WPC L=ɪ:SwZT4pl9h\Ъ/ڒEZC%`rgtqRR}՝_qY h}hD29 c.+wdhhl*9Mw>*"͏q,dv> HknusDXYr| DW|ecJ;G*TOC;9`ټH,#@w}~oODƚ 7nג=PK\#I4's3XG3'iق^#iTwŪs/MI d-HVuvU-͂V!#bXJHSFHF4G@3a0] NH A|ٕ,ä,d[J3ƛZM i`UB@ %n 04E4yw AQ#! N% ^ ' 3 m5 L U8 0x# 0DAU: B3 0P 0PI 0D D3<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$  tpO'  Shelby Z[\]_C<<CHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0,xS'L U  $      1    _ `  XX ` 20-2-214.Jurisdictionofpersonsunavailabletopersonal   serviceinstate-Classesofactionstowhichapplicable. (a)  J PersonswhoarenonresidentsofTennesseeandresidentsof r  Tennesseewhoareoutsidethestateandcannotbepersonally :   servedwithprocesswithinthestatearesubjecttothe `  jurisdictionofthecourtsofthisstateastoanyactionorclaim (  forreliefarisingfrom:    ` ....    ` (6)Anybasisnotinconsistentwiththeconstitutionofthis  stateoroftheUnitedStates. x <09Z+ Courier New (((3$ T!       0  (#$  0   $      2    _ ` XXPaymentwasmadebytwoseparatechecks. 7 [͸"   _XXXXlXX   Ad FILEDal  October15,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3͸$ T!   ((3͸$ T!   ($$   1  YYYY'dxd T!   _`   8XXdd8TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XXXXv _@0,j: `@Ef tt` \v_@LLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALS@@$ `  @$ATKNOXVILLE   `     h      p      x FRANKTURK@*@@*)  HAMBLENCOUNTY   : Ѐ0   `     h   )  03A019811CV00381(#(#   PlaintiffAppellant  @*)     @*)@*)  v.@*)  HON.JOHNK.WILSON, h  @*)0  JUDGE> (#(# @*)JOSEPHB.HOLDER,d/b/a@*)   HOLDERTREEFARMS@*)   `  @*)  DefendantAppellee@*)@@*0  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDl (#(# PAULG.WHETSTONEOFMORRISTOWNFORAPPELLANTMARKA.COWANOFMORRISTOWNFORAPPELLEE   `    OPINION t"    `     h      p   Goddard,P.J. &B#    ` PlaintiffFrankTurkappealsdismissalofhissuitagainstJosephB.Holder,d/b/aHolderTreeFarms,becauseMr.Holder,aresidentofOregon,hadinsufficientcontactwiththeStateofTennesseetobeamenabletoserviceofprocessinthisState.   ` ThecasebelowwasdisposedofbygrantingMr.Holdersmotiontodismiss,accompaniedbyhisaffidavit.Mr.Turkfiledaresponsetothemotion,alsosupportedbyanaffidavit.  9|0:    ` TheTrialCourtheldtwohearingswithregardtothe motion,thefirstonJune30,1998,andthesecondonOctober7,1998.Thetranscriptofthefirsthearingisnotapartofthe  X recordandthesecondisprincipallyargumentsbycounsel,plus d severalunswornstatementsbyMr.Turk.     ` Itappearsthatforthemostpartthefactsnecessary h  fordispositionofthisappealareundisputed.Sometimepriorto   enteringintoacontractofpurchaseofChristmastreesfromMr. `  Holder,Mr.TurkreceivedabusinesscardfromMr.Holderin l  Arizona.HeinitiatedthesalebycallingMr.HolderinOregon  andreceivedfromMr.Holderwhatisdescribedasaproposed d order,togetherwithapricelistofthetreestobesold.Mr. p Turkultimatelydecidedthattheinitialproposal,whichwasin  theamountof$23,637.50,wasmorethanhechosetobuyand  h ultimatelyboughtfewertreesatapriceof$11,355.Mr.Turk t" borrowed$10,000incidenttothepurchasefromaTennesseebank  $  andsentittowhathedescribedasa partnerinNewMexico. %l" Thepartnerthenaddedtothatamount$1355topurchasethetrees x'$ whichwere,atMr.Turksdirection,shippedtoArizona.Upon $)& inspectionMr.Turkfoundthetreestobedefectiveand *p!