 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Richardson v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis6/30/2005
licable here. In this case, the General Sessions Court entered an order dismissing the action on April 23, 2001. On May 8, 2001, the General Sessions Court attempted to set aside its April 23 order because all of the defendants had not been served with process. However, after the General Sessions Court entered the order dismissing the case, for lack of prosecution, the General Sessions Court was without jurisdiction to act further, and its subsequent orders were void. See Caldwell, 2004 WL 370299, at *2-*3 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Callis, 481 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Tenn. 1972) ("When a . . . General Sessions Court renders judgment in a case and adjourns, the court is at an end, and the court has no further power over it except what the statutes give.")). Therefore, the one-year time period under the savings statute for Richardson to refile her lawsuit began to run on the date the General Sessions order of dismissal for lack of prosecution was entered, on April 23, 2001. See Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 28-1-105 (2000). Consequently, the lawsuit below, filed on June 26, 2002, was time-barred.
Richardson argues that the April 23, 2001 General Sessions order was entered by mistake, a mistake that was acknowledged by the defendants who signed the consent order to set the April order aside. It would be unfair, Richardson argues, for the parties who signed the consent order to now claim that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. However, the General Sessions Court was without jurisdiction to act after the April 23, 2001 order of dismissal was entered. It is well settled that parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by consent where jurisdiction did not exist. First Am. Trust Co. v. Franklin-Murray Dev. Co., 59 S.W.3d 135, 140-41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); see also Jones v. State, No. E2004-00780-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 589816, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2005); Rogers v. State, No. M2003-00215-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 22146120, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2003). Consequently, the plaintiffs' lawsuit in the Circuit Court below must be dismissed.
The decision of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of an order of dismissal. Costs on appeal are to be taxed to Appellee Helen Richardson, for which execution may issue, if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|