WPCp' <# XUNc % 0%UN 0*w@ 4( < K F 0DW B N  m 0J 0T 0^q 0h 0r7 0| 0% 0 AQ;b 0D 0@ 0D 1u\ D/ 0d Bd D3U>U*B)DCE AMU* v~ v!HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($74dd7TRY3' LetterY3' Letter 3' Letter 3' LetterT  }74}7!!    '() Z 6Times New Roman Regular(n(2*0$ !7cdd7TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T  XXXXcXX!     XXXc   `   0   DDDD !Ӏ+z=#3|x+Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5sellers / ' IB011C2 (#$  0  P PdU2 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   "#$&C<< C- -(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) ' dxdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d(((('dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd #3C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#0\R3'\  0     ""  55   YYY FILED5XOctober22,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#0\R3'\  0     $   X 0X         _ApanelofthiscourthasupheldanearlierversionofRule19requiringthatcasesappealedfromgeneralsessionscourteitherbesetfortrialorthatamotiontosetbefiledwithinthirtydaysoftheappealbeingfiledinthecircuitcourt.See_Bendele_Ԁv.Powell,DavidsonCir.(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.9,1984),perm.app.denied(Tenn.June11,1984).  !#d#0\R3'\  0     $   X 0X         _Mr.AndersonhasnottakenissuewiththeclarityofRule19,andthuswewillnotconsiderthisissuenow.However,wenotethatitisnotclearwhetherthefortyfivedayperiodinRule19(b)commenceswhentheappealbondisfiledorwhenthegeneralsessionsrecordisactuallyfiledinthecircuitcourt.ItislikewiseunclearwhetherRule19requiresthatthetrialdatemustoccurwithinfortyfivedaysorwhetherthetrialdatemustonlybedeterminedwithinfortyfivedays.Underthefactsofthiscase,Mr.AndersondidnotcomplywithRule19nomatterhowitisinterpreted.  !#d#0\R3'\  0     $   X 0X         _InlightofRule19'sstrictrequirements,afailuretorespondinatimely,definitivemannertoopposingcounselsinformalrequeststosetthecasebyagreementcouldbeconstruedasanefforttomanufactureanadditionaldefenseratherthantosimplypreserveanexistingone.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . 0#11d#\R3'\  0     _       X \RA'\\RA'\7cdd70ԛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜ 0 R463A1-j|G`  `@RߛWILLIAMSELLERS,   )      ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   )      )      ) DavidsonCircuitNos.VS.      ) 96C3082and96C3085        )      ) AppealNo.MICHAELANDERSON,  ) 01A019703CV00114      ) Defendant/Appellant.  )̛̜@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ NASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEWALTERC.KURTZ,JUDGE̛̜ForthePlaintiff/Appellee:    FortheDefendant/Appellant:PhilipD.Irwin      RobertE._Hoehn_Neal&_Harwell_      RabinP._Nimmo_Nashville,Tennessee     _Nimmo_,_Hoehn_,_Kirt_Ԁ&_Partin_        Nashville,Tennessee@ 0VACATEDANDREMANDED 0        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE 0@ OPINION 0 Thisappealinvolvesthedismissalofadenovoappealfromgeneralsessionscourtforfailuretocomplywithalocalrulerequiringthattheseappealsbesetfortrialwithinfortyfivedays.AftertheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountydismissedhisappeal,theappellantfiledaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)motionseekingrelieffromthejudgment.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,andtheappellanthasappealedtothiscourt.WehavedeterminedthattheappellantdemonstratedgroundsforreliefunderTenn.R.App.P.60.02(1)andaccordinglyvacatetheorderdenyingtheappellantsmotionforpostjudgmentrelief.@ I.  