WPC2 iU!çYQUu|9 uoҎUόuAR=މen5|r-$9~a5:iTo`;qSEpkAŠR, *k/eCCQ\R #Nb %\^ b 0nUGNwD4H\ zk m # U0N   k 1 0UNL 0N 01E 0 0 0 0 0u 0F 0C 0W 0( 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0@ 0 0 0b 0* 0 0 0p!b," 04"!"UJ & 0DV&&UNt**L+T+U@,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0---- B-- 0. D3. D-. 0K / / ASk// 00 0D(1 Al1"y -s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],+˹9T93|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  - -&/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2    R|b$      1    _Ԁ1 TennesseeCodeAnnotated# 1# Ԁ252101(a)provides:  Anypowerofattorneyorauthoritytoconfessjudgmentwhichisgivenbeforeanactionis L institutedandbeforetheserviceofprocessinsuchaction,isdeclaredvoid;andanyjudgment d basedonsuchpowerofattorneyorauthorityislikewisedeclaredvoid. , * XX 5 C #XXX X##XX˖#.\  `2Times New Roman Greek(#$  0    R|b$      3    _ԀTennesseeCodeAnnotated1 # 1# Ԁ281105# #(a)providesinpart:  Iftheactioniscommencedwithinthetimelimitedbyaruleorstatuteoflimitation,butthe L judgmentordecreeisrenderedagainsttheplaintiffuponanygroundnotconcludingthe d plaintiffsrightofaction,orwherethejudgmentordecreeisrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiff, , andisarrested,orreversedonappeal,theplaintiff,ortheplaintiffsrepresentativesandprivies,  asthecasemaybe,may,fromtimetotime,commenceanewactionwithinone(1)yearafter l  thereversalorarrest.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R$      1     _Ԁ  v R|b$      2    _Althoughthedefendantsmotionsoughtonlytovacatetheportionoftheorderofdismissalwhichwould  operatetodismissthecounterclaim,thetrialcourtsorderappearstovacatetheorderofdismissalinitsentirety.(hH  Z(Times New Roman (|G2|b$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3y+$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y+$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ ,   November28,2001Session X XX #XX#CHARLESW._SALSMAN_ԀandCHARLESM.DUKE,JR.  ` v. ( x TEXCORINDUSTRIES,INC.,IRBYC.SIMPKINS,JR.,WESLEYG. @  GRACE,JAMESAMASSEY,and_BROWNLEE_ԀO._CURREY_,JR.XX  X  @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty `  @@No.3039203T.D.KarenR.Williams,Judge P  @@*AV) ` dE<` A  p  @@TTNo.W200100730_COA_ԄR9CVFiledJuly29,_2002_ o AV) ` dE<` A O    ThisappealarisesoutofapetitionfiledinTennesseetoenrollaTexasjudgment.Inthiscase,the N plaintiffsfiledapetitiontoenrolltheforeignjudgment.Whilethiswaspending,thedefendantsfiled > amotionforleavetoamendtheiranswertoassertacounterclaim.Threedayslater,beforethetrial . courthadruledonthemotiontoamend,theplaintiffsfiledanoticeofvoluntarydismissal,including  aproposedorderstatingthatnocounterclaimhadbeenpled.Thetrialcourtenteredtheproposed  order.Subsequently,inresponsetothedefendantsmotion,thetrialcourtvacateditsearlierorder  ofdismissalandgrantedthedefendantsmotiontoamendtoassertthecounterclaim.Inthis  interlocutoryappeal,weaffirm,holdingunderRule41.01(1)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil  Procedurethattheproposedcounterclaimattachedtothemotiontoamendisconsidereda pleaded ~ counterclaim,therebypermittingthedefendantstoelecttoproceedonthecounterclaimdespitethe n plaintiffsnoticeofvoluntarydismissal. ^  Tenn.R.App.P.9AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  >!   #X~#XX.HollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., #n! W.S.,andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. $^" JohnS.GolwenandAshleyS.Old,Memphis,TennesseefortheAppellants,CharlesW.Salsman %>!$ andCharlesM.Duke,Jr. &."% StevenC.Douse,Nashville,TennesseeandLeeS.Saunders,Somerville,Tennesseeforthe ($' Appellees,TexcorIndustries,Inc.,IrbyC.Simpkins,Jr.,WesleyG.Grace,JamesA.Massey,and )$( BrownleeO._Currey_,Jr. *%) Q   n-(, ЇOPINION #XXˀ #XX    4X| XXX   Plaintiff/appellantsCharlesW._Salsman_ԀandCharlesM.Duke(collectively plaintiffs)are  Texasresidents.Defendant/appellee_Texcor_ԀIndustries,Inc( _Texcor_)isaTexascorporation. | Defendant/appellees_Irby_Ԁ_Simpkins_,WesleyGrace,JamesMasseyand_Brownlee_Ԁ_Currey_Ԁ(collectively h  defendants)areTennesseeresidentswhoenteredintoabusinessventurewiththeplaintiffsinthe T  early1990sinwhichthedefendantspurchased50%ofthestockof_Texcor_.#XX X4X|# XXXX# X Xˇ# XX ԀTheventureproved @  unsuccessful.Asaresult,thepartiesfiledtwoseparatelawsuitsinTexas.InOctober1996,the @  partiesenteredintoa SettlementAgreementandMutualReleaseresolvingbothTexaslawsuits. 0   InthisSettlementAgreement,thedefendantsagreedtopaytheplaintiffs$383,000onorbeforeJune  p  30,1999.Inaddition,thepartiesenteredan AgreedFinalJudgmenttobeheldinescrowuntilthe `  SettlementAgreementwasfullyexecuted.However,thedefendantsfailedtopayinaccordancewith P  theSettlementAgreement.OnJuly2,1999,theplaintiffsfiledapetitioninTexasseekingtohave @  theAgreedFinalJudgmententeredagainstthedefendants.The#XXX XV# XXXX# X X˘# XX ԀTexascourtsignedandenteredthe 0  AgreedFinalJudgment,givingtheplaintiffsajudgmentinexcessof$383,000,plusattorneysfees   andpostjudgmentinterest.Thereafter,theTexasplaintiffsfiledapetitioninShelbyCounty,  TennesseetoenforcetheTexasjudgment.TheTennesseedefendantsfiledresponsestothe  Tennesseepetition,assertingthattheTexasjudgmentviolatedtheTennesseeconfessionofjudgment  statute,TennesseeCodeAnnotated#XXX X"#1X| XXX#1  X1X|d## 1#  XX Ԁ2521010 2#  1      ,andwasthereforevoidandunenforceable.# X X^# XX #XXX X?# XXXXThe  defendantsresponsestothepetitionalsoraiseddefensestoenforcementbasedonfraudand  misrepresentation.Thedefendantsresponsesassertednocounterclaimsagainsttheplaintiffs.The  trialjudgeheardoralargumentonthepetitionandtookthematterunderadvisement.# X X)## k#  XX  p   Subsequently,whiletheTennesseepetitionwasunderadvisement,theplaintiffsfiledanew P lawsuitinTexas,inordertoobtainajudgmentfreefromanyallegedviolationsoftheTennessee @ confessionofjudgmentstatute.TheplaintiffsTennesseecounselwasinstructedto_nonsuit_Ԁthe 0 previouslyfiledTennesseepetitiontoenrollthefirstTexasjudgment.However,onFebruary4,  p 2000,beforetheTennesseepetitionwas_nonsuited_,thedefendantsfiledamotionseekingleaveto ` amendtheiranswertoassertacounterclaim.Thismotionincludedtheproposedcounterclaim.On P thesameday,thedefendantsfaxedacopyofthemotiontoamendandtheproposedcounterclaim @ totheplaintiffscounsel .Threedayslater,theplaintiffsfiledwiththeTennesseetrialcourtanotice  0 ofvoluntarydismissal.Itincludedaproposedorderofdismissalwhichstatedthat no...counter !  