I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED February 3, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk J OHN T. MEADOR a nd wi f e , ) ROANE CHANCERY PELEA E. M EADOR, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9510- CH- 0036 2 ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. FRANK V. W LLI AM I I I I S ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES E. J OHNSON a nd J AM ES O. ) APPEAL DI SM SSED I CAM PBELL, ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) ) ) vs . ) ) ) ) M LLARD V. OAKLEY, I ) ) Thi r d- Pa r t y De f e nda nt )
J AMES S. SM TH, J R. , Roc kwood, f or Appe l l a nt s . I
W LLI AM H. SKELTON a nd M CHAEL S. KELLEY, Ba s s Be r r y & Si ms , PLC, I I Kn o x v i l l e f or a ppe l l e e , M l l a r d V. Oa kl e y. i O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J . c ur
Thi s c a s e or i gi na t e d i n t he t r i a l c our t a s a bounda r y l i n e
di s put e . Be f or e we e xa mi ne t he me r i t s of t h e i s s ue s r a i s e d o n
a pp e a l , howe ve r , i t i s ne c e s s a r y f or us t o a ddr e s s a pr e l i mi n a r y
i s s ue , i . e . , wa s a n ot i c e of a ppe a l t i me l y f i l e d. I f a not i c e of
a p p e a l wa s n ot t i me l y f i l e d, we ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e r t a i n
t hi s a p p e a l . Se e Rul e 4, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e .
The a ppe l l e e , M l l a r d V. i Oa kl e y, move d t he c our t t o di s mi s s
t hi s a p p e a l upon t he gr ounds t ha t t he not i c e of a ppe a l wa s n o t
t i me l y f i l e d a nd we , t he r e f or e , ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o he a r t h e
case. Thi s c our t a c t e d upon t he mot i on by de f e r r i ng t he mot i on t o
t he p a ne l d e s i gna t e d t o h e a r t he c a s e a n d or de r e d t he r e s pe c t i v e
p a r t i e s t o b r i e f t hi s i s s ue a l ong wi t h ot he r i s s ue s r a i s e d.
The hi s t or y of t hi s c a s e i s s ome wha t pe r pl e xi ng. The or i gi n a l
p l a i nt i f f s , J ohn T. M a dor a nd wi f e , Pe l e a E. M a dor ( pl a i nt i f f s ) e e
f i l ed an o r i gi na l a c t i on s ome t i me in 1988 a ga i ns t t he s a me
d e f e n d a nt s as in t hi s cas e, Cha r l e s E. J ohns on a nd J a me s O.
Ca mp b e l l ( de f e nda nt s ) . The de f e nda nt s , i n t ha t c a s e f i l e d a t hi r d -
p a r t y a c t i on a ga i ns t M l l a r d V. Oa kl e y. i The a c t i on a ppa r e nt l y wa s
2 i ns t i t ut e d a s a bounda r y l i ne di s put e , howe ve r , c ouns e l wa s a l l o we d
t o a me n d hi s c ompl a i nt at t he t r i a l t o c onve r t t he a c t i on t o a n
a c t i o n i n e j e c t me nt . The t r i a l c our t , a f t e r a t r i a l on t he me r i t s ,
f o u n d t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s ha d f a i l e d t o d e r a i gn t he i r t i t l e t o a
c o mmon s our c e a nd he nc e , f a i l e d t o pr ove t he i r t i t l e a s r e qui r e d i n
a n e j e c t me nt a c t i on. Appa r e nt l y no a ppe a l wa s t a ke n f r om t h e
j u d g me n t of t he c our t i n t he f i r s t a c t i on.
