ÿWPCA0 c¼$sV%hò›AQ©;S>¤dxt¾Frù?WhÎe©- c2M.ϦjiÌÜ’>濳ökux¬1wèÿ)_Wæk@oðþYqÎKÞE}<‰Ì­‡&C~}.s= 6}DîŒ@G¨%ZöB¨I‰Š=¤ÉO?öykSćÕãûø…ªÊ µ¥ý3͇¸“W̧ÖlQÒÀÜÏÍå_(òºSc¢ŒlÑÚ81åËýà—ÂF´Â³=3t´ÑÔ•:Ô¬­–°¹cשÕe,¾J€6Ž¹gÜ8Ú”k¨+0Èéòì¬Á@ gâ£Ñ,¦Ï]ƒ³ÞnÒì’³"7±Œxí; ‡@Tßi1ÌžÖ¬¿6•™Ô9L sÀ ãäæÁ6×”Ô©·IOÁ¼ÆnÖ;‚ âzíù__¯™í>šõæz—^>‹ó"8H,>ÌÔ­Ìr·gè^]Çß`;4g6_WÑ=콇0ý/Aé+À°Ô%Ì—]Ÿ(¸DŒÀTg¦ü§Áë*ÔߤŒÀÛ‚úNšÊ<ã‚8YksWÇæí|aˆ®ƒê0µ1qбå'©uZmäo4rÄùÌû>¿Í} å,´mÖ}*EºÁ Q0WדpNô~Ö“¿¹¶ÅûWƒÑb#Á\^  %) 0ˆ/ U"N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ°ÆvÆ<Æ 0 DÈN (² 6Eèêuò9g s !:#€M%fÍ&Í&Í&Í&3)3)3)3)3)3)3)3)3)3)3)3)3)b4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+ 0 ë<+<+<+<+ B',', 0¤D, D5è, D-- 0KJ-J- AS•-Æè- 0¤®. 0DR/ A«–/˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0/zš* »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-w*am FilesX›¬ ˜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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Davidson€County€Sheriff€and€the€Superintendent€of€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Justice€Center€also€filedÐ ° Ða€motion€to€dismiss€Mr.€Wilsonððs€complaint€based€on€grounds€other€than€the€failure€to€exhaust€administrative€remedies.€Ð tÄ ÐThe€record€contains€no€indication€that€the€trial€court€ever€considered€or€acted€upon€this€motion.€€This€oversight€is€largelyÐ 8ˆ Ðacademic€in€light€of€our€decision€to€affirm€the€dismissal€of€Mr.€Wilsonððs€complaint€for€failure€to€exhaust€administrativeÐ üL Ðremedies.€€As€a€practical€matter,€Mr.€Wilson€may€obtain€the€relief€he€seeks€only€from€the€Department.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€term€ð ðagenciesðð€encompasses€the€boards,€commissions,€and€departments€of€state€government.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ° ÐAnn.€ðð€4„5„102(2)€(1998). ¨ Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòChenault€v.€Walkeróó€involved€a€ð ðfactual,ðð€as€opposed€to€a€ð ðfacial,ðð€challenge€to€jurisdiction.€€These€two€typesÐ ° Ðof€challenges€are€different.€€òòóó2A€James€W.€Moore,€et€al.,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€12.07[2.„1],€at€12„50Ð tÄ Ðthrough€12„55€(2d€ed.€1995).€€A€ð ðfacialðð€challenge€makes€war€on€the€complaint€itself.€€It€asserts€that€the€complaint,Ð 8ˆ Ðconsidered€from€top€to€bottom,€fails€to€allege€facts€that€show€that€the€court€has€power€to€hear€the€case.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð üL ÐòòCrawford€v.€United€States€Depððt€of€Justiceóó,€123€F.€Supp.€2d€1012,€1013€(S.D.€Miss.€2000)€(making€a€facial€challengeÐ À Ðto€jurisdiction).€€In€deciding€a€facial€challenge,€the€court€considers€the€impugned€pleading€and€nothing€else.€€òòLaird€v.Ð „Ô ÐRamirezóó,€884€F.€Supp.€1265,€1272€(N.D.€Iowa€1995);€òòEnsign„Bickford€Co.€v.€ICI€Explosives€USA,€Inc.óó,€817€F.€Supp.Ð H ˜ Ð1018,€1023€(D.€Conn.€1993).€€If€a€complaint€merely€attacked€on€its€face€competently€alleges€any€facts,€which€if€true,Ð  \ Ðwould€establish€grounds€for€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€the€court€must€uncritically€accept€those€facts,€end€its€inquiry,€andÐ Ð  Ðdeny€the€dismissal€motion.€€òòGreat€Lakes€Educ.€Consultants€v.€Federal€Emergency€Mgmt.€Agencyóó,€582€F.€Supp.€193,€194Ð ” ä  Ð(W.D.€Mich.€1984).€€The€method€the€court€uses€to€evaluate€a€facial€attack€is€thus€similar€to€the€familiar€method€ofÐ X ¨  Ðdeciding€motions€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim.€€òòJetform€Corp.€v.€Unisys€Corp.óó,€11€F.€Supp.€2d€788,€789€(E.D.Ð  l  ÐVa.€1998);€òòAvellino€v.€Herronóó,€991€F.€Supp.€722,€725€(E.D.€Pa.€1997).Ð à 0  ÐÌà  àA€ð ðfactualðð€challenge,€on€the€other€hand,€denies€that€the€court€actually€has€subject€matter€jurisdiction€as€a€matterÐ h¸  Ðof€fact,€even€though€the€complaint€may€allege€facts€tending€to€show€jurisdiction.€€It€controverts€the€complaintððs€factualÐ ,|  Ðjurisdictional€allegations,€òòCedars„Sinai€Med.€Ctr.€v.€Watkinsóó,€11€F.3d€1573,€1583€(Fed.€Cir.€1993),€and€puts€at€issue€theÐ ð@  Ðsufficiency€of€evidence€to€support€alleged€facts€that,€if€true,€would€bring€the€case€within€a€courtððs€subject€matterÐ ´  Ðjurisdiction.€€òòEnsign„Bickford€Co.€v.€ICI€Explosives€USA,€Inc.óó,€817€F.€Supp.€at€1023.€€ð ðFactualðð€challenges€to€jurisdictionÐ xÈ  Ðcreate€ð ðgenuine€issues€as€to€material€fact,ðð€but€courts€must€resolve€those€factual€issues,€at€least€preliminarily.€€òòEdick€v.Ð <Œ ÐPoznanskióó,€6€F.€Supp.€2d€666,€668€(W.D.€Mich.€1998);€òòMalkin€v.€United€Statesóó,€3€F.€Supp.€2d€493,€497€(D.N.J.€1998).  kÝ ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Wilson€challenged€the€guilty€plea€proceedings€several€years€later,€but€the€Tennessee€Court€of€CriminalÐ ° ÐAppeals€declined€to€set€aside€his€convictions.€€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€899€S.W.2d€648€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994). /Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòIn€re€Estate€of€Tittleóó,€485€S.W.2d€255,€260€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1972)€(discussing€what€it€means€for€evidence€toÐ ° Ðð ðpreponderateðð€one€way€or€the€other). iÝ ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€blank€spaces€on€the€form€have€been€filled€in€using€two€different€typewriters.€€The€form€also€bears€the€wordÐ ° Ðð ðcopyðð€in€original€blue€ink,€indicating€that€it€is€a€copy,€and€it€contains€an€original€signature. 0Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12€is€substantially€identical€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12,€making€federal€court€precedents€persuasiveÐ ° Ðauthority€in€construing€our€rule.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€211€n.€2€(Tenn.€1993);€òòBayberry€Assocs.€v.€Jonesóó,€783Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€553,€557€(Tenn.€1990);€òòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€Life€Holding€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2d€946,€952€n.7€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð 8ˆ ÐApp.€1995). vÝ ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDeciding€the€question€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€for€example,€is€not€an€adjudication€on€the€merits.€€òòKleinÐ ° Ð&€Ô_ÔVibberÔ_Ô,€P.C.€v.€Collard€&€Roe,€P.C.óó,€3€F.€Supp.€2d€167,€169€(D.€Conn.€1998). \Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBy€statute,€the€practice€in€Tennessee€formerly€was€different.€€A€party€could€demand€a€jury€trial€of€disputed€factsÐ ° Ðput€at€issue€by€a€replication€to€a€plea€in€abatement.€€òòSeeóó€Sam€B.€Gilreath,€òòCaruthersðð€History€of€a€Lawsuitóó€ðð€188€(7th€ed.Ð tÄ Ð1951)€(discussing€resolution€of€disputes€of€fact€underlying€pleas€in€abatement).€€This€statutory€procedure€was€replacedÐ 8ˆ Ðby€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure. ÷Ý ƒR»I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThese€earmarks€include:€€(1)€the€genuineness€of€the€signature,€(2)€the€genuineness€of€the€typewriting,€(3)Ð ° Ðwhether€the€document€contains€changes€or€alterations,€(4)€whether€it€appears€to€have€been€composed€by€the€signer,€andÐ tÄ Ð(5)€whether€it€seems€too€recent€to€be€genuine.€€Albert€S.€Osborn,€òòQuestioned€Documents€óó241€(2d€ed.€1929).- ù-(|G2»I$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû5ò»»Ô d(|3‰$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑÀ°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼E½»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î@LE½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼E½»îî@L#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€January€6,€1999Ð üL ÐÔ‡XáX»¼E½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E½»XXá #ÔWOODROW€WILSON€v.€SENTENCE€INFORMATION€SERVICES,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XáX»¼E½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„185„I€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00939„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€April€26,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€otherwise€routine€dispute€over€sentence€reduction€credits€raises€a€seldom„considered€point€ofÐ xÈ  Ðprocedure€regarding€the€proper€method€for€deciding€contested€facts€at€the€preliminary€motion€stage.Ð d´ ÐA€prisoner€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€against€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ P  Ðof€Correction€and€other€state€and€city€officials€asserting€that€he€had€not€been€awarded€sentenceÐ <Œ Ðreduction€credits€allegedly€earned€while€incarcerated€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€JusticeÐ (x ÐCenter.€€After€the€Department€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(1)€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€ground€thatÐ d Ðthe€prisoner€had€not€exhausted€his€administrative€remedies,€the€prisoner€asserted€that€he€hadÐ P Ðexhausted€all€of€the€remedies€available€to€him€from€the€Department.€€After€considering€theÐ ì< Ðarguments€and€evidentiary€materials€submitted€by€both€parties,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€theÐ Ø( Ðprisoner€had€not€exhausted€his€administrative€remedies€and€dismissed€the€suit.€€On€this€appeal,€theÐ Ä Ðprisoner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€concluded€that€he€had€not€exhausted€hisÐ ° Ðadministrative€remedies.€€We€have€determined€that€the€evidence€regarding€the€prisonerððs€exhaustionÐ œì Ðof€his€administrative€remedies€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.€Ð ˆØ ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€suit.Ð tÄ ÐÓÞÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ L œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E½»àXá#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼E½ÔWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cainóó€andÐ $"t! ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌWoodrow€Wilson,€Clifton,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€and€Patricia€C.€Kussmann,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ À&"& ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellees,€Sentence€Information€Services,€Sentence€Management€Services,€andÐ ¬'ü"' ÐTennessee€Department€of€Correction.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÓž ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E½»XXáÍ #ÔÔ‡XáX»¼E½ÔÐ p*À%* ÐÌÔ#†¼E½»XXá>#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼E½ÔÓ  Óà  àIn€August€1989,€Woodrow€Wilson€entered€a€ð ðbest€interestðð€guilty€plea€to€two€counts€ofÐ H,˜', Ðaggravated€sexual€battery€in€order€to€avoid€prosecution€for€eight€counts€of€aggravated€rape.€€TheÐ 4-„(- ÐCriminal€Court€for€Davidson€County€sentenced€him€to€two€concurrent€twenty„year€sentences€in€theÐ  .p).ý Ðcustody€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€(ð ðDepartmentðð).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Wilson€was€initiallyÐ ° Ðincarcerated€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Justice€Center€because€of€overcrowding€problems€inÐ œì Ðthe€Departmentððs€facilities.€€He€was€later€incarcerated€at€the€South€Central€Correctional€Center€inÐ ˆØ ÐClifton,€Tennessee.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMr.€Wilson€participated€in€a€voluntary€work€program€while€incarcerated€in€the€DavidsonÐ L œ ÐCounty€Criminal€Justice€Center.€€At€some€point€in€the€mid„1990s,€Mr.€Wilson€became€convincedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€he€was€entitled€to€sentence€reduction€credits€for€participating€in€the€Davidson€County€work€Ð $ t Ðprogram€and€that€the€Department€had€not€properly€awarded€him€these€credits.€€On€Ô#†¼E½»XXá–#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼E½ÔJanuary€21,€1998,Ð  ` ÐMr.€Wilson€filed€a€pro€se€ð ðMotion€to€Restore€Sentence€Creditsðð€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€DavidsonÐ ü L  ÐCounty€naming€the€Department€and€others€as€defendants.€€The€Department€responded€by€moving€toÐ è 8  Ðdismiss€Mr.€Wilsonððs€complaint€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(1).€€The€Department€asserted€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€Mr.€Wilsonððs€complaint€because€he€had€notÐ À  Ðexhausted€his€remedies€by€first€requesting€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department€as€required€byÐ ¬ü  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„225(b)€(1998).€€Mr.€Wilson€responded€by€asserting€that€he€had€requested€aÐ ˜è  Ðdeclaratory€order€but€that€the€Department€never€responded€to€his€requests.€€He€also€asserted€that€theÐ „Ô  ÐDepartment€had€his€requests€on€file.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThereafter,€the€Department€filed€an€affidavit€by€Wilmer€G.€Lutche,€the€employee€responsibleÐ H˜ Ðfor€maintaining€the€records€involving€requests€for€declaratory€orders,€stating€categorically€that€Mr.Ð 4„ ÐWilsonððs€request€for€a€declaratory€order€ð ðwas€not€received€by€this€office.ðð€€Mr.€Lutcheððs€affidavitÐ  p Ðprompted€Mr.€Wilson€to€file€his€own€affidavit,€as€well€as€an€affidavit€by€his€inmate€counselorÐ  \ Ðregarding€his€communications€with€the€Department.€€Mr.€Wilson€insisted€that€he€had€filedÐ øH Ðdeclaratory€order€requests€on€September€6,€1994,€and€October€21,€1994,€and€provided€with€hisÐ ä4 Ðaffidavit€what€purports€to€be€a€copy€of€a€completed€petition€for€declaratory€order€form€signed€andÐ Ð  Ðdated€September€6,€1994.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÔ#†¼E½»XXáÞ#ÔÔ€XáX»¼E½Ôà  àThe€trial€court€considered€the€matter€solely€on€the€written€record€and€granted€theÐ ”ä ÐDepartmentððs€motion€to€dismiss.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€court€found€that€it€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€becauseÐ €Ð ÐMr.€Wilson€had€not€first€sought€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department.€€Mr.€Wilson€has€appealed.€Ð l¼ ÐTo€decide€this€case€we€must€now€consider€a€well„settled€tenet€of€administrative€law€and€a€seldom„Ð X ¨ Ðconsidered€point€of€procedure€ð!ð€the€exhaustion€of€remedies€doctrine€and€the€proper€method€forÐ D!” Ðdeciding€contested€facts€at€the€preliminary€motion€stage.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÌÐ ô$D # Ðà@¬¬)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ ° Ðà@… … ìàò òòòExhaustion€of€Administrative€Remediesóóó óˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àWe€live€in€a€day€and€age€where€administrative€bodies€have€become€a€veritable€fourth€branchÐ tÄ Ðof€the€government€charged€with€the€responsibility€for€administering€a€wide€variety€of€statutoryÐ `° Ðschemes.€€òòChevron,€U.S.A.,€Inc.€v.€Natural€Ress.€Def.€Council,€Inc.óó,€467€U.S.€837,€866,€104€S.€Ct.Ð L œ Ð2778,€2793€(1984);€òòFederal€Trade€Commððn€v.€Ruberoid€Co.óó,€343€U.S.€470,€487,€72€S.€Ct.€800,€810Ð 8 ˆ Ð(1952)€(Jackson,€J.,€dissenting).€€òòóóGovernment,€as€we€know€it€today,€cannot€function€without€the€workÐ $ t Ðof€these€administrative€agencies.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Inevitably€problems€and€complaints€arise€under€theseÐ  ` Ðadministrative€regimes.€€When€disagreements€arise,€administrative€agencies€should€have€the€powerÐ ü L  Ðand€responsibility€in€the€first€instance€ð!ð€and€sometimes€in€the€final€instance€ð!ð€to€address€them.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€exhaustion€of€administrative€remedies€doctrine€reflects€the€courtsðð€deference€toÐ À  Ðadministrative€expertise.€€The€doctrine€provides€that€parties€whose€acts€and€interests€are€overseenÐ ¬ü  Ðby€an€administrative€agency€ordinarily€may€not€obtain€judicial€relief€for€a€supposed€or€threatenedÐ ˜è  Ðinjury€until€all€prescribed€administrative€remedies€have€been€pursued€to€their€conclusion.€€òòBraceyÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Woodsóó,€571€S.W.2d€828,€829€(Tenn.€1978);€2€Charles€H.€Koch,€Jr.,€òòAdministrative€Law€andÐ pÀ ÐPracticeóó€ðð€13.21€(2nd€ed.€1997).€€The€exhaustion€doctrine€serves€to€prevent€premature€interferenceÐ \¬ Ðwith€agency€processes.€€It€also€enables€an€administrative€agency€to€(1)€function€efficiently€and€haveÐ H˜ Ðan€opportunity€to€correct€its€own€errors;€(2)€afford€the€parties€and€the€courts€the€benefit€of€itsÐ 4„ Ðexperience€and€expertise€without€the€threat€of€litigious€interruption;€and,€where€the€agencyððs€decisionÐ  p Ðis€not€a€matterððs€final€determination,€(3)€compile€a€record€which€is€adequate€for€judicial€review.€Ð  \ ÐòòMcKart€v.€United€Statesóó,€395€U.S.€185,€193„94,€89€S.€Ct.€1657,€1662„63€(1969);€òòThomas€v.€State€Bd.Ð øH Ðof€Equalizationóó,€940€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€doctrineððs€salutary€purposes€òòóónotwithstanding,€exhaustion€of€administrative€remedies€isÐ ¼  Ðmandatory€only€when€required€by€statute.€€Otherwise,€requiring€exhaustion€is€a€matter€within€judicialÐ ¨ø Ðdiscretion.€€òòThomas€v.€State€Bd.€of€Equalizationóó,€940€S.W.2d€at€566;€òòCoe€v.€City€of€Seviervilleóó,€21Ð ”ä ÐS.W.3d€237,€241„42€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€exhaustion€of€administrative€remedies€principle€is€germane€to€this€dispute€between€Mr.Ð X ¨ ÐWilson€and€the€Department.€€The€Department€is€an€administrative€arm€of€the€State€charged€by€statuteÐ D!” Ðwith€the€responsibility€for€incarcerating€those€who€have€been€convicted€of€crimes.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 0"€  Ððððð€4„3„601,€„606,€4„6„102€(1998);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„1„102(a)€(1997).€€One€of€the€DepartmentððsÐ #l! Ðduties€is€to€maintain€the€records€of€prisonersðð€sentences.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„6„140€(1998);€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCode€Ann.€ðððð€41„21„104,€„107(a)(3)€(1997).€€Prisoners€who€dispute€the€correctness€of€the€mannerÐ ô$D # Ðin€which€the€Department€has€calculated€their€sentence€must€take€that€matter€up€originally€with€theÐ à%0!$ ÐDepartment€by€requesting€a€declaratory€order.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGreene€v.€Tennessee€Depððt€of€Corr.óó,€No.Ð Ì&"% Ð01A01„9608„CH„00370,€1998€WL€382204,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€10,€1998)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÐ ¸'#& Ð(Tenn.€Oct€19,€1998).€€As€we€have€said€previously,€requiring€prisoners€to€first€take€up€the€issue€withÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Department€gives€the€Department,€as€the€responsible€administrative€agency,€an€opportunity€toÐ )à$( Ðresolve€the€issue.€€òòSeagroves€v.€Tennessee€Depððt€of€Corr.óó,€No.€01A01„9508„CH„00334,€1997€WLÐ ° Ð210857,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€30,€1997)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).Ð œì ÐÌà  àUntil€a€prisoner€has€sought€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department,€the€prisoner€has€notÐ tÄ Ðexhausted€his€or€her€administrative€remedies.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„225(b)€expressly€prohibitsÐ `° Ðcourts€from€rendering€declaratory€judgments€concerning€the€validity€or€applicability€of€a€statute,€ruleÐ L œ Ðor€order€unless€the€complainant€has€petitioned€the€agency€for€a€declaratory€order€and€the€agency€hasÐ 8 ˆ Ðrefused€to€issue€one.€€A€prisonerððs€failure€to€satisfy€the€statuteððs€precondition€prevents€a€court€fromÐ $ t Ðexercising€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€any€attempted€lawsuit€for€declaratory€relief.€€òòWatson€v.Ð  ` ÐTennessee€Depððt€of€Corr.óó,€970€S.W.2d€494,€497€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).Ð ü L  ÐÌà@……)ìàò òòòII.ˆÐ Ô$  Ðà@   ìàHow€May€Trial€Courts€Determine€à@@ŽŽ ìàDisputed€Facts€Underlying€a€ˆÐ À  Ðà@88ìàPreliminary€Motion€to€Dismiss€For€Lack€of€Subject€Matter€Jurisdiction?óóó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€parties€in€this€case€presented€the€trial€court€with€diametrically€conflicting€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðregarding€Mr.€Wilsonððs€exhaustion€of€his€administrative€remedies.€€The€trial€court€weighed€theÐ pÀ Ðevidence€and€found€in€favor€of€the€Department.€€Mr.€Wilson€now€argues,€in€his€own€words,€that€heÐ \¬ Ðð ðshould€have€been€given€the€benefit€of€the€doubt€on€a€motion€to€dismiss.ðð€€To€decide€whether€he€isÐ H˜ Ðright,€we€must€examine€how€a€court€properly€goes€about€deciding€disputes€of€fact€when€a€partyÐ 4„ Ðmakes€a€preliminary€challenge€to€a€trial€courtððs€subject€matter€jurisdiction€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð  p Ð12.02(1).Ð  \ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàò òA.ó óˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àA€threshold€question€in€all€cases€is€whether€the€court€has€jurisdiction€over€the€lawsuitððsÐ ¼  Ðsubject€matter.€€Because€courts€cannot€act€where€jurisdiction€is€lacking,€a€trial€court€has€anÐ ¨ø Ðinescapable€duty€to€determine€whether€the€dispute€is€within€its€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€òòEdwardsÐ ”ä Ðv.€Hawksóó,€189€Tenn.€17,€23,€222€S.W.2d€28,€31€(1949);€òòState€v.€Seagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€615,€617Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€When€a€court€lacks€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€case,€it€mustÐ l¼ Ðdismiss€the€case€without€reaching€the€merits€of€the€complaint.€€òòScales€v.€Winstonóó,€760€S.W.2d€952,Ð X ¨ Ð953„54€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àMotions€to€dismiss€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(1)€differ€significantly€from€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð #l! ÐP.€12.02(6)€motions€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€WhileÐ $X" Ða€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€requires€the€court€to€reach€the€complaintððs€merits,€theÐ ô$D # Ðother€preliminary€motions€enumerated€in€Rule€12€deal€with€procedural€defects€apart€from€theÐ à%0!$ Ðunderlying€merits€of€the€complaint.€€òòMortensen€v.€First€Fed.€Sav.€and€Loan€Assððn.óó,€549€F.2d€884,Ð Ì&"% Ð891€(3rd€Cir.€1977).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€adjudicates€both€theÐ ¸'#& Ðlegal€and€factual€merits€of€a€plaintiffððs€suit,€courts€considering€these€motions€afford€plaintiffs€theÐ ° Ðsafeguard€of€assuming€as€true€all€the€plaintiffððs€factual€allegations€and€drawing€all€reasonableÐ œì Ðinferences€in€the€plaintiffððs€favor.€€òòDoe€v.€Sundquistóó,€2€S.W.3d€919,€922€(Tenn.€1999);€òòHarvey€v.Ð ˆØ ÐFord€Motor€Credit€Co.óó,€8€S.W.3d€273,€275€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€If€either€or€both€parties€submitÐ tÄ Ðevidentiary€materials€outside€the€pleadings€either€in€support€of€or€in€opposition€to€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð `° ÐP.€12.02(6)€motion€and€if€the€trial€court€decides€to€consider€these€materials,€the€trial€court€mustÐ L œ Ðconvert€the€motion€to€dismiss€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€òòPacific€Eastern€Corp.€v.€Gulf€LifeÐ 8 ˆ ÐHolding€Co.óó,€902€S.W.2d€at€952,€and€the€court€must€notify€the€parties€that€it€has€made€theÐ $ t Ðconversion.€€òòTeaster€v.€Tennessee€Depððt€of€Corr.óó,€No.€01A01„9608„CH„00358,€1998€WL€195963,Ð  ` Ðat€*3„4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€24,€1998)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€Once€a€motionÐ ü L  Ðto€dismiss€is€converted€to€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€must€deny€the€motion€ifÐ è 8  Ðthere€exists€any€dispute€about€the€material€facts€of€the€case.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211;€òòPateÐ Ô$  Ðv.€Service€Merchandise€Co.óó,€959€S.W.2d€569,€573€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).Ð À  ÐÌà  àHowever,€as€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€recently€pointed€out,€motions€to€dismissÐ ˜è  Ðmerely€on€jurisdictional€grounds€are€not€converted€to€summary€judgment€motions€when€materialÐ „Ô  Ðfactual€disputes€arise.€€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36€S.W.3d€45,€55€(Tenn.€2001).€€Courts€faced€with€aÐ pÀ Ðmotion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€jurisdiction€must€make€some€kind€of€factual€resolution€allowing€theÐ \¬ Ðcourt€either€to€grant€or€to€deny€the€motion.€€In€the€courtððs€words,€courts€confronted€with€suchÐ H˜ Ðmotions€must€ð ðdetermine€whether€the€evidence€in€favor€of€finding€jurisdiction€is€sufficient€to€allowÐ 4„ Ðthe€case€to€proceed.ðð€€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36€S.W.3d€at€56.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€considering€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€at€the€motion€to€dismiss€stage,€the€trial€courtÐ øH Ðmust€keep€in€mind€that€the€plaintiff€bears€the€burden€of€proving€facts€establishing€that€the€court€hasÐ ä4 Ðjurisdiction.€€When€a€defendant€has€filed€affidavits€or€other€competent€evidentiary€materialsÐ Ð  Ðchallenging€the€caseððs€underlying€jurisdictional€facts,€the€plaintiff€may€not€rely€on€the€complaint€butÐ ° Ðmust€make€a€prima€facie€showing€of€facts€that€establish€jurisdiction.€€To€do€so,€the€plaintiff€mayÐ œì Ðsubmit€affidavits€or€other€helpful€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€43.02;€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36€S.W.3dÐ ˆØ Ðat€56.€€When€evaluating€the€case€at€that€stage,€the€trial€court€ð ðwill€take€as€true€the€allegations€of€theÐ tÄ Ðnonmoving€party€and€resolve€all€factual€disputes€in€its€favor€.€.€.€[without€crediting]€conclusoryÐ `° Ðallegations€or€draw[ing]€farfetched€inferences.ðð€€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36€S.W.3d€at€56.€€In€doing€so,Ð L œ Ðhowever,€the€court€does€ð ðnot€make€any€finding€as€to€whether€[the€plaintiffððs]€version€of€events€is,Ð 8 ˆ Ðin€fact,€correct.€€That€will€be€for€a€jury€to€decide€if€the€case€goes€to€trial.ðð€€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36Ð $ t ÐS.W.3d€at€56.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWhile€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó€sets€out€most€of€the€rules€for€deciding€preliminary€motions€toÐ è 8  Ðdismiss,€it€does€not€òòóóperfectly€fit€this€case.€€In€cases€where€the€parties€have€invoked€theirÐ Ô$  Ðconstitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury,€a€trial€court€may€not,€on€its€own,€make€factual€findings€regardingÐ À  Ðthe€merits€of€the€underlying€claim.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€39.01.€€Still,€a€trial€court€must€decide€certainÐ ¬ü  Ðfactual€disputes€involving€merely€incidental€motions€in€such€cases.€€By€incidental€motions,€we€meanÐ ˜è  Ðmotions€that€do€not€reach€a€caseððs€merits.€€Preliminary€motions€to€dismiss,€other€than€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð „Ô  ÐP.€12.02(6)€motions,€do€not€involve€the€merits€of€the€underlying€claim.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Parties€losing€these€motionsÐ pÀ Ðordinarily€may€remedy€the€defect€causing€the€dismissal€of€their€suit€and,€as€the€poet€said,€ð ðlive€toÐ \¬ Ðfight€another€day.ðð€€Accordingly,€it€is€well„settled€that€preliminary€motions,€including€motions€toÐ H˜ Ðdismiss€for€want€of€jurisdiction,€and€the€facts€underlying€such€motions,€may€be€decided€by€the€courtÐ 4„ Ðalone.€€òòGrubart,€Inc.€v.€Great€Lakes€Dredge€&€Dock€Co.óó,€513€U.S.€527,€537„38,€115€S.€Ct.€1043,Ð  p Ð1050€(1995);€òòCameron€v.€Childrenððs€Hosp.€Med.€Ctr.óó,€131€F.3d€1167,€1170€(6th€Cir.€1997);€òòStewartÐ  \ Ðv.€RCA€Corp.óó,€790€F.2d€624,€628€(7th€Cir.€1986).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àOn€the€specific€facts€of€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€declined€to€settleÐ Ð  Ðdefinitively€on€the€plaintiffððs€factual€version€of€the€defendantððs€conduct€at€the€motion€to€dismissÐ ¼  Ðstage.€Had€the€court€done€so,€it€would€have€simultaneously€adjudged€facts€that€also€went€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðmerits€of€the€plaintiffððs€underlying€claim€that€the€defendant€had€engaged€in€conspiracy.€€For€thisÐ ”ä Ðreason,€the€court€concluded€that€ð ð[W]e€do€not€make€any€finding€as€to€whether€[the€plaintiffððs]Ð €Ð Ðversion€of€events€is,€in€fact,€correct.€€That€will€be€for€a€jury€to€decide€.€.€..ðð€€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36Ð l¼ ÐS.W.3d€at€56.€€Mr.€Wilsonððs€case€before€us€is€different.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€only€fact€put€at€issue€by€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss€is€merely€whether€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐWilson€requested€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department€prior€to€January€1998.€€Whether€or€notÐ #l! ÐMr.€Wilson€requested€this€order€is€in€no€way€entwined€with€the€factual€issues€underlying€the€meritsÐ $X" Ðof€his€claim€that€he€has€not€received€sentence€credits€for€the€work€he€performed€while€incarceratedÐ ô$D # Ðin€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Justice€Center.€€To€borrow€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróóððs€language,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðissue€of€whether€Mr.€Wilson€sought€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department€before€filing€suit€wouldÐ ° Ðnot€ð ðbe€for€a€jury€to€decide€if€the€case€goes€to€trial.ðð€€That€particular€fact€would€have€no€relevanceÐ œì Ðto€this€suitððs€merits.€€Therefore,€nothing€prevents€the€court€from€making€factual€findings€at€theÐ ˆØ Ðmotion€to€dismiss€stage.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMore€importantly,€unlike€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€this€is€a€non„jury€case.€€Ultimately€the€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt€will€be€required€to€decide€all€this€caseððs€disputed€facts.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€39.02;€òòWarner€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐMaroneyóó,€16€Tenn.€App.€78,€90,€66€S.W.2d€244,€249€(1932)€(stating€that€issues€not€submitted€to€aÐ $ t Ðjury€are€to€be€tried€by€the€trial€court).€€That€being€true,€nothing€prevented€the€chancery€court€at€theÐ  ` Ðpreliminary€motion€stage€from€making€the€factual€finding€it€implicitly€made€in€this€case.€€The€onlyÐ ü L  Ðquestion€left€is€whether€the€trial€court€employed€an€allowable€fact„finding€method€when€it€decidedÐ è 8  Ðthe€facts€underlying€the€Departmentððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@)ìàò òB.ó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àTrial€courts€may€employ€several€procedures€when€called€upon€to€resolve€factual€disputesÐ „Ô  Ðarising€in€the€context€of€a€preliminary€motion€challenging€their€jurisdiction.€€They€may€decide€theÐ pÀ Ðrelevant€jurisdictional€facts€ð ðupon€a€full€trial€record,€after€an€evidentiary€hearing,€or€merely€on€theÐ \¬ Ðbasis€of€a€written€record.ðð€€òòBerrios€v.€Department€of€Armyóó,€884€F.2d€28,€33€(1st€Cir.€1989);€òòS€&€SÐ H˜ ÐScrew€Mach.€Co.€v.€Cosa€Corp.óó,€647€F.€Supp.€600,€605€(M.D.€Tenn.€1986).€€Thus,€they€may,€in€theirÐ 4„ Ðdiscretion,€òòóógrant€a€preliminary€hearing€to€take€evidence€on€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð  p Ð12.04,€43.02;€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36€S.W.3d€at€56€n.3.€€They€may€also€decline€to€hold€a€hearing,€asÐ  \ Ðlong€as€both€parties€have€been€given€€an€opportunity€to€present€their€materials€to€the€court.€€òòGreenÐ øH Ðv.€WCI€Holdings€Corp.óó,€136€F.3d€313,€315„16€(2nd€Cir.€1998);€òòVilla€Marina€Yacht€Sales,€Inc.€v.Ð ä4 ÐHatteras€Yachtsóó,€947€F.2d€529,€534€(1st€Cir.€1991);€òòHealth€Care€Review,€Inc.€v.€Shalalaóó,€926€F.Ð Ð  ÐSupp.€274,€280€(D.R.I.€1996);€òòNice„Petersen€v.€Nice„Petersenóó,€310€N.W.2d€471,€472€(Minn.€1981).€Ð ¼  ÐThis€is€nothing€more€than€a€specific€application€of€the€general€rule€that€courts€may€decide€motionsÐ ¨ø Ðbased€on€written€materials.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Valonaóó,€834€F.2d€1334,€1340€(7th€Cir.€1987);Ð ”ä ÐòòConway€v.€Royalite€Plastics,€Ltd.óó,€12€S.W.3d€314,€318€(Mo.€2000).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€deciding€jurisdictional€facts,€trial€courts€may€consider€the€pleadings€and€affidavits€or€otherÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€purporting€to€show€the€material€facts.€€òòSchramm€v.€Oakesóó,€352€F.2d€143,€149€(10th€Cir.Ð D!” Ð1965);€òòSterling€T.V.€Presentations,€Inc.€v.€Shintron,€Inc.óó,€454€F.€Supp.€183,€186€(S.D.N.Y.€1978);Ð 0"€  ÐòòPerry€v.€Stitzer€Buick€GMC,€Inc.óó,€637€N.E.2d€1282,€1286„87€(Ind.€1994);€òòGabler€v.€McCollóó,€863Ð #l! ÐS.W.2d€340,€342€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€They€may€also€weigh€written€evidence,€òòCameron€v.Ð $X" ÐChildrenððs€Hosp.€Med.€Ctr.óó,€131€F.3d€at€1170;€òòDavis€v.€Central€Rent„A„Crane,€Inc.óó,€663€N.E.2dÐ ô$D # Ð1177,€1179€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1996),€including€evidence€presented€by€affidavit.€€òòTy,€Inc.€v.€GMAÐ à%0!$ ÐAccessories,€Inc.óó,€132€F.3d€1167,€1171„72€(7th€Cir.€1997);€òòCarolina€Power€&€Light€v.€Uranexóó,€451Ð Ì&"% ÐF.€Supp.€1044,€1055€(N.D.€Cal.€1977);€òòIn€re€Marriage€of€Brownóó,€884€S.W.2d€371,€374€(Mo.€Ct.€App.Ð ¸'#& Ð1994);€òòIn€re€Reaóó,€584€N.E.2d€1350,€1355„56€(Ohio€Ct.€Cl.€1989).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àAs€part€of€weighing€the€evidence€regarding€jurisdictional€facts,€trial€courts€in€non„jury€casesÐ |*Ì%) Ðmay€ð ðmake€a€determination€that€in€many€cases€will€entail€believing€one€party€over€another.ðð€Ð h+¸&* ÐòòSutherland€v.€Brennanóó,€883€P.2d€1318,€1323€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1994),€òòaffððd€on€other€groundsóó,€901€P.2dÐ T,¤'+ Ð240€(Or.€1995);€òòBonelli€v.€Chandleróó,€331€P.2d€705,€709€(Cal.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1958).€€Therefore,€whenÐ ° Ðthe€affidavits€pertinent€to€jurisdictional€facts€contradict€each€other,€the€court€has€the€power€to€chooseÐ œì Ðto€rely€on€one€affidavit€over€the€other.€€òòSeeóó€òòTanzola€v.€DeRitaóó,€285€P.2d€897,€901€(Cal.€1955);Ð ˆØ ÐòòOððBrien€v.€City€of€Santa€Monicaóó,€33€Cal.€Rptr.€770,€773€(Dist.€Ct.€App.€1963).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€followed€a€permissible€procedure€for€deciding€the€Departmentððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð L œ ÐP.€12.02(1)€motion.€€This€was€a€non„jury€proceeding,€and€the€trial€court€exercised€its€discretion€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðresolve€the€factual€disputes€surrounding€the€Departmentððs€jurisdictional€defense€based€on€the€writtenÐ $ t Ðevidentiary€materials€submitted€by€the€parties.€€The€parties€were€provided€a€full€and€fair€opportunityÐ  ` Ðto€submit€these€materials€to€the€trial€court.€€Accordingly,€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€court€didÐ ü L  Ðnot€err€by€undertaking€to€decide€the€Departmentððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(1)€motion€withoutÐ è 8  Ðconducting€an€evidentiary€hearing.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@^^(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOur€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€deciding€the€Departmentððs€motion€based€onÐ „Ô  Ðthe€record€does€not€end€the€matter.€€We€must€still€review€the€decision€itself€to€determine€whether€itÐ pÀ Ðis€the€correct€one.€€The€trial€court€implicitly€concluded€that,€as€a€matter€of€fact,€Mr.€Wilson€did€notÐ \¬ Ðseek€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department€before€filing€his€chancery€lawsuit.€€We€review€thatÐ H˜ Ðfinding€de€novo€by€examining€the€trial€court€record€and€by€presuming€that€the€finding€is€correctÐ 4„ Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòAnderson€v.€City€ofÐ  p ÐChattanoogaóó,€978€S.W.2d€105,€107€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòLeek€v.€Powellóó,€884€S.W.2d€118,€120Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(reviewing€an€implicit€factual€finding€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)ððsÐ øH Ðstandard).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMr.€Wilson€bore€the€burden€of€proving€that€he€had€brought€his€case€within€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction.€€òòChenault€v.€Walkeróó,€36€S.W.3d€at€56;€òòMortensen€v.€First€Fed.€Sav.€&Ð ¨ø ÐLoan€Assððnóó,€549€F.2d€at€891;€òòEnsign„Bickford€Co.€v.€ICI€Explosives€USA,€Inc.óó,€817€F.€Supp.€at€1024;Ð ”ä ÐòòVacca€v.€Meetzeóó,€499€F.€Supp.€1089,€1090€(S.D.€Ga.€1980).€€He€attempted€to€carry€his€burden€byÐ €Ð Ðfiling€two€affidavits€and€an€exhibit.€€In€his€own€affidavit,€he€asserted€that€he€had€sent€a€request€forÐ l¼ Ða€declaratory€order€to€the€Department€on€two€occasions€in€the€fall€of€1994.€€In€a€supporting€affidavit,Ð X ¨ Ðhis€inmate€counselor€asserted€that€he€had€assisted€Mr.€Wilson€with€these€requests.€€In€addition€toÐ D!” Ðthese€affidavits,€the€Mr.€Wilson€submitted€what€appears€to€be€an€original€form€dated€September€6,Ð 0"€  Ð1994€requesting€a€declaratory€order.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€To€counter€this€evidence,€the€Department€submitted€Mr.Ð #l! ÐLutcheððs€affidavit€stating€unequivocally€that€he€had€searched€the€Departmentððs€records€and€that€theÐ $X" ÐDepartment€had€never€received€a€request€for€declaratory€order€from€Mr.€Wilson€regarding€theÐ ô$D # Ðprisoner€sentence€credits€he€allegedly€earned€while€incarcerated€in€the€Davidson€County€€CriminalÐ à%0!$ ÐJustice€Center.€€€Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àTwenty€years€ago,€Judge€Nearn€wrote€that€ð ð[t]o€weigh€evidence€is€a€task€of€fact.ðð€€òòHohenbergÐ ° ÐBros.€Co.€v.€Missouri€Pacific€R.R.€Co.óó,€586€S.W.2d€117,€120€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€In€our€systemÐ œì Ðof€government,€that€task€falls€principally€on€the€trial€courts.€€As€we€have€recently€said:Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€trial€judgeððs€major€role€is€the€determination€of€fact,€and€withÐ `° Ðexperience€in€fulfilling€that€role€comes€expertise.€€Duplication€of€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€judgeððs€efforts€in€the€court€of€appeals€would€very€likelyÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontribute€only€negligibly€to€the€accuracy€of€fact€determination€at€aÐ $ t Ðhuge€cost€in€diversion€of€judicial€resources.€€In€addition,€the€partiesÐ  ` Ðto€a€case€on€appeal€have€already€been€forced€to€concentrate€theirÐ ü L  Ðenergies€and€resources€on€persuading€the€trial€judge€that€their€accountÐ è 8  Ðof€the€facts€is€the€correct€one;€requiring€them€to€persuade€three€moreÐ Ô$  Ðjudges€at€the€appellate€level€is€requiring€too€much.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌòòMitchell€v.€Archibaldóó,€971€S.W.2d€25,€29€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(quoting€òòAnderson€v.€City€ofÐ ˜è  ÐBessemer€Cityóó,€470€U.S.€564,€574„75,€105€S.€Ct.€1504,€1512,€84€L.€Ed.€2d€518€(1985)).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAs€we€view€the€record€in€this€case,€the€trial€court€must€have€decided€to€believe€theÐ \¬ ÐDepartment€and€to€disbelieve€Mr.€Wilson.€€For€this€court€to€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ H˜ Ðagainst€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determination,€we€would€be€required€to€conclude€that€ð ðthe€greaterÐ 4„ Ðweight€of€the€evidence€as€it€pertains€to€the€determinative€issueðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€favors€Mr.€Wilsonððs€account€ratherÐ  p Ðthan€the€Departmentððs.€€We€cannot€do€that€based€merely€on€the€fact€that€Mr.€Wilson€submitted€oneÐ  \ Ðmore€affidavit€than€did€the€State.€€Nor€must€we€conclude€that€Mr.€Wilsonððs€exhibit€was€the€clincher.€Ð øH ÐThe€trial€court€appears€to€have€examined€Mr.€Wilsonððs€proffered€ð ðcopyðð€of€a€declaratory€orderÐ ä4 Ðrequest€form€with€an€eye€toward€the€traditional€earmarks€of€documents€as€evidence׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€to€haveÐ Ð  Ðdetermined€that€it€lacked€indicia€of€authenticity.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€could€very€well€have€concludedÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€document€had€been€manufactured€to€support€Mr.€Wilsonððs€effort€to€avoid€dismissal€of€hisÐ ¨ø Ðlawsuit.€€We€have€carefully€examined€the€evidentiary€materials€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€weÐ ”ä Ðcannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€implicit€finding€that€Mr.€WilsonÐ €Ð Ðdid€not€petition€the€Department€for€a€declaratory€order€regarding€his€sentence€reduction€creditsÐ l¼ Ðbefore€seeking€a€declaratory€judgment€from€the€chancery€court.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àWe€affirm€the€dismissal€of€Mr.€Wilsonððs€complaint€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€court€lackedÐ $X" Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€because€Mr.€Wilson€had€failed€to€exhaust€his€administrative€remedies.€Ð ô$D # ÐIn€addition,€we€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€whatever€further€proceedings€consistent€withÐ à%0!$ Ðthis€opinion€may€be€required.€€Nothing€in€this€opinion€should€be€construed€to€prevent€Mr.€WilsonÐ Ì&"% Ðfrom€filing€a€proper€request€for€a€declaratory€order€regarding€the€calculation€of€his€sentence€creditsÐ ° Ðor€from€seeking€judicial€review€of€the€Departmentððs€response€to€his€request€for€a€declaratory€order.Ð œì ÐWe€also€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€Woodrow€Wilson€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€mayÐ ˆØ Ðissue.Ð tÄ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________€Ð $ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE