Netherland v. Hunter
Docket: M2002-03094-COA-R9-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; October 20, 2003; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's ruling regarding venue for a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court determined that the specific venue provision of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (T.C.A. § 47-18-109) applies, allowing for venue in Davidson County, where Defendant Lawson Hunter resides and conducts business. Defendants had argued that venue should be in Rutherford County based on the general venue statute (T.C.A. § 20-4-101), which they claimed was more applicable. However, the trial court found that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act did not yield to the general venue statute, thus denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue. The decision highlighted that the case involved uncomplicated facts, and the court's focus was solely on the issue of venue. The ruling allows Defendants to renew their Motion to Dismiss if all claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act are dismissed, as venue is based on these claims. The interlocutory appeal was granted to determine whether the specific venue provision in the Consumer Protection Act or the general venue provision governs. The trial court's decision to deny the Motion to Dismiss was upheld, affirming that venue is appropriate in Davidson County due to Defendant Lawson Hunter's residence there. Tennessee case law establishes that special statutes take precedence over general statutes. The excerpt cites several cases illustrating that when the legislature has specifically addressed a subject, general provisions should not override these specific provisions. The Consumer Protection Act's venue provision is deemed special and irreconcilable with the general venue statute, thus confirming that it serves as an exception. Consequently, the trial court's order denying the Motion to Dismiss is affirmed.