WPC2# # VUNa % 0w@ 4  B 0?0 0Do 0J 0T 0^Q 0h 0r 0| 0  0 1u# 0dU>U*:B)dDC AMU*GK D3=pv~ 0@zv AO!! 0D" D/" B#HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(3c$7|XXdXXd7  HTXXTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT DDEEUӀf|$D3|x d((3$ 3c!7|XXdd7  HXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd-%C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#"    H "\RA'\  ''   YYY FILED'X June26,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.'AppellateCourtClerk  A !#d#"    H "\RA'\   $       "XRule3wasamendedeffectiveJuly1,1995.TheAdvisoryCommissionCommenttothe1995Amendmentstates: Becausetheformerrulecreatedconfusionbetweentheoneyearrecommencementperiodandtheoneyearsavingstatute,therecommencementprovisioniseliminated.Theearliersixmonthreissuanceperiodisextendedfromsixmonthstoafullyear.However,thisamendedversionisnotsubjecttoretroactiveapplication.Gregoryv.McCulley,912S.W.2d175(Tenn.App.1995)." 'dxd  !#d#"    H "\RA'\   $       "XOneyearafterthenonsuitofthefirstComplaint."PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . "###Xd#    H "\RA'\    7|XdXXd7   R&(%A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATKNOXVILLE  TERESAMELTONMOORE,  ) WASHINGTONCIRCUIT      ) Plaintiff/Appellant   ) NO.03A019802CV00063      )v.      ) HON.THOMASJ.SEELY,JR.      ) JUDGE̜CHRISTAMILLIONFEATHERS )andTRACYFEATHERS,  )      ) REVERSEDand Defendants/Appellees  ) REMANDEDGaryE.BrewerandLeslieA.Muse,Morristown,forAppellantRobertD.Arnold,JohnsonCity,forAppellees. @ " OPINION"       INMAN,SeniorJudge Plaintiff/Appellant[ Moore]broughtthisactionforpersonalinjuriesresultingfromanautomobileaccidentwhichoccurredonJune6,1991.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheclaimasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations. Wereversethejudgmentforthereasonshereafterstated. Moorefiledherfirstcomplaintinthiscause[Docket#14782]onMarch13,1992.AnOrderofvoluntarynonsuitwasenteredonNovember9,1993. Shefiledasecondcomplaint[Docket#16394]onJune22,1994.ProcessissuedfordefendantChristaFeatherswasreturnedmarked Moved,NoLongerthisAddress,OutofState.ProcessfordefendantTracyFeatherswasreturnedmarked NotAtThisAddress,UnabletoLocate. Moorefiledathirdcomplaint,alsodocketed#16394,onJune20,1995,andsummonswereservedonJune28,1995.Defendantsansweredandraisedtheaffirmativedefensethatthestatuteoflimitationsbarredtheclaim. OnOctober31,1996defendantsfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,whichwasarguedonNovember10,1997.ThetrialcourtsustainedthemotionanddismissedMooresthirdcomplaintastimebarred. Mooreinsiststhatthetrialcourterred  8 ...indismissingthisactionastimebarredwhereComplaint#16394wasfiledon6/22/94,wheretheSummonsesissuedtherewithwerereturnedunservedon6/27/94,andwherethePlaintiffrefiledaComplaintandtwoSummonseson6/20/95,therebyrecommencingtheactionwithinoneyearofthefilingoftheoriginalComplaintasmandatedbyRule3ofthethenapplicableTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.   OurreviewofthefindingsoffactmadebythetrialCourtisdenovoupontherecordofthetrialCourt,accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d)..R.App.P.,Rule13(d);Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26(Tenn.1996).Butwherethereisnoconflictintheevidenceastoanymaterialfact,asinthiscase,thequestiononappealisoneoflaw,andthescopeofreviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessaccompanyingachancellor'sconclusionsoflaw.UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston,854S.W.2d87(Tenn.1993). UponentryoftheorderofnonsuitofMooresfirstcomplaint,thesavingstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.281105,tookeffect.ThisstatuteprovidedtheopportunityforMooretocommenceanewactionwithinoneyear. OnJune22,1994,withinthatoneyear,Moorefiledhersecondcomplaint,butprocesswasnotservedonthedefendants.Uponthereturnofprocessunserved,Rule3,T.R.C.P.tookeffect,whichprovided,atalltimesrelevant: )   כ H` ` ` H` ` `   RULE3.COMMENCEMENTOFACTION  8 8 Allcivilactionsarecommencedbyfilingacomplaintandsummonswiththeclerkofthecourt.Anactioniscommencedwithinthemeaningofanystatuteoflimitationsuponsuchfilingofacomplaintandsummons,whetherprocessbeissuedornotissuedandwhetherprocessbereturnedservedorunserved.Ifprocessremainsunissuedfor30daysorifprocessisnotservedorisnotreturnedwithin30daysfromissuance,regardlessofthereason,theplaintiffcannotrelyupontheoriginalcommencementtotollthestatuteoflimitationsunlesstheplaintiffeither:    8 8 (1) continuestheactionbyobtainingissuanceofnewprocesswithin6monthsfromissuanceofthepreviousprocessor,ifnoprocessissued,within6monthsfromthefilingofthecomplaintandsummons,or    8 8 (2)recommencestheactionwithin1yearfromtheissuanceoftheoriginalprocessor,ifnoprocessissued,within1yearfromthefilingontheoriginalcomplaintandsummons.   MoorefiledherthirdcomplaintonJune20,1995,andprocesswasservedonthedefendantsonJune27,1995. ItisundisputedthatMoorefailedtomeetthestatutorytimelimitationsofRule3(1),sinceshedidnotissuenewprocessonhersecondcomplaintwithinsixmonthsofthereturnoftheunservedprocess.Therefore,herthirdcomplaint,filedwiththeclerkonJune20,1995,isonlyviableifitsatisfiedthetimelimitationsofthethenapplicableRule3(2),i.e.,ifit recommence[d]theactionwithinoneyearofthefilingoftheoriginalprocessor,ifnoprocessissued,within1yearfromthefilingontheoriginalcomplaintandsummons. DefendantscontendthatMoore couldhavefiledanewactionandpreservedhercauseofaction.ThisshedidnotdoandhercauseofactionthereforeexpiredonNovember9,1994. +    Mooreinsiststhatshe compliedwiththeruleineffectatthetimebyrefilingthecomplaintandsummonsonJune20,1995,lessthanoneyearaftertheJune22,1994complaintwasfile,thusrecommencingtheactionasrequired. Aplaintiffmaytimelyrecommenceanactionby filinganewcomplaint,Littlev.Franceshini,688S.W.2d91(Tenn.App.1985); refilingthecomplaint,Dukesv.Noe,856S.W.2d403(Tenn.App.1993),or refilinganoriginalcomplaint,Foxv.Smith,Tenn.Ct.App.,W.S.,Tomlin,J.,June19,1984.Ininterpretingthemeaningof recommence,theSixthCircuithasinterpretedourRule3,T.R.C.P.,inthisregardtomeanthatinasmuchasthecommencementofanactionisbegunbythefilingofacomplaint,therecommencementofanactionlikewisemeansthefilingofacomplaint.Leev.ϜCrenshaw,562F.2d380,3812(6thCir.1977).ThefactthatthedocketnumbersonMooressecondandthirdcomplaintsarethesameisnotsignificant;therequirementoffilinganewcomplaintwithinoneyearoftheϜissuanceofprocessonthecomplaintfiledonJune22,1994wassatisfied. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecaseisremandedforproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsareassessedtotheappellee.      Ӝ̛      _______________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:______________________________HerschelP.Franks,Judge_______________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,Judge