Laquitta Carpenter v. Jourdan Richardson ( 2023 )

12/15/2023
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2023
LAQUITTA CARPENTER v. JOURDAN RICHARDSON
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County
No. 3-237-22 Deborah C. Stevens, Judge
___________________________________
No. E2023-00208-COA-R3-CV
___________________________________
This is an appeal from a default judgment originally entered by the General Sessions Court
for Knox County (“general sessions court”) and then appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox
County (“circuit court”). Because the defendant did not appear in the circuit court, the
circuit court also entered a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant then
appealed to this Court. However, because of deficiencies in the defendant’s brief, any
issues purportedly raised are waived. We thus affirm the circuit court’s ruling.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed;
Case Remanded
KRISTI M. DAVIS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT, J.,
and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., joined.
Jourdan Richardson, Knoxville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Laquitta Carpenter, Knoxville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
As best we can discern from the scant record and briefing, this case arises from a
car accident that occurred in March of 2022. The general sessions court entered a default
1
Rule 10 of the Tennessee Court of Appeals Rules provides:
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designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or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.
judgment in favor of Laquitta Carpenter (“Plaintiff”) on July 25, 2022, against Jourdan
Richardson (“Defendant”). The judgment was in the amount of $10,000.00. Defendant,
acting pro se, filed an appeal to the circuit court, and a hearing was set for January 11,
2023. Defendant did not appear at the hearing, and the circuit court entered an order
providing as relevant:
On or about August 31, 2022, the Clerk of the Circuit Court provided
a notice to all parties that this matter was set for non-jury litigation on
Wednesday, January 11, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The notice was mailed to all
parties, including Jourdan Richardson at the same address provided in the
Notice of Appeal.
On January 11, 2023, the Circuit Court was opened, and the Court
waited until 9:10 a.m. At the time, only Laquitta Carpenter was present in
the courtroom. The courtroom officer then was instructed to call out Jourdan
Richardson in the area outside the courtroom and no one responded. Court
was adjourned at 9:18 a.m. after judgment was entered and there was still no
appearance by Jourdan Richardson.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this Court does hereby enter
judgment by default in favor of Laquitta Carpenter against Jourdan
Richardson in the amount of the General Sessions judgment of $10,000.00
plus interest at the rate of 6.75% per year and costs of this suit, for which
execution may enter and subject to execution in the Circuit Court.
Defendant appealed to this Court. As she did in the trial court, Defendant proceeds
pro se in this appeal. Nonetheless, she “must comply with the same standards to which
lawyers must adhere.” Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919, 926 (Tenn. Ct. App.
2014). As we have previously explained:
Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal
treatment by the courts. The courts should take into account that many pro se
litigants have no legal training and little familiarity with the judicial system.
However, the courts must also be mindful of the boundary between fairness
to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. Thus, the
courts must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same
substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to
observe.
Id. at 926–27 (quoting Jackson v. Lanphere, No. M2010-01401-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL
3566978, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2011)).
-2-
Here, we cannot consider the merits of Defendant’s appeal because she has failed
to comply with the procedural rules applicable to this Court, and her issues are thus waived.
The Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appellant’s brief shall contain:
(1) A table of contents, with references to the pages in the brief;
(2) A table of authorities, including cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes
and other authorities cited, with references to the pages in the brief where
they are cited;
(3) A jurisdictional statement in cases appealed to the Supreme Court directly
from the trial court indicating briefly the jurisdictional grounds for the appeal
to the Supreme Court;
(4) A statement of the issues presented for review;
(5) A statement of the case, indicating briefly the nature of the case, the
course of proceedings, and its disposition in the court below;
(6) A statement of facts, setting forth the facts relevant to the issues presented
for review with appropriate references to the record;
(7) An argument, which may be preceded by a summary of argument, setting
forth:
(A) the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues
presented, and the reasons therefor, including the reasons why the
contentions require appellate relief, with citations to the authorities
and appropriate references to the record (which may be quoted
verbatim) relied on; and
(B) for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable standard of
review (which may appear in the discussion of the issue or under a
separate heading placed before the discussion of the issues);
(8) A short conclusion, stating the precise relief sought.
Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a). Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides further
requirements about briefing in this Court. Failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate
Procedure or the rules of this Court can result in waiver of a litigant’s issues. Bean v. Bean,
40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Duchow v. Whalen, 872 S.W.2d 692 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 1993)).
-3-
Defendant’s appellate brief, which consists of only one page, has several
deficiencies. First, while Defendant claims in her “Statement of issue for review” that she
“was not involved in a hit and run with this vehicle[,]” this is not a proper issue for review
as it does not articulate how the circuit court erred. See Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6(a)(1)
(providing that an appellate brief should contain “[a] statement by the appellant of the
alleged erroneous action of the trial court which raises the issue”); see also State v.
Williams, 914 S.W.2d 940, 948 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (“Issues are persuasively worded
legal conclusions. Each issue should apply a rule of law to relevant facts and relate the
conclusion that the party wants the appellate court to reach.”); Owen v. Long Tire, LLC,
No. W2011-01227-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 6777014, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2011)
(“The requirement of a statement of the issues raised on appeal is no mere technicality.”).
Defendant’s “Statement of issue for review” is a factual statement as opposed to an
assignment of error as to the circuit court’s decision.
In addition, Defendant’s “Statement of case” and “Statement of facts” lack citations
to the record. See Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(5), (6); O’Shields v. City of Memphis, 545 S.W.3d
436, 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (issues waived due to failure to cite to the appellate record).
Moreover, Defendant’s “Argument” section does not state an error by the circuit court,
lacks citations to legal authority, and lacks citations to the technical record.
[T]he failure to make appropriate references to the record and to cite relevant
authority in the argument section of the brief as required by Rule 27(a)(7)
constitutes a waiver of the issue. See State v. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d 313, 318
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); Rampy v. ICI Acrylics, Inc., 898 S.W.2d 196, 210
(Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); State v. Dickerson, 885 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1993). Moreover, an issue is waived where it is simply raised without
any argument regarding its merits. See Blair v. Badenhope, 940 S.W.2d 575,
576–577 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Bank of Crockett v. Cullipher, 752 S.W.2d
84, 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
Bean, 40 S.W.3d at 55–56. In this case, Defendant’s argument is woefully deficient, as it
provides in its entirety:
This hit and run was to my knowledge on March 3, 2022, around 6:50 PM at
which time I was on an aircraft coming back to Knoxville. I did not give
permission for anyone to use my car during this time I’ll did have aThis [sic]
hit and run was to my knowledge on March 3, 2022, around 6:50 PM at which
time I was on a aircraft coming back to Knoxville. I did not give permission
for anyone to use my car during this time. I did have insurance on my car at
this time however, the insurance will not pay for damages because I Jordan
Richardson policyholder was not the one operating the vehicle. I tried to have
-4-
a police report, drawn up for my car being stolen in the city of Knoxville, but
was denied because it was already recovered.
The initial hearing which I was present for, was rescheduled for a later date,
which I did not receive adequate notice for. Which interned [sic] allowed
[Plaintiff] to be granted $10,000 for the damages to her car in this case
damages that her insurance policy is currently suing me for in the amount of
less than $4000.
Under the circumstances, Defendant has substantially failed to comply with Tennessee
Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 as well as Rule 6 of the rules of this Court. This failure is
so substantial that, notwithstanding her pro se status, it cannot be overlooked. Any issues
Defendant has attempted to raise are therefore waived. See Bean, 40 S.W.3d at 55.
Aside from the insufficient briefing, Defendant also concedes that she was not
present for the final hearing in general sessions court or for the circuit court hearing on
January 11, 2023. Aside from her notice of appeal, Defendant filed nothing in the circuit
court proceedings. Consequently, any arguments Defendant attempts to raise in this Court,
such as a lack of adequate notice, are being raised for the first time. “‘It is axiomatic that
parties will not be permitted to raise issues on appeal that they did not first raise in the trial
court.’” Ellithorpe v. Weismark, 479 S.W.3d 818, 830 (Tenn. 2015) (quoting Powell v.
Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 312 S.W.3d 496, 511 (Tenn. 2010)). Accordingly, Defendant’s
arguments, even if sufficient under the pertinent rules for briefing, would be waived for
failure to raise them in the court below.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the ruling of the Circuit Court for Knox County.
Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellant, Jourdan Richardson, for which execution
may issue if necessary.
_________________________________
KRISTI M. DAVIS, JUDGE
-5-