Kidd v. Hawthorne

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 22, 1998
• Docket: 01A01-9808-CV-00413
• Status: Published

Opinion

GLENNA KIDD ) C/A No. 01A01-9808-CV-00413 ) BEDFORD COUNTY Plaintiff-Appellant ) Circuit No. 7894 )

v. ) ) ) FILED ) December 22, 1998 ANN HAWTHORNE ) ) Cecil W. Crowson Defendant-Appellee ) Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT NASHVILLE

APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

GLENNA KIDD, Appellant P. O. Box 499 1508 Highway 64 West Shelbyville, TN 37162

Pro Se

NO BRIEF FILED FOR APPELLEE

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

CONCUR:

FRANKS, J. McMURRAY, J. OPINION

Goddard, P.J.

This suit originated in the General Sessions Court for Bedford County wherein

Ann Hawthorne prosecuted an unlawful detainer warrant as to certain real estate against Glenna

Kidd. Thereafter, Ms. Kidd filed a claim against Ms. Hawthorne and sometime during the

proceedings, perhaps after the counter-claim was filed, the parties and the Court treated the

original Plaintiffs and counter-Defendants as Ann Hawthorne and Ken Hawthorne.

The General Sessions Judge found in favor of the Hawthornes, granted them

possession and, as best we understand,

a judgment of $100 for rent. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court wherein the Circuit Judge

dismissed the counter-claim and awarded judgment in favor of the Hawthornes against Ms. Kidd

in the amount of $1827.13.1

Ms. Kidd has filed a document styled “Informal Brief” which does not meet the

requirements of Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and advances no issues

on appeal.

Moreover, there is no transcript or statement of the evidence as to the hearing

below. Under such circumstances an appellate court must presume the judgment of the Trial

Court is supported by sufficient evidence. J. C. Bradford & Co. v Martin Const. Co., 576 S.W.

1 W e p r e s u m e b y t h e t i m e o f t r i a l i n t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t , p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y h a d b e e n r e s t o r e d t o t h e H a w t h o r n e s .

2 2d 586 (Tenn.1979); Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W. 2d 649 (Tenn.App.1988); Daniel v.

Metropolitan Government, 696 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn.App.1985).

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the

cause remanded for collection of the judgment and costs below. Cost of appeal are adjudged

against Ms. Kidd and her surety.

_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________ Don T. McMurray, J.