WPCE ;UBJ %b B 0C 0n 04TU:w@4#  0J! 0Tk 0^ 0h 0r 0| AQs  0D 0@ 0D 0R D/ 0 B D3 1u 0d\U6U *B) DCI AM v~vr<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX- - d($    (D(2Q$  T!    `   0  3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@(2AArialBoldTT10cpip2p NQ(2AArialBoldTT10cpiXX`2p NQX<6X9`(*Courier 10pt12cpid6X@?BQ@( T$  +zAZ"Arial Regular UUDeDUDDӀWX$"ArHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23   !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$  !  ("$    ($$   1  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  ''' dxd2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  P Pd'dxd$& ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d33337Border 1dd "4C << G   !  1  !"  22   YYY FILED2X April20,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.2AppellateCourtClerk    !#d#1          22Aftertheoralargumentofthiscase,thepartiesfiledanagreedorderofdismissalindicatingthatasettlementhadbeenreached.Beforetheorderofdismissalwasentered,however,theappellantfiledamotionaskingforadditionaltimetoobjecttothesettlementandmakingnumerousallegationsoffraudandduress.Counselfortheappelleefiledaresponsedenyingtheappellantsallegations,maintainingthatthecasehadbeensettled,andrequestingthattheappealbedismissed.Giventheseconflictingfactualassertions,whichasanappellatecourtweareunabletoresolve,weconcludethattheappealshouldnotbedismissedpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.15(c).Theappellantisfreetoraisehisassertionsastotheexistenceand/orvalidityofasettlementagreementbeforethetrialcourt.̀2  !#d#1          22SeeTenn.CodeAnn.6628501,etseq.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva  ! . 1        \RA'\27 ! XXdd7 &  Xd& R564A1-j|`  `@R ̀@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̛̜@ ATJACKSON  @        FORPUBLICATION         Filed:April20,1998 HOWARDA.WOODS,   )      ) SHELBYCIRCUIT Appellant,    )       )Vs.      ) HON.NEALSMALL,      ) CHANCELLORMTCMANAGEMENTAND  )SOLOMONMANAGEMENT,  )      ) No.02S019706CH00061 Appellees.    )̛̜ ForAppellant:      ForAppellees: ̜HowardA.Woods,ProSe   J.WhittenGurkin̜3389CarringtonAvenue    Memphis,Tennessee̜Memphis,Tennessee38111 2@ OPINION 2X̜COURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED;    ANDERSON,C.J.REMANDEDTOTRIALCOURT7BXXd XXd7 WegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhetherthetenantssuitagainstthelandlordsundertheUniformResidentialLandlordTenantAct(URLTA)wasproperlydismissedbythechancerycourtforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.ThechancerycourtruledthatasuitundertheActmustbefiledincircuitcourt.Itdeniedthetenantsmotiontotransferthecasetocircuitcourt,anddismissedthesuit.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed. Afterreviewoftherecordandapplicableauthority,weconcludethatthelowercourtscorrectlydeterminedthatthechancerycourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdiction,butthattheyerredinrefusingtotransferthesuittothecircuitcourtwithjurisdiction.WethereforereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsandremandthecasetothechancerycourtwithinstructionstotransferthecasetocircuitcourt. 7   @  BACKGROUND  InJulyof1990,thetenant,HowardA.Woods,enteredintoaleasewiththelandlord,SolomonManagement.TheleasewaslatertransferredbySolomontoMTCManagement,whichassumedresponsibilityforthemanagementofthetenantsapartmentcomplex.InJanuaryof1994,thetenant,Woods,wasevictedfromhisapartmentforallegedlyfailingtocomplywiththeleaseagreement. Woodslaterfiledacomplaintagainstthelandlords,SolomonManagementandMTCManagement,inShelbyCountyChanceryCourt,allegingnumerousviolationsoftheUniformResidentialLandlordTenantAct(URLTA). 8   ׀Thecomplaintalleged,amongothergrounds,thatthelandlordsfailedtosupplyessentialservicesunderthelease,andrequestedcompensatorydamages.Thelandlordsfiledamotiontodismissthesuitforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction,arguingthatanactionundertheURLTAmustbefiledincircuitcourtorgeneralsessionscourt. ThechancerycourtdismissedthecomplaintforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionandintheprocessdeniedWoodsmotiontotransferthecasetocircuitcourt.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed.Wegrantedthisappealandnowreverse.