X X d(|3$ !.8Mudd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Mudd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Mudd8     _Mu8 XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  @  !August2000Session $ X XMu #MuXX ٝ#  WAYNED.JOINER,SR.,v.METROPOLITANGOVERNMENTX XMu  " @   DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  " @YYNo.98C2708;98C2709;98C2710and98C2711Hon.Carol_Soloman_,CircuitJudge   @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @. . No.M200000413_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember28,_2000_Ԉ }  AV) ` dE<T` A U   TheTrialCourtenteredconsentJudgmentoverobjectionofdefendant.WevacateJudgmentand < remand. (x #MuXX %#X XMu Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated.  P HerschelPickensFranks#MuX ـ#X X.Mu,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cain,#MuX D#X X.MuJ., ( andPatriciaJ.Cottrell,#MuX #X X.MuԀJ.,joined.  WayneD.Joiner,Sr.,_Hendersonville_,Tennessee,prose.  DennisW.Stanford,Nashville,Tennessee,forappellee,MetropolitanGovernment. t @66' OPINION #MuXX I#X XMuԈ $ t #MuXX ٫#X XMu X XXX    ` TheTrialJudgerespondingtoaMotionforOrderAdoptingSettlementfiledbythe "8" NashvilleMetropolitanGovernment(hereinaftercalled plaintiff),enteredjudgmentbasedupon #$# theaffidavitoftheCodesInspector,whichoutlinedanagreedsettlementbetweenplaintiffand $ $ defendant,WayneD.Joiner,Sr.,(hereinaftercalled Joiner).Joinerhasappealed. % %    ` Bywayofbackground,theactionagainstJoinerwasontheCourtsdocket,and '"' accordingtotheInspectorsaffidavit,whilewaiting,thepartiesagreedtosettletheirdisputeson p(#( termssetforthinhisaffidavit.JoinerfiledaswornresponsetotheMotion,statinghedidnotagree \)$) tothetermssetforthintheproposedOrder,anddisputedthepresenceoftheInspector,insistingonly H*%* theplaintiffsattorneyandJoinerwerepresent. 4+&+    ` Itappearsfromtherecordthatthepartiesbelievedtheyhadreachedanagreementon  -\(- _thedaytheyappearedfortrial,becausetheydidnotwaitfortheirturnincourt,andmadeno  announcementtotheCourt.Thisisborneoutbecausethereaftertheysentlettersbackandforth  discussingthetermsofthesettlement.Joinerdidnotconsenttothetermsassetforthinplaintiffs  proposedOrder,andwhenjudgmentwasentered,thiswasmadeknowntotheTrialJudge. t    ` ThisdisputeisgovernedbytheSupremeCourtsdecisioninHarbourv.Brown,732 L  S.W.2d598(Tenn.1987),wheretheCourtheldthataconsentjudgmentcouldnotbeenteredwhere 8  onepartyhadwithdrawnhisconsentandcommunicatedthatfacttothetrialcourt.InHarbour,the $ t partiesreachedasettlementagreementonthedateoftrialandannouncedtothecourtthatsuchhad  ` occurredandthattheywouldsubmitanorderofcompromiseanddismissal.Subsequently,theTrial  L  Courtwasmadeawarethatonepartyhadwithdrawnhisconsent,buttheTrialJudgeenteredanorder  8  dismissingthecasewithprejudice. $       ` Onappeal,theSupremeCourtheldthistobeerror,stating:   8      0  0` (#(#Thepowerofthecourttorenderajudgmentbyconsentisdependentontheexistence   oftheconsentofthepartiesatthetimetheagreementreceivesthesanctionofthe p courtorisrenderedandpromulgatedasajudgment.\` (#` (# Id.at599(quoting49C.J.S.Judgments174(b)).TheruleinHarbourhasbeenfollowedin 4 numerouscases,includingEnvironmentalAbatement,Inc.v.AstrumR.E.Corp.,2000WL225581  p (Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.29,2000),andDenbowv.Denbow,1996WL243894(Tenn.Ct.App.May9,  \ 1996). H    ` Inthiscaseitisclearthepartiesbelievedthathadsettledthematter,butdidnot   announcethetermsoftheirsettlementtotheCourt,orotherwisereducethosetermstowritingatthe   timeofthesettlement.Itisalsoclearfromtheletterswhichwereexchangedlater,thattheparties  werefarapartintermsofanyagreement.BaseduponHarbouranditsprogeny,itwaserrorforthe  TrialCourttoenteranOrderadoptingthesettlementagreementproposedbytheplaintiff,whenthe  CourthadknowledgethatJoinerdidnotandwouldnotagreetothoseterms. l    ` Accordingly,wevacatetheJudgmentandremandthecaseforfurtherproceedings D! inaccordancewiththisOpinion. 0"     ` Joinerhasraisedotherconcernsinhis briefregardingthejudicialprocessandhow $X" thiscasehasprogressed,butathoroughreviewoftherecordindicatesthatthoseconcernsare $D # withoutmerit. %0!$    ` ThecauseisremandedwiththecostoftheappealassessedtoMetropolitan '#& GovernmentofNashville. (#'   #X XX X ) ##MuXX #X XMu   `     h     _________________________ |*%)    `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J. h+&*