 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chase v. Springer6/22/2000
this Court stated in Harden:
Factors the trial court should consider when deciding whether to allow amendments include "undue delay in filing; lack of notice to the opposing party; bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment." Merriman v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 548, 559 (Tenn.App.1979). Harden v. Danek Med. Group, supra, at 454.
This record reveals that despite her knowledge that Mr. Springer resided in Tennessee, and despite the possible availability of remedy in Tennessee and Oklahoma as early as 1991, Mrs. Chase chose to sue in California, filing her complaint in August of 1992. After successfully obtaining a default judgment in 1993, she allowed that judgment to languish for two years before filing for enforcement in Tennessee. The enforcement action in turn lay dormant for yet another year until service was effected on Mr. Springer.
Although the trial court questioned the nature of a petition for enforcement under Rules 3 and 15.03, when this ruling is viewed in the above context with the criteria listed in Harden, we cannot find an abuse of discretion. To allow amendment of the original petition would be to grant the holder of an invalid foreign judgment superior rights over a plaintiff who through simple negligence allowed the statutory period to run. In each case the cause would otherwise be time barred. In the former, as in the case at bar, manifest injustice would result.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for reasons stated herein and costs are assessed against Helen Chase.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|