### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON Ja nuary 21, 200 9 S es sio n 

### GRA ND VAL LE Y L AKE S PRO PE RT Y OWNERS ’ AS SO CIATI ON, INC.

v. HAR OL D R . G UNN AND 

### PA TSY R . G UNN An Appeal from the C ircuit Court f or Hardem an Coun ty No. 9573 J. WeberMcC raw, Judge

No. W2008-01116-C OA-R3-C V - Filed April 13, 2009

This is an appea l from the grant of a voluntary dismissal. The plai n tiff homeowne rs’ a ssociation sued the de fendants in genera l sessions cou rt for due s owed. The homeowner s’ association was awa rded a judgment. The defendants appea led t o the circuit court below, seeking a de novo hearing. For se ve ra l ye ars , th e app e a l r e ma ine d p e nd ing wi th n o a c tiv ity

. Inthe me a nti me , th e de fe nd a nts sold the s u b

j ec t p ro perty. The judgment due to the homeowne rs’ a ssociation was pa id by the purcha ser of

the subject prope rty to remove any cloud on the title. Having be en paid, the homeowner s’ association filed a notice of satisfac tion of ju dgment in the circ uit court. The defe ndants filed a motion to set aside the satisfac tion of j udgment. The circuit court entered an orde r dismiss ing the defe ndants’ appea l. The circ uit c ourt later denied the def endants’ motion to set aside the satis fa c tio n of jud gme nt. Fr om that ord e r, the de fe nd a nts no w a pp e a l. W e fi ndthat th e c ir c uit court o rder

is not final and appe alable. T here fore , we dismiss the defe ndants’ appe al for la ck of jurisdiction.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; App e al i s Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
H OL LY M. K I RBY , J. , d e liv e re d th e op ini on of th e Co urt , inwh ic h J

. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J. a ndJ. F R ANKL I N M UR C HI S ON , S P
. J., joined.
Har old Gunn, Humboldt, Tennessee , pr o s e , and for

the appe llant, Patsy Gunn.
Ge or ge R. Fu sn e r, Jr ., Br e ntwood, T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e , G randVa lle y L ake s Pr op e rty Owner s’ Association, Inc

.A m o re detai l ed acco u n t of t h e b ack g rou n d fact s i n t h i s case i s set ou t i n t h e case of H al f or d v

. G unn , N o. 1 W 2 0 0 6 -02 5 2 8 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 20 0 7 W L 23 8 0 3 0 0 (T en n
. C t

. A p p
. A u g
. 22 , 20 0 7 ). -2- OP IN ION In 1991, Charle s and Ann Ha lford (“ the Halfo rds”) purcha sed re al prope rty from Def endants/Appe llants Harold and Patsy Gunn (“the G unns”) unde r an installment contra ct. In the installment sales contrac t, the Gunns war rante d that they would conve y the prope rty to the Halfor ds fre e and c lear

of all enc umbranc es. In 2004 or early 2005, the Gunns acc epted the final installment payment fr om the Halfor ds and conve yed the pr operty to the Ha lfords by wa rra nty deed. Like the ins ta llm e nt c on tr a c t, the de e d w arr a nte d th a t th e pr opert y wa s c on ve ye d f re e a ndc le ar o f a ll e nc umb ranc e s. 1
Meanw hile, in 2002, Plainti ff/Appe llee Gr and Va lley Lake s Property Owne rs’ Assoc iation, Inc. ( “Gr and Va lley”), f

iled an action in the Hardeman County Gene ral S essions Court against the Gunns for due s and water a vailability charge s re lated to the subjec t property in the a mount of $ 3,695.49. On Dec ember 3, 2002, Gra nd Valley obtaine d a judgment against the Gunns in the gener al sessions court. The judgment was filed a s a lien on the s ubject property, which wa s being purcha sed by the Ha lfords under the installment contrac t. The Gunns appe aled the judgment to the circ uit court below unde r docke t number 9573. For s ever al years, t he Gunns did not prosecute the app e a l, and the c a se la ng uis he d on the c ir c uit c ou rt ’s do c ke t un til the pr oc e e din gs giv ing ri se to this app e a l.
After

