WPC? iZXY\C\^#bSql=q`N1Yz5v=!s~5R8BjNѬr1dc_lK>p+׹BYN(>a;ףB 9?Mq*3Riүs92p)ttZԸqL$G﹫$"In0%@sMaR2$[[ j e_:q1# 0!$ 0% 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0=* 02+ 0A+ 0:=, 0Yw, 0_, 0 /- 09. 0/ B*1 D/1 02 D/ 4 0O4 065 0S5 0:[6 0^6 0<6 1e/7U67U >7U*8 28 0B8 1u-9 729,9 B;; 0; D5; D-; 0K#< An< AS =`= 0&> 0D> A?\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,01 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1b014c2 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.wpt3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   - -0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialSDU_2(|G29)$ !.8Udd8         0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Si)  COATenn.R.App.P.SwineyKuykendallTaylorsnonsuitg]roundCorleyTenn.App.W.S.KizerBellar TCATenn.R.Civ.P.Devt d(|3l$ !.8Udd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  X[Z I&mage <=8C HKKKK^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3l$ !.8Udd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Udd8     _  U8NXXdd8  @ UINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#U #Ԉ &   October25,2004Session L XNXU #UXXN#LISATAYLOR,etal.v.TRANSMISSIONCORPORATIONOF J AMERICA,INC.XNXU   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  ^ @@No.173602DaleC.Workman,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302529_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDDECEMBER13,2004   AV) ` dE<` A    #UXXNٛ#  XNXUThiscasepresentstheissueofwhetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissedthePlaintiffsactionwhere  therewasanidenticallawsuit,filedpriortothisCircuitCourtaction,pendinginGeneralSessions x Court.Weholdthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydismissedthiscaseforlackofsubjectmatter d jurisdictionunderthedoctrineofpriorsuitpending. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed; (x CaseRemanded  d   SharonG.Lee,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCharlesD.Susano,Jr.andD. < MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. ( RobinS.Kuykendall,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellants,LisaTaylorandEdwardTaylor.  BrentR.Watson,Knoxville,Tennessee,forAppellee,TransmissionCorporationofAmerica,Inc.  ] OPINION  `!      ThePlaintiffs,LisaandEdwardTaylor,filedanactionagainsttheDefendant,Transmission 8#" CorporationofAmerica( TCA),inKnoxCountyGeneralSessionsCourtonJanuary25,2002. $$t# TheonlydocumentationcontainedintheappellaterecordregardingwhathappenedinGeneral %` $ SessionsCourtisthesummonsandanaffidavitofLisaTaylor.TheTaylorsallegedthatTCA %L!% provideddefectivegoodsandservicesinattemptingtorepairtheirautomobile. &8"& V   AccordingtotheTaylorsbrief,duringthetrialinGeneralSessionsCourt,thetrialjudge ($(  orderedanotherinspectionofthevehiclebyDefendant,reservinghisdecisionuntilthepartiescould )$) reporttheresultstotheCourt.Thebrieffurtherstatesthat meanwhile,appellantsvoluntarily *%* dismissedbylettertotheCourtclerk,datedJune24,2002,which,inexplicably,didnotappearin +&+  theCourtfile,butwasforwardedtotheCourtandtoopposingcounselbyfaxandbyU.S.mailon p,', _thatdate.TCAreceivedtheletter;butacopyofitisattachedasanappendixtotheTaylorsbrief,  anditcontainsnoindicationthatitwaseverfiledwiththecourt.      TheTaylorsthenfiledthepresentactioninKnoxCountyCircuitCourtonDecember12, t 2002.AtrialdatewassetforSeptember18,2003.Onthemorningoftrial,TCAfiledamotionto ` dismissthecaseforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction,allegingthattheGeneralSessionsactionhad L  neverbeendismissedandwasstillpending.Thetrialcourtdidnotruleonthismotionandinstead 8  allowedthecasetoproceedtojurytrial. $ t R  AtthecloseoftheTaylorsproofattrial,TCAmovedforadirectedverdict.Atthispoint,  L  thetrialcourtstatedthefollowing:  8  8  8`   Thecourtisgoingtograntthemotionfordirectedverdictfortwo   reasons.One,alltheproofhereistherewasalawsuitbythesame   partiesforthesamecauseofactioninSessionsCourtthatwas   pendingandispendingupuntilthismorning,whichwouldmeanI   hadnojurisdictionifthatstrue.Theresanoticethatsbeenentered p ofnonsuit,butasIunderstanditnojudgehassignedanorder \ dismissingthatlawsuitevenasofthismoment.Sothatsgroundone.H` x` x Thetrialcourtthenproceededtostatethat [g]roundtwo,ignoringthefactthattheremaybeaprior  p suitpending,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffhasfailedtocarrytheburdenofproof...Thetrialcourt  \ thereforegrantedTCAadirectedverdictandtheTaylorshaveappealed. H   AlthoughtheTaylorsraiseotherissuesconcerningthemeritsoftheircase,wefindthatthe   determinativeissueiswhetherthetrialcourterredinholdingitdidnothavesubjectmatter   jurisdictionbecauseofthepriorsuitpendingdoctrine.WeagreethattheCircuitCourtdidnothave  subjectmatterjurisdiction.  J  Theissueoftheapplicabilityofthepriorsuitpendingdoctrineisaquestionoflaw.Our l review,therefore,isdenovoontherecord,withnopresumptionofcorrectnessregardingthetrial X  courtsjudgment.Fidelity&GuarantyLifeIns.Co.v.Corley,2003WL23099685at*3;2003 D! Tenn.App.LEXIS940,C/ANo.W200202633COAR9CV(Tenn.App.W.S.filedDec.31,2003). 0"  r  TheCorleycourtstatedasfollowsregardingthepriorsuitpendingdoctrine: $X" 8  8`   Thedoctrineofpriorsuitpending,alsocalledthedoctrineofformer %0!$ suitpending, hasprevailedinthisjurisdictionforoveronehundred &"% years....Underthatdoctrine,wheretwocourtshaveconcurrent '#& jurisdictionoveramatter,thecourtfirsttakingjurisdictionacquires (#' exclusivejurisdictionoverthematter,andthesubsequentactionmust )$( bedismissed.|*%)` x` x Ӏ h+&* Corley,2003WL23099685at*3(citationomitted);accordKizerv.Bellar,241S.W.2d561,563  (Tenn.1951).TheSupremeCourthasnotedthefollowingrequirementsinorderforacourtto  dismissasubsequentactionunderthedoctrine:  I8  8`   Theessentialsofsuchaplea[inabatement,nowcalledamotionto ` dismiss]arethatthetwosuitsmustinvolvetheidenticalsubject L  matterandbebetweenthesamepartiesandtheformersuitmustbe 8  pendinginacourtinthisstatehavingjurisdictionofthesubject $ t matterandtheparties. `` x` x Cockburnv.HowardJohnson,Inc.,385S.W.2d101,102(Tenn.1964). $    ThereisnoquestioninthepresentcasethattheearlierGeneralSessionslawsuitinvolvedthe   samesubjectmatterandthesameparties.Norisitindisputethatnoorderdismissingtheearlier   actionhadbeenenteredatthetimethetrialcourtruledon_TCA_sMotiontoDismiss.Thetrialcourt   shouldhavemadeadeterminationastowhetherithadsubjectmatterjurisdictionbeforeallowing p themattertoproceedtoajurytrial.ButitsdismissalcomportswithTenn.R.Civ.P.12.08,which \ providesthat  SOX? XXXNwheneverit% Q #XNX XOX?##%Q#OX? XXXNappearsbysuggestionofthepartiesorotherwisethatthecourtlacks H jurisdictionofthesubjectmatter,thecourtshalldismisstheaction.#XNX XOX? $#ԀThe alternativerulingbythe 4 trialcourtonthemeritsofthecase,havingbeenmadewithoutsubjectmatterjurisdiction,isvoid  p andofnoconsequence.SeeFirstAmericanTrustCo.v.FranklinMurray_Devt_ԀCo.,L.P.,59S.W.2d  \ 135,141(Tenn.App.2001). H    M !"#(03S  Fortheaforementionedreasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingtheTaylors v actionforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionpursuanttothepriorsuitpendingdoctrineis b affirmed,andthecaseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.Costsonappealareassessedto N theAppellants,LisaTaylorandEdwardTaylor. : 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#___________________________________ (#(#    `     h   SHARONG.LEE,JUDGE #UXXN#