EDWIN JARVIS TRIAL

We shall first consider the insistence of the Appellant that the circuit court was without authority to modify the decree of the county court. Jarvis has appealed, presenting two issues for review.

EDWIN JARVIS TRIAL

This motion was overruled and upon the trial of the case the circuit judge entered a judgment increasing the amount of *696 child support from $100 per week to $700 per month and ordered the Appellant to carry health insurance on the minor child. Consequently, when the county court ceased to exist the circuit court clerk for Hamilton County divided the pending cases which had been filed in the county court among the circuit court divisions of Hamilton County.ДЄfter Appellant's first motion was overruled he then filed a motion objecting to the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. В§ 5-6-204(b) provided that the clerk of the court of concurrent jurisdiction would serve as clerk of the county court judge in such matters. В§ 5-6-204 the county court of Hamilton County had concurrent jurisdiction in domestic relations matters with other judicial authorities of the county. At this point it should be pointed out that with the enactment of Article 7 of the Tennessee Constitution of 1978 the form of county government was changed and with the ending of the term of the county judge for Hamilton County on September 1, 1982, the county court ceased to exist. On October 5 the circuit judge of Division 1 of the circuit court of Hamilton County, sitting in lieu of the county judge, overruled Appellant's motion. On June 26 Sharon filed a motion for a default judgment, following which Donald made a special and limited appearance by filing a motion through Attorney Lawrence to dismiss the petition to modify the judgment on the grounds of (1) insufficiency of process, (2) insufficiency of service of process, and (3) lack of jurisdiction over the person of Donald Edwin Jarvis. On the printed form for the officer's return on the summons is a check mark in front of the portion of the return which reads: 'Failed to serve this summons within 30 days after its issuance because.' Then the following is written in by the officer: 'Attorney Phil Lawrence will not accept warrant.' The return was dated April 27.

Lawrence was the attorney of record for Donald in the original suit. The clerk issued a summons for Donald which carried the following notation: 'Serve his attorney, Phillip C. In April, 1982, Sharon filed a petition in the county court to modify the original judgment and increase the child support. She was also awarded custody of their minor child and Donald was ordered to pay her $100 per week as child support. The Appellee, Sharon Kay Jarvis, was awarded a divorce from the Appellant, Donald Edwin Jarvis, in the county court of Hamilton County in June, 1981. The two issues on this appeal are (1) whether the circuit court has jurisdiction to modify a child support judgment of an abolished county court and (2) whether or not service of notice of an application to modify such decree on the attorney who represented the husband at the time of the original divorce constitutes sufficient notice. Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court December 19, 1983. Rymer, of Paty, Rymer & Ulin, Chattanooga, for plaintiff-appellee. Lawrence, of Bean, Poole, Lawrence & Thornbury, Chattanooga, for defendant-appellant. Permission to Appeal Denied December 19, 1983. Sharon Kay Brumback JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,Дonald Edwin JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant.Д¬ourt of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

Edwin jarvis