ÿWPC\% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dl 0J° 0Tú N w@V 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘U*ÏB)ùDC" Be AM‚U*Ï D3ù ,#L 0@o‰¯œ8&Ôlúv~fvÓä AO·#Æ$ 0DÌ$ D/% B?%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Gav 3|xk((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô YZD[D\]D^_D`aÓ€k2, 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial'''''ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌMay€6,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€is€codified€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÌà à29„20„101€ð!ð€„407.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCounsel€should€be€specifically€aware€that€facsimile€service€is€not€allowed€for€the€serviceÏà àof€pleadings€and€other€documents€on€parties€to€a€lawsuit.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€5.02.€€ServiceÏà àmethods€for€pleadings€and€other€documents€are€specifically€defined€by€the€rule.€€Ïà àà àAdditionally,€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€Rule€5.02€declare€that€ð ðRuleÏ5.02€à àdoes€not€permit€service€by€facsimile€(ððfaxðð)€transmission.ðð€€ÌÌ ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPlaintiff€also€filed€suit€against€the€City€of€Columbia€and€various€police€officers€in€theÏà àUnited€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€alleging€civil€rightsÏà àviolations€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€section€provides:€€"The€following€actions€shall€be€commenced€within€three€(3)€yearsÏà àfrom€the€accruing€of€the€cause€of€action:Ìà àà à(1)€€Actions€for€injuries€to€personal€or€real€property;Ìà àà à(2)€€Actions€for€the€detention€or€conversion€of€personal€property€.€.€.€."ÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„105(1),€(2)(1995€Supp.).Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€proposition€that€the€sovereign€could€do€no€wrong€„€the€basis€for€sovereign€Ìà àimmunity€„€has€not€always€been€warmly€embraced.€€Justice€Henry€of€this€Court€once€Ìà àobserved€that€"[g]overnmental€immunity€is€a€cankered,€corroded€and€corrupted€areaÌà àof€our€law.€€It€is€the€flaming€sword€used€by€cities€and€counties€in€Tennessee€to€banishÌà àthe€innocent€victims€of€their€wrongs€and€deny€them€their€traditional€day€in€court.€€It€hasÌà àbecome€the€hallmark€of€governmental€irresponsibility€„€the€defense€by€which€governmentalÌà àentities€stoop€to€conquer€their€own€citizens."€€òòCooper€v.€Rutherford€Countyóó,€531€S.W.2dÌà à783,€785€(Tenn.€1975).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¦8XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€#¼ÔØ ØÓ&€$$X°d&Ó›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌWANDA€CRUSE,€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àóó)òòÌà àóóPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àòòò òFiled:€May€6,€1996ó óóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€COLUMBIA,€as€a€à àà à)à àHon.€Joe€C.€Loser,€JudgeÌpolitical€subdivision€of€the€à à€€€€€à à)ÌState€of€Tennessee,à àà àà à)à àNo.€œ01S01„9508„CV„00132›ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€(+&;+'h|WD` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœDefendant/Appellant.›à àà à)à àÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellantóó:ÌÌWm.€Kennerly€Burgerà àà àà àOverton€Thompson,€IIIÌMurfreesboro,€TNà àà àà àà àStephen€H.€PriceÌà àà àà àà àà àà àFARRIS,€WARFIELD€&€KANADYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àWHITE,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€property€confiscation€case,€the€Court€must€decideÏwhether€a€direct€appeal€was€timely€and€whether€the€Governmental€TortÏLiability€Act's× ƒ, ××  ×€twelve„month€statute€of€limitations€set€forth€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€29„20„305(b)€applies€to€bar€plaintiff's€claim€forÏdamage€to€and€loss€of€personal€property€seized€by€police€officersÏemployed€by€defendant,€the€City€of€Columbia.€€For€the€reasons€explainedÏbelow,€we€hold€that€the€appeal€was€timely€and€that€plaintiff's€claim€isÏcontrolled€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€contained€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€28„3„105€and€is,€therefore,€not€barred.ÌÌà@ àI.Ìà àà àBefore€addressing€the€merits,€we€must€determine€whetherÏthis€appeal€can€proceed.€€The€final€disposition€from€which€plaintiff€soughtÏa€direct€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Appeals€was€a€ð ðMemorandumÍand€Judgmentðð€granting€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€Plaintiff€filed€aÏnotice€of€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure€on€August€8,€1994.€€This€document,€marked€filed€by€the€courtÏon€that€date,€was€initially€received€by€facsimile,€although€nothing€in€theÏrecord€other€than€counselððs€statement€so€indicates.€€The€record€containsÏone€copy€of€the€notice€of€appeal€marked€filed€on€August€8th€and€a€secondÏcopy€marked€filed€on€August€10,€1994.€€Plaintiffððs€counsel€practicedÏprimarily€in€a€neighboring€judicial€district€in€which€a€pilot€programÏallowing€facsimile€transmissions€was€in€effect.€€Defendant€argues€quiteÏvalidly,€however,€that€our€rules€do€not€universally€sanction€facsimileÏtransmissions.€€Consequently,€defendant€contends€that€plaintiffððs€appeal€asÏof€right€should€have€been€dismissed€as€untimely.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€disagree.€€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure€sets€forth€the€method€for€filing€an€appeal€as€of€right.€€ItÏrequires€the€ð ðtimely€filing€[of]€a€notice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€theÏtrial€court€as€provided€in€Rule€4€and€by€service€of€the€notice€of€appeal€asÏprovided€in€Rule€5.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€It€further€specifies€theÏcontents€of€the€notice€which€includes€ð ðthe€party€or€parties€taking€theÏappeal,€.€.€.€the€judgment€from€which€relief€is€sought,€and€.€.€.€the€court€toÏwhich€the€appeal€is€taken.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€(f).€€Rule€4€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÍAppellate€Procedure€likewise€requires€that€the€notice€of€appeal€be€ð ðfiledÏwith€and€received€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï4(a).€€Rule€20€of€the€appellate€rules€and€Rule€5€of€the€civil€procedureÏrules€define€filing€with€the€court€as€ð ðfilingðð€or€ð ðreceipt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€20(a);€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€5.06.€€Other€than€describing€the€method€forÏfiling€by€mail,€none€of€the€rules€more€specifically€describe€the€act€ofÏð ðfiling.ððÌÌà àà àThe€filing€and€content€requirements€of€a€notice€of€appealÏfulfill€two€purposes.€€First,€the€notice€of€appeal,€filed€with€the€trial€courtÏclerk€and€served€on€opposing€counsel,€advises€the€court€and€opposingÏcounsel€that€an€appeal€has€been€taken.€€Secondly,€designation€of€theÏjudgment€appealed€from€and€the€court€appealed€to€clearly€describes€theÏmatter€on€appeal.€€In€this€case€there€is€no€question€that€both€the€court€andÏthe€opposing€party€were€advised€that€an€appeal€had€been€taken.€€TheÏnotice€of€appeal€was€received€and€filed€within€the€requisite€time€period€byÏthe€clerk€of€the€court.€€It€included€a€certificate€of€service€on€opposingÏcounsel.€€Additionally,€there€is€no€question€that€the€notice€of€appealÏcontained€the€necessary€elements.€€It€noted€the€judgment€appealed€fromÏand€the€court€appealed€to.€€The€only€issue€is€whether€the€method€of€filingÏshould€void€the€appeal€in€this€case.€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€AppealsÍthat€it€should€not.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€determination€to€allow€the€appeal€in€this€case€to€stand€isÏprompted€by€Rule€1€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€andÏthe€specific€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Rule€1€cautions€that€ð ð[t]hese€rulesÏshall€be€construed€to€secure€the€just,€speedy,€and€inexpensiveÏdetermination€of€every€proceeding€ò òon€its€meritsó ó.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€1Ï(emphasis€added).€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€plaintiffððsÏnotice€of€appeal€that€was€sent€by€facsimile€was€received€and€filed€by€theÏtrial€court€within€the€time€allowed€by€the€rules.€€Further,€the€opposingÏparty€was€given€appropriate€notice.€€Neither€the€court€nor€the€opposingÏparty€suffered€any€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€facsimile€filing.ÌÌà àà àAdditionally,€we€allow€the€appeal€to€proceed€because€of€theÏsubstantial€compliance€with€the€rules€as€well€as€the€lack€of€prejudice€inÏthis€case.€€This€decision€does€not€sanction€the€use€of€facsimile€filing€inÏfuture€cases.€€Although,€as€plaintiff€suggests,€the€legislature€has€expressedÏits€intention€that€facsimile€transmissions€be€accepted,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ16„1„113€(1994€Repl.),€and€although€we€have€implemented€a€pilotÏprogram€to€study€the€use€of€facsimile€transmissions,€counsel€should€notÏrely€on€facsimile€transmissions€for€the€filing€of€documents€in€the€future.€ÍWe€affirm€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€to€allow€this€appeal€to€standÏbecause€of€the€unique€circumstances€presented€and€based€on€the€facts€ofÏthis€case€only.× ƒ. ××  ×€€ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àà àThe€facts€in€this€case€are€not€disputed.€€On€December€10,Ï1991,€City€of€Columbia€police€officers€searched€plaintiff's€home€andÏvehicle.€€The€officers€seized€approximately€365€items€of€personalÏproperty€believed€to€have€been€stolen€in€several€burglaries.€€The€items,Ïseized€pursuant€to€a€search€warrant,€included€jewelry,€cameras,Ïtelevisions,€stereo€equipment,€ammunition,€weapons,€and€coins.€€PlaintiffÏwas€arrested€and€indicted€for€possession€of€stolen€property.ÌÌà àà àAfter€plaintiff's€arrest,€the€officers€contacted€persons€whoÏhad€filed€reports€of€stolen€property€matching€that€seized€from€plaintiff.€ÏThe€officers€then€delivered€approximately€150€items€of€the€seizedÏproperty€to€those€persons€believed€to€be€the€lawful€owners.ÌÌà àà àOn€May€5,€1992,€the€criminal€charges€against€plaintiff€wereÏdismissed€because€of€a€defect€in€the€preparation€of€the€search€warrantÏwhich€prevented€the€use€of€the€seized€evidence€against€her.€€On€SeptemberÏ18,€the€officers€returned€the€remaining€property€to€plaintiff.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€23,€1994,€plaintiff€filed€suit€against€the€City€ofÏColumbia€based€on€provisions€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„17„118,€which€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àConfiscated€stolen€property.€„€(a)€PersonalÏproperty€confiscated€as€stolen€property€by€aÏlawful€officer€of€the€state,€a€county€or€aÏmunicipality€of€the€state€to€be€held€as€evidenceÏof€a€crime€shall€be€promptly€appraised,Ïcatalogued€and€photographed€by€the€lawÏenforcement€agency€retaining€custody€of€theÏproperty.ÌÌà àà à.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òà àœ(c)›€The€state,€county€and/orÏmunicipal€authority€holding€the€propertyÏshall€be€responsible€for€the€return€of€theÏproperty€to€the€lawful€owner€and€shall€beÏliable€in€damages€to€the€owner€of€theÏproperty€in€the€event€of€damage€orÏdestruction€occasioned€by€the€delay€in€theÏreturn€of€the€property.ó óÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„17„118(a),€(c)(1990€Repl.)(emphasis€added).€ÏRelying€upon€this€statute,€plaintiff€alleged€in€her€complaint€that€theÍconfiscated€items€were€not€stolen,€and€that€some€of€the€items€were€notÏreturned,€while€others€were€returned€in€a€damaged€condition.€€PlaintiffÏsought€damages€for€the€damaged€and€lost€property.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àOn€March€23,€1994,€defendant€filed€a€motion€under€RuleÏ12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€to€dismiss€theÏcomplaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€ÏDefendant's€motion€also€contended€that€plaintiff's€suit€was€barred€by€theÏtwelve„month€€statute€of€limitations€contained€in€the€Government€TortÏLiability€Act€(hereafter€GTLA).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„305(b)(1995ÏSupp.)(suits€brought€under€the€GTLA€"must€be€commenced€within€twelveÏ(12)€months€after€the€cause€of€action€arises.").€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€suit€was€untimely€and€dismissed€the€case.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏreversed,€holding€that€the€governing€statute€of€limitations€was€the€three„year€statute€applicable€to€injuries€to€or€for€detention,€or€conversion€ofÏpersonal€property€contained€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€28„3„105,× ƒ0 ××  ×€not€the€GTLA's€twelve„month€statute€of€limitations.€€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€29„20„305(b)(1995€Supp.).€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reasoned€thatÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à[a]€clear€reading€of€[Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€40„17„118]€removesÏimmunity€of€governmental€entities€for€liabilityÏfor€damage€to€property€taken€under€theÏcircumstances€set€forth€therein.€€As€can€beÏclearly€seen,€ðð€40„17„119€contains€no€limitationÏperiod.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€hold€thatÏthe€three€year€statute€of€limitations€set€forth€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€28„3„105(1)€applies.ÌÌÓÓHence,€the€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€plaintiff's€suit€filed€on€FebruaryÏ23,€1994€was€timely€because€it€was€filed€within€three€years€of€SeptemberÏ18,€1992,€the€date€the€property€taken€from€plaintiff's€home€was€returnedÏto€her.€€We€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€which€limitation€periodÏcontrols.ÌÌà@ àII.Ìà àà àDefendant€contends€that€the€GTLA's€twelve„month€statute€ofÏlimitations€controls€because€plaintiff's€complaint€is€essentially€a€tort€claimÏfiled€against€a€municipality€which€must€be€brought€pursuant€to€the€GTLA.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòSimpson€v.€Sumner€Countyóó,€669€S.W.2d€657,€660€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1983),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóóòòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1984)(observing€that€the€languageÏand€legislative€history€of€the€GTLA€make€it€clear€that€the€act€applies€toÍclaims€sounding€in€tort€brought€against€governmental€entities).€€InÏresponse,€plaintiff€asserts€that€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€28„3„105€controls€because€suit€wasÏbrought€pursuant€to€the€specific€remedy€provisions€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€40„17„118,€not€under€the€provisions€of€the€GTLA.€ÏSince€that€statute€contains€no€limitation€period,€the€general€limitationÏperiod€applying€to€property€loss€or€damage€applies.ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€1973€enactment€of€the€GTLA,€the€sovereignÏimmunity€doctrine€protected€the€state€and€its€political€subdivisions€fromÏtort€liability.€€òòKirby€v.€Macon€Countyóó,€892€S.W.2d€403,€406€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€The€doctrine,€which€has€been€a€part€of€Tennessee€law€for€wellÏover€a€century,€òòseeóó€òòMemphis€v.€Kimbroughóó,€59€Tenn.€133€(1873);€òòStateÏv.€Bank€of€Tenn.óó,€62€Tenn.€395€(1874),€provides€that€suit€may€not€beÏbrought€against€a€governmental€entity€except€to€the€extent€that€theÏgovernmental€entity€has€consented€to€be€sued.€€òòBailey€v.€City€ofÏKnoxvilleóó,€113€F.Supp.€3,€6€(E.D.€Tenn.€1953).€€The€longstanding€rule€inÏthis€state€has€been€that€governmental€entities€may€prescribe€the€terms€andÏconditions€under€which€they€consent€to€be€sued,€òòseeóó€òòMoore€v.€Tateóó,€11ÏS.W.€935,€939€(Tenn.€1889),€including€when,€in€what€forum,€and€in€whatÏmanner€suit€may€be€brought.€€òòSeeóó€òòLynn€v.€Polkóó,€76€Tenn.€121,€139Í(1881).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€rule€of€immunity€was€"deeply€rooted€in€feudal€notions€ofÏthe€divine€right€of€kings.€€In€feudal€England€the€King€was€at€the€veryÏpinnacle€of€the€power€structure€and€was€answerable€to€no€court€since€'theÏKing€can€do€no€wrong.'€"€€òòCooper€v.€Rutherford€Countyóó,€531€S.W.2dÏ783,€786€(Tenn.€1975)(Henry,€J.,€dissenting).× ƒ1 ××  ×€€òòSeeóóòòalsoóóòòWebb€v.€BlountÏMem.€Hosp.óó,€196€F.Supp.€114,€116€(E.D.€Tenn.€1961),€òòaff'dóó,€303€F.2dÏ437€(6th€Cir.€1962);€òòSimpson€v.€Sumner€Countyóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€659;€W.ÏKeeton,€òòProsser€and€Keeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó,€ðð€131€(5th€ed.€1984).€ÏHowever,€despite€the€established€history€of€sovereign€immunity,€ourÏlegislature€has€always€had€the€authority€to€waive€its€protections.€€ThisÏauthority€is€found€in€Tennessee's€Constitution€which€provides€that€"[s]uitsÏmay€be€brought€against€the€State€in€such€manner€and€in€such€courts€as€theÏLegislature€may€by€law€direct."€€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€17.ÌÌà àà àWhen€other€states€began€limiting€or€abolishing€sovereignÍimmunity€either€by€statute€or€judicial€decision,€Tennessee's€legislatureÏfollowed€the€trend.€€In€explaining€the€GTLA€bill€to€the€Tennessee€HouseÏof€Representatives,€one€of€the€members€of€that€body€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[I]n€1957€three€states€made€some€move€to€abolishÏor€alter€the€governmental€immunity€as€it€appliesÏto€governmental€entities€within€those€states.€€ByÏ1970,€some€25€states€[had]€taken€affirmativeÏaction€to€abolish€or€restrict€the€ò òdefense€ofÏgovernmental€immunity€in€tort€actionsÏó óbrought€against€public€agencies.€€In€those€statesÏthat€have€abolished€or€altered€governmentalÏimmunities€the€results€have€been€achieved€inÏthree€different€ways.€€The€first€and€probably€theÏmost€disruptive€method€of€ò òlimited€tortÏliability€or€tort€immunity€ó óhas€come€aboutÏby€court€decisions€which€have€held€the€doctrineÏto€be€inapplicable.€€These€decisions€have€led€to€aÏquagmire€of€problems€and€[have]€generallyÏthrown€both€the€claimants€and€the€governmentalÏbodies€into€confusion€and€chaos.€€The€secondÏmethod€.€.€.€has€been€in€those€states€where€theÏlegislatures€[have]€passed€acts€which€prohibit€theÏuse€of€governmental€immunities€as€a€ò òtortÏdefenseó ó€.€.€.€.€The€third€method,€which€is€whatÏthis€bill€will€do,€is€the€one€which€ò òlimitsÏgovernmental€tort€immunityó ó,€but€at€theÏsame€time€provides€procedures€and€standards€toÏprotect€€the€public€interest.ÌÌÓÓHouse€Debate€on€Limited€Removal€of€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act,ÏMay€2,€1973€(quoted€in€òòSimpson€v.€Sumner€Countyóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€659„60)(emphasis€in€original).€€Thus,€the€GTLA€was€passed€in€1973€in€anÏattempt€to€avoid€some€of€the€confusion€experienced€by€other€states€thatÏhad€waived€immunity€by€judicial€decisions.€€òòChapman€v.€Sullivan€Countyóó,Í608€S.W.2d€580,€582€(Tenn.€1980).ÌÌà àà àThe€GTLA€was€an€"act€of€grace€through€which€theÏlegislature€provided€general€immunity€from€tort€liability€to€allÏgovernmental€entities€removing€it,€however,€in€limited€and€specifiedÏinstances."€€òòKirby€v.€Macon€Countyóó,€892€S.W.2d€at€406.€€This€"generalÏimmunity"€is€codified€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€29„20„201(a),Ïwhich€provides€that€"[e]xcept€as€may€be€otherwise€provided€in€thisÏchapter,€all€governmental€entities€shall€be€immune€from€suit€for€anyÏinjury€which€may€result€from€the€activities€of€such€governmental€entitiesÏwherein€such€governmental€entities€are€engaged€in€the€exercise€andÏdischarge€of€any€of€their€functions€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(a)(1995€Supp.).€€Immunity€is€then€waived€in€limited€and€enumeratedÏinstances€for€certain€injuries.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„202(a)(1980€Repl.)(immunity€removed€for€injuries€resulting€from€theÏnegligent€operation€of€a€motor€vehicle€or€other€equipment€by€anÏemployee€in€the€scope€of€employment);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„203(a)(1995€Supp.)(immunity€removed€for€injuries€caused€by€a€defective,Ïunsafe,€or€dangerous€condition€on€a€public€roadway€or€sidewalk);€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„204(a)(1980€Repl.)(immunity€removed€for€injuriesÏcaused€by€dangerous€or€defective€conditions€associated€with€publicÍstructures€or€improvements);€&€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205€(1980ÏRepl.)(immunity€removed€for€injuries€caused€by€the€negligence€ofÏgovernmental€employees€with€certain€exceptions).ÌÌà àà àIt€is€true,€as€defendant€argues,€that€the€GTLA€provides€aÏcomprehensive€scheme€for€tort€actions€against€governmental€entities.€€òòSeeóóÏòòChapman€v.€Sullivan€Countyóó,€608€S.W.2d€at€582.€€Nonetheless,€"if€aÏspecific€or€special€statute€provides€for€a€remedy€and€waiver€of€immunityÏfor€injuries€that€are€expressly€excluded€from€the€operation€of€the€GTLA,Ïthen€those€remedies€would€not€be€affected€by€the€GTLA€.€.€.€."€€òòJenkins€v.ÏLoudon€Countyóó,€736€S.W.2d€603,€608€(Tenn.€1987).€€It€follows€that€theÏGTLA€does€not€encompass€every€tortious€act€by€a€governmental€entity.€ÏIn€fact,€the€GTLA€"leaves€significant€areas€of€activities€either€protectedÏby€immunity€or€subject€to€independent€bodies€of€law."€€òòIdóó.€at€609.€€òòSeeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòSimpson€v.€Sumner€Countyóó,€669€S.W.2d€at€660„62€(GTLA€does€notÏcover€contract€disputes€with€governmental€entities).ÌÌà àà àBy€its€own€terms,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„17„118€creates€a€separate€cause€of€action€against€governmental€entities€for€theÏreturn€of€confiscated€property€and€for€damages€in€the€event€of€damage€orÏdestruction€to€the€property.€€The€statute€does€not€condition€recovery€onÍproof€of€negligence€on€the€part€of€the€governmental€entity.€€Thus,€whileÏan€aggrieved€property€owner€€may,€in€certain€limited€circumstances,Ïproceed€under€the€GTLA€if€the€government€employees€have€negligentlyÏcaused€injury,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„205€(1980€Repl.),€a€propertyÏowner€whose€property€is€confiscated€may€seek€relief€under€Section€40„17„118€regardless€of€how€the€damage€or€destruction€occurred.€€The€twoÏprovisions€are€not€mutually€exclusive.€€They€exist€independent€of€oneÏanother.€€òòSeeóó€òòJenkins€v.€Loudon€Co.óó,€736€S.W.2d€at€607„09.€€ThisÏconclusion€is€apparent€from€the€text€of€the€two€statutes,€is€consistent€withÏtraditional€rules€of€statutory€construction,€òòSutherland€on€StatutoryÏConstructionóó,€ðð€23.10€(Sands€5th€ed.€1993),€and€is€bolstered€by€the€factÏthat€the€confiscated€property€statute€and€the€GTLA€were€enacted€the€sameÏyear.€€Had€the€General€Assembly€intended€the€latter€to€absorb€the€former,Ïit€would€simply€have€included€the€action€as€an€enumerated€exception€toÏimmunity€under€the€GTLA.€ÌÌà àà àThe€GTLA€itself€provides€that€a€twelve„month€limitationÏperiod€applies€"in€those€circumstances€where€immunity€from€suit€has€beenÏremoved€as€provided€for€ò òin€this€chapteró ó."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„305(a)(1995€Supp.)(emphasis€added).€€Plaintiff's€complaint€seeks€damagesÏnot€under€the€GTLA€but€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÍ40„17„118.€€Her€complaint€specifically€references€that€statute€and€does€notÏmention€any€of€the€provisions€of€the€GTLA.€€Because€the€defendant'sÏimmunity€from€suit€has€been€removed€by€a€statute€independent€of€theÏGTLA€and€plaintiff's€suit€is€based€on€that€independent€statute,€weÏconclude€that€the€statute€of€limitations€provided€in€the€GTLA€forÏcircumstances€in€which€immunity€"has€been€removed€as€provided€for€inÏ[that]€chapter"€does€not€apply.€€Since€the€statute€upon€which€plaintiff€basesÏher€cause€of€action€does€not€contain€a€limitation€period,€the€applicableÏtime€period€is€that€set€forth€in€Title€28,€Chapter€3.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ28„3„101€(1980€Repl.)("All€civil€actions€.€.€.€shall€be€commenced€after€theÏcause€of€action€has€accrued,€within€the€periods€prescribed€in€this€chapterÏò òunless€otherwise€expressly€providedó ó.")(emphasis€added).€€ThatÏapplicable€time€period€for€causes€of€action€for€injuries€to,€detention€of,€orÏconversion€of€personal€property€is€three€years€as€set€forth€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€Section€28„3„105.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€Court€of€Appeals€setting€aside€the€dismissal€of€the€case€and€remandÏto€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€Costs€shall€be€paid€byÏdefendant.ÌÓÓà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch,€J.J.ÌÌ