@  ANALYSIS  Thetenant,Woods,citingconstitutionalprovisions,contendsthatthechancerycourterredindismissinghiscomplaint.ThelandlordsarguethatthesuitwasproperlydismissedpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.6628105(a),whichstatesinpartthat [t]hegeneralsessionsandcircuitcourtsofthisstateshallexerciseoriginaljurisdictionoveranylandlordortenantwithrespecttoanyconductinthisstategovernedbythischapter.WeagreethatTenn.CodeAnn.6628105(a)expresslyaddressesandresolvestheissueofsubjectmatterjurisdiction,butwedisagreethatitcontrolstheissueofdismissalortransferofthelawsuit. WeaddressedthisissueundersimilarproceduralfactsinFlowersv.DyerCounty,830S.W.2d51(Tenn.1992).TheplaintifffiledacomplaintfordamagesintheDyerCountyChanceryCourtundertheGovernmentTortLiabilityAct(GTLA).Thedefendant,DyerCounty,movedtodismissthecasepursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.2920307,whichstatesthat,inpart, [t]hecircuitcourtsshallhaveexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoveranyactionbroughtunderthischapter.... Thechancellordeniedthemotiontodismiss,rulingthatithadconcurrentjurisdictiontoadjudicatetheclaimpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.162506(29)(A),which,increatingthechancerycourtforthatjudicialdistrict,granteditconcurrentjurisdictionwiththecircuitcourt.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,holdingthatthespecificprovisionsoftheGTLArequiringsuitsbefiledincircuitcourtcontrolledoverthestatutoryprovisionrelieduponbythechancellor.TheCourtofAppealsthereforeconcludedthatthecaseshouldhavebeendismissedforwantofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Id.at5152. WebeganourreviewinFlowersbyagreeingwiththeCourtofAppealsthatthecircuitcourt,notthechancerycourt,hadjurisdictionofthesubjectmatterofthelawsuitundertheGTLA.Withregardtowhetherthecasehadtobedismissed,however,welookedtothefollowingstatutoryprovisions:8 (a)Thechancerycourthasconcurrentjurisdiction,withthecircuitcourt,ofallcivilcausesofaction,triableinthecircuitcourt,exceptforunliquidateddamagesforinjuriestopersonorcharacter,andexceptforunliquidateddamagesforinjuriestopropertynotresultingfromabreachoforalorwrittencontract;andnodemurrerforwantofjurisdictionofthecauseofactionshallbesustainedinthechancerycourt,exceptinthecasesexcepted.8 (b)Anysuitinthenatureofthecasesexceptedabovebroughtinthechancerycourt,whereobjectionhasnotbeentakenbyapleatothejurisdiction,maybetransferredtothecircuitcourtofthecounty,orheardanddeterminedbythechancerycourtupontheprinciplesofacourtoflaw.Tenn.CodeAnn.1611102(emphasisadded).Giventhatthestatutepermitscertaincasestobetransferredtothecircuitcourtwhereanobjectionhasnotbeenmadetojurisdiction,weconcludedthat implicitintheprovisionsofT.C.A.1611102isthepositiveinferencethat,whereajurisdictionalobjectionhasbeenmade,suchatransferismandated.Id.at53.Accordingly,weheldthatthelowercourtserredindismissingthesuitandweremandedthecasetothetrialcourtwithorderstotransferittotheappropriatecourt.Id. MorerecentlywecitedFlowerswithapprovalinNortonv.Everhart,895S.W.2d317(Tenn.1995).Therewesaidthat thegeneralrulegoverningtransferisthatacourtlackingsubjectmatterjurisdictionoveracasehasnoauthoritytotransferit,unlessthatauthorityisspecificallyconferredbystatute,rule,orconstitutionalprovision.Id.at319(citing,C.J.S.Courts,195(1990);WrightandMiller,FederalPracticeandProcedure,3827(1973));seealsoColemanv.Coleman,190Tenn.286,229S.W.2d341(1950)(followinggeneralrule).IndiscussingFlowersandtheapplicationofthegeneralrule,wesaidthattheplaintiffsactionundertheGTLAshouldhavebeentransferredfromchancerytocircuitcourtbecause thegeneralstatutegoverningthejurisdictionofcircuitandchancerycourts,Tenn.CodeAnn.1611102,mandatedthetransfer.Nortonv.Everhart,895S.W.2dat320. WethinkourdecisioninFlowers,supra,althoughnotcitedbyeitherpartytothisappeal,controlsthepresentcase.LiketheplaintiffinFlowers,Woodsfiledanactioninchancerycourtwhenthegoverningstatutorylawrequiredittobefiledincircuitcourtorgeneralsessionscourt.AsinFlowers,thejurisdictionalprovisionsinTenn.CodeAnn.1611102requiredthechancerycourttotransferthelawsuitundertheURLTAtocircuitcourtforfurtherproceedings.Accordingly,theCourtofAppealswascorrectindecidingthattherewasnosubjectmatterjurisdictioninthechancerycourt,butincorrectinfailingtorequireatransfertothecourtwithjurisdiction,thecircuitcourt.@ CONCLUSION  Inlightoftheforegoingdiscussion,weconcludethatthestatutoryprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.1611102requiredtransferandnotdismissalofWoodsclaimundertheURLTA.WethereforereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsandremandthecasetothechancerycourtfortransferofthecasetotheappropriatecircuitcourt.Costsofthisappealaretaxedequallyagainsttheappellees,forwhichexecutionshallissueifnecessary. ` XN p0*X   _________________________________  RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE CONCUR: ̜DrowotaandHolder,JJ.̛Reid,Sp.J.Birch,J.,NotParticipating