obtaining titl e to the subjec t property, the H alfords sought to sell the property to a third party. In doing so, they discove red the 2002 judgment lien. In orde r to sell the prope rty, the Halfor ds place d $8,000 in escrow as an a ssuranc e to the third-pa rty buyer that th e l i en would be remov ed or paid. The Halfor ds then sued Mr. Gunn in a separ ate a ction in gener al sessions court for br eac h of the c ovenant a gainst encumbrances in the w arr anty dee d. The Ha lfords pre vailed, obtaining a judgment in their favor against Mr. Gunn f

or the amount of the e ncumbra nce, w hich by that ti me wa s $ 4, 85 3. 81 , p lus int e re st.
Mr . G un n a

pp e a le d th e Ha lf

or ds ’ g e ne ra l se ssi on s ju dg me nt t o th e c ir c uit c ou rt fo r a tr ia l de
novo
. Th e c ir c uit c ou rt gr a nte d s umm ary jud gme nt i n f a vo r o f the Ha lf

or ds bu t de nie d th e Ha lf

or ds ’ re qu e st f or a tto rn e y’ s f

e e s. Mr. Gunn then a

ppeale d the Half

ords’ c ircuit court judgment to this Court. We aff irmed the judgment in favor of

the Half ords, but reve rsed the denial of their request for attorney’s fe es. We also grante d the Half

ords’ re quest for attorney’s fe es on ap p eal and rema nded the c ase to the tria l court to for a determination of a rea sonable a mount of trial and appe llate attorne y’s fe es. Hal fo rd v . G unn , No. W2006- 02528-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 2380300, at *6 (Te nn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2007). Mr. Gunn sought to appe al fu rt h er, and the Tenne ssee Supre me Court denied Mr. G unn’s app lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ionto a

pp e a l. Having sec ured the ir judgment against Mr. Gunn, the H alfords the n paid Grand Valley the amount owed by the G unns in satisfact i o n o f t h e December 3, 2002 judgment lien on the subjectA t all ti m e s, the G u n n s h a v e b e e n re p re se n te d b y M r. G u n n , w h o is an a tto rn e y. 2

A tra n sc rip t o f t h is he a rin g is no t i n c lud e d in the re c o rd o n a p p e a l. 3

G r and V al l ey pre vi ous l y f i l ed wi t h t hi s Co ur t a mot i on t o di s mi s s bas ed on i t s posi t i on t hat t he appeal was 4

u n t i mel y
. B y or der e n t er ed on O ct ober 21, 2008, w e den i ed t h at mot i on bu t h el d t h at G r an d V al l ey w as n ot p re c lud e d fro m ra ising this a rg u m e n t i n it s a p p e llate b rie f. -3- pr op e rty, pr e su ma

bly in o rd e r t o remove a ny c lou d o n th e tit le fo r the be ne fi t of the thi rd -p arty purcha ser. Ac cordingly, on Janua ry 14, 2008, Grand Valley f iled a p l ea d ing in the circuit court below entitled “Satisfaction of Judgm ent as to Har old R. Gunn and Patsy R . Gunn.” I n the pleading, Gra nd Valley state d that it “here by rele ases and discharge s said judgment lien as to all property of the said Ha

rold R. Gunn and Patsy R. Gunn . . . .” Thus, Gr and Va lley notified the circ uit court that the jud gme nt f

ro m w hich th e Gunn s a pp e a le d h a d b e e n s a tis fi e d a nd , ine sse nc e , s ou gh t to vo lun tari ly d ism iss thela ws uit a ga ins t th e Gu nn s. Ap pa re ntl y diss a tis fi e d withthe vo lun tary dis mis sa l of Gr a ndVa lle y’ s la ws uit

a ga ins t th e m, on January 22, 2008, the Gunns filed a “Motion to Se[t] Aside Satisfac tion of Judgment and Have Sa i d M o n i e s P a i d t o t h e C l e rk

