ÿWPCü 3# ÚU:å % 04%4Ym|w@„ 0DÄ 0³ 0D»bÿ 0J 0TQ 0P¥ 0^õ 0hS 0r» 0|- 0†© 0/ 1u¿ 0d4 U *˜ B) Bë DC AMK AO˜ Æç 1m­ 0c D/} B¬ øÉ wÁv~8 0@¶vÓö D3ɘHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó7„Á$tÔôÔô3|xs[ ^[_[D`[a[b[Dc[ d[Pe[Pf[Ó€q[($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(DG20t$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ô8âôXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô((3¾¸$§§Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd(0%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(0 +Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*#Je37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³É$´´Ô2JeÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à,,'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ YYY ÔÓ  ÓFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJune€22,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àÔ€"ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€emphasize€that€the€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€at€issue€in€this€appeal€was€òònotóó€a€motion€toÏreconsider€a€previously€decided€motion€under€Rule€59.01,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€€Indeed,€that€ruleÏspecifically€provides€that€motions€to€reconsider€previously€decided€post„trial€motions€are€ð ðnotÏauthorized€and€will€not€operate€to€extend€the€time€for€appellate€proceedings.ðð€€Rule€59.01,€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDaugherty€v.€Lumbermenððs€Underwriting€Allianceóó,€798€S.W.2d€754,€755€(Tenn.Ï1990)€(holding€that€the€filing€of€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€new€trial€does€notÏtoll€commencement€of€the€time€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal).ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ ` Ñ›Ñ7€äXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÑ€ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&ÓÓ` °ŽX«'0*ŒXÓÞ ÞÌà@ àÔ€"¼Ôò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€"XÔó óÌÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à›ÌÌÌÌTENNESSEE€FARMERS€MUTUAL,à à)à àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌINSURANCE€COMPANYà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€ò òJune€22,€1998ó óÌà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœKnox›€Chanceryà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHon.›€Frederick€D.€McDonald,ÌJOSEPH€A.€FARMER€and€wifeà àà à)à àœChancellor›ÌDEBRA€J.€FARMER,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)à àœAppeal›€No.à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ03S01›„9707„CH„00081Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àÌÙ€(ÙœßL€&-%;+'h|Êÿ¹` ï `€€Lߛ̜à àà àà àà àà àà àà à›ÌÌÌòòò òÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFor€Defendants/Appellantsóó:à àà àòòFor€Plaintiff/Appelleeóóó óÌÌœNorbert›€J.€œSlovis›à àà àà àà àRobert€W.€œKnolton›ÌDouglas€C.€œWeinstein›à àà àà àœKRAMER›,€œRAYSON›,€œLEAKE›,ÌœLOCKETT›,€œSLOVIS›€&€WEAVERà àà àœRODGERS›€&€MORGAN€ÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àOak€Ridge,€TennesseeÔ€"„ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€"XÔó óÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;ÌCASE€REMANDEDÌTO€COURT€OF€APPEALS.à àà àà àà àà àà àœDROWOTA›,€J.ÇÑ , ÑÓÓà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€Court€of€AppealsÏerred€in€finding€that€the€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€filed€by€the€defendant,€DebraÏFarmer,€was€not€sufficient€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€retain€jurisdiction.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€was€in€substance€a€Rule€59.04,€Tenn.€R.ÏœCiv›.€P.,€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€which€allowed€the€trial€court€toÏretain€jurisdiction€of€the€cause€and€which€tolled€commencement€of€the€time€forÏfiling€a€notice€of€appeal€until€entry€of€an€order€granting€or€denying€the€motion.€ÏAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€which€held€that€theÏð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€is€not€authorized€by€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€and€willÏnot€serve€to€extend€the€appellate€œprocess€and€remand€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€decision.ÌÌà@ àòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àThe€defendants,€Debra€and€Joseph€Farmer,€were€injured€in€a€car€accidentÏon€March€28,€1989.€€The€plaintiff,€Tennessee€Farmers€Mutual€InsuranceÏCompany,€their€automobile€insurance€carrier,€paid€the€medical€expensesÏincurred€by€the€Farmers.€€Thereafter,€the€defendants€filed€suit€and€obtained€aÍrecovery€against€the€third€party€tortfeasor›€involved€in€the€accident.€€WhenÏTennessee€Farmers€asserted€its€subrogation€rights,€Joseph€Farmer€reimbursed€itÏfor€the€medical€payments€it€had€made€on€his€behalf,€but€Debra€Farmer€refused€toÏreimburse€Tennessee€Farmers,€asserting€that€she€had€not€been€made€whole€byÏthe€recovery€from€the€third€party€œtortfeasor›.ÌÌà àTennessee€Farmers€filed€a€declaratory€judgment€action€seeking€aÏdetermination€of€its€subrogation€rights€against€Debra€Farmer.€€On€June€23,€1995,Ïthe€trial€court€held€that€Tennessee€Farmers€was€entitled€to€reimbursement€forÏmedical€expenses€it€had€paid€on€behalf€of€Debra€Farmer.€€Less€than€thirty€daysÏlater,€on€July€20,€1995,€Debra€Farmer€filed€a€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsider,ðð€in€which€sheÏrequested€that€the€trial€court€alter€or€amend€its€judgment€to€find€in€her€favor.€€AfterÏa€hearing,€the€Chancellor€granted€the€motion,€finding€that€Debra€Farmer€had€notÏbeen€made€whole€by€the€recovery€against€the€third€party€œtortfeasor›€and€ruling€thatÏTennessee€Farmers€had€no€right€of€subrogation€against€that€recovery.€€TheÏChancellor€entered€the€order€reflecting€the€altered€judgment€on€August€7,€1996.ÌÌà àOn€August€29,€1996,€within€thirty€days€of€the€trial€courtððs€entry€of€the€order,ÏTennessee€Farmers€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€The€partiesÏfiled€their€briefs,€and€upon€mutual€consent,€waived€oral€argument€and€submittedÏthe€matter€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€decision€on€the€briefs€alone.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€issued€an€opinion€in€which€it€vacated€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€of€August€7,€1996€and€reinstated€the€trial€courtððs€initial€judgment€ofÏJune€23,€1995€in€favor€of€Tennessee€Farmers.€€In€so€holding,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€found€that€the€trial€courtððs€initial€declaratory€judgment€became€final€thirtyÏdays€after€its€entry€because€the€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€is€not€designated€by€theÏapplicable€rules€of€civil€and€appellate€procedure€as€one€which€tollsÏcommencement€of€the€thirty€day€period€within€which€a€notice€of€appeal€must€beÏfiled.ÌÌà àThereafter€we€granted€permission€to€appeal,€and€for€the€reasons€hereinÏexplained,€now€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òANALYSISó óóóÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€with€Rule€4(a),€Tenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.,€whichÏrequires,€in€an€appeal€as€of€right,€that€a€notice€of€appeal€be€ð ðfiled€with€andÏreceived€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€within€30€days€after€the€date€of€entry€of€theÏjudgment€appealed€from;€.€.€.€.ðð€€However,€subsection€(b)€of€Rule€4€specifies€that,€ifÏtimely€filed,€certain€post„trial€motions€will€toll€commencement€of€the€thirty€dayÏperiod€until€the€date€on€which€an€order€is€entered€granting€or€denying€the€motion.€ÏSubsection€(b)€of€Rule€4€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€a€civil€action,€if€a€timely€motion€under€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure€is€filed€in€the€trial€court€by€any€party:€(1)€under€RuleÏ50.02€for€judgment€in€accordance€with€a€motion€for€a€directedÏverdict;€(2)€under€Rule€52.02€to€amend€or€make€additional€findingsÏof€fact,€whether€or€not€an€alteration€of€the€judgment€would€beÏrequired€if€the€motion€is€granted;€(3)€under€Rule€59.02€for€a€newÏtrial;€(4)€òòunder€Rule€59.04€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment;€the€timeÏfor€appeal€for€all€parties€shall€run€from€the€entry€of€the€order€denyingÏa€new€trial€or€granting€or€denying€any€such€motion.óóÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added).€€This€principle€is€reiterated€in€Rule€59.01,€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.,Ïwhich€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àMotions€to€which€this€rule€is€applicable€are€(1)€under€Rule€50.02€forÏjudgment€in€accordance€with€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict;€(2)Ïunder€Rule€50.02€to€amend€or€make€additional€findings€of€fact,Ïwhether€or€not€an€alteration€of€the€judgment€would€be€required€if€theÏmotion€is€granted;€(3)€under€Rule€59.02€for€a€new€trial;€or€(4)€òòunderÏRule€59.04€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€These€motions€are€theÏonly€motions€contemplated€in€these€rules€for€extending€the€time€forÏtaking€steps€in€the€regular€appellate€process.€€Motions€to€reconsiderÏany€of€these€motions€are€not€authorized€and€will€not€operate€toÏextend€the€time€for€appellate€proceedings.óó€ÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added.)€€Rule€59.04,€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.,€provides€that€ð ð[a]€motion€to€alterÏor€amend€a€judgment€shall€be€filed€and€served€within€(30)€days€after€the€entry€ofÏjudgment.ðð€ÌÌà àIn€this€Court,€Debra€Farmer€asserts€that€the€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€was€an€overly€technical€application€of€these€rules€which€considered€theÏform€rather€than€the€substance€of€the€motion.€€She€argues€that€despite€its€title,€theÏð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€was€in€substance€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amendÏthe€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€She€asserts€that€its€filing€within€thirty€days€of€entry€ofÏthe€trial€courtððs€initial€judgment€tolled€commencement€of€the€time€for€filing€a€noticeÏof€appeal€until€the€date€on€which€an€order€was€entered€granting€or€denying€theÍmotion.€€In€contrast,€Tennessee€Farmers€argues€that€the€Court€of€AppealsððÏjudgment€should€be€affirmed€because€a€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€is€not€listed€in€theÏapplicable€rules€of€civil€and€appellate€procedure€as€one€which€tollsÏcommencement€of€the€thirty€day€period€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal.ÌÌà àIf€we€were€to€consider€only€the€form€of€the€motion€filed€by€Debra€Farmer,ÏTennessee€Farmers€would€prevail€in€this€appeal€because€the€title€ð ðmotion€toÏreconsiderðð€is€not€included€among€those€which€toll€commencement€of€the€time€forÏfiling€a€notice€of€appeal.€€However,€courts€must€consider€the€substance€of€aÏmotion€in€determining€whether€it€is€in€fact€one€of€the€specified€post„trial€motionsÏwhich€toll€commencement€of€the€time.ÌÌà àThis€rule€was€applied€in€òòœBemis›€Co.€Inc.€v.€œHines›óó,€585€œS.W.2d›€574,€575Ï(Tenn.€1979),€in€which€the€plaintiff€had€filed€a€written€ð ðMotion€to€Set€Aside€DecreeÏand€Restore€the€Cause€to€the€Docket.ðð€€Although€commenting€that€ð ðneither€theÏtitle€nor€the€format€of€the€motion€bears€a€striking€resemblance€to€the€usual€motionÍfor€new€trial,ðð€this€Court€found€it€to€be€ð ðclearly€ascertainable€from€a€reading€of€theÏmotion€that,€in€substance,€.€.€œ.ð ð›€it€was€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ìà àThis€rule€was€also€applied€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòœHawkins›€v.€œHawkins›óó,Ï883€œS.W.2d›€622€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1994),€a€case€factually€similar€to€this€one.€€There€theÏplaintiff€filed€a€written€post„trial€motion€which€she€designated€as€a€ð ðMotion€toÏReconsider.ðð€€The€Court€of€Appeals€noted,€ð ð[œt]hough›€she€called€it€a€motion€toÏreconsider,€ððit€is€clearly€ascertainable€from€a€reading€of€the€motion€that,€inÏsubstance,ðð€it€amounts€to€a€motion€to€alter.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€624,€òòquotingóó€òòœBemis›€Co.€Inc.óó,Ï585€S.W.2d€at€575.€ÌÌà àRequiring€courts€to€consider€the€substance€of€a€post„trial€motion,€ratherÏthan€its€form,€is€consistent€with€the€rules€of€civil€procedure.€€Rule€8.05,€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.,€explicitly€states€that€ð ð[n]o€technical€forms€of€pleading€òòor€motionsóó€areÏrequired.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€Moreover,€allowing€the€form€of€a€motion€to€controlÏits€substance€could€result€in€the€dismissal€of€many€appeals€and€would,€in€turn,Ïdefeat€the€mandate€of€Rule€1,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€which€instructs€that€the€rules€ofÏappellate€procedure€are€to€be€ð ðconstrued€to€secure€the€just,€speedy,€andÍinexpensive€determination€of€every€proceeding€on€its€merits.ðð€€Accordingly,€weÏhold€that€when€determining€whether€a€post„trial€motion€is€one€of€thoseÏdesignated€by€the€rules€of€civil€and€appellate€procedure€as€tollingÏcommencement€of€the€time€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal,€courts€must€consider€theÏsubstance€of€the€motion,€rather€than€its€form.€€To€avoid€confusion,€however,Ïattorneys€filing€post„trial€motions€should€utilize€the€titles€referenced€in€Rule€4,ÏTenn.€R.€œApp›.€P.€and€Rule€59.01,€Tenn.€R.€œCiv›.€P.ÌÌà àApplying€this€rule,€we€conclude€that€the€ð ðMotion€to€Reconsiderðð€filed€in€thisÏcase€by€Debra€Farmer€is€in€substance€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÏinitial€judgment€of€the€trial€court.× ƒ. ××  ×€€Since€the€motion€was€timely€filed€within€thirtyÏdays€of€the€initial€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€the€Chancellor€retained€jurisdictionÏto€act€on€the€motion€and€the€thirty€day€time€period€for€filing€a€notice€of€appeal€didÍnot€commence€until€the€trial€court€entered€the€August€7,€1996€order€granting€theÏmotion.€€The€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€reversing€and€vacating€the€ChancellorððsÏfinal€order€of€August€7,€1996€and€reinstating€the€June€23,€1995€order€in€plaintiffððsÏfavor€was€erroneous.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€previously€stated,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€which€reinstated€the€initial€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€We€remand€thisÏcase€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€a€determination€of€the€pretermitted€issues€of€theÏplaintiffððs€appeal€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€entered€August€7,€1996.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌò òConcur:Ìó óÌAnderson,€C.€J.ÌBirch,€Holder,€Barker,€JJ.ÓÓ