( thereafterbroughtthesuitpresentlyonappeal. |,#*    ` IthasbeenheldthatT.C.A.202214(a)(6)extendsthe 1 (0 personaljurisdictionofTennesseecourtstothelimitsallowed ,3)2 bytheUnitedStatesConstitution. #  1      ׀InGullettv.Qantas 4x+4 Airways,Ltd.,417F.Supp.490(M.D.Tenn.1975),theCourtruled `  (atpage493):   Thelanguageofthestatuteisclear.Thereisno d mentionofany withinthestatelimitationin : subsection(f)[nowsubsection(6)],andonecanonly  assumethatitwastheintentofthelegislaturenotto   includesucharestrictioninthatsubsection. \   ` .... h  [T]heclearlanguageofthestatute,itslegislative   history,...convincethiscourtthatsubsection(f)   expandsthejurisdictionofTennesseecourts...to `  thefullconstitutionallypermissiblelimits. 6    ` ThiswasreiteratedbytheSupremeCourtofTennessee  inthecaseofMasadaInvestmentCorp.v.Allen,697S.W.2d332 : (Tenn.1985),inwhichtheCourtdeclared(atpage334): F Subsection(6)changedthelongarmstatutefroma !>  singleactstatutetoa minimumcontactsstatute t" whichexpandedthejurisdictionofTennesseecourtsto J# thefulllimitallowedbydueprocess.  $     ` Dueprocessrequiresthatanonresidentdefendanthave N(% acertain minimumcontactswiththeforumsuchthatthe ) ' maintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffend traditionalnotionsof +F") fairplayandsubstantialjustice.InternationalShoeCo.v. R-#+ Washington,326U.S.310,66_S.Ct_.154(1945).Inthecaseof .%- BurgerKingCorp.v._Rudzewicz_,471U.S.462,105_S.Ct_.2174 0J'/ (1985),theCourtstatedthatwhereaforumseekstoassert `   specificjurisdictionoveranonresident,therequirementthat   adefendanthave fairwarningthataparticularactivitymight  X subjecthimtojurisdictionintheforumissatisfiedifthe d defendanthas purposefullydirectedhisactivitiesatresidents  oftheforum,andthelitigationresultsfromallegedinjuries \  that ariseoutoforrelatetothoseactivities.Insum, h   partieswhoreachoutbeyondonestateandcreatecontinuing   relationshipsandobligationswithcitizensofanotherStateare `  subjecttoregulationsandsanctionsintheotherstateforthe l  consequencesoftheiractivities.BurgerKing,supra,citing  TravelersHealth_Assn_Ԁv.CommonwealthofVirginia,339U.S. d 643,70_S.Ct_.927(1950). p    ` ThisCourt,inShelbyMut.Ins.Co.v.Moore,645  h S.W.2d242(Tenn.Ct.App.1981),notedthatthreeprimary t" factorsaretobeconsideredindeterminingwhethertherequisite  $  minimumcontactswerepresent:thequantityofthecontacts, %l" theirnatureandquality,andthesourceandconnectionofthe x'$ causeofactionwiththosecontacts.Twolesserfactorstobe $)& consideredaretheinterestoftheforumstateandconvenience. *p!( TheTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedthesefactorsin_Masada_ |,#* InvestmentCorp.v.Allen,supra. (.$,    ` InthiscaseweareoftheopinionthatMr.Holders 1 (0 contactswithTennesseedidnotmeettheminimumcontacts ,3)2 constitutionallyrequiredandthattheTrialCourtproperly 4x+4 refusedtoexercisejurisdiction.Wesaythisbecause,as 6$-6 alreadynoted,anysolicitationbyMr.Holderwasmadeinthe 08.8 StateofArizonaandthecontactinvolvingTennesseewasmadeby 9|0: Mr.Turk.InresponsetoMr.Turksrequest,Mr.Holderdidsend `  invoicesandapricelisttoMr.Turk,butthechecks #  2      ׀inpayment   weresentfromNewMexicoandthetreesdeliveredtoArizona.  X    ` Inreachingourconclusionwerecognizethatitisfor  themostpart,ifnotentirely,asubjectivejudgment,butisone \  inwhichwearecalledupontomakeandwebelieveis h  appropriatelymadeunderthefactsofthiscase.      ` FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrial l  Courtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcosts  below.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.Turkandhis d surety. p      `     h   ____________________________     `     h     HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.  h CONCUR:  $  ____________________________ x'$ CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J. N(% ____________________________ +F") D.MichaelSwiney,J. |,#*