IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

December 6, 2023 Session

DEIRDRA RANSOM ET AL. v. LEGENDS BANK

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

No. 2018-CV-2478 Joe Thompson, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2023-00132-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

This appeal arises from a dispute regarding a residential property mortgage and the 

subsequent default, foreclosure, and eviction. Because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed, we find that this court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ANDY D.

BENNETT and JEFFREY USMAN, JJ., joined.

Joseph Paul Weyant, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Deirdra Ransom, Amanda 

Ransom, and Amelia Ransom.

D. Mark Nolan, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Legends Bank.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This appeal arises from a dispute regarding a residential property mortgage and the 

subsequent default, foreclosure, and eviction. Because our decision does not reach the 

merits of this case, the only facts pertinent to this opinion are within the procedural history.

 

1 Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10 states:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges 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be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be 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 any unrelated case.

06/18/2024
- 2 -

Deirdra Ransom (hereinafter, “Ms. Ransom”) first filed suit against Legends Bank 

(“Legends”) in June 2018 with the Sumner County Circuit Court, disputing a General 

Sessions detainer warrant because her adult daughters were being removed from the 

property but not named in the detainer warrant proceedings. Additionally, she brought forth 

claims of “(1) Fraud; (2) Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681, et seq.; (3) Entitlement to an equitable lien based upon a finding of constructive 

trust; and, (4) a discrete state law claim of credit defamation.” Legends responded with a 

motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement on the grounds of res judicata, because 

all matters had been decided in the General Sessions detainer warrant action and because 

Ms. Ransom did not timely appeal, file a petition for certiorari or supersedeas, or timely 

file a bond. In October 2018, the Sumner County Circuit Court granted that motion, 

dismissing all real estate claims and transferring the remaining claims to the Montgomery 

County Circuit Court, where venue was proper due to the location of the principal office 

of Legends Bank. 

Once in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Legends renewed its motion to 

dismiss in May 2019, and Ms. Ransom, with new counsel, filed a motion to amend her 

complaint, the latter of which the court granted. Ms. Ransom then filed her amended 

complaint, in which she asserted claims of fraud, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act, credit defamation, rescission and cancellation of the note, lost wages, promissory 

estoppel/detrimental reliance, breach of contract/equitable estoppel, breach of the covenant 

of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation, seeking compensatory and 

punitive damages. Shortly thereafter, Legends filed a motion to dismiss the amended 

complaint.

On August 7, 2020, the court granted Legends’ motion to dismiss the claims for 

credit defamation, rescission, breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation, and the 

claims for the reliance on those misrepresentations; however, it denied the motion to 

dismiss the remaining claims. 

One year later, in September 2021, Legends filed a motion to dismiss the remaining 

claims for failure to prosecute, and Ms. Ransom filed her response in opposition. After nine 

months with no further action from Ms. Ransom, Legends renewed its motion to dismiss 

for failure to prosecute. On August 25, 2022, the court granted that motion, finding that 

Ms. Ransom failed to prosecute her claim “for more than one (1) year despite having ample 

opportunity to do so” and dismissed all remaining claims. 

Ms. Ransom filed a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend, stating that she had no 

notice of the motion or the hearing, but the trial court denied that motion in its October 3, 

2022 order. After retaining new counsel, Ms. Ransom filed a motion to alter or amend the 

October 3, 2022 order. In its order filed December 27, 2022, the trial court denied the 

motion, adding that its orders “entered August 25, 2022 and October 3, 2022 remain in full 

force and effect.” 
- 3 -

Ms. Ransom filed a notice of appeal on January 26, 2023.

ISSUES

Ms. Ransom raised two issues on appeal, restated here as: whether the trial court 

erred in denying her motion to set aside the dismissal and whether it was error for the trial 

court to dismiss the claims in her first amended complaint. Legends raised one additional 

issue, which we find to be the dispositive issue, restated as: whether this court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this action wherein Ms. Ransom did not file her notice of appeal 

within thirty days from the final order. 

