Rules of Civil Procedure, Interpretation of
Interpretation of Rules of Civil Procedure
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Westfield Group Insurance v. Embry, No. M2022-01301-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2023).
The trial court’s interpretation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 and its decision to grant a voluntary dismissal while a motion to dismiss is pending present an issue of law, which is reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Renner v. Takoma Reg’l Hosp., No. E2018-00853-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 360333, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019) (citing Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tenn. 2006) and Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993)); Hurley v. Pickens, 536 S.W.3d 419, 421 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
In re Estate of Welch, No. M2023-00118-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2023).
The interpretation of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law. Lacy v. Cox, 152 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Dial v. Harrington, 138 S.W.3d 895, 897 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). The proper standard of review for questions of law is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Eberbach v. Eberbach, 535 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Tenn. 2017) (citing Barnes v. Barnes, 193 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Tenn. 2006); Taylor v. Fezell, 158 S.W.3d 352, 357 (Tenn. 2005)).
Solomon v. Solomon, No. M2021-00958-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2023).
Interpretation of procedural rules and statutes are questions of law, which we review de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011). We apply the same rules of interpretation to both rules and statutes. Thomas v. Oldfield, 279 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Tenn. 2009).
Goetz v. Autin, No. W2022-00393-COA-R3-CV, p. 18 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2023).
The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are promulgated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, approved by the General Assembly, and “have the force and effect of law.” Hall v. Haynes, 915 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted in original) (quoting Frye v. Blue Ridge Neurosci. Ctr., P.C., 70 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn. 1980))). Accordingly, the interpretation of the Rules also is a question of law which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness for the determinations of the trial court. Thomas v. Oldfield, 279 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Tenn. 2009).
Starnes v. Akinlaja, No. E2021-01308-COA-R10-CV, p. 7-8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2023).
Finally, the issue raised in this extraordinary appeal requires that we interpret and apply Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Our Supreme Court has set forth the following standard in this regard:
Interpretation of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Lacy v. Cox, 152 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tenn. 2004). Although the rules of civil procedure are not statutes, the same rules of statutory construction apply in the interpretation of rules. See Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn. 1980); see also 1 Tenn. Juris., Rules of Court § 2 (2004). Our goal “‘is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute’s coverage beyond its intended scope.’” Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Div., 256 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tenn. 2002)). We determine legislative intent by giving words their natural and ordinary meaning. Green v. Johnson, 249 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tenn. 2008). In construing the rules of this Court, however, our goal is to ascertain and give effect to this Court’s intent in adopting its rules. See State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473, 480-81 (Tenn. 2001) (“[T]he [Tennessee] Supreme Court has the inherent power to promulgate rules governing the practice and procedure of the courts of this state.”); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-3-401 & 402 (1994).
Thomas v. Oldfield, 279 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Tenn. 2009).
Wilfong v. Kaelin, No. M2021-01007-COA-R9-CV, p. 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2023).
This raises a question of law involving the interpretation of a Rule of Tennessee Civil Procedure; accordingly, our review of the trial court’s decision is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See, e.g., Thomas v. Oldfield, 279 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Tenn. 2009) (noting that “[i]nterpretation of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness”).
Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee, No. M2022-00553-COA-R3-CV, p. 12-13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023).
We begin our discussion by reiterating that the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are promulgated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, approved by the General Assembly, and “have the force and effect of law.” Hall v. Haynes, 915 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted in original) (quoting Frye v. Blue Ridge Neurosci. Ctr., P.C., 70 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn. 1980))). Accordingly, the interpretation of the Rules is a question of law subject to de novo review with no presumption of correctness. Thomas v. Oldfield, 279 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Tenn. 2009). The rules applicable to statutory construction apply to the interpretation of the Rules. Id. The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that “‘[c]onflicts between provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Tennessee statutes which cannot be harmonized are resolved in favor of the Rules of Civil Procedure.’” Ken Smith Auto Parts v. Thomas, 599 S.W.3d 555, 566 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Hospitals, 407 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 16- 3-406)).
Krajenta v. Westphal, No. W2021-00832-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2022).
The issue in this case requires this Court’s review of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and statutory construction, both of which are questions of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Lacy v. Cox, 152 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tenn. 2004) (rules of civil procedure); In re Estate of Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tenn. 2009) (statutory construction).
Albers v. Powers, No. M2021-00577-COA-R3-CV (July 12, 2022).
This appeal requires us to construe Tenn. R. Civ. P. 13.01 and consider its interplay with the doctrine of res judicata. The interpretation of a rule of civil procedure and the determination of whether a claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata are questions of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. Fair v. Cochran, 418 S.W.3d 542, 544 (Tenn. 2013); In re Est. of Goza, 397 S.W.3d 564, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). When interpreting rules of civil procedure, we are guided by the rules of statutory construction, keeping in mind that “[o]ur duty is to enforce the rule as written.” Fair, 418 S.W.3d at 544 (citing Waldschmidt v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 271 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tenn. 2008)).