The p r e s e nt a c t i on wa s i ns t i t ut e d on J a nua r y 4, 1991, s e e ki n g ,
a mo n g o t he r t hi ngs , t he e s t a bl i s hme nt of a c ommon bounda r y be t we e n
t he l a n ds of t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he de f e nda nt s . Aga i n, M l l a r d V. i 1 Oa kl e y wa s br ought i n a s a t hi r d- pa r t y de f e nda nt . Oa kl e y f i l e d a
mo t i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt ba s e d u p on t he gr ounds of c ol l a t e r a l
e s t oppe l a nd t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons . Al l de f e nda nt s j oi ne d
wi t h h i m i n t he mot i on. Af t e r c ons i de r a t i on of t he mot i on f o r
s u mma r y j udgme nt , t he c our t e nt e r e d a j udgme nt on M r c h 16, 19 9 2 , a
s u s t a i ni ng t he mot i on a nd di s mi s s i ng t he a c t i on. The j udgme n t
r e c i t e d t ha t t he " s umma r y j udgme nt f i l e d by a l l de f e nda nt s is
s us t a i n e d upon t he gr ounds s e t f or t h i n s a i d mot i on. " On t he s a me
d a t e , t he pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a mot i on a s ki ng t he c our t f or f i ndi n g s 2 of f act a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w. The mot i on di d not s pe c i f y
1 Millard V. Oakley was the vendor in the warranty deed by which defendants claim title. 2 We are unable to ascertain from the record whether the judgment or motion was filed first. The plaintiffs assert in their briefs, however, that the motion was filed first.
3 wh e t h e r t he a c t i on s ought wa s unde r Rul e 52. 01 or Rul e 52. 0 2 ,
Te nn e s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e . Upon c ons i de r a t i on o f t ha t
mo t i o n , t he t r i a l c our t on De c e mbe r 3, 1992, or de r e d t he pa r t i e s t o
p r e s e nt pr opos e d f i nd i n gs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w wi t h i n
t h i r t y ( 30) da ys " a f t e r whi c h t i me t he c our t wi l l r e nde r f i ndi n g s
o f f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w. " No f ur t he r a c t i on wa s t a ke n un t i l
Fe b r u a r y 17, 1 994, at whi c h t i me t he pl a i nt i f f s f i l ed t he i r
p r o p o s e d f i ndi ng of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w.
Th e pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d t he i r not i c e of a ppe a l on J une 7, 19 9 5 ,
b e f o r e t he t r i a l c our t ha d a c t e d upon pr opos e d f i ndi ng of f a c t a n d
c o n c l u s i ons of l a w. The c a s e i n due c our s e ma de i t s wa y t o t hi s
c our t . The r e c or d a s f i l e d i n t hi s c our t r e f l e c t e d t ha t t he t r i a l
c o u r t h a d ma d e no di s pos i t i on of t he mot i on f or f i ndi ngs of f a c t
a nd c o n c l us i ons of l a w a nd r e ma nde d t he c a s e t o t he t r i a l c ou r t .
Af t e r r e ma nd, t he t r i a l c our t not e d t ha t " no f i ndi ngs of f a c t a r e
r e q u i r e d b e c a us e t he c a s e wa s not t r i e d on t he me r i t s but f i ndi n g s
a s t o p r oc e dur a l ma t t e r s a r e not pr ohi bi t e d a nd ma y be a ppr opr i a t e
i n t hi s c a s e t o e xpl a i n t he s t a t e of t he c a s e f or t he pur pos e o f
a pp e a l . " The c our t t he r e a f t e r r e c i t e d a s hi s f i ndi ngs t he ge ne r a l
h i s t or y of t he c a s e l e a di ng up t o t he a ppe a l . Hi s f i ndi ngs a r e n o t
i nc o n s i s t e nt wi t h t he hi s t or y of t he c a s e t ha t we ha ve s e t out
a bove .
4 Fi r s t l y, we a gr e e wi t h t he c ha nc e l l or t ha t no f i ndi ngs of f a c t
a nd c o n c l us i ons of l a w a r e ne c e s s a r y a f t e r di s pos i t i on of a c a s e o n
mo t i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt . Re qui r e d f i ndi ngs of f act a nd
c o n c l u s i ons of l a w a r e l i mi t e d by Rul e 52. 01 t o " a c t i ons t r i e d u p o n
t he f a c t s wi t hout a j ur y . . . . " Addi t i ona l l y, Rul e 52. 01 e xpr e s s l y
a n d u n e qui voc a l l y s t a t e s t ha t f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons o f
l a w a r e unne c e s s a r y on Rul e 56 mot i ons ( s umma r y j udgme nt s ) .
W f i nd i t i ns t r uc t i ve t o r e c i t e Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 of t h e e
Ru l e s o f Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e ve r ba t i m:
52. 01 Fi ndi ngs Re qui r e d upon Re que s t .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED February 3, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk J OHN T. MEADOR a nd wi f e , ) ROANE CHANCERY PELEA E. M EADOR, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9510- CH- 0036 2 ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. FRANK V. W LLI AM I I I I S ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES E. J OHNSON a nd J AM ES O. ) APPEAL DI SM SSED I CAM PBELL, ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) ) ) vs . ) ) ) ) M LLARD V. OAKLEY, I ) ) Thi r d- Pa r t y De f e nda nt )
J AMES S. SM TH, J R. , Roc kwood, f or Appe l l a nt s . I
W LLI AM H. SKELTON a nd M CHAEL S. KELLEY, Ba s s Be r r y & Si ms , PLC, I I Kn o x v i l l e f or a ppe l l e e , M l l a r d V. Oa kl e y. i O P I N I O N
M M r a y, J . c ur
Thi s c a s e or i gi na t e d i n t he t r i a l c our t a s a bounda r y l i n e
di s put e . Be f or e we e xa mi ne t he me r i t s of t h e i s s ue s r a i s e d o n
a pp e a l , howe ve r , i t i s ne c e s s a r y f or us t o a ddr e s s a pr e l i mi n a r y
i s s ue , i . e . , wa s a n ot i c e of a ppe a l t i me l y f i l e d. I f a not i c e of
a p p e a l wa s n ot t i me l y f i l e d, we ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e r t a i n
t hi s a p p e a l . Se e Rul e 4, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Appe l l a t e Pr oc e dur e .
The a ppe l l e e , M l l a r d V. i Oa kl e y, move d t he c our t t o di s mi s s
t hi s a p p e a l upon t he gr ounds t ha t t he not i c e of a ppe a l wa s n o t
t i me l y f i l e d a nd we , t he r e f or e , ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o he a r t h e
case. Thi s c our t a c t e d upon t he mot i on by de f e r r i ng t he mot i on t o
t he p a ne l d e s i gna t e d t o h e a r t he c a s e a n d or de r e d t he r e s pe c t i v e
p a r t i e s t o b r i e f t hi s i s s ue a l ong wi t h ot he r i s s ue s r a i s e d.
The hi s t or y of t hi s c a s e i s s ome wha t pe r pl e xi ng. The or i gi n a l
p l a i nt i f f s , J ohn T. M a dor a nd wi f e , Pe l e a E. M a dor ( pl a i nt i f f s ) e e
f i l ed an o r i gi na l a c t i on s ome t i me in 1988 a ga i ns t t he s a me
d e f e n d a nt s as in t hi s cas e, Cha r l e s E. J ohns on a nd J a me s O.
Ca mp b e l l ( de f e nda nt s ) . The de f e nda nt s , i n t ha t c a s e f i l e d a t hi r d -
p a r t y a c t i on a ga i ns t M l l a r d V. Oa kl e y. i The a c t i on a ppa r e nt l y wa s
2 i ns t i t ut e d a s a bounda r y l i ne di s put e , howe ve r , c ouns e l wa s a l l o we d
t o a me n d hi s c ompl a i nt at t he t r i a l t o c onve r t t he a c t i on t o a n
a c t i o n i n e j e c t me nt . The t r i a l c our t , a f t e r a t r i a l on t he me r i t s ,
f o u n d t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s ha d f a i l e d t o d e r a i gn t he i r t i t l e t o a
c o mmon s our c e a nd he nc e , f a i l e d t o pr ove t he i r t i t l e a s r e qui r e d i n
a n e j e c t me nt a c t i on. Appa r e nt l y no a ppe a l wa s t a ke n f r om t h e
j u d g me n t of t he c our t i n t he f i r s t a c t i on.
The p r e s e nt a c t i on wa s i ns t i t ut e d on J a nua r y 4, 1991, s e e ki n g ,
a mo n g o t he r t hi ngs , t he e s t a bl i s hme nt of a c ommon bounda r y be t we e n
t he l a n ds of t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he de f e nda nt s . Aga i n, M l l a r d V. i 1 Oa kl e y wa s br ought i n a s a t hi r d- pa r t y de f e nda nt . Oa kl e y f i l e d a
mo t i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt ba s e d u p on t he gr ounds of c ol l a t e r a l
e s t oppe l a nd t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons . Al l de f e nda nt s j oi ne d
wi t h h i m i n t he mot i on. Af t e r c ons i de r a t i on of t he mot i on f o r
s u mma r y j udgme nt , t he c our t e nt e r e d a j udgme nt on M r c h 16, 19 9 2 , a
s u s t a i ni ng t he mot i on a nd di s mi s s i ng t he a c t i on. The j udgme n t
r e c i t e d t ha t t he " s umma r y j udgme nt f i l e d by a l l de f e nda nt s is
s us t a i n e d upon t he gr ounds s e t f or t h i n s a i d mot i on. " On t he s a me
d a t e , t he pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a mot i on a s ki ng t he c our t f or f i ndi n g s 2 of f act a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w. The mot i on di d not s pe c i f y
1 Millard V. Oakley was the vendor in the warranty deed by which defendants claim title. 2 We are unable to ascertain from the record whether the judgment or motion was filed first. The plaintiffs assert in their briefs, however, that the motion was filed first.
3 wh e t h e r t he a c t i on s ought wa s unde r Rul e 52. 01 or Rul e 52. 0 2 ,
Te nn e s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e . Upon c ons i de r a t i on o f t ha t
mo t i o n , t he t r i a l c our t on De c e mbe r 3, 1992, or de r e d t he pa r t i e s t o
p r e s e nt pr opos e d f i nd i n gs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w wi t h i n
t h i r t y ( 30) da ys " a f t e r whi c h t i me t he c our t wi l l r e nde r f i ndi n g s
o f f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w. " No f ur t he r a c t i on wa s t a ke n un t i l
Fe b r u a r y 17, 1 994, at whi c h t i me t he pl a i nt i f f s f i l ed t he i r
p r o p o s e d f i ndi ng of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w.
Th e pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d t he i r not i c e of a ppe a l on J une 7, 19 9 5 ,
b e f o r e t he t r i a l c our t ha d a c t e d upon pr opos e d f i ndi ng of f a c t a n d
c o n c l u s i ons of l a w. The c a s e i n due c our s e ma de i t s wa y t o t hi s
c our t . The r e c or d a s f i l e d i n t hi s c our t r e f l e c t e d t ha t t he t r i a l
c o u r t h a d ma d e no di s pos i t i on of t he mot i on f or f i ndi ngs of f a c t
a nd c o n c l us i ons of l a w a nd r e ma nde d t he c a s e t o t he t r i a l c ou r t .
Af t e r r e ma nd, t he t r i a l c our t not e d t ha t " no f i ndi ngs of f a c t a r e
r e q u i r e d b e c a us e t he c a s e wa s not t r i e d on t he me r i t s but f i ndi n g s
a s t o p r oc e dur a l ma t t e r s a r e not pr ohi bi t e d a nd ma y be a ppr opr i a t e
i n t hi s c a s e t o e xpl a i n t he s t a t e of t he c a s e f or t he pur pos e o f
a pp e a l . " The c our t t he r e a f t e r r e c i t e d a s hi s f i ndi ngs t he ge ne r a l
h i s t or y of t he c a s e l e a di ng up t o t he a ppe a l . Hi s f i ndi ngs a r e n o t
i nc o n s i s t e nt wi t h t he hi s t or y of t he c a s e t ha t we ha ve s e t out
a bove .
4 Fi r s t l y, we a gr e e wi t h t he c ha nc e l l or t ha t no f i ndi ngs of f a c t
a nd c o n c l us i ons of l a w a r e ne c e s s a r y a f t e r di s pos i t i on of a c a s e o n
mo t i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt . Re qui r e d f i ndi ngs of f act a nd
c o n c l u s i ons of l a w a r e l i mi t e d by Rul e 52. 01 t o " a c t i ons t r i e d u p o n
t he f a c t s wi t hout a j ur y . . . . " Addi t i ona l l y, Rul e 52. 01 e xpr e s s l y
a n d u n e qui voc a l l y s t a t e s t ha t f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons o f
l a w a r e unne c e s s a r y on Rul e 56 mot i ons ( s umma r y j udgme nt s ) .
W f i nd i t i ns t r uc t i ve t o r e c i t e Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 of t h e e
Ru l e s o f Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e ve r ba t i m:
52. 01 Fi ndi ngs Re qui r e d upon Re que s t . — I n al l a c t i ons t r i e d upon t he f ac t s wi t ho ut a j ur y , a nd upon r e que s t ma de by a ny pa r t y pr i or t o t he e nt r y of j udgme nt , t he c our t s ha l l f i nd t he f a c t s s pe c i a l l y a nd s ha l l s t a t e s e pa r a t e l y i t s c onc l u s i ons of l a w t he r e on a nd di r e c t t he e nt r y of t he a ppr opr i a t e j udg me n t . The f i ndi ngs of a ma s t e r , t o t he e xt e nt t ha t t he c our t a dopt s t he m, s ha l l b e c ons i de r e d a s t he f i ndi ngs of t he c our t . I f a n opi ni on o r me mor a ndum of de c i s i on i s f i l e d, i t wi l l be s uf f i c i e nt i f t he f i ndi ngs o f f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w a ppe a r t h e r e i n. Fi ndi ngs of f ac t a nd c onc l us i ons o f l aw ar e unne c e s s ar y o n de c i s i ons of m i ons unde r Rul e 12 or 56 ot o r a ny ot he r mot i on e xc e pt a s pr ovi de d i n Rul e s 41. 02 a nd 6 5 . 04( 6) . ( Empha s i s a dde d) .
52. 02 Am ndm nt . — Upon mot i on of a pa r t y ma de not e e l a t e r t ha n t hi r t y ( 30) da ys a f t e r e nt r y of j udgme nt t he c o ur t ma y a me nd i t s f i ndi ngs or ma ke a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs a nd ma y a me nd t he j udgme nt a c c or di ngl y. The mot i on ma y be ma de wi t h a mot i on f or a ne w t r i a l pur s ua nt t o Rul e 59. W n f i ndi ngs of f a c t a r e ma de i n a c t i ons t r i e d by t he he c o ur t wi t hout a j ur y, t he que s t i on of t he s uf f i c i e nc y of t he e vi de nc e t o s uppor t t he f i ndi ngs ma y be r a i s e d on a ppe a l whe t he r or not t he pa r t y r a i s i ng t he que s t i on ha s
5 ma de i n t he t r i a l c ou r t a n obj e c t i on t o s uc h f i ndi ngs or h a s ma de a mot i on t o a me nd t he m or a mot i on f or j udgme nt .
Up on c ons i de r a t i o n , we ar e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he a bo v e
r ul e s , b y t he i r e xpr e s s t e r ms , e xc l ude mot i ons f or s umma r y j udgme n t
f r om t he i r a ppl i c a t i on. Cl e a r l y, Ru l e 52. 01 r el at es onl y to
" a c t i o n s t r i e d upon t he f a c t s wi t hout a j ur y. " Fur t he r Rul e 52 . 0 1
a p p l i e s onl y t o c a s e s whe r e a f i na l j udgme nt ha s not be e n e nt e r e d
a f t e r a t r i a l on t he me r i t s . Rul e 52. 02, on t he ot he r ha nd a l l o ws
a p a r t y t o f i l e a mot i on a s ki ng t he c our t t o a l t e r or a me nd i t s
f i ndi ngs or ma de a ddi t i o na l f i ndi ngs a nd a me nd t he j udgme n t
a c c o r d i ngl y. Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 mus t be r e a d i n pa r i ma t e r i a .
I n s o d oi ng, t he onl y r a t i ona l c onc l us i on t h a t c a n be r e a c he d i s
t ha t t h e j udgme nt me nt i on e d i n Rul e 52. 02 r e f e r s t o a j udgme n t
e nt e r e d a f t e r a n " a c t i on ha s be e n t r i e d upon t h e f a c t s . " W en h
r u l i n g upon a mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt , t he c our t doe s not t r y
a c a s e upon i t s f a c t s b u t s i mpl y ma ke s a j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r o f
l a w a s t o whe t he r t he r e a r e di s put e d ma t e r i a l f a c t s a nd whe t he r t he
mo v a n t i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a s a ma t t e r of l a w.
W i l e we do not f i nd a ny r e por t e d a ut hor i t y i n t hi s j ur i s d i c - h
t i on s u p por t i ng t he i n a pp l i c a bi l i t y of Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 t o
s u mma r y j udgme nt s , we do f i nd s uppor t f or t hi s pr opos i t i o n i n
Pi n s o n v . Smi t h, a n unr e por t e d opi ni on f r om t hi s c our t , f i l ed i n
J a c k s o n , Fe br ua r y 27, 1996: I n Pi ns on, i t wa s s t a t e d:
6 W not e a t t hi s j unc t ur e t ha t j udgme nt wa s e nt e r e d e p u r s ua n t t o RULE 56, whi c h r e l i e ve d t he t r i a l j udge of t he ne c e s s i t y of f i ndi ng t he f a c t s or ma ki ng c onc l us i ons o f l a w. RULE 52. 01, TENN. R. CI V. PRO. Eve n s o, f i ndi ngs o f f a c t a r e not a ppr o pr i a t e unde r RULE 56 be c a us e t he r e i s no pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s of s umma r y j udg me nt s s i nc e t he y i nvol v e q ue s t i ons of l a w onl y. ( Empha s i s our s ) .
Rul e 5 2( a ) , Fe de r a l Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e whi c h i s s i mi l a r
t o o u r s ha s be e n i nt e r pr e t e d t o e xc l ude s umma r y j udgme nt s f r om i t s
a p p l i c a t i on. I n Dr e dge Cor por a t i on v. Pe nny, 338 F. 2d 456 ( 196 4 ) ,
t he c our t o bs e r ve d t ha t t he r e wa s no f a c t - f i ndi ng f unc t i on i n
c o n j u n c t i on wi t h t he e nt r y of a s umma r y j udgme nt a nd t ha t s umma r y
j u d g me n t s a r e e xpr e s s l y e x c l ude d f r om t he a ppl i c a t i on of t he r ul e .
Se e a l s o Fl or ha m Pa r k Che vr on, I nc . , v. Che vr on U. S. A. , I nc . , 6 8 0
F. Su p p 159 ( D. N. J . 1988) a nd t he c a s e s c i t e d t he r e i n.
W i l e we f i nd t he a bo ve c onc l us i ons t o be di s pos i t i ve of t h i s h
i s s ue , we wi l l f r om a n a bunda nc e of c a ut i on a ddr e s s t he ma t t e r
f ur t h e r . As s umi ng, a r gue ndo, t ha t t he r ul e s do i n f a c t a ppl y t o
s u mma r y j udgme nt s (a c onc e pt whi c h we r ej ect ) , it t he n is of
e x t r e me i mpor t a nc e i n t hi s c a s e a s t o whe t he r t he mot i on f i l e d b y
t he p l a i nt i f f s f al l s wi t h i n t he pur vi e w of Rul e 52. 01 or Ru l e
5 2 . 0 2 . Si mpl y s t a t e d, a mot i on f i l e d pur s ua nt t o Rul e 52. 02 t o l l s
t he r u n n i ng of t he t i me f or t he f i l i ng of a not i c e of a ppe a l . Rul e
5 2 . 0 1 d oe s not . Se e Rul e 59. 02, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr o c e -
dur e . Fur t he r , if Rul e 52. 02 i s i na ppl i c a bl e , no ot he r mot i o n
7 a p p e a r s of r e c or d whi c h wo ul d t ol l t he t i me f or t he f i l i ng of t h e
n o t i c e o f a ppe a l a nd t he n ot i c e of a ppe a l i n t hi s c a s e i s unt i me l y
a n d , we , t he r e f or e ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de r t he a ppe a l .
The mot i on whi c h wa s f i l e d by t he pl a i nt i f f di d not de s i gn a t e
wh e t h e r i t wa s f i l e d pur s ua nt t o Rul e 52. 01 or Rul e 52. 02. I n a ny
e ve nt , i t i s we l l - s e t t l e d l a w t ha t on mot i ons , t h e c our t wi l l " l oo k
t o s u b s t a nc e r a t he r t ha n f or m. " Be mi s Co. , I nc . v. Hi ne s , 585
S. W 2 d 5 74, 576 ( Te nn. 1979) . The mot i on unde r e xa mi na t i on he r e i s .
ve r y c o nc i s e . The body of t he mot i on is c opi e d ve r ba t i m a s
f o l l ows :
Come now t he pl a i nt i f f s , t hr ough c ouns e l , a nd r e s p e c t f ul l y move t he c our t f or f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd c o nc l us i ons of l a w i n t hi s c a us e .
I t s e e ms c r ys t a l c l e a r t ha t t he s ubs t a nc e of t he mot i on br i n g s
i t e n t i r e l y wi t hi n t he pur vi e w of Rul e 52. 01, Te nne s s e e Rul e s o f
Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e . I t i s e qua l l y c l e a r t ha t t he mot i on doe s not s e e k
a ny r e l i e f a va i l a bl e unde r Rul e 52. 02. The r e f or e , we mus t c onc l u d e
t h a t Ru l e 52. 02 ha s no a ppl i c a t i on.
The j udgme nt of t he c our t wa s e nt e r e d on M r c h 16, 1992. a Th e
n o t i c e of a ppe a l wa s f i l e d on J une 7, 1995. Si nc e r ul e 52. 01 d o e s
n o t t ol l t he r unni ng of t he t i me f or f i l i ng a not i c e of a ppe a l , t h e
8 n o t i c e i n t hi s c a s e wa s u n t i me l y f i l e d a nd we ha ve a nd ha ve ha d n o
j ur i s d i c t i on of t h e c a s e . W c a ndi dl y c onc e de t ha t our or de r o f e
Au g u s t 15, 1996, ma y ha ve a dde d t o t he p e r p l e x i n g s t a t e o f t hi s
case. Si n c e , howe ve r , at t he t i me we i s s ue d t he or de r , a l be i t
u n b e k n o wn t o us , we ha d no j ur i s di c t i on, t he or de r mus t be he l d f o r
na ught . I t i s we l l - s e t t l e d t ha t , whe n t he c our t ha s no j ur i s d i c -
t i on o f t he s ubj e c t - ma t t e r , i t c a nnot be c onf e r r e d e i t he r by wa i v e r
o r c o n s e nt , a nd a l l of i t s or de r s a nd de c r e e s a r e a nul l i t y. Se e
Co u n t y of She l by v. Ci t y o f M mphi s , e 363 S. W 2d 291 ( Te n n . . 19 6 3 )
a n d o t h e r a ut hor i t i e s c i t e d t he r e i n.
W hol d t ha t t he not i c e of a ppe a l i n t hi s c a s e wa s not t i me l y e
f i l e d a n d t hi s a ppe a l mus t be d i s mi s s e d. Cos t s i nc i de nt t o t hi s
a pp e a l a r e a s s e s s e d t o t he a ppe l l a nt .
_______________________________ _ Don T. M M r a y, J . c ur
CONCUR:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ W l l i a m H. I nma n, Se ni or J udge i
9 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS
J OHN T. MEADOR a nd wi f e , ) ROANE CHANCERY PELEA E. M EADOR, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9510- CH- 0036 2 ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. FRANK V. W LLI AM I I I I S ) CHANCELLOR ) ) ) ) ) CHARLES E. J OHNSON a nd J AM ES O. ) APPEAL DI SM SSED I CAM PBELL, ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) ) ) vs . ) ) ) ) M LLARD V. OAKLEY, I ) ) Thi r d- Pa r t y De f e nda nt )
ORDER
Thi s a ppe a l c a me on t o b e h e a r d upon t he r e c or d f r om t h e
Ch a nc e r y Cou r t of Roa ne Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .
Up o n c o ns i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t is of opi n i o n t ha t t he
n o t i c e of a ppe a l i n t hi s c a s e wa s u nt i me l y f i l e d a nd t he a pp e a l
mu s t b e di s mi s s e d. Co s t s i nc i de nt t o t hi s a ppe a l a r e a s s e s s e d t o t he a ppe l l a nt .
PER CURI AM