ÿWPC õGáæ–œÉ%6OþŸéz~­>ÆK¸>g(>\óí·hÌ ÖÜA4–|U”GÜ×GP|ʦ¯„¼9˜+oœ^ªA&üÀÆ¡8ã–FYÝæÓ¦©‚lb#É\ %% % 0ˆ+ UN³ 0D ^ E zQ ÒË w 4¡ µ Ä ÆÆ ÆŒ ÆRÆ mÞNõ 1u÷ 72lEž 0c b                                     0ë Bþþ 0¤ D3¿ D-ò 0K ASjƽ 0¤ƒ 0D' A«k˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,Œ\/Ï  ˜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.wpto=/B011C83|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à - ù-(|G29¦$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R‰»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôåiò»»Ô d(|3Ç…$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R‰»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç…$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R‰»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€R‰»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼R‰»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îUR‰ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼R‰»îîU#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€2,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼R‰ÔÌò òÔ#†¼R‰»XX#ÔED€Ô_ÔNETHERLANDÔ_Ô,€òòet€al.óó€v.€BILL€HUNTER,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XX»¼R‰Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02C„2313€€€€€€Walter€Kurtz,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€€M2002„03094„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R9„CV€„€Filed€October€20,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€matter€we€are€asked€to€determine€which€statute€controls€the€issue€of€venue€for€a€claim€filedÐ xÈ  Ðunder€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€the€venue€provision€of€that€act,€Tennessee€CodeÐ d´ ÐAnnotated€section€47„18„109,€or€Tennesseeððs€general€venue€provision,€section€20„4„101€of€the€Code.€Ð P  ÐThe€trial€court€determined€that€section€47„18„109€controls€venue€in€this€action€and€deniedÐ <Œ ÐDefendantsðð€Motion€to€Dismiss€for€Improper€Venue.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ð (x ÐÓäÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Ð P ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼R‰»àX¤#ÔÔ‡XX.¼R‰ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€P.J.,€M.S.,€óóÐ Ä Ðand€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌJames€L.€Ô_ÔWeatherlyÔ_Ô,€Jr.€and€Joseph€T.€Howell,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Bill€andÐ ˆØ ÐLawson€Hunter.Ð tÄ ÐÌPhilip€N.€Elbert€and€Gerald€D.€Ô_ÔNeenanÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Ed€and€Ô_ÔDesireeÔ_ÔÐ L œ ÐÔ_ÔNetherlandÔ_Ô.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓØÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼R‰»XX#ÔÔ‡XX»¼R‰ÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼R‰»XXÖ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼R‰Ôà  àIt€must€be€noted€at€the€outset€that€the€opinion€in€this€matter€is€specifically€limited€to€the€issueÐ è$8 $ Ðof€venue€based€on€the€relatively€simple€and€uncontested€facts€in€the€record.€€Plaintiff€filed€suit€forÐ Ô%$!% Ðviolation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€for€fraud,€and€for€misrepresentation.€€TheÐ À&"& Ðaction€was€filed€in€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County,€with€venue€in€that€court€based€on€the€venueÐ ¬'ü"' Ðprovision€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€This€statute€allows€for€venue€ð ðin€the€countyÐ ˜(è#( Ðin€which€such€person€resides,€has€such€personððs€principal€place€of€business,€conducts,€transacts,€orÐ „)Ô$) Ðhas€transacted€business,€or,€if€the€person€cannot€be€found€in€any€of€the€foregoing€locations,€in€theÐ p*À%* Ðcounty€in€which€such€person€can€be€found.ðð€€Ô_ÔTenn.CodeÔ_Ô€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(2)(2001).€€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý½ ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€underlying€dispute€in€this€matter€arose€over€construction€of€a€residence€in€RutherfordÐ ° Ðâ âCounty€owned€by€Plaintiffs,€Ed€and€Desiree€Netherland,€residents€of€Rutherford€County.