WilliamSellerssuedMichaelAndersonintheDavidsonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtseekingtorecoverfordamagestohisrealproperty.Mr.Anderson,inturn,filedasimilargeneralsessionsactionagainstMr.Sellers.FollowingahearingonAugust8,1996,thegeneralsessionscourtawardedMr.Sellers$1,069anddismissedMr.Andersonswarrant.Mr.AndersonfiledanappealbondinbothcasesonAugust16,1996.HepaidtheclerksfeeonAugust21,1996,andthegeneralsessionsrecordsinbothcaseswerefiledintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyonAugust22,1996. Shortlyafterthecaseswereappealedtothecircuitcourt,thelawyerrepresentingMr.AndersontelephonedthelawyerrepresentingMr.Sellersinanefforttoreachagreementonadateforthecircuitcourttrial.OnSeptember23,1996,afterthetelephonecallprovedfruitless,thelawyerrepresentingMr.AndersonmailedalettertothelawyerrepresentingMr.SellersproposingsixpossibletrialdatesinMarchandApril1997.HealsoobtainedothertrialdatesinFebruaryandMarch1997fromthedocketclerkandcommunicatedthesetothelawyerrepresentingMr.Sellers.Theseeffortstosetthecasefortrialalsoprovedfruitless,andonOctober11,1996,Mr.Andersonslawyerfiledamotiontosetthecasefortrial.Beforethismotioncouldbeheard,thetrialcourtenteredanorderonOctober18,1996dismissingMr.AndersonsappealsinbothcasesforfailuretocomplywithRule19(b). OnOctober31,1996,Mr.AndersonfiledamotiontosetasidetheOctober18,1996orderofdismissalandsupportedthemotionwithanaffidavitrecountinghiseffortstoobtainatrialdatebyagreementwithMr.Sellersslawyer.Therecordcontainsnoresponsetothismotion.OnDecember2,1996,thetrialcourtfiledanorderdenyingMr.Andersonsmotion,directingthathisappealsfromgeneralsessionscourtbedismissed,andadoptingthegeneralsessionscourtsjudgmentsasitsown.@ II.  ThisappealisnotafrontalassaultonthevalidityofRule19._ 7   _ԀRather,Mr.AndersonassertsthatthetrialcourtsinterpretationofRule19isinconsistentwiththerulesandpoliciespromotingethicalandgoodfaithdealingsbetweenopposingcounselandthatthetrialcourterredbyrefusingtogranthimequitablerelieffromtheorderdismissinghiscasebeforeahearingonthemeritsincircuitcourt.WhilethetrialcourtcorrectlyinterpretedRule19,wehavedeterminedthatMr.AndersonmadeoutabasisforreceivingrelieffromthedismissalofhiscaseunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1). Rule19manifeststhecommitmentofthetrialcourtsinDavidsonCountytotheprinciplethatthereshouldbeajust,speedy,andinexpensivedeterminationofeverycase.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.1.WhileRule19maynotbeentirelyclear, 8   כitisintendedtoassurethatappealsfromgeneralsessionscourtsaretriedwithdispatch.Accordingly,therulesimultaneouslyadvancesdocketcontrolpoliciesaswellaspoliciesfavoringthepromptdispositionofcases.̛̜ Mr.AndersondidnotcomplywithRule19anddoesnotinsistonthisappealthathedid.Hefailedtoobtainatrialdatewithinfortyfivedaysafterperfectinghisappealfromgeneralsessionscourt.Thus,thetrialcourtwasactingwithinitsdiscretionwhenitentereditsOctober18,1996orderdismissingMr.AndersonscaseforfailuretocomplywithRule19(b). TheissueofwhetherMr.AndersonpresentedadequategroundsforrelieffromthetrialcourtsOctober18,1996orderisanotherquestionwhoseanswerdoesnotdependonthe