WPC7 y4ȍCc848H;?J3iyܠD DM^),伇@ :[Y (d(z̯vE͕Z Y|nE:7$l@hnVXI}(tގgԌ4̐MaArRhO|gnڴȷq|}4)ҁ`,$_TbIC2U).W2"h$+O^<0u;3IzA&qK~<3\{4C QQ{BQζgN:اĹI2uY lh yIO*X(l ,|3bOx1A'+bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m 3 0D G    _Ng#iiE************************b,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 04444 B 0< D3 D- 0K@@ AS 0 0DH A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    {2+ uV)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.wptU ) R$      1    _ ` WehaveofttimessuspendedruleswhenitappearsaRule3appealisnotproperbecausethejudgment  atthetriallevelwasnotafinalone.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 HP LaserJet 4050 Seri0- -(|G2$ !.8*dd8         0   d(|3q$ !.8*dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3q$ !.8*dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8*dd8     _  *8kXXdd8  @ )*INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#*) #Ԉ &   July12,2001Session L XkX* #*XXk#JAMESMETZGER,etal.v.HERITAGEAUTOOUTLET,LLC,etal.XkX*  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.OOC281W.NeilThomas,III,Judge  6 FILED_SEPTMEBER_Ԁ18,_2001_    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002221COAR9CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     InthisRule9interlocutoryappealHeritageAutoOutlet,LLC,insiststheTrialCourthadauthority x  toenlargethetimeforittofileresponsestorequestforadmissions,andonappealthatbecause d serviceofprocesswasdefective,itsresponsesweretimely.Weholdtheresponsesweretimelyand P remandthecaseforfurtherproceedings. <  Tenn.R.App.P.9InterlocutoryAppeal;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated; d CauseRemanded  P   #*Xk~#XkX.*HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand ( D.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined.  PhillipC.Lawrence,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,HeritageAutoOutlet,LLC  WilliamJ.Brown,Cleveland,Tennessee,fortheAppellees,JamesMetzgerandCarlaMetzger t % OPINION #*XXkT#XkX* $"t! #*XXkK #  XkX*  InthisRule9InterlocutoryAppeal,HeritageAutoOutlet,LLC,contendstheTrialJudgewas #L# inerrorinhisdeterminationthatcertainrequestsforadmissionsmustbetakenastruebecauseinthe $8 $ TrialJudgesopiniontheresponseofHeritagewasnottimely,andthathehadnoauthoritytoenlarge %$!% thetimeforfilingsuchresponses. &"&   Heritagesissues,interalia,contendthatbecausetheserviceofprocesswasineffective, (#( filingofitsresponsestotherequestforadmissionsdidnotbegintorununtilitmadeageneral )$) appearancebyfilingananswer.Heritagealsocontendsthatevenifitsresponsewasuntimelythe p*%* TrialJudgesdeterminationwhethertoenlargethetimeaddressesitselftohissounddiscretion. \+&+   Wewillnowstatethepertinentfactsnecessaryforourresolutionofthisappeal. 4-(- Ї  OnFebruary2,2000,asummonswasissuedinthiscasebytheCircuitCourtClerkof  HamiltonCounty.Theofficersreturn,whichwasfiledonFebruary17,statedthat On2/7/2000  Ideliveredacopyofthesummonsandthecomplainttothedefendant,bycertifiedmail!seeattached  affidavit.Byappendixtothisopinionweareattachingacopyofthesummons,returnandaffidavit. t   Asalreadynoted,theTrialJudgewasoftheopinionthathehadnoauthoritytoenlargethe L  timeforfilingresponsestotherequestforadmissions,andaccordinglydeniedHeritagesmotionthat 8  hedoso,which,underRule36,resultedintherequestforadmissionsbeingadmitted.Forall $ t practicalpurposes,thisresultedinliabilityastoHeritageandtheonlyremainingquestionwasthe  ` amountofdamagesthePlaintiffswereentitledtoreceive.  L    ItappearstheTrialJudgewasnotfirmlyconvincedofthecorrectnessofhisruling,ashe $  invitedHeritagetofileaRule9motion,whichhegrantedandthisCourtalsogranted.     AlthoughmuchspaceinthebriefsoftherespectivepartiesisdirectedtowhethertheTrial   Courtdidhaveauthoritytoenlargethetimeforrespondingtotherequestforadmissionandwhether,   evenifhedid,theaffidavitofcounselforHeritagewouldjustifyanenlargement,webelieve p dispositionofthisappealturnsuponthefirstissueraisedbyHeritage.Thisissue,asalreadynoted, \ contendsthatbecausetheserviceofprocesswasineffective,nothavingbeensupportedbyan H affidavitasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.Rule4.03(2),timeforrespondingtotherequestdidnotbegin 4 torununtilthedateHeritagefileditsanswer,thusmakingageneralappearanceinthecase.  p   TherecorddisclosesthatthisoccurredonApril10,2000,andonthesamedatethe H Defendantsresponsetotherequestforadmissionswaslikewisefiledwhich,ofcourse,wouldhave 4 beentimely.     CounselfortheMetzgersdoesnotcontendthattheserviceofprocesswasvalid,but,instead,  insiststhatthiswasnottheissueraisedbeloworcertifiedbytheTrialJudgeinconnectionwithhis  grantingtheRule9appeal.Counselscontentionistrue.WhileasageneralrulethisCourtwillnot  entertainissuesraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,wedonoteastothepointregardingcertifyinga l question,thatthisCourtundertheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurehasarighttosuspend X  therequirementofallRulesofAppellateProcedure,exceptRules3,4,11and12.Webelievein D! thiscaseintheinterestofjudicialeconomyitisappropriatetoaddresstheissue,notwithstanding 0"  itisbeingraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,andalsotosuspendtherequirementrelativetothe #l! failureoftheTrialCourttoincludethisinhisgrantoftheRule9motion.   #  1      ׀Wesaythisbecauseif $X" weaccepttheMetzgersviewanddeclinetoaddressthisquestionitwouldundoubtedlybeback $D # beforeusonaRule3appealshouldtheMetzgersultimatelyprevail. %0!$   &"%   FortheforegoingreasonstheorderoftheTrialCourtrelativetotheresponsesisvacatedand  thecauseremandedforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththedictatesofthisopinion.Costs  ofappealareadjudgedagainstJamesMetzgerandCarlaMetzger.      `     h   _________________________________________ $ t    `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE  `