ANALYSIS

For a matter to be properly before this court, the Tennessee Rules of Appellate 

Procedure require, “In an appeal as of right to the . . . Court of Appeals . . . , the notice of 

appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate court within 30 days 

after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from.” Tenn. R. App. P. 4. A trial court’s 

final judgment is one that “resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else for the 

trial court to do.’” Brooks v. Woody, 577 S.W.3d 529, 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (citing In 

re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel. McAllister 

v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)).

Our Tennessee Supreme Court has explained:

The date of entry of a final judgment in a civil case triggers the 

commencement of the thirty-day period in which a party aggrieved by the 

final judgment must file either a post-trial motion or a notice of an appeal. 

See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.02; Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a)–(b). If timely, certain posttrial motions, such as Defendants’ motion to alter or amend, will toll 

commencement of the thirty-day period for filing a notice of appeal until the 

trial court enters an order granting or denying the motion. Tenn. R. App. P. 

4(b); see Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tenn. 2003). If a posttrial motion is not timely, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the 

motion. See Binkley, 117 S.W.3d at 255. Similarly, if the notice of appeal is 

untimely, the Court of Appeals lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 

appeal. Id.; see also Tenn. R. App. P. 2 (stating that appellate courts may not 

suspend the thirty-day time period for filing a notice of appeal).

Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tenn. 2009) (footnotes omitted).

Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically provides: 

In a civil action, if a timely motion under the Tennessee Rules of Civil 

Procedure is filed in the trial court by any party: (1) under Rule 50.02 for 
- 4 -

judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict; (2) under Rule 

52.02 to amend or make additional findings of fact, whether or not an 

alteration of the judgment would be required if the motion is granted; (3) 

under Rule 59.07 for a new trial; (4) under Rule 59.04 to alter or amend the 

judgment; the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of 

the order denying a new trial or granting or denying any other such 

motion.

Tenn. R. App. P. 4(b) (emphasis added). However, consecutive filings of Rule 59 motions 

are not allowed and do not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01

(“Motions to reconsider any of these motions are not authorized and will not operate to 

extend the time for appellate proceedings.”).

Our Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he thirty-day time limit for filing a notice 

of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.” Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 

2004); Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tenn. 2003). This court can neither waive 

nor extend the time period. Tenn. R. App. P. 2 and 21(b); Flautt & Mann v. Council of City 

of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856, 868 n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); Jefferson v. Pneumo Servs. 

Corp., 699 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). The failure to file a timely notice of 

appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Flautt & Mann, 285 S.W.3d at 

869 n.1. 

Here, Legends argues that Ms. Ransom’s appeal is untimely, and we agree. 

When the trial court granted Legends’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute on 

August 25, 2022, it resolved all issues in that case, rendering a final judgment and starting 

the 30-day timeframe in which to file an appeal. On September 19, 2022, Ms. Ransom filed 

a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend that final judgment, which, in effect, tolled the 30-

day time period. However, when the trial court denied the motion to alter or amend in its 

October 3, 2022 order, the 30-day clock was set in motion. 

Although Ms. Ransom filed a second motion to alter or amend the court’s October 

3, 2022 order, this second motion is not authorized under Rule 59.01 of the Tennessee 

Rules of Civil Procedure, nor does it operate to toll the 30-day window in which a party 

must file its notice to appeal as discussed above. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01 (“Motions to 

reconsider any of these motions are not authorized and will not operate to extend the time 

for appellate proceedings.”).

Furthermore, in its December 27, 2022 order denying Ms. Ransom’s second motion 

to alter or amend, the trial court noted that its orders “entered August 25, 2022 and October 

3, 2022 remain in full force and effect.” 

The 30-day time limit in which to file a notice of appeal began on October 3, 2022, 

and Ms. Ransom filed her notice of appeal on January 26, 2023. Clearly, Ms. Ransom’s 
- 5 -

notice of appeal was not timely filed; thus, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the 

matter. 

CONCLUSION

This appeal is dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The case is 

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The 

appellant, Deirdra Ransom, is taxed with the costs for which execution may issue.

________________________________

 FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.