€€Defendant,Ð œì ÐBill€Hunter€d/b/a€Hunter€Construction€and€d/b/a€Bill€Hunter€and€Lawson€Hunter€Construction,€is€alsoÐ ˆØ Ða€resident€of€Rutherford€County.€€Defendant€Lawson€Hunter€d/b/a€Hunter€Construction€and€d/b/a€BillÐ tÄ ÐHunter€and€Lawson€Hunter€Construction€is€a€resident€of€Davidson€County.€€Defendants€filed€aÐ `° ÐMotion€to€Dismiss€for€Improper€Venue€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€12.02(3)€assertingÐ L œ Ðthat€venue€was€only€proper€in€Rutherford€County€under€the€language€of€the€general€venue€statute,Ð 8 ˆ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„4„101(b).€€This€general€venue€statute€provides€as€follows:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  à(a)€€In€all€civil€actions€of€a€transitory€nature,€unless€venue€is€otherwise€expresslyÐ ü L  Ðprovided€for,€the€action€may€be€brought€in€the€county€where€the€cause€of€action€aroseÐ è 8  Ðor€in€the€county€where€the€defendant€resides€or€is€found.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(b)€€If,€however,€the€plaintiff€and€defendant€both€reside€in€the€same€county€in€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðstate,€then€such€action€shall€be€brought€either€in€the€county€where€the€cause€of€actionÐ ˜è  Ðarose€or€in€the€county€of€their€residence.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€20„4„101(a)&(b).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€Defendantsðð€Motion€to€Dismiss,€stating€in€its€November€7,€2002€Order:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà ` àUpon€Defendantsðð€Motion€To€Dismiss€and€the€Memoranda€and€Affidavits€ofÐ  \ ÐBill€Hunter€filed€in€support€of€that€Motion,€upon€the€Memorandum,€Affidavit€ofÐ øH ÐEdward€H.€Netherland€and€Stipulation€filed€by€Plaintiffs€in€opposition€to€thatÐ ä4 ÐMotion,€upon€the€statements€of€counsel€when€Defendantsðð€motion€came€to€be€heardÐ Ð  Ðby€the€Court€on€Friday,€November€1,€2002,€and€upon€the€entire€record€in€this€case,Ð ¼  Ðit€is€hereby€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED€AND€DECREED:ШøÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à1.à ¸ àThe€Court€finds€that€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€20„4„101(b)€do€notÐ ”ä Ðsupersede€the€venue€options€afforded€to€Plaintiffs€in€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(2)€forÐ €Ð Ðcases€brought€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€Accordingly,€venueÐ l¼ Ðof€this€action€in€Davidson€County€is€proper€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(2)Ð X ¨ Ðbecause€Defendant€Lawson€Hunter€resides€in€Davidson€County,€has€a€principal€placeÐ D!” Ðof€business€in€Davidson€County,€and€conducts,€transacts€or€has€transacted€businessÐ 0"€  Ðin€Davidson€County.€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à2.à ¸ àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€Defendantsðð€Motion€To€Dismiss€is€herebyÐ $X" Ðdenied.€€However,€this€ruling€is€without€prejudice€to€Defendantsðð€right€to€renew€theirÐ ô$D # ÐMotion€To€Dismiss€if€all€of€Plaintiffsðð€claims€under€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ à%0!$ ÐProtection€Act€herein€are€dismissed,€since€venue€in€this€Court€is€based€uponÐ Ì&"% ÐPlaintiffsðð€claims€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌInterlocutory€appeal€was€granted€to€Defendants€solely€on€the€issue€of€venue€to€determine€whetherÐ )à$( Ðthe€venue€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€found€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ |*Ì%) Ðsection€47„18„109€or€Tennesseeððs€general€venue€provision€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€20„Ð h+¸&* Ð4„101€controls€in€this€matter.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€its€reasoning€and€in€itsÐ ° Ðdecision€to€deny€Defendantsðð€Motion€to€Dismiss,€as€venue€is€proper€in€Davidson€County€due€toÐ œì ÐDefendant€Lawson€Hunterððs€residence€in€Davidson€County.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àCase€law€in€Tennessee€makes€it€plain€that€special€statutes€control€over€general€statutes.