claim[has]beenpledinthismatter.Thetrialjudgesignedtheorderofdismissal. "    OnFebruary9,2000,theTennesseedefendantsreceivedcopiesofthenoticeofvoluntary $" dismissalaswellastheorderofdismissal.OnFebruary10,2000,thedefendantsfiledamotionto % # modifythetrialcourtsordertoreflectthatonlytheplaintiffsoriginalclaimsweredismissedand  thatthedefendantswouldbeallowedtoproceedwiththeircounterclaim.Themotionwasargued  andthetrialcourttookthematterunderadvisement.     OnJanuary19,2001,thetrialcourtvacateditsoriginalorderdismissingtheentireTennessee p lawsuit.#XXX X/#4X| XXX7 2#  2      #XX X4X|`$# XXXX# X XN# XX ԀOnMarch16,2001,theTennesseetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingthedefendants `  leavetoamendtoassertacounterclaim.Inresponse,theplaintiffssoughtpermissiontotakean P  interlocutoryappeal,andastayofprosecutionofthedefendantscounterclaim.Permissionfor @  interlocutoryappealwasgrantedbythetrialcourt,andthestaywasgrantedaswell.Subsequently, 0  permissionforinterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule9oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellate  p  ProcedurewasgrantedbythisCourtaswell. `    Onappeal,theplaintiffsarguethatthetrialcourterredinvacatingitsoriginalorderof @  dismissalandingrantingthedefendantsmotiontoamendtoassertacounterclaim.#XXX X$# XXXX# X X7%# XX Theplaintiffs 0  firstarguethatthedefendantshadnotpleadedacounterclaimpriortobeingservednoticeofthe   plaintiffsvoluntarydismissal.Therefore,theyassert,thecounterclaimdidnotsurvivethevoluntary  dismissal.  ThisisgovernedbyRule41.01(1)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,which  provides:  [_T]he_Ԁplaintiffshallhavetherighttotakeavoluntarynonsuittodismissanaction  withoutprejudicebyfilingawrittennoticeofdismissalatanytimebeforethetrial p ofacauseandservingacopyofthenoticeuponallparties...Ifacounterclaimhas ` beenpleadedbyadefendantpriortotheserviceuponthedefendantofplaintiffs P motiontodismiss,thedefendantmayelecttoproceedonsuchcounterclaiminthe @ capacityofaplaintiff. 0 *#XXX X(##XX)#  XX (emphasisadded).Theplaintiffsarguethatthecounterclaimhadnotbeen pleadedunderRule ` 41.01(1).Itisundisputedthatthedefendantsmotiontoamendtoaddthecounterclaimwasfiled P priortothefilingoftheplaintiffsnoticeofvoluntarydismissal.  @  #XXX X-#4X| XXX  OurreviewofthiscaseinvolvestheinterpretationoftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.    [_T]he_ԀRulesofCivilProcedurearetobeconstruedinthesamewayandmannerasstatutesare !  construed. FirstTenn.Bank,N.A.v.Dougherty ,963S.W.2d507,508(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).#XX X4X|/#8XXXX "  Therefore,thisCourtsreviewisdenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectnessforthetrialcourts #! legalfindings. SeeFreemanv.MarcoTransp.Co. ,27S.W.3d909,911(Tenn.2000).#XXX8XW1#4X| XXX $" #XX X4X|2##XX-#XX4X| XXX  Thiscasepresentsanissueoffirstimpression,namely,underRule41.01(1)oftheTennessee d&!$ RulesofCivilProcedure,whetheracounterclaimisdeemed pleadedwithinthemeaningofthe P'"% Ruleifamotionforleavetoamendtoaddthecounterclaimhasbeenfiledbutnotyetgranted.Most <(#& courtsinotherjurisdictionsconsideringthisissueunderthestaterulesofcivilprocedurehave  concluded#XX X4X|&3# XXXXthat wherethedefendantsmotiontoaddacounterclaimispendingwhentheplaintiff  movestovoluntarilydismisstheaction,thependencyofthemotionforacounterclaimshoulddefeat  dismissal.   24Am.Jur.2dDismissal#XXX XZ5#1X| XXX#XX X1X|6# XXXXԀ86(1998)(citing OurGang,Inc.v.CommvestSec.,Inc. ,  608So.2d542(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992). SeealsoWorthenv.Jones ,240S.E.2d842,844(Ga.  1977)(findingthat amotiontointerveneasadefendantaccompaniedbyacounterclaimis |  sufficienttosatisfythe[pleaded]counterclaimrequirement...andprecludetheplaintifffrom l  voluntarilydismissinghissuitpendingdecisiononthemotiontointervene). ButseeChinook \  ResearchLabs.,Inc.v.U.S. ,22Cl.Ct.853,855n.1(Cl.Ct.1991)(stating,indicta,thatamotion L  forleavetofileacounterclaimwasnotapleadedcounterclaimforpurposesofF.R.C.P.41(a)(2))#XXX X7# XXXX. <   #XXX X:#4X| XXX  Inaddition,adecisionbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtregardingRule3oftheTennessee T  RulesofCivilProcedureisinstructive.In Frazierv.EastTennesseeBaptistHospital,Inc. ,55 @  S.W.3d925(Tenn.2001),theCourtconsideredthefollowingissue: ,  8  TheissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherthefilingofaproposedamendedcomplaint  andmotiontoamendwiththeclerkofthetrialcourtcommencedanactionwithinthe  meaningofRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureandSection181105  oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated .x    Id. at927.In Frazier#XX X4X|:##XX3#XX XXXX ,theplaintiffhadtakenanonsuitagainstonedefendant,ahospital,whilethe P plaintiffsclaimsagainstaseconddefendantremainedpending. Id. at926.Theplaintifflatersought P andobtainedleaveofcourttoamendhercomplainttorejointhehospitalasadefendant. Id. at926 @ 927.However,thedefendanthospitalfiledamotiontodismiss,arguingthatthetimeforrefiling 0 undertheoneyearsavingsstatute,TennesseeCodeAnnotated#XXX X]>#1X| XXX#1  X1X|>>## 1@#  XX Ԁ281105,3 2#  3      ׀hadexpiredtwodays  p priortoentryofthetrialcourtsordergrantingtheplaintiffsmotiontobringthehospitalbackin  p asadefendant. Id. at927.Themotiontodismisswasgrantedbythetrialcourt.Onappeal,the ` TennesseeSupremeCourtwasrequiredtodetermine  whether thecommencementofanewaction P wasuntimely...because,althoughthemotiontoamendandproposedamendedcomplaintwerefiled @ priortotherunningofthesavingstatutesoneyearlimitationperiod,theordergrantingthemotion  0 toamendwasfiledafterthesavingperiodhadexpired. Id. at929.Althoughleaveofcourtwas !  requiredinorderfortheplaintifftoamendhercomplaint,the Frazier Courtrejectedthedefendant  "  hospitalsargumentthattheactionagainstthehospitalwasnotcommenceduntilentryofthetrial  courtsordergrantingtheplaintiffsmotionforleavetoamend.# X X\A# XX #XXX X=A# XXXXԀ Id. at930.TheCourtheld:  [_W]hen_Ԁthemotiontoamendthecomplaintandaproposedamendedcomplaintare  filedpriortotherunningofthestatuteoflimitations,themotiontoamendstandsin p placeoftheactualamendedcomplaintwhilethemotionisunderreviewbythecourt. `  Thefactthatanordergrantingthemotiontoamendisenteredafterexpirationofthe P  statuteoflimitationsdoesnotmaketheamendedcomplaintuntimely. @   G Id. (emphasisadded).   p    Inthiscase,theplaintiffscorrectlynotethatthedefendantsmotiontoamenditsresponse P  toincludeacounterclaimrequiredleaveofthetrialcourtunderRule13.06oftheTennesseeRules @  ofCivilProcedure.Thiswastrueof  themotiontoamendin Frazier aswell.In Frazier ,theCourt 0  heldthatamotiontoamendthecomplaint standsinplaceoftheactualamendedcomplaintwhile   themotionisunderreviewbythecourt. Frazier ,55S.W.3dat930.Thisreasoningmustalsobe  appliedtointerpretRule41.01(1)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Thus,we# X XlF## F#  XX Ԁholdthat  amotiontoassertacounterclaimwhichispendingatthetimetheplaintifffilesanoticeofvoluntary  dismissalisconsideredapleadedcounterclaimunderRule41.01(1)where,ashere,themotionfor  leavetoamendislatergranted.#XXX XL##XXM#  XX     Theplaintiffsarguethatthetrialcourtdidnothavejurisdictiontograntthedefendants ` permissiontoamendtheiranswertoassertacounterclaimoncethetrialcourtsorderofdismissal. P becamefinal.However,thedefendantsfileda MotiontoVacateOrderofDismissalthreedays @ afterthetrialcourtsorderofdismissalwasentered.#XXX XˣN# XXXX# X XN# XX Thismotionwas,ineffect,amotiontomodify 0 orsetasidethejudgmentbeforethejudgmentbecamefinal.# X X Q# XX #XXX XP# XXXX See Tenn.R.Civ.P.59.04.UnderRule  p 59.04,itiswellsettledthat anyorderorjudgmentoftheCircuitCourtissubjecttothecontrolof ` thetrialjudgeandmaybemodifiedorsetasidebyhimatanytimebeforebecomingfinal. Newport P Hous.Auth.,Inc.v.Hartsell ,533S.W.2d317,320(Tenn.Ct.App.1975).Therefore,thetrialcourt @ hadjurisdictiontomodifyitspreviouslyissuedorderofdismissaltopermitthedefendantstoassert 0 theircounterclaim.     Theplaintiffsalsoarguethattheentirelawsuit,includingtheproposedcounterclaim,was "  terminatedautomaticallyupontheirfilingofanoticeofvoluntarydismissaland,therefore,thetrial #! courtlackedjurisdictiontograntthedefendantsmotiontoamendtoassertthecounterclaim.While $" itistruethat [t]hecourthasnojurisdictionoveracounterclaimfiledafterthesuitisvoluntarily % # dismissed, see 24Am.Jur.2dDismissal#XXX X R##XXQ#XX1X| XXX#XX X1X|5W##XXW#XX XXXXԀ86(1998),inthiscase,themotiontoamendtoassertthe p&!$ counterclaimwasfiledbeforethenoticeofthevoluntarydismissal.Asnotedabove,thedefendants p'"% motiontoamendtoassertacounterclaimisconsideredapleadedcounterclaimforpurposesofRule `(#& 41.01(1),wherethemotiontoamendislatergranted.Therefore,notwithstandingtheplaintiffs P)$' noticeofvoluntarydismissal,thetrialcourtretainedjurisdictionoverthedefendantsmotionto @*%( amend.Therefore,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinvacatingitsorderofdismissalandingrantingthe 0+&) defendantsmotionforleavetoamendtoasserttheircounterclaim.  ,p'*   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedagainstthe  appellants,CharlesW.SalsmanandCharlesM.Duke,andtheirsurety,forwhichexecutionmay  issueifnecessary.    #XXX X˽W##XX˞W#  XX ̀  #XXX XT\##XXs\#XX P  _ _   `     h     ___________________________________ 0     `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE