### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE A pr il 5, 200 5 S es sio n TRA MM ELL C EME TER Y T RU ST, BY AN D T HRO UGH ITS D ULY AP POIN TED TR US TEES , R ALP H S. DA VIS, HER MA N T RA MM ELL, and WENDE LL TRAMME LL, v . RONNIE YANCEY a nd w ife , RITA YANCEY, and JOE T RA MM ELL, JR. , and w ife, LIND A T RA MM ELL, ET A L.

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Scott C ounty No. 8137 Hon. Conrad T routm an, Jr., Circuit Judge, Sitting b y Interc hange f or Chancellor Billy Joe Whi te.

No. E2004-01732-COA- R3-CV - F ILED JULY 28, 2005

I n this action, the Trial Court g rante d appellee s summar y j u d g ment which adjudicated fe wer than all o f t he cla ims or rig hts and liabilityof all of the pa rties. We dismiss the appe al from that Judg me nt a ndre ma ndwi th i ns truc tio ns
.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; A ppe al d ism iss e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined.
Ti mothy P. We bb , Jac ks bo ro , T e nn e sse e , f or app e lla nt, Tr a mme ll Ce me te ry Tr us t.
Cha rl e s B . Se xton, On e ida , T e nn e sse e , f or app e lle e s.

OP IN ION

Th i s i s a boundary

line dispute involving a f amily ceme tery

property , and the Trammell Cemete ry

Trust has appe aled f

rom a summary

judgme nt in favor of

the Yanc ey s and Tr a mme lls

. The pe titioners filed a c omplaint for declara tory judgme nt on April 16, 1998, seeking determination of the owner ship of the prope rty and esta blishing the bounda

ry lines. The petition-2-

alleg ed that the r espondents Tra mmell constructed a road a cross a

portion of the petiti oner’ s property , and that the r espondents Ya ncey are wrong fully encr oaching upon the northern boundary of petitioner’ s property . I t was charg ed that throug h its predec essors-in-inter est that the petitioner was the rightf

ul owner of

these a rea s by virtue of a dverse possession by color of title, and that the acts of the responde nts c onstitut e trespass and a cloud on the title. The petition sought r ent for the wrong ful use of the property ; an injunction requiring the Trammells to remove the roa d and re store the land to i ts orig inal condition; and declare the rights of t he respective parties to the lands subjec t to the action, and f

urther soug ht attorney

fee s and costs. Respondents filed answers de ny ing the materia l alleg ations of the petition and counter -cla imed, asserting their claim to the disputed are as. Their claim alleg ed that the pe titioners are encr oaching upon the Tra mmells’ and Yanc ey s’ prope rty , and this was known to petitioners.

L y dia Davis Tr a mme ll, the su rv ivi ng pr e de c e sso r- in- int e re st to th e res po nd e nts ’ property , filed a “ third party intervening cross-pe tition for declar atory ju d gm en t” that in essenc e char g es that there are manyknown heirs of D.C. Trammell still li ving in Scott County , and that Roscoe Da vis purported to conve y property in fee which he did not own t o the Tra mmell Cemetery Trust in an attempt to take c ontrol of the ce metery . The interve ning pe titioner “joins with all parties in asking that this Court adjudicate all rig hts of the parties.” Also, in the Amended Complaint which was filed on Mar ch 15, 2001, F irst Trust and Saving s Ba nk, mortg ag ee of the prope rty

was joined and appea red and answe red on November 20, 2001. No furthe r mention is made of this party in the re c or d b e fo re us
.

Respondents filed a motion for summary judgme nt on J uly

13, 2001, asserting that they are entitled to a judg ment beca use th e l and in question has bee n dedicated, maintained a nd a lw a y s r e c og nized a s a

pr ivate fa mil y

c e me te ry sin c e 19 03 ; th a t L ou isa

Tr a mme ll D a vis ha d o nly 1/14th undivided interest which she c onvey ed to Roscoe Davis and wife; and that petiti oner did not acquir e full title to the subject prope rty from Roscoe D avis and d i d n ot hold adverse ly to the re sp on de nts

. Petitioner’s response to the motion esse ntially ag ree d with respondents’ sta tement of fac ts, but disput ed the motion’s leg al conc lusions. However , the re sponse noted that petitioner had reque sted r e s o lu ti o n o f th e b o u n d ar y li n e d is p u te , f o r w h ic h th e is s u e o f th e e xa c t n a tu re a nd proportion of the pa

rties’ owne rship interests wa s not nece ssary to determine. At that juncture, the parties a dvised the Court that the y had rea ched an ag ree ment and re so lve d th e ir

dif fe re nces , bu t th e n th e y

c ou ld n ot a g re e on a n A g re e d O rd e r, a nde a c h p art y submitt ed a pr oposed “A g ree d Orde r” to the Trial Court. Petiti oner f iled objections to the entry of the order prepa

red by responde nts, a nd subsequently , the Trial Court sig ned the p ro p o s ed Ag ree d Orde r submitted by responde nts. The Orde r is ne ither signe d by the petitioner’s c ounsel, nor bea rs indicia of ser vice upon him a s require d by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 58

. Petitioners’ counsel moved f or re lief from the judgme nt unde r Tenn. R. Civ. P . 60, and to set aside the Orde r and f or a ne w trial pursua nt to Tenn. R. Civ. 59. The rec ord does not re flec t d i s p o s i tion of the petitioner’s r equest for reliefNo disposition appears in the rec ord with respe ct to the two “c ross-petitions”, interve ning 1 petition, nor the amende d complaint. The F inal Dec ree only adjudicate d the di s m i s s al of the petitioner’s c ause of

action.
-3- under Rules 59 a nd Rule 60. The Ag ree d Orde r ente red by the Court rec ites: “ [ U] pon the a nn ou nc e me nt i n o pe n co urt tha t the pa rt ie s had re so lve d the iss ue s existi ng be tw e e n the m, a ndit i s a c c o r d i n g l y O r d e r e d , A d j u d g e d a n d D e c r e e d b y t h e C o u r t a s f o l l o w s : ”

. T h e O r d e r

c o n c l u d e s : “ It is further O rder ed, Adjudg ed and Decr eed by the C ourt that one-ha lf of the c ost shall be taxed to the petitioners and one-ha lf to the responde nts, J oe Trammell, J r., and w ife, Linda Tra mmell, for which execution may

issue if nec essary .” Remar kably , on November

13, 2003, the Trial J udg e ente red a n order sty led “Final Dec ree ”. This orde r inter alia rec ites that “the motion of a summary judgme nt was we ll taken”, a nd conclude s that “petitioner’ s cause of action be and the sa me is here by dismiss ed with all costs tax ed to the petitioners f or which e x ecution may

issue if nec essary .”
Petitioner then filed an “ Objection to O rder ” stating that the Court’s ruling “did not comport with the matter a s filed” be cause “the pe tition as filed reque s ted the delineation of the boundary of the Cemete ry ,. . .” This objection wa s overr uled without expl anation. 1
Th e iss ue of

the fi na lit y

of the jud g me nt h a s b e e n r a ise d o n a pp e a l.
A f ina l ju dg me nt i s o ne that r eso lv es all the c la ims be tw e e n a ll the pa rt ie s. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Miller , 491 S.W .2d 85, 86 (Tenn.1973)

.

Rule 54.02 require s as an absolute prer equisite to an appea l the certification by the trial judge , first, that the court has direc ted the entry of a f inal judgme nt as to one or mor e b u t f

e w e r th a n a ll o f

th e c laim s , a n d , s e c o n d , ma k e a n e xp r e s s d e te r mi n a tion that th e re is n o ju st r e a so n f or de la y . Su c h c e rt if

icatio n b y the tr ia l ju dg e c re a te s a final judg ment appea lable as of rig ht unde r Rule 3 T.R.A.P. In the absenc e of such direc tion and determination by the t rial j udg e, the order is interlocutory and ca n be re vis e d a t a ny

tim e be fo re the e ntry

of jud g me nt a dju dic a tin g a ll the c la ims a ndri g hts a nd lia bil iti e s of

all part ies. Stidham v. Fick le Heirs, 643 S.W.2d 324, 325 (Tenn.1982)

. Fox v . Fox, 657 S.W .2d 747, 749 (Tenn. 1983)

.

I n this case, the T rial Court g rante d a summary judgme nt which purporte d to resolve a ll i ssu e s, bu t i n fact lef

t man y iss ue s u nr e so lve d. Th e la c k o f a fi na l ju dg me nt d isp os ing of a ll claims, or a Rule 54 certification that the i nterlocutory order s wer e final and there was no just reason for de lay , rende r thi s Court unable to resolve any of the issues re lated to this chaotic re cord. Ac c or din g ly , w e dis mis s th is app e a l a nd re ma nd , wi th dir e c tio ns to the Tria l Cou rt to r e ins ta te thi s c a se on its do c ke t a ndre so lve a ll i ssu e s th a t are raise d in the ple a din g s.

Th e c os t of

thi s a pp e a l in ou r d isc re tio n is ass e sse d to Ronn ie Ya nc e y a ndwi fe , Ri ta-4-

Ya nc e y , a ndJoe T ra mme ll Jr. , a ndwi fe , Lind a Tr a mme ll.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.