Love v. College Level Assessment Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1996 |
| Citation | 928 S.W.2d 36 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Parties | Scarlett Lay LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLEGE LEVEL ASSESSMENT SERVICES, INC., and Nursing Careers, Inc. |
Andrew R. Tillman, Carlyle Urello, Donald F. Paine, Paine, Swiney and Tarwater, Knoxville, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Christopher Van Riper, Stuart & Van Riper, Clinton, for Defendants-Appellees.
David S. Clark, Oak Ridge, for Nursing Careers, Inc.
The plaintiff, Scarlett Lay Love, appeals from the denial of her motion to dismiss, the motion being predicated upon the alleged failure of the defendants, College Level Career Services, Inc., and Nursing Careers, Inc., to perfect an appeal from the general sessions court to the circuit court within the ten-day period provided for in Tenn.Code Ann. § 27-5-108. The sole issue for our determination is as follows: whether a facsimile (fax) transmission of a notice of appeal and appeal bond, sent by the defendants to the clerk of the general sessions court on the final day on which an appeal could be taken, is sufficient to perfect the appeal. For the following reasons, we conclude that the facsimile transmission was not sufficient to perfect the appeal; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The facts of this case are undisputed. On October 29, 1993, Scarlett Lay Love brought suit in the Scott County General Sessions Court against Nursing Careers and College Level Assessment Services, seeking, among other things, rescission of a contract between her and the defendants. On June 7, 1994, the general sessions court found for the plaintiff, rescinding the contract and awarding money damages to her. The court's judgment properly stated that any appeal was due to be filed no later than June 17, 1994.
On June 17, 1994, the Clerk of the Scott County General Sessions Court received, via facsimile transmission, a letter from the law firm representing the defendants. That letter provides:
This letter is to confirm the conversation I had with you on June 16, 1994. I asked if Mr. Van Riper could fax a Notice of Appeal to the court and whether a fax would be accepted as an original, since the deadline for filing is today, June 17. You indicated to me that the fax would be treated as an original.
Please accept this fax of the Notice of Appeal in the above-referenced case as an original. A duplicate original will be provided by U.S. mail this same date.
The following page of the facsimile contained a "Notice of Appeal," in which the defendants appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo; the page also included a "Cost Bond," which designated the defendants as principals and the law firm as surety for court costs not to exceed five hundred dollars.
At some point after June 17 the clerk of the general sessions court received the original documents in the mail. Upon receipt of the documents, the clerk stamped "Filed June 17, 1994" thereon.
On October 6, 1994, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that because facsimile filing of the notice of appeal and cost bond was not allowed by rule or statute, it was thus ineffective as a means of perfecting an appeal. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that although facsimile filing was not expressly permitted by statute or rule, neither was it expressly prohibited. The trial court denied the motion, but granted the plaintiff permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R.App. P. 9. The plaintiff did so and the Rule 9 application was granted by the Court of Appeals. That court, however, affirmed the circuit court's judgment, and the plaintiff filed an application to appeal pursuant to Tenn. R.App. P. 11. We granted that application in order to address this important procedural issue.
We begin our discussion of this issue by noting that the legislature has clearly indicated its approval of facsimile transmissions in the filing of court documents. Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-1-113 provides that:
(a) It is the intent of the general assembly, in recognition of the common practice and use of facsimile transmissions (fax) in business and government, to:
(1) Promote a more efficient means of filing documents and overcome expenses and delays entailed in long distance communication; and
(2) Enable courts in this state to implement procedures for the filing of documents by fax.
(b) Courts in this state may implement procedures for the transmission of documents by fax machines in accordance with the provisions of this section and § 16-3-408 and the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules.
Furthermore, the section referenced in that statute, § 16-3-408, provides as follows:
The supreme court is urged to develop court rules and procedures to control the process of courts using fax transmissions of documents. The court rules and procedures are to be promulgated and submitted to the general assembly for approval as provided by law by February 1, 1992, and should provide for the following:
(1) The type of document that may be faxed;
(2) The length of restriction, if any, of a document that may be faxed;
(3) The type of equipment and paper which must be used by clerks' offices;
(4) The amount, if any, of fees to be charged for the faxing of documents;
(5) The payment of regular filing fees of the court;
(6) The time of filing of a faxed document;
(7) Requirements, if any, for filing of original documents or original signatures;
(8) Requirements, if any, for maintenance of transmittal reports of faxed documents; and
(9) Any other rule or procedure the court deems appropriate.
In response to § 16-3-408, this Court sanctioned a pilot program in the trial courts of Rutherford County to study the use of facsimile filing. However, neither this Court nor the Advisory Commission on the Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure has made a final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New v. Dumitrache
...filing the appeal. Id.; see also Griffin v. Campbell Clinic, P.A., 439 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tenn. 2014) ; Love v. Coll. Level Assessment Servs., Inc., 928 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tenn. 1996) ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dorris, 556 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (citation omitted). If an appeal is......
-
Metro. Gov't v. Jones
...sessions court enters an order is only relevant to the timeliness of an appeal to circuit court. See Love v. Coll. Level Assessment Servs., Inc., 928 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tenn. 1996) (holding that a circuit court "has no jurisdiction over the [general sessions] case" if no appeal is filed within ......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dorris
...is mandatory "and if it is not complied with the [circuit] court has no jurisdiction over the case." Love v. Coll. Level Assessment Servs., Inc. , 928 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tenn. 1996). "If the appeal is not perfected within the ten-day period, the general sessions court's judgment becomes final a......
-
Discover Bank v. McCullough, No. M2006-01272-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 1/29/2008)
...fact a mandatory requirement, and if it is not complied with the court has no jurisdiction over the case." Love v. Coll. Level Assessment Servs., Inc., 928 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tenn. 1996). Thus, unless a party perfects its de novo appeal within ten days from the date of the judgment, the circuit......