Robert Dale Cobb v. Douglas R. Beier - Concurring
This text of Robert Dale Cobb v. Douglas R. Beier - Concurring (Robert Dale Cobb v. Douglas R. Beier - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN SECTI ON FILED July 3, 1996
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk
ROBERT DALE COBB, ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9602- CV- 00051 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt , ) HAMBLEN LAW ) v. ) HON. J OHN K. W LSON, I ) J UDGE DOUGLAS R. BEI ER, ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e . ) DI SM SSED I
J . RANDALL SHELTON, M r i s t own, f or Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt . or
J AMES M DAVI S, M r i s t own, f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e . . or
O P I N I O N
Fr a nks . J .
The de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l i s whe t he r t he
a p p e a l s houl d be di s mi s s e d be c a us e t he a ppe l l a nt di d not f i l e
n o t i c e of t he a ppe a l wi t h t he c l e r k of t he a ppe l l a t e c our t
d e s i g n a t e d i n t he not i c e of a ppe a l .
I n t he Tr i a l Cour t a ppe l l e e wa s gr a nt e d s umma r y
j ud g me nt , a nd a ppe l l a nt t i me l y f i l e d t he r e qui s i t e not i c e of
a pp e a l , e xc e pt wi t h t he c l e r k of t he a ppe l l a t e c our t . Ap p e l l e e f i l e d a mot i on t o di s mi s s on t ha t ba s i s wi t h t hi s
Co u r t , a nd t he i s s ue ha s be e n br i e f e d a nd a r gue d.
The Rul e s o f Appe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e s t a t e :
( a) Se r vi c e o f Not i c e of Appe a l i n Ci vi l Ac t i ons - Not l a t e r t ha n 7 da ys a f t e r f i l i ng not i c e of a ppe a l , t he a ppe l l a nt i n a c i vi l a c t i on s ha l l s e r ve a c op y of t he not i c e of a ppe a l on c ouns e l of r e c or d of e a c h pa r t y . . . a n d on t he c l e r k of t he a ppe l l a t e c our t de s i gna t e d i n t he not i c e of a ppe a l .
T. R. A. P. Rul e 5 ( 1995) .
The Rul e wa s modi f i e d i n 1984 t o r e move t he
r e qu i r e me nt o f n ot i c e t o t he a ppe l l a t e c our t , be c a us e
?t h e e xpe r i e nc e of t he a ppe l l a t e c l e r ks ha s be e n t ha t t he
r e q u i r e me nt of s e r vi ng a not i c e of a ppe a l a t t he a ppe l l a t e
l e v e l a c c ompl i s he d no vi t a l pur pos e . . . . ? Advi s or y
Co mmi s s i on Comme nt s t o T. R. A. P. 5, 1984. I n 1991, t he
r e qu i r e me nt o f s e r vi c e of not i c e on t he a ppe l l a t e c our t c l e r k
wa s a d de d t o t he r ul e , us i ng t he e xa c t l a ngua ge t ha t ha d be e n
i n t h e pr e - 1984 ve r s i on. T. R. A. P. Rul e 5, 1983.
Appe l l a nt c onc e de s he di d not f i l e a c opy of t he
n o t i c e wi t h t he c l e r k of t he Cour t of Appe a l s . Fa i l ur e t o
c o mp l y wi t h Rul e 5 me r i t s di s mi s s a l of a n a c t i on. G. F. Pl un k
Co n s t r uc t i on Co. , I nc . v . Bar r e t t Pr ope r t i e s , I nc . , 640 S. W 2 d .
2 1 5 ( Te nn. 1982) .
I n Pl unk , t he a ppe l l a nt ha d f i l e d a not i c e of a ppe a l
wi t h t he t r i a l c our t but not wi t h t he oppos i ng c ouns e l or t h e
c l e r k of t he Cour t of Appe a l s . The Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t
h e l d t ha t i t wa s pos s i bl e f or t he s e r vi c e upon t he c l e r k of
t h e a ppe l l a t e c our t t o be wa i ve d. I d. Thi s wa i ve r , howe ve r ,
2 r e q u i r e s a s howi ng of good c a us e . I d. T. R. A. P. 2 1 ; T. R. A. P.
2 1 2.
Pl unk not e d t ha t c our t s a r e mor e ge ne r ous i n f i ndi ng g o o d
c a u s e be f or e t he t i me f or pe r mi t t i ng a n a c t t o be done ha s
e x p i r e d. The c our t de t e r mi ne d t ha t a f t e r t he e xpi r a t i on of
t h e t i me pr e s c r i be d i n t he r ul e s ha s oc c ur r e d, a s howi ng of
g o o d c a us e ?r e qui r e s mor e t ha n a me r e good f a i t h be l i e f t ha t a
r o u t i n e of f i c e c hor e ha s be e n t i me l y pe r f or me d. ? I d. a t 21 8 .
Th e Co ur t we nt on t o r e j e c t c ouns e l ’ s e xc us e t ha t he s i nc e r e l y
t h o u g h t t he not i c e s of a ppe a l ha d be e n ma i l e d.
I n t hi s c a s e , a c c or di ng t o hi s br i e f , Appe l l a nt
f a i l e d t o s e r ve t he a pp e l l a t e c l e r k due t o ?i na dve r t e nc e , t h e
r e q u i r e me nt of T. R. A. P. Rul e 5( a ) be i ng ove r l ooke d. ? No c a s e s
s e e k i n g t o a voi d di s mi s s a l be c a us e of a l a wye r ’ s mi s r e a di ng o f
T. R. A. P. Rul e 5 ha s be e n c a l l e d t o our a t t e nt i on. Howe ve r ,
t h i s e xc us e ha s be e n pr of f e r e d f or r e l i e f unde r T. R. C. P. Ru l e
60. I n Ki l by v . S i v l e y , 745 S. W 2d 284 ( Te nn. App. 1987) . .
Pl a i n t i f f ’ s a t t or ne y e r r one ous l y f ol l owe d t he a ppe a l
p r o c e d ur e s of T. R. A. P Rul e 12 i ns t e a d of T. R. A. P. Rul e 3 a n d
f i l e d a n a ppe a l wi t h t h e c l e r k of t he Cour t of Appe a l s i ns t e a d
1 T. R. A. P . 2 r e a ds :
Fo r g o o d c a u s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e i n t e r e s t o f e x p e d i t i n g d e c i s i o n u p o n a n y ma t t e r , t h e S u p r e me Co u r t , Co u r t o f Ap p e a l s , o r Co u r t o f Cr i mi n a l Ap p e a l s ma y s u s p e n d t h e r e q u i r e me n t s o r p r o v i s i o n s o f a n y o f t h e s e r u l e s i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e o n mo t i o n o f a p a r t y o r o n i t s mo t i o n a n d ma y o r d e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h i t s d i s c r e t i o n , e x c e p t t h a t t h i s r u l e s h a l l n o t p e r mi t t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t i me f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l p r e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 4 , a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e r mi s s i o n t o a p p e a l p r e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 1 1 , o r a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w p r e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 1 2 .
2 T. R. A. P . 21 ( b) r e a ds :
F o r g o o d c a u s e s h o wn t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ma y e n l a r g e t h e t i me p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e s e r u l e s o r b y i t s o r d e r f o r d o i n g a n y a c t , o r ma y p e r mi t a n a c t t o b e d o n e a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f s u c h t i me ; b u t t h e c o u r t ma y n o t e n l a r g e t h e t i me f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l p r e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 4 , a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e r mi s s i o n t o a p p e a l p r e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 1 1 , o r a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w p r e s c r i b e d i n Ru l e 1 2 .
3 o f t h e Tr i a l Cour t . Thi s Cour t de t e r mi ne d t ha t t hi s t ype o f
e r r o r di d not c ons t i t ut e a ?mi s t a ke ? t ha t c oul d j us t i f y
T. R. C. P. Rul e 6 0 r e l i e f . The r a t i ona l e wa s :
The me r e f a c t t ha t a l a wye r i s i gnor a nt of t he r ul e s or mi s t a ke nl y r e a ds t he r ul e s i s not wi t hi n i t s e l f r e a s on t o i nvoke Rul e 60. 02( 1) , Te nn. R. Ci v. P. To gr a nt r e l i e f i n e ve r y c a s e whe r e a l a wye r i s mi s t a ke n a bout t he r ul e s or i s ne gl i ge nt i n r e a di n g t he r ul e s woul d e ma s c ul a t e t he r ul e s pe r t a i ni ng t o f i l i ng of not i c e of a ppe a l .
I d. a t 287; al s o s e e H. D. Edge mon Cont r ac t i ng Co. , I nc . v .
Ki n g , 803 S. W 2d 220, 222 ( Te nn. 1991) . .
Thi s t ype of e r r or doe s not c ons t i t ut e ?good c a us e . ?
S e e Ki l by . The r e qui r e me nt s of T. R. A. P. Rul e 5 a r e r e a d
s t r i c t l y, Pl unk .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Robert Dale Cobb v. Douglas R. Beier - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-dale-cobb-v-douglas-r-beier-concurring-tennctapp-1996.