Ronald D. Mackie and Brenda L. Mackie v. David K. Hinchy and Pearline HInchy

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedOctober 4, 1996
Docket03A01-9604-CH-00138
StatusPublished

This text of Ronald D. Mackie and Brenda L. Mackie v. David K. Hinchy and Pearline HInchy (Ronald D. Mackie and Brenda L. Mackie v. David K. Hinchy and Pearline HInchy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ronald D. Mackie and Brenda L. Mackie v. David K. Hinchy and Pearline HInchy, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED October 4, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

RONALD D. MACKI E a nd ) COCKE COUNTY BRENDA L. MACKI E ) 03A01- 9604- CH- 00138 ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s ) ) ) HON. C. S. RAI NWATER, J R. , v. ) CHANCELLOR ) ) DAVI D K. HI NCHY a nd ) PEARLI NE HI NCHY ) ) AFFI RMED I N PART; REVERSED De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a nt s ) I N PART; a nd REMANDED

FLETCHER L. ERVI N OF NEWPORT FOR APPELLANTS

R. J . TUCKER OF NEWPORT FOR APPELLEES

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

Da vi d K. Hi nc hy a nd Pe a r l i ne Hi nc hy, who a r e r e s i de n t s

o f I n d i a na , a ppe a l j udgme nt s of t he Cha nc e r y Cour t f or Coc ke

Co u n t y . The Cha nc e l l or , f i r s t , gr a nt e d a de f a ul t j udgme nt

a g a i n s t t he m i n f a vor of Rona l d D. M c ki e a nd Br e nda L. M c ki e , a a

wh o a r e r e s i de nt s of Fl or i da . The Cour t a l s o or de r e d t he s a l e o f c e r t a i n r e a l e s t a t e , t he pr oc e e ds of whi c h woul d be a ppl i e d t o

t h e s a t i s f a c t i on o f t he i n de bt e dne s s s e c ur e d by t he r e a l e s t a t e

a n d , p r e l i mi na r i l y, a pe r s ona l j udgme nt i n t he a mount of $18, 2 0 0 ,

p l u s i n t e r e s t a t t he r a t e of 8. 65 pe r c e nt pe r a nnum f r om Oc t ob e r

1, 1989. Se c ond, a f t e r s a l e of t he pr ope r t y a nd gi vi ng c r e di t

f o r p a y me nt s pr e vi ous l y ma de , he a wa r de d a de f i c i e nc y j udgme nt i n

t h e a mo unt of $15, 719. 97, whi c h i nc l ude d c our t c os t s a nd e xpe ns e s

of t he s a l e .

The Hi nc hys a ppe a l , c ont e ndi ng t he Tr i a l Cour t wa s i n

e r r o r i n not s us t a i ni ng t h e i r Rul e 60 mot i on t o s e t a s i de t ha t

p o r t i o n of t he J une 1, 199 2, de f a ul t j udgme nt a wa r di ng t he

M c k i e s a pe r s ona l j udgme n t a ga i ns t t he m. a

Al t hough t he r e we r e ot he r mot i ons by t he pa r t i e s a nd

o r d e r s of t he Cour t , we wi l l de t a i l t hos e we de e m ne c e s s a r y f or

p r o p e r di s pos i t i on of t hi s a ppe a l .

1. Fe br ua r y 19, 1991, c ompl a i nt by M c ki e s s t yl e d, " COM a PLAI NT

TO FORECLOSE ON MORTGAGE DEED, " l a t e r a me nde d by or de r e nt e r e d

M y 6 , 1991, a l l e gi ng t he Hi nc hys ha d e xe c ut e d a mor t ga ge t o t h e m a

s e c u r i n g a n i nde bt e dne s s of $22, 000 t ha t , a f t e r pa yi ng e i ght

p a y me n t s t he r e on i n t he a mount of $475, t he i nde bt e dne s s be c a me

i n d e f a ul t a nd s ought ( 1) pr oc e s s , ( 2) a ppoi nt me nt of a Spe c i a l

M s t e r , ( 3) s a l e of t he mor t ga ge d pr ope r t y, a nd ( 4) ge ne r a l a

r el i ef .

2 2. J u ne 1, 1992, or de r gr a nt i ng de f a ul t j udgme nt a wa r di ng a

r e c o v e r y i n t he a mount of $18, 200, pl us i nt e r e s t a t t he r a t e o f

8 . 6 5 p e r c e nt pe r a nnum f r om Oc t obe r 1989, a nd or de r i ng s a l e of

t h e p r o pe r t y.

3. Se p t e mbe r 21, 1992, M s t e r ' s r e por t di s c l os i ng s a l e wa s a

a c c o mp l i s he d a nd t he t ot a l pur c ha s e pr i c e wa s $8500.

4. Oc t obe r 16, 1992, de c r e e c onf i r mi ng s a l e , f i xi ng a t t or ne y ' s

a n d M s t e r ' s f e e s , a nd or d e r i ng di s bur s e me nt of s a l e pr oc e e ds . a

5. De c e mbe r 11, 1992, pe t i t i on by M c ki e s s e e ki ng a de f i c i e n c y a

j u d g me n t .

6. M r c h 18, 1993, mot i on by Hi nc hys t o di s mi s s pe t i t i on a

s e e k i n g a de f i c i e nc y j udgme nt f or l a c k of pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i o n .

7. Se pt e mbe r 8, 1993, a n s we r t o mot i on t o di s mi s s mot i on f or

d e f i c i e nc y j udgme nt by M c ki e s . a

8. No ve mbe r 2, 1993, or d e r ove r r ul i ng Hi nc hys ' mot i on t o

d i s mi s s pe t i t i on.

9. De c e mbe r 29, 1993, a ns we r a nd c ount e r - c ompl a i nt by Hi nc hy s .

10. Fe br ua r y 23, 1995, a n s we r t o c ount e r - c ompl a i nt .

3 11. Oc t obe r 2, 1995, mot i on by M c ki e s t o di s mi s s Hi nc hys ' a

c o u n t e r - c ompl a i nt .

12. Oc t obe r 26, 1995, r e s pons e of Hi nc hys t o M c ki e s ' a mot i on t o

d i s mi s s .

13. No ve mbe r 3, 1995, Rul e 60 mot i on t o s e t a s i de de f a ul t

j u d g me n t a nd or de r of s a l e of J une 1, 1992.

14. No ve mbe r 6, 1995, a ns we r t o mot i on t o s e t a s i de de f a ul t

15. No ve mbe r 6, 1995, mot i on by Hi nc hys t o di s mi s s M c ki e s ' a

s u p p l e me nt a l pl e a di ng s e e ki ng a de f i c i e nc y j udgme nt .

16. J a nua r y 9, 1996, j udgme nt f i ndi ng t ha t t he Cour t ha d

e x e r c i s e d pr ope r i n pe r s ona m a nd i n r e m j ur i s di c t i on ove r t he

Hi n c h y s , t ha t t he de c r e e c onf i r mi ng t he s a l e e nt e r e d Oc t obe r 1 6 , 1 1992, i s r e s j udi c a t a t o a l l pl e a di ngs f i l e d t he r e a f t e r , a nd

t h a t t h e Cour t i mpr ope r l y ove r r ul e d Hi nc hys ' mot i on t o di s mi s s

t h e p e t i t i on f or de f i c i e nc y j udgme nt .

Ba s e d upon t he f or e goi ng f i ndi ngs t he Tr i a l Cour t

g r a n t e d t he Hi nc hys ' mot i on t o di s mi s s t he M c ki e s ' a pe t i t i on f o r

d e f i c i e nc y j udgme nt , di s mi s s e d t he mot i on s e e ki ng t o s e t a s i de

1 Th i s o r d e r r e c i t e s t h e Oc t o b e r o r d e r wa s e n t e r e d o n Oc t o b e r 12. It wa s s i g n e d o n Oc t o b e r 1 2 ; h o we v e r , i t wa s e n t e r e d o n Oc t o b e r 1 6 .

4 t h e d e f a ul t j udgme nt , di s mi s s e d t he c ount e r - c ompl a i nt , a nd

r e a f f i r me d i t s a wa r d o f a de f i c i e nc y j udgme nt .

W f i r s t not e t ha t t he c ompl a i nt a s a me nde d doe s not e

s e e k a n y pe r s ona l j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he Hi nc hys , but onl y t he s a l e

o f t h e pr ope r t y t o s a t i s f y t he M c ki e s ' a i nde bt e dne s s .

W ha ve i t of ol d- - Foot not e 14, § 648, Gi bs on' s Sui t s e

i n Ch a n c e r y, 4t h Ed. ( 1937) , whe n a ddr e s s i ng e xe c ut i ons - - t ha t a

d e c r e e mus t b e c i r c ums c r i b e d by t he e vi de nc e , t he e vi de nc e 2 c i r c u ms c r i be d by t he pl e a di ngs , a nd t he pl e a di ngs c i r c ums c r i b e d

b y t h e pr oc e dur e of t he c ha nc e r y c our t . ( Se e a ppe ndi x. )

I n t he pr e s e nt pos t ur e of t hi s c a s e , i t i s obvi ous t h a t

t h e r e a r e no pl e a di ngs s e e ki ng a pe r s ona l j udgme nt a ga i ns t t he

Hi nc h y s . I t i s t r ue t ha t a pe t i t i on wa s f i l e d by t he M c ki e s a

wh i c h d i d s e e k s uc h r e l i e f , but t he or de r of t he Tr i a l Cour t o n

J a n u a r y 9, 1996, gr a nt e d t he mot i on of t he Hi nc hys t o s t r i ke t h a t

p e t i t i o n, a nd t hi s a c t i on by t he Cha nc e l l or i s not a ppe a l e d.

W a c c or di ngl y f i nd t ha t a t t he t i me of t he e nt r y of e

t h e p e r s ona l j udgme nt on J a nua r y 9, 1996, t he r e we r e no pl e a di n g s

wh i c h woul d a ut hor i z e t he Cha nc e l l or t o gr a nt s uc h a j udgme nt ,

a n d s o muc h of hi s or de r t ha t pur por t s t o do s o i s r e ve r s e d.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ronald D. Mackie and Brenda L. Mackie v. David K. Hinchy and Pearline HInchy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-d-mackie-and-brenda-l-mackie-v-david-k-hinc-tennctapp-1996.