correctnessoftheOctober18,1996order,butratherontheapplicationofthefactorsthatanimateTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1).Theruleisintendedtoproviderelieffromapartysexcusablenegligenceoroversight,seeTennesseeStateBankv.Lay,609S.W.2d525,527(Tenn.Ct.App.1980),whileatthesametimetostrikeanappropriatebalancebetweenthecompetingprinciplesoffinalityandjustice.SeeFielderv.LakesiteEnters.,Inc.,871S.W.2d157,159(Tenn.Ct.App.1993). PersonsseekingreliefunderTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)mustexplainwhytheywerejustifiedinfailingtoavoidthemistake,inadvertence,surprise,orneglect.SeeTravisv.CityofMurfreesboro,686S.W.2d68,69(Tenn.1985);Bivinsv.HospitalCorp.ofAm.,910S.W.2d441,446(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Basedontheproofofferedbythemovingpartytosupportitsclaim,thetrialcourtmayexerciseitsdiscretiontorelievethepartyfromtheeffectsofthejudgment.SeeUnderwoodv.ZurichIns.Co.,854S.W.2d94,9697(Tenn.1993);Dayv.Day,931S.W.2d936,939(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). ThedismissalofacaseforfailuretocomplywithRule19isanalogoustograntingadefaultjudgment.Defaultjudgmentsarenotfavored,andthusTenn.R.Civ.P.55.02permitstrialcourtstosetasidedefaultjudgmentsinaccordancewithTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1).SeeKeckv.NationwideSys.,Inc.,499S.W.2d266,267(Tenn.Ct.App.1973).Whenaskedtosetasideadefaultjudgment,courtsshouldconstruetherulesliberallyandshouldsetthedefaultasidewheneverthereisareasonabledoubtaboutthejustnessofdismissingthecasebeforeitcanbeheardonthemerits.SeeTennesseeDeptofHumanServs.v.ϜBarbee,689S.W.2d863,86667(Tenn.1985).Theyshouldfocusprincipallyonwhetherthedefaultwaswillful,whetherthenondefaultingpartysabilitytopresenttheirclaimwillbeprejudiced,andwhetherthedefaultingpartyhasacolorabledefensetotheclaim.SeeInreEstateofMayes,843S.W.2d418,42526(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Nelsonv.Simpson,826S.W.2d483,485(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). ThecircumstancesinthiscasefavorgrantingMr.AndersonrelieffromtheOctober18,1996order.HedidnotcausehislawyertofailtocomplywithRule19.Infact,hislawyermadegoodfaitheffortstocomplywithRule19byrequestinghisadversarytoagreetoamutuallyconvenienttrialdate.Mr.AndersonslawyercommencedhiseffortsinatimelymannerandwouldhavebeenabletocomplywithRule19haditnotbeenforhisadversarysunwarrantedrefusaltoagreetoatrialdate. TherecorddoesnotdisclosewhyMr.Sellersslawyerdeclinedtosetthecasebyagreement.Inhisbriefandduringoralargument,heexplainedthathedeclinedtoagreetoatrialdatebecausehebelievedthatMr.Andersonhadnotappealedthecaseinatimelymanner.Settingacasebyagreementdoesnotamounttoawaiverofmeritoriousclaimsordefenses.Atthesametime,itsavesthepartiesandthetrialcourtthetimeandexpenseassociatedwithacontestedmotiontoset.Thus,thepropercoursewouldhavebeenforMr.Sellersslawyertoagreetoatrialdateandthentofileanappropriatemotionorpleadingassertingallhisavailableclaimsanddefenses. 9   ׀ Mr.Sellershaspresentednocolorableclaimthathewillbeprejudicedbybeingrequiredtolitigatethisboundarylinesuitnowasopposedtolastyear.Mr.AndersonslawyersfailuretocomplywithRule19wasbroughtaboutbyadversarycounselsunwarrantedrefusaltosetthecasebyagreement.Accordingly,wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedMr.AndersonsTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02(1)motionforrelieffromtheOctober18,1996order.̛̜@ III.  WevacatetheorderdenyingMr.AndersonrelieffromtheOctober18,1996orderdismissinghisappealforfailuretocomplywithRule19andremandthecasetothetrialcourtwithdirectionstorestorethiscasetothecourtsactivedocket.WealsotaxthecostsofthisappealinequalproportionstoMichaelAndersonandhissuretyandtoWilliamSellersforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       _____________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:__________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION__________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE