ÿWPCT! …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµw@ù49 M 0ˆ\ 0Dä 0J( r 0Tz 0^Î 0h, 0r” 0| 0†‚ 0 1u˜ B  0d*U>ŽU *Ì D3öB))DCR 0@• AMÕ."ßP4/‘cjôv~^vÓÜ AO¯Æþ 0DÄ D/! B7!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñL$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°Ò NEOPDQRESTQUQVÓ€bR¦"Ôô3|xd(8(3=æ$¤¤Ý ƒñL!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial 'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌò òMayÏ19,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€)ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÕÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)Ô€€The€majority€opinion€was€issued€pursuant€to€Tenn€R.€Ct.€App.,€Rule€10(a).€ÏWe,€however,€question€the€appropriateness€of€a€Rule€10(a)€Order€on€this€issue.€€WeÏagree€with€Judge€Franks€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€should€afford€meaningful€review€toÏlegal€issues€of€first€impression.Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)Ô€€A€petitioner€demonstrating€an€immediate€and€present€danger€has€establishedÏgood€cause€under€this€section.Ì ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)Ô€€Jurisdictional€bars€usually€prohibit€reinstitution€of€the€underlying€action.€€AÏcommon€rationale€for€procedurally€barring€actions€is€preventing€prejudice€to€theÏdefendant€caused€by€plaintiffs€"sleeping"€on€their€claims.€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2dÏ204,€209€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€respondent€in€the€instant€case,€however,€was€notÏprejudiced€by€witnesses'€fading€memories€or€other€rationales€commonly€supportingÏapplication€of€complete€procedural€bars.Ì `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)Ô€€Trial€courts€unable€to€set€hearings€within€the€statutorily€mandated€time€mayÏneed€to€rely€on€transfer,€interchange€or€other€judicial€means€to€have€cases€heard.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€åXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€)Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌœó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌKAREN€ELAINE€WHITE€KITE,à@ à)à àò òFiled:ó óà àMay€19,€1997Ìà@ à)Ìà àAppellant,à@ à)à àKNOX€CHANCERYÌà@ à)Ìv.à@ à)à àHon.€Frederick€D.€McDonaldÌà@ à)à àChancellorÌARLIN€JAY€KITE,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àNo.€03S01„9610„CH„00099Ìà àAppellee.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRobert€R.€Simpsonà àà àà àà àWilliam€C.€CreminsÌEshbaugh,€Simpson€and€Varnerà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌKnoxville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLaura€Rule€HendricksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEldridge,€Irvine€&€HendricksÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àòòFOR€AMICI€CURIAEóó:ÌÌà àà àà àà àTheodore€R.€KernÌà àà àà àà àKnoxville€Legal€Aid€SocietyÌà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òÔ€)„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€)XÔó óÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED.à àà àà àà àHOLDER,€J.ÇÓÓà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€a€trial€court€retainsÏjurisdiction€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„605€(1990€Repl.)€after€failing€toÏconduct€a€hearing€within€ten€(10)€days€of€service€of€an€òòexóóòò€òòóóparteóó€protective€order.€ÏThe€intermediate€appellate€court€has€answered€this€question€in€the€negative.€ÏWe€have€reviewed€the€statutory€scheme€and€resolved€this€issue€pursuant€to€theÏapplicable€rules€of€statutory€construction.€€We€find€that€the€ten„day€hearingÏrequirement€is€merely€a€limitation€on€the€duration€of€the€òòexóó€òòparteóó€order€and€not€aÏlimitation€on€jurisdiction.€€The€Court€of€Appeals'€judgment€affirming€the€trialÏcourt's€dismissal€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€for€proceedings€consistentÏwith€this€opinion.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€petitioner,€Karen€Kite,€requested€the€trial€court€for€an€order€ofÏprotection€from€the€appellee,€Arlin€Jay€Kite,€on€December€27,€1995.€€SheÏalleged€that€the€respondent€had:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à0 àvandalized€her€home;Ìà8 à2.à0 àvandalized€her€automobile;Ìà8 à3.à0 àcalled€her€employer€and€attempted€to€have€her€fired;Ìà8 à4.à0 àphysically€assaulted€her€and€was€arrested€for€assault€andÏdomestic€violence;Ìà8 à5.à0 àrepeatedly€assaulted€her€throughout€their€marriage;€andÌà8 à6.à0 àroutinely€called€and€harassed€her.ÌÌÓÓShe€requested€the€immediate€issuance€of€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€order€of€protection.€€SheÏfurther€requested€that€a€hearing€be€set€within€ten€days€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„3„605€and€that€notice€be€served€upon€the€respondent.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€issued€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€order€of€protection€on€December€27,Ï1995,€and€set€a€hearing€date€of€January€22,€1996.€€The€order€was€served€on€theÏrespondent€on€December€29,€1995,€two€(2)€days€after€the€filing€of€the€petition.€ÏThe€January€22,€1996,€hearing€date€set€by€the€trial€court€did€not€fall€within€tenÏdays€of€service.€ÌÌà àThe€respondent€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€He€argued€that€the€trial€courtÏwas€without€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€matter€on€January€22,€1996.€€He€reasonedÏthat,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„605(b),€the€trial€court€merely€retainedÏjurisdiction€for€ten€days€following€service€of€the€protective€order.€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€the€respondentððs€motion€to€dismiss€and€held€that€the€ten„day€hearingÏrequirement€was€jurisdictional.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed,€with€JudgeÏFranks€dissenting.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€We€granted€Rule€11€application€to€resolve€this€importantÏissue.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓSTATUTORY€INTERPRETATIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€petitioner€assigns€error€to€the€appellate€court's€determination€that€theÏten„day€hearing€requirement€was€jurisdictional.€€She€argues€that€a€trial€court'sÏjurisdiction€is€not€limited€to€ten€days€following€issuance€and€service€of€an€òòexóóÏòòparteóó€protective€order.€€She€maintains€that€the€legislature€intended€only€to€limitÏthe€duration€of€òòexóó€òòparteóó€protective€orders.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àVictims€of€domestic€violence€may€seek€judicial€protection€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„601€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€(ð ðActðð).€€Protection€may€be€initiated€by€filingÏa€standard€form€petition€under€this€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„604€(1990ÏRepl.).€€The€form€petition,€as€used€in€this€case,€requests€a€hearing€and,€ifÏappropriate,€an€òòex€parteóó€protective€order.€€A€trial€court€may€issue€òòex€parteóó€reliefÏupon€a€finding€of€good€cause.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„605€(1990€Repl.).€€AÏhearing€shall€be€conducted€whether€or€not€òòexóó€òòparteóó€relief€is€granted.€€At€the€timeÏof€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€may€issue€a€protective€order€"for€a€definite€period€ofÏtime,€not€to€exceed€one€(1)€year."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€issue€in€this€controversy€concerns€the€statutory€language€mandatingÏa€hearing€within€ten€days€of€service€of€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€protective€order.€€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€36„3„605(b)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àWithin€ten€(10)€days€of€service€of€[an€ex€parte€order€of€protection]Ïon€the€respondent€under€this€part,€a€hearing€shall€be€held,€atÏwhich€time€the€court€shall€either€dissolve€any€ex€parte€order€whichÏhas€been€issued,€or€shall,€if€the€petitioner€has€proved€theÏallegation€of€abuse€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€extendÏthe€order€of€protection€for€a€definite€period€of€time,€not€to€exceedÏone€(1)€year€...€€Any€ex€parte€order€of€protection€shall€be€in€effectÏuntil€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€If€no€ex€parte€order€of€protection€hasÏbeen€issued€as€of€the€time€of€the€hearing,€and€the€petitioner€hasÏproven€the€allegation€of€abuse€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence,€the€court€may,€at€any€time,€issue€an€order€of€protectionÏfor€a€definite€period€of€time,€not€to€exceed€one€(1)€year.ÌÌÓÓThis€appeal€focuses€on€the€legislature's€intent€in€drafting€the€ten„day€hearingÏrequirement.ÌÌà àThis€Court's€role€in€statutory€interpretation€is€to€ascertain€and€effectuateÏthe€legislature's€intent.€€òòState€v.€Sligeróó,€846€S.W.2d€262,€263€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏWhen€a€statute's€language€is€unambiguous,€the€legislative€intent€shall€beÏderived€from€the€plain€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€statutory€language.€€òòCarsonÏCreek€Vacation€Resorts€v.€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993).€€If,Ïhowever,€a€statute's€language€is€ambiguous€and€the€parties€legitimately€deriveÏdifferent€interpretations,€we€must€look€to€the€entire€statutory€scheme€to€ascertainÏthe€legislative€intent.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àWe€find€the€intended€operation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„605's€hearingÏrequirement€ambiguous.€€While€the€statute€mandates€a€hearing€within€ten€daysÏof€service,€the€statute€does€not€clearly€define€the€ramifications€of€failing€toÏconduct€a€hearing€within€the€prescribed€time.€€We,€therefore,€look€to€the€entireÏstatutory€scheme€to€ascertain€the€legislatureððs€intent€and€clarify€this€ambiguity.ÌÌà àThe€legislative€intent€of€the€present€statutory€scheme€is€clearly€stated.€ÏThe€Actððs€purpose€is€codified€at€ðð€36„3„618€(1996€Repl.)€and€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€purpose€of€this€part€is€to€recognize€the€seriousness€ofÏdomestic€abuse€as€a€crime€and€to€assure€that€the€law€provides€aÏvictim€of€domestic€abuse€with€òòenhanced€protection€from€domesticÏabuseóó.€€A€further€purpose€of€this€chapter€is€to€recognize€that€in€theÏpast€law€enforcement€agencies€have€treated€domestic€abuseÏcrimes€differently€than€crimes€resulting€in€the€same€harm€butÏoccurring€between€strangers.€€Thus,€the€general€assembly€intendsÏthat€the€official€response€to€domestic€abuse€shall€stress€enforcingÏthe€laws€to€protect€the€victim€and€prevent€further€harm€to€the€victim,Ïand€the€official€response€shall€communicate€the€attitude€thatÏviolent€behavior€is€not€excused€or€tolerated.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€Accordingly,€the€legislative€intent€is€to:€€(1)€€provideÏenhanced€protection€to€domestic€abuse€victims;€(2)€€promote€uniform€lawÏenforcement€intervention€whether€the€crime€is€domestic€or€committed€byÏstrangers;€and€(3)€€communicate€a€position€of€intolerance€to€domestic€abuseÏperpetrators.ÌÌà àWe€find€the€legislatureððs€use€of€the€term€ð ðenhanced€protectionððÏsignificant.€€Both€the€respondent€and€the€lower€courts€have€interpreted€theÏstatute€as€procedurally€barring€a€domestic€abuse€victim's€access€to€judicialÏprotection€when€a€hearing€is€not€conducted€within€ten€days.€€This€deprivationÏoccurs€even€though€a€petitioner€requests€a€hearing€within€ten€days€and,€throughÏno€fault€of€the€petitioner,€a€hearing€is€not€conducted€within€the€prescribed€time.ÌÌà àWe€must€presume€that€the€legislature€did€not€intend€an€absurdity.€€OurÏgoal€is€to€adopt€a€reasonable€construction€which€avoids€statutory€conflict€andÏprovides€for€harmonious€operation€of€the€laws.€€òòCronin€v.€Howeóó,€906€S.W.2dÏ910,€912€(Tenn.€1996);€€òòEpstein,€v.€Stateóó,€211€Tenn.€633,€366€S.W.2d€914Ï(1963).€€Statutes€relating€to€the€same€subject€or€sharing€a€common€purposeÏshall€be€construed€together€("in€òòparióó€òòmateriaóó")€in€order€to€advance€their€commonÏpurpose€or€intent.€€òòLyons€v.€Rasaróó,€872€S.W.2d€895,€897€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àThe€present€statute€mandates€a€hearing€within€ten€days€of€service€of€anÏòòexóó€òòparteóó€protective€order.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„605(b).€€The€ten„day€period,Ïtherefore,€commences€upon€the€service›€of€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€protective€œorder€on€theÏrespondent.›€€If€òòexóó€òòparteóó€relief€is€not€granted,€commencement€of€the€œten„dayÏperiod€will€not€be€triggered.›€€Accordingly,€the€legislative€mandate€of€a€hearingÍwithin€ten€days€is€applicable€only€when€òòexóó€òòparteóó€relief€has€been€issued.€€We€findÏit€illogical€that€the€legislature€intended€to€create€a€jurisdictional€bar€to€be€appliedÏexclusively€to€those€petitioners€œdemonstrating€cause,€immediate›€and€œpresentÏdanger€of€abuse,€for€òòexóó€òòparteóó€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„605(a).›ÌÌà àWe€shall€interpret€the€legislature's€intention€of€the€ten„day€requirementÏconsistent€with€their€stated€policy€of€providing€enhanced€protection.€€While€theÏstatute€mandates€a€hearing€within€ten€days,€the€statute€also€provides€that€the€òòexóóÏòòparteóó€order€will€remain€in€effect€"until€the€time€of€the€hearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€36„3„605(b).€€Construing€this€language€"in€òòparióó€òòmateriaóó,"€we€find€that€the€ten„day€requirement€modifies€œor€refers€solely€to›€the€òòexóó€òòparteóó€order€and€not€the€trialÏcourt's€jurisdiction.€€The€legislature€apparently€inserted€this€requirement€toÏinsure€a€prompt€hearing€to€determine€the€validity€and€necessity€of€the€òòexóó€òòparteóóÏrelief.€€When€a€trial€court€fails€to€set€a€hearing€within€ten€days,€the€òòexóó€òòparteóó€orderÏexpires€and€the€case€assumes€the€posture€of€a€case€where€no€òòexóó€òòparteóó€order€ofÏprotection€has€been€issued.ÌÌà àWe€think€the€legislature€neither€envisioned€nor€intended€the€promptÏhearing€requirement€to€bar€procedurally€a€domestic€abuse€victim's€access€toÍjudicial€protection.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€prompt€hearing€requirement€limits€the€potential€forÏabuse€by€protecting€respondents€from€possible€ongoing›€frivolous€or€retaliatoryÏòòexóó€òòparteóó€protective€orders.€€The€ten€day€hearing€requirement€is,€therefore,Ïmerely€a€limitation€on€the€duration€of€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€protective€order.€€Had€theÏlegislature€intended€a€complete€procedural€bar,€it€could€have€specificallyÏdrafted€one.€€Barring€a€petitioner's€access€to€judicial€protection€when€a€trialÏcourt€fails€to€conduct€a€hearing€within€the€prescribed€time€runs€counter€to€theÏlegislature's€stated€policy€of€providing€enhanced€protection.ÌÌà àWe€acknowledge€that€requiring€expedited€hearings€may€presentÏchallenges€to€trial€courts€experiencing€crowded€dockets.€€Despite€limitedÏresources,€we€believe€the€judicial€system€is€capable€of€meeting€the€challengeÏand€complying€with€the€legislative€directive.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€A€trial€court's€noncompliance,Ïhowever,€should€not€deprive€the€domestic€abuse€victim€of€access€to€judicialÏprotection.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirming€the€trial€court's€dismissalÏis€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€on€the€petitionÏfor€an€order€of€protection.€€The€proceedings€will€be€conducted€in€a€mannerÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€respondent,ÏArlin€Jay€Kite,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÌÌÌœò òConcurring:à0 àà0 àó óBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota€and€Anderson,€JJ.Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àReid,€J.,€Not€Participating.Ì