WPC 6# UN %] 0 (cw@4 0l 0Db AQ 0J 0TA 0^ 0h 0r[ 0| 0I 0 1u_ 0d B8 U 0D 0@_ 0D D/ U> BP D3m B) DC AM U*Y  |&Av~vJHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ gUhijklmnoӀy_#3|xy((3$ !      0  (#$  0  !"#$&C<< C2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxd<  9p`(&Times New RomanP Pd 'dxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+C << G<  9p`(Arial !'  ""  --   YYY FILED-XJuly17,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   !'   $       Thejudgmentinadvertentlyreads 21896.  !'   $       Themotionreads,inpart,asfollows:8  TheproblemattheGeneralSessionslevelwasthatthelocalrulesfortheGeneralSessionsCourtofDavidsonCounty,Tennessee,didnotaddresswhetheradismissalforfailuretoprosecutewasajudgmentonthemeritsornot.AspecialJudgemadetherulingattheGeneralSessionslevel.ThefactthatthiscasewasappealedwasbroughttotheattentionoftheGeneralSessionsCourtAdministrator,providingtheCourtAdministratorthebriefsofbothparties....Inresponsetothisinquiry,theGeneralSessionsJudges,throughthepresidingJudge,...respondedwithaletterdatedFebruary28,1997,andanOrderamendingthelocalrulesoftheGeneralSessionsCourtofDavidsonCounty,Tennessee....8  ...theGeneralSessionsCourtofDavidsonCounty,Tennessee,hasclarifiedandsetforththepracticeinGeneralSessionsCourttospecifythatadismissalforwantofprosecutionisadismissalwithoutprejudicetoeitherparties[]rightstobringitagain. !'   $       Thepartiesdonotdisputethattheamendmenttolocalrule4.01occurredaftertherulingofthegeneralsessionscourtonFebruary18,1997. !'   $       TheaffidavitofDr.Sneadwassubmittedinsupportofthemotion. 7 !'   $       TheaffidavitofPostellesubmittedinsupportofhermotionforsummaryjudgmentstatesthatthemoneydueherfromSneadis$5,500.ThisamountwasnotrefutedintheaffidavitsubmittedbySnead.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . '  ` ` pX\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,@ ATNASHVILLE @ _______________________________________________________ ) PENNYPOSTELLE , ) DavidsonCountyCircuitCourt ) Nos.97C578and97C569̀Plaintiff/Appellee. ) )VS. ) C.A.No.01A019708CV00446!ٜR,.+A1-j|$`  `@Rߛ ) DR.GENESNEAD,Individuallyand  ) d/b/aEMERGENCYCHIROPRACTIC  ) CLINIC , ) )̀Defendant/Appellant. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofDavidsonCountyatNashville. HonorableThomasW.Brothers,Judge JohnM.Cannon ,CANNON,CANNON&COOPER,P.C.,Goodlettsville,TennesseeAttorneyforDefendant/Appellant. StephenCrofford ,PARKER,ALLEN&CROFFORD,Nashville,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellee.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  FARMER,J. CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` Xӛ Thiscaseaddressestheissueofwhetherthedismissalofanactionforfailuretoprosecuteingeneralsessionscourtoperatesasanadjudicationonthemerits,thusbarringasubsequentsuitonthesamecauseofactionunderthedoctrineof resjudicata ,absentlocalrule.Theappellant,Dr.GeneSnead,individually,andd/b/aEmergencyChiropracticClinic(hereinafter Snead),hasappealedfromthesummaryjudgmententeredbythetrialcourtinfavoroftheappellee,PennyPostelle( Postelle),whichholdsthatsuchdismissalisnotanadjudicationonthemeritsandthatthe resjudicata doctrineisnotanavailabledefensetoSneadinthepresentaction.Afterreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtforthereasonshereinafterstated. OnJuly31,1996,PostellefiledacivilwarrantingeneralsessionscourtagainstSneadtorecover$5,500allegedlydueherforworkandlaborperformedonSneadsbehalf.AhearingwassetforAugust23,1996.Postelledidnotappearincourtonthedayofthescheduledhearing.Sneadandhiscounselwerepresent,however,andPostellessuitwasdismissedforfailuretoprosecute.Thejudgmentstates [d]ismissedF.T.P.andisdatedAugust28,1996.Therecorddoesnotincludeanappealfromthedismissal. OnDecember13,1996,PostellefiledanidenticalactionagainstSneadinthegeneralsessionscourt.Sneadfiledamotiontodismissthissecondactiononthebasisthatthedismissalofthefirstactionforfailuretoprosecutewasanadjudicationonthemeritsandthatthepresentactionwasbarredunderthedoctrineof resjudicata .Sneadasserted, [Postelle]hasalreadyhadtheopportunitytolitigatethismatterandinstead,thiscasewasdismissedinfavorof[Snead].Therefore,thisCourtmust,underthedoctrineof resjudicata dismissthisaction....ThegeneralsessionscourtgrantedthemotionandenteredjudgmentforSneadonFebruary18,1997. /   ׀ThecourtalsodeniedPostellesmotiontosetasidetheorderofdismissalenteredonAugust28,1996.OnFebruary27,1997,thepresidingjudgeofthegeneralsessionscourtenteredanorderamendinglocalCivilRule4.01byaddingthefollowinglanguage: [w]henacaseisdismissedwithoutatrialforwantofprosecution,saiddismissalshallbewithoutprejudicetoeitherpartysrighttobringitagain. Postelleappealedthegeneralsessionscourtsdecisiontocircuitcourtwhereshefiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentassertingthattheamendmenttolocalrule4.01resolvedtheissue. 0   ׀(R.12).SneadalsofiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentassertingthattheruleuponwhichPostellereliedwasenteredaftertheaccrualoftheirdefenseof resjudicata 1   ׀andalsoargued,fromthestandpointthatPostellewasapparentlyappealingboththegrantingofthemotiontodismissandthedenialofhermotiontosetaside,thatitwastoolatetosetasidethepriororderofdismissalbecausePostelledidnotappealthatdecisionwithinten(10)daysaftertheoriginalhearing. 2   ׀ Afterentertainingthepartiesrespectivemotions,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingPostellesmotionforsummaryjudgment ontheissueofresjudicatanotbeinganavailabledefenseandalsoontheissuethatthemonetaryamounttowhichshewouldbeentitled,ifliabilitywereproven,was$5,500.ThecourtdeniedSneadsmotionforsummaryjudgmentandexpresslyreservedtheissueofliability.Afterfurtherhearing,thetrialcourtenteredafinaljudgmentfinding nogenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrialandawardingajudgmenttoPostellefor$5,500. 3   ׀ Thesoleissuepresentedonappeal,asstatedbytheappellant,is [w]hetheradismissalforfailuretoprosecuteinageneralsessionscase,absentlocalruleorspecificfindingofprejudice,operatesasa resjudicata bartothesameactioninasubsequentsuit.Webelievethisissueisresolvedbythiscourtsopinionin SeaLandService,Inc.v.BuntrockIndus.,Inc., No.03A019407CH00237,1994WL719601(Tenn.App.Dec.28,1994).In SeaLand ,theplaintiffinitiallyfiledsuitagainstthedefendantingeneralsessionscourtandonthescheduledhearingdatefailedtoappear,althoughdefendantandcounselwerepresent.Thesuitwasdismissedforfailuretoprosecute.Theplaintiffthereafterpursuedthesameactionagainstthedefendantinthechancerycourtwhereitwasdismisseduponmotionforsummaryjudgmentunderthedoctrineof resjudicata .Theonlyissuepresentedonappealwaswhetherthetrialcourthaderredinenteringsummaryjudgmentforthedefendant.Inholdingthedoctrineinapplicableunderthefactsbeforeit,the SeaLand courtreasonedasfollows:8 Inorderforresjudicatatooperateasabartoplaintiffssuitintheinstantcase,thedismissalofthepriorgeneralsessionssuitmusthavebeenadismissalonthemeritsofthecase. Longv.KirbySmith ,40Tenn.App.446,292S.W.2d216,219(1956).Therefore,thedispositiveissueinthiscaseiswhetherthedismissalofthegeneralsessionssuitoperatedasaadjudicationonthemeritsofthecase.UnderTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02,thedismissalforfailuretoprosecuteoperatesasanadjudicationuponthemeritsunlessotherwiseorderedbythecourt.However,theTennesseeRulesofCivilProceduredonotapply,withcertainexceptionsnotapplicablehere,togeneralsessionscourt.Tenn.R.Civ.P.1.Accordingly,intheabsenceofastatuteorruletothecontrary,commonlawcontrolsthedecisionastowhetherthegeneralsessionsdismissaloperatesasanadjudicationonthemerits.8  In W.R.Grace&Companyv.Taylor ,55Tenn.App.227,398S.W.2d81(Tenn.App.1965),thiscourtwasfacedwithasimilarproblem.In Grace ,thedefendantenteredapleaofresjudicataonthegroundthatabillonthesamecauseofactionhadpreviouslybeenfiledbycomplainantinNovemberof1961,buthadbeendismissedbydecreeofSeptember3,1962,forfailuretoprosecute. Id .at82.Onthedatethefirstcasewassetfortrial,complainantdidnotappear,althoughdefendantwasreadyfortrial. Id .at83.Thecourtthendismissedplaintiffscaseforwantofprosecution. Id .Theplaintiffthenrefiledthesamesuitashorttimelater.Inthesecondsuit,thechancelloroverruleddefendantspleaofresjudicata,andheldthattheorderofdismissal,eventhoughitdidnotrecitethatitwaswithoutprejudice,wasnotresjudicata.Inaffirmingthechancellor,thiscourtsaid:8 8  [W]hereitappearsonthefaceofadecreeofdismissalthatitwasnotuponthemerits,asinthiscasewhereitappearsfromthefaceofthedecreethedismissalwasbasedonwantofprosecution,thatasuitonthesamegroundsmaybereinstatedatanytimewithinoneyear,andthatsuchadecreeisnotresjudicata.8   Id .at83. SeealsoPatrickv.Dickson ,526S.W.2d449(Tenn.1975); Woodsv.Palmer ,496S.W.2d474(Tenn.1973).8  In Patrickv.Dickson,supra ,ourSupremeCourt,afterrulingthattheTennesseeRulesofCivilProceduredonotapplytopaternitycasesinjuvenilecourt,heldthatanorderofdismissalforfailuretoprosecutewhichstatedthatthedismissalwaswithprejudicedidnotoperateasanadjudicationonthemeritsandwouldnotsustainthepleaofresjudicatainthecasebeforethecourt. Id .at453.8  Undertheaboveauthorities,itappearsthatthedismissalforlackofprosecutionofplaintiffsfirstcaseingeneralsessionscourtwasnotanadjudicationonthemerits,and,therefore,resjudicatawouldnotbarthissuitinthecasebeforeus.Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentisreversed. Wefindthereasoningsetforthin SeaLand applicabletothepresentcase.WethereforefindthatthedismissalofPostellesoriginalsuitforfailuretoprosecutewasnotanadjudicationonthemeritsandthatPostellewasentitledtorefilethesameactionagainstSnead,inaccordancewiththesavingsstatute.Thedoctrineof resjudicata isnotavailableasadefensetoSneadinthepresentaction. Itresultsthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthiscauseremandedtheretoforanyfurtherproceedingsherewithconsistent.Costsareassessedagainsttheappellant,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.     ____________________________________     FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)