. ” T h e G u n n s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e m o n i e s p a i d b y t he Ha lf or ds in 2 satisfac tion of the judgment should not have bee n paid direc tly to Grand Va lley. Rather, the G unns a sse rt e d, the Ha lf

or ds sh ou ld ha ve pa id the mon ie s int o e sc ro w wi th the c le rk of thec ou rt , b e c aus e the De c e mbe r

3 , 2 0 0 2 j u d g m e n ti n f

a v o r o f G r a n d V a l l e y w a s n o tf

i n a l , a s t h e m a t t e r

w a s s t i ll pe nd ing on app e a l f

ro m ge ne ra l se ssi on s c ou rt

. Tw o d a ys la te r, on Ja nu ary 24 , 200 8, the c ir c uit c ou rt e nte re d an or de r dis mis sin g th e c a se ba se d the satis fa c tio n o f G randVa lle y’ s ju dg me nt. Inthat or de r, the c ir c uit c ou rt didno t a sse ss c os ts to eith e r p ar ty , a n d it d id n o t d ir e c tl y a d d r e s s th e G u n n s ’ mo ti o n to s e t a s id e th e s a ti s f a c ti o n of judgment.
On May 2 , 20 08 , Gr a nd Va lle y f ile d a re sp on se in the c ir c uit

c ou rt to the Gu nn s’ mot ionto set aside the satisfac tion of judgment, c hallenging the Gunns’ assertion that the monies should have been paid into escr ow. In additi on, Gra nd Valley asked t he circuit court to awa rd it “all its cost[s], discretionary costs, and that it be aw arde d attorney’ s fee s for d efending clea rly frivolous and unfounded litigation.” On May 5, 2008, the c ircuit court he ard a rguments on Gunns’ moti o n t o set aside Gr and Valley’ s satisfaction of judgment. On May 12, 2008, the circ uit c ourt issued an orde r denying the 3 Gunns’ motion and taxing costs to the Gunns. The trial court did not ad judicate Gr and Va lley’s re qu e st f or a tto rn e y’ s f

e e s. Fr om this or de r, the Gu nn s n ow app e a l.
As a threshold issue, Gra nd Valley a rgues that the G unns’ appe al is untimely, because the final orde r fr om which t he appeal should have been ta ken is the orde r ente red on Ja nuary 24, 2008, dismiss ing Grand V alley’s law suit a gainst the Gunns. Although the trial court subseque ntly heard 4 the ar guments raised in the G unns’ motion to set a side the satisfac tion of judgment, Grand Va lley argue s, it was without jurisdiction t o do so. Because the Gunns filed their appea l on May 23, 2008,I n i t s appel l at e br i ef , G r and V al l ey r eques t s t hat t hi s Co ur t awa r d i t al l of i t s cos t s an d “ r eas onabl e a t t orn ey 5 fee s inc u rr e d b o th in the C irc u it C o u rt a n d in this C o u rt . . . .” W h ile w e a re p e rm itt e d to re v ie w the trial c o u rt’s d ec i si o n re ga rd i ng an aw ard att o rne y’ s f ee s i nc urre d at t he t rial co urt l ev el, we ca nn o t gra nt such f ee s i n the fi rst ins ta n c e ; suc h fee s m u st b e re q u e ste d , an d tha t re q u e st m u st fi rs t b e re so lve d b y the trial c o u rt. -4- more than thirty days a fter the entry of the January 24, 2008 order , the appea l w as untimely. The Gu nn s’ brie f d oe s n ot c on ta in a re sp on se to this arg ume nt.
Rule 3 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e provide s that, “[e ]xce pt as provided in [ Tennes see Rule of

Ap pe llate Pr oc e du re ] R ule 9 a ndin R ule 54 .0 2 T e nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Procedur e, if multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an ac tion, any order that adjudicate s fewe r than a ll the claims or the rights and liabilit ies of fe wer than all the parties” is not final or a ppeala ble. Rule 54.02 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure a lso addresse s this is sue, stating that, unless the order otherwise pr ovides in acc ordanc e with the Rule:

any order

. . that adjudicate s fewe r than a ll the claims or the rig hts and liabiliti es of few er tha n all t h e p ar ties shall not terminate the a ction as to any of the c laims or parti es, and th e or de r o r o the r f or m of de c isi on is s ub je c t to re vis ion

at any tim e befor e the e ntry

of the judgm en t adjudicatingall the claims and the rig hts and lia bil iti e s o f a ll the pa

rt ie s.
Ex c e pt wh e re oth e rw ise pr ov ide d, thi s Co urt on ly h a s su bje c t matte r j urisd ic tio n o ve r f ina l or de rs
. See Baybe rry Assoc. v. Jones , 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990)

. Fr om o ur re vie w of the re c or d, it app e ars that the c ir c uit c ou rt ’s Ja nu ary 28 , 2 00 8 o rd e r d id not assess the costs of this matter to e ither party. Consequently, that order did not a djudicate a ll the rights and liabilities of t he parties, was subject to revision, and wa s not the final orde r in this cause. There fore , we r ejec t Grand V alley’s a rgument that the Gunns’ appea l is unti mely.
This c onclusion, howeve r, does not e nd our inquiry. The Gunns’ notice of appea l was filed within thirty days of the circ uit court’s May 12, 2008 or der. I n th e M ay 1 2 o rder , howeve r, the circ uit court did not resolve Gr and Va lley’s re quest for attorney’s fe es conta ined in Gra nd Valley’ s response to the Gunns’ motion to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. As we have stated, except a s o the rw ise pe rm itt e d in

Rul e 9 and

in R ule 54 .0 2, an o rd e r a dju dic atin gfe we r t ha n a ll the c la ims of the pa rt ie s is no t a fi na l, a

pp e a la ble or de r. Te nn
. R. Ap p. P. 3( a ); Te nn
. R. Civ

. P. 54 .0 2. B e c a us e the trial cour

t did not resolve this issue in the May 12, 2008 order , the orde r i s not final and appea lable. See Fink v. Crean , No. M2005-01364-COA- R3-CV, 2006 WL 3783541, at *5 (Te nn.

5 Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2006) (holding that the trial cour t’s order that d i d n o t resolve the attorney ’s fe e iss ue w as not f

ina l a nd a pp e a la ble ); Scott v. Noland Co. , N o
. 0 3 A 0 1

- 9 4 0 7

- CV

- 0 0 2 4 8 , 1 9 9 5 WL 11177, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. J an. 12, 1995) (dismissing a ppeal be cause amount of attorne y ’s fe es g rante d had not bee n resolved by the trial cour

t).
We wo uld lik e no thi ng mor e tha n to br ing a

bo ut a fi na l re so lut ion of thi s lit ig a tio n. Al as, it i s n o t t o b e. Based on our r eview of the re cord be fore us, we must hold that the May 12, 2008-5-

order , from which the Gunns have ap p ea l ed , is not a final, appe alable or der. F or this rea son, we must remand the matter

to the circ uit court.
The a ppeal is dismissed and the ca use is rema

nded for further

proce eding s not inconsistent wi th thi s Opi nio n. Cos ts o n a pp e a l are to b e ta xed

e qu a lly to A pp e lla nts Ha ro ld R . G unn a

nd Patsy R. Gunn, their surety , and to Appellee Gra nd Valley L akes Prope rty

Owner s Association, Inc., for
w h i c he x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e , i f n e c e s s ar y.

__________________________________________ HOL L Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE