Deborah J. Meadows v. Ronald E. McCarter ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            08/11/2017
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT KNOXVILLE
    August 4, 2017 Session
    DEBORAH J. MEADOWS v. RONALD E. MCCARTER ET AL.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County
    No. 15-10-340   Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor
    No. E2017-00525-COA-R3-CV
    The Defendant, Ronald E. McCarter (“Defendant”), seeks to appeal from a ruling of the
    Trial Court which does not constitute a final judgment. Specifically, the ruling to which the
    Notice of Appeal is directed in this case did not resolve the amount of attorney’s fees
    awarded to the Plaintiff, Deborah J. Meadows (“Plaintiff”), nor did it fully resolve
    Plaintiff’s claims against Tiffany Sharp. As such, it is clear that there is not a final
    judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. We therefore lack jurisdiction to
    consider this appeal.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
    THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., AND CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J.
    Travis D. McCarter, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the appellant.
    Rebecca C. McCoy, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the appellee.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    Pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court
    reviewed the record for this appeal upon transmission to determine whether the Court had
    1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows:
    This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case,
    may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by
    memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no
    precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it
    shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be
    published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any
    unrelated case.
    subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. After determining that there were unresolved
    claims and issues in the Trial Court, this Court directed Defendant to show cause why this
    appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Defendant has filed no response to the show
    cause order.
    “A final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else
    for the trial court to do.’ ” In re Estate of Henderson, 
    121 S.W.3d 643
    , 645 (Tenn. 2003)
    (quoting State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 
    968 S.W.2d 834
    , 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)).
    “[A]ny order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer
    than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time
    before entry of a final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all
    parties.” Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Because there are unresolved claims and issues in the
    proceedings below, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this
    appeal. See Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 
    783 S.W.2d 553
    , 559 (Tenn. 1990) (“Unless an
    appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by statute, appellate courts
    have jurisdiction over final judgments only.”); see also Spencer v. The Golden Rule, Inc.,
    No. 03A01-9406-CV-00207, 
    1994 WL 589564
    , * 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 1994). While
    the Supreme Court in Bayberry remarked that there is “no bar” to the suspension of the
    finality requirements of Rule 3(a) pursuant to Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
    Procedure, there has been no argument made in this case that would support suspension of
    the requirements of the rule. See 
    id. (noting that
    “there must be a good reason for
    suspension”). Moreover, the question exists whether such a suspension would be proper
    given developments in the law subsequent to Bayberry. See Ingram v. Wasson, 
    379 S.W.3d 227
    , 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (“Lack of appellate jurisdiction cannot be waived.”) (citing
    Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 
    924 S.W.2d 632
    , 639 (Tenn. 1996)).
    Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal, the case is dismissed
    without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final judgment has been entered.
    Costs on appeal are taxed to Defendant, Ronald E. McCarter, and his surety, for which
    execution may issue if necessary.
    PER CURIAM
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E2017-00525-COA-R3-CV

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/11/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/11/2017