Travis Hewitt v. Karin McClain ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                          02/14/2019
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT KNOXVILLE
    February 1, 2018 Session
    TRAVIS HEWITT ET AL. v. KARIN MCCLAIN
    Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County
    No. 192210-2 Clarence E. Pridemore, Jr., Chancellor
    No. E2018-02170-COA-R3-CV
    The pro se appellants, Travis Hewitt and Dustin Hewitt, seek to appeal from a final order
    entered on October 17, 2018. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until December 3, 2018,
    more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The appellants
    accompanied their Notice of Appeal with a motion asking this Court to accept the late-
    filed notice as having been timely filed. The appellee, Karin McClain, filed a motion to
    dismiss this appeal arguing, in part, that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed.1
    Because it appears from all the pleadings filed in this case that the Notice of Appeal was
    not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and no discretion to
    waive the filing of a timely Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee
    Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
    D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, JJ.
    Travis Hewitt, Knoxville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.
    Dustin Hewitt, Knoxville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.
    Harold C. Wimberly, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee.
    1
    The appellee also argued in her motion that both the Notice of Appeal and the accompanying
    motion should be “deemed defective” because they were signed only by Lynne Hewitt “on behalf of” the
    appellants. However, given that there was no timely invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction, we do not
    specifically address in this opinion the alternative argument advanced in support of the appellee’s motion.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION2
    A notice of appeal must “be filed with the clerk of the appellate court within 30
    days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from.” Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). “The
    thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in civil
    cases.” Albert v. Frye, 
    145 S.W.3d 526
    , 528 (Tenn. 2004). If a notice of appeal is not
    filed in a civil case in a timely fashion from the date of entry of the final judgment, we
    are not at liberty to waive the procedural defect pursuant to Rule 4(a) and must dismiss
    the appeal. See Arfken & Assocs., P.A. v. Simpson Bridge Co., Inc., 
    85 S.W.3d 789
    , 791
    (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Am. Steinwinter Investor Group v. Am. Steinwinter, Inc., 
    964 S.W.2d 569
    , 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Jefferson v. Pneumo Services Corp., 
    699 S.W.2d 181
    , 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). As such, the appellants’ request to have this Court
    accept the late-filed notice as having been timely filed is not well-taken.
    Because the Notice of Appeal in this case was not timely filed, we lack
    jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The motion to dismiss is granted with regard to the
    argument that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed and this appeal is dismissed.
    Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellants, for which execution may issue if necessary.3
    PER CURIAM
    2
    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.
    3
    We note that a Uniform Civil Affidavit of Indigency was filed on behalf of one of the appellants.
    However, that appellant’s alleged indigency would not relieve him from paying the court costs associated
    with this appeal. See 
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-127
    (b) (stating that the filing of a civil action upon a
    pauper’s oath “does not relieve the person filing the action from responsibility for the costs or taxes but
    suspends their collection until taxed by the court”).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E2018-02170-COA-R3-CV

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/14/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/14/2019