IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

December 8, 2021

IN RE: MEGAN Y.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County

No. 14-CV-326, 2010-CV-102 J. Michael Sharp, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2021-00837-COA-R3-PT

___________________________________

The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellants, Jason Y. and Katina Y., stated that appellants 

were appealing the judgment entered on July 1, 2021. As the order appealed from does not 

constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

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

KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.; D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J.; AND THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.

Joshua H. Jenne, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellants, Jason Y. and Katina Y.

William Tyler Weiss, Madisonville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tisha Y.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, the Court directed the appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after it became clear that there was no final 

judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. “A final judgment is one that resolves 

all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else for the trial court to do.’” In re Estate of 

 

1 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides:

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shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any 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.

12/08/2021
- 2 -

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)). This Court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal as of right if there is no final judgment. See Bayberry 

Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990) (“Unless an appeal from an 

interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction 

over final judgments only.”). Appellants responded to our show cause order, but failed to 

show that a final judgment has been entered. 

The order appealed from does not appear to be a final appealable judgment as Tisha 

Y. filed a motion for contempt on January 6, 2015, and the record is devoid of an order 

addressing this motion. The Court notes that the Trial Court entered an order on February 

17, 2015, which granted the motion of Tisha Y. to withdraw the motion for contempt as to 

case number 14-CV-326. The order specifically states, however, that the motion for 

contempt remains applicable to case number 2010-CV102, which was consolidated with 

case number 14-CV-326 by order entered May 14, 2015. As such, the motion for contempt 

remains pending in case number 2010-CV-102.

“Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction 

over final orders.” Foster-Henderson v. Memphis Health Center, Inc., 479 S.W.3d 214, 

222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). As the order appealed from does not constitute a final 

appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is 

hereby dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellants, Jason Y. and Katina Y., for 

which execution may issue. 

PER CURIAM