€€Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` àAnother€rule€of€statutory€interpretation€is€that€a€special€statute€or€a€specialÐ 8 ˆ Ðprovision€of€a€particular€statute€controls€a€general€provision€in€another€statute€or€aÐ $ t Ðgeneral€provision€in€the€same€statute.€€This€rule€is€learnedly€discussed€in€òòState€v.Ð  ` ÐSafley,€Chairman,€et€al.óó,€172€Tenn.€385,€112€S.W.2d€831.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAs€noted€in€the€last„mentioned€case€the€reason€and€philosophy€of€the€rule€isÐ Ô$  Ðthat€where€the€mind€of€the€legislature€has€been€turned€to€the€details€of€a€subject€andÐ À  Ðthey€have€acted€upon€it,€a€statute€treating€the€subject€in€a€general€manner€should€notÐ ¬ü  Ðbe€considered€as€intended€to€affect€the€more€particular€provision.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWoodruff€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€192€S.W.2d€1013,€1015€(Tenn.1946).Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€special€statute€or€a€special€provision€of€a€particular€statute€controls€aÐ H˜ Ðgeneral€provision€in€another€statute€or€a€general€provision€in€the€same€statute.€Ð 4„ ÐòòWoodroof€v.€City€of€Nashvilleóó,€183€Tenn.€483,€192€S.W.2d€1013€(1946).€€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€was€further€said€in€the€òòWoodroofóó€case:Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àð ðWhere€the€mind€of€the€legislature€has€been€turned€to€theÐ Ð  Ðdetails€of€a€subject€and€they€have€acted€upon€it,€a€statute€treating€theÐ ¼  Ðsubject€in€a€general€manner€should€not€be€considered€as€intended€toÐ ¨ø Ðaffect€the€more€particular€provision.ððДä` x` x ЀÌà8  àà ` àIn€the€case€of€òòState€ex€rel.€v.€Safleyóó,€172€Tenn.€385,€112€S.W.2d€831€(1938),Ð l¼ Ðthis€Court€quoted€with€approval€the€following€rule€of€construction:ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWhere€there€are€two€acts€or€provisions,€one€of€which€isÐ 0"€  Ðspecial€in€particular,€and€certainly€includes€the€matter€in€question,€andÐ #l! Ðthe€other€general,€which,€if€standing€alone,€would€include€the€sameÐ $X" Ðmatter€and€thus€conflict€with€the€special€act€or€provision,€the€specialÐ ô$D # Ðmust€be€taken€as€intended€to€constitute€an€exception€to€the€general€actÐ à%0!$ Ðor€provision,€especially€when€such€general€and€special€acts€orÐ Ì&"% Ðprovisions€are€contemporaneous,€as€the€legislature€is€not€be€presumedÐ ¸'#& Ðto€have€intended€a€conflict.€€òòCrane€v.€Reederóó,€22€Mich.€322.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€the€case€of€òòAtlas€Pow[d]er€Company€v.€Leisteróó,€197€Tenn.€491,€274Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€3[6]4€(1954),€this€Court€held€the€specific€law€applicable€to€appeals€inÐ h+¸&* Ðworkmenððs€compensation€cases€would€apply€rather€than€the€general€sections,€T.C.A.Ð ° ÐSections€27„„303€and€27„„304.€€See€also€the€case€of€òòAdams€v.€Pattersonóó,€201€Tenn.Ð œì Ð655,€301€S.W.2d€362€(1957).ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌòòStrader€v.€United€Family€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€403€S.W.2d€765,€768€(Tenn.1966);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Nelsonóó,Ð `° Ð577€S.W.2d€465€(Crim.Ct.App.1978);€òòHelms€Jewelry€and€Gift€Shop,€Inc.€v.€Hollisóó,€No.€85„78„II,Ð L œ Ð1985€WL€4569€(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€enacting€the€Consumer€Protection€Act,€ð ðthe€mind€of€the€legislature€has€been€turned€to€theÐ  ` Ðdetails€of€a€subject€and€they€have€acted€upon€it.ðð€€This€special€venue€provision€for€consumerÐ ü L  Ðprotection€actions€is€irreconcilable€with€Tennesseeððs€general€venue€provision;€thus,€it€must€beÐ è 8  Ðpresumed€an€exception€to€the€general€venue€provision.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated,€the€Order€of€the€trial€court€entered€denying€Defendantsðð€Motion€toÐ ¬ü  ÐDismiss€for€improper€venue€is€affirmed.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE