Morgan v. Driskill

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: April 16, 1999
• Docket: 03A01-9802-CV-00079
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED AT KNOXVILLE April 16, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk JEFFREY MORGAN, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9802-CV-00079 ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ) v. ) JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ) ) ) THOMAS L. DRISKILL, ) ) HONORABLE BEN W. HOOPER, II, Defendant-Appellant. ) JUDGE

For Appellant For Appellee

THOMAS L. DRISKILL JEFFREY L. JONES Pro Se STEVEN DOUGLAS DRINNON Knoxville, Tennessee Rainwater & Jones Dandridge, Tennessee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.

1 This is an unlawful detainer action. Jeffrey Morgan

filed a civil warrant against Thomas L. Driskill in the Jefferson

County General Sessions Court seeking to recover a mobile home

and lot in Strawberry Plains. Judgment restoring the plaintiff

to possession was entered in that court. On appeal by Driskill

to the Jefferson County Circuit Court, that Court, based “upon

the record and testimony in open Court,” entered a judgment that

upholds the order of the General Sessions Court and does hereby dismiss this Appeal and grants possession to the Plaintiff.

(Emphasis added).

On this appeal, the appellant, Thomas L. Driskill,

challenges the propriety of the trial court’s judgment; however,

he has not filed a record of the evidence heard below. In the

absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must

assume that “had [a record] been preserved, [it] would have

contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s

factual findings” in support of its judgment. Sherrod v. Wix,

849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn.App. 1992). See also McDonald v. Ohoh,

772 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.App. 1989); Irvin v. City of

Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn.App. 1987); Gotten v.

Gotten, 748 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.App. 1988).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to

the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals.1

1 Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges

2 Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant. This case is

remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the lower court’s

judgment and for the collection of costs assessed there, all

pursuant to applicable law.

__________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

CONCUR:

________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

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 a subsequent unrelated case.