### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on

Briefs J anuary 14, 2002 JOHN FOSTER, ET AL 

### . v. LARRY GLENN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 3-190-00 Wheeler A. Rosenbalm, Judge

FILED JUNE 10, 2002 No. E2001-01435-COA-R3-CV

The origin of this appeal was a detainer warrant filed in the General Sessions Court by John Foster and Mamosa Fos ter aga

inst Larr y Glenn se eking poss e ssion of property occupied by Mr. Glenn pursuant to an instrument styled “AGREEMENT FOR DEED.” Mr. Glenn filed wha t he stylesa counter-complaint

seeking d amages f

or brea ch of con tract and pr evailed in the General Sessions Court. Upon appe al the Cir cuit Court

found in f

avor of t he Foste rs , but awarded Mr. Glenn a judgmentas to insurance proceeds receive d by the Fosters as a result o f a truc k striking t he house in questio n. Mr. Gle

nn appea ls the judg ment of the

Trial Cour

t. We af firm. Tenn.R.App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right ; Judgment

of the Cir

cuit Cour

t Affir med; Cause Remanded
H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., JJ., joined. Larry Glenn, Appellant, Pro Se Sharon Frankenberg, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the A ppellees, John Foster and Mamosa Foster

MEMORAN

DUM OPIN ION

Mr. Glenn filed what is styled a counter-complaint, a l though it bears a different docket number than that of the detainer warrant which see ks damages for breach of the Agreement for

Deed. The General Sessions Court dismissed the detainer warrant and awar ded Mr. Glenn $4500, on the counter-complaint for breach of the c ontract. Both parties appealed to the Circuit Court. The C ircuit Judge sustained the detainer warrant and found that Mr. Gle nn was entitled to $1005.70,-2-

representing the balance of certain insurance proceeds incident

to damage

to the hous e then occupied by Mr. Glenn, which was hit by a truck, less what the Trial Court denominated hold-over rent for October and November in the amount of $336.65 per month.
Mr. Glenn appeals, contending that the Trial Court committed numerous errors which he sets out in his brief as shown by an appendix to this opinion.
At the outset, we are called upon to determine whether a motion by Mr. Glenn to supplement the record is well taken. Upon consideration of his motion and the response and a careful review of the transcr

ipt on appe al, we conclude that all of the exhibits introduced at trial in the Circuit Court are already a part of the appellate record. It would appear the ma terial Mr. Glenn seeks to be a supplement

to the re cord may

have be en introd

uced in th e Gener al Session s Court, but were not in the Circuit Cou

rt. Beca use the tr ial in Circuit Court wa s de novo , any exh ibits introduced in t he General Sessions Court which were not re-introduced in the Circ

uit Court wo

uldnot properly be a part of the record, and the motion to supplement the record is ac cordingly denied. Turning to the merits of the case, it is readily apparent that the issues Mr. Glenn purports to raise were not adequate for this Court to make a determination of the nature of his complaints and in what way the Trial Court was in error in regard thereto. This we believe is fatal to Mr. Glenn’s appeal. Having said that, however , we have consider ed the co ntents of Mr. Glenn’s brief which are more specific, as well as the record befor e us, and conclude that

the Trial Judge was not in error as to any compl aint rais ed by Mr. G lenn and t hat it is appropriate that the judgment of the Trial Court be affi rmed unde

r the pro visions of

Rule 10 of

this Court.
In reaching our conclusion we are aw are of the case of Paehler v. Union Planters National Bank, Inc. , 971 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), which, in addressing pro se litigants, recognized that they were entitled to some deference, but ne vertheless stated the following (at page 396): The de fendants rely upon Duchow v. Whalen , 872 S.W.2d 692 (Ten n . App. 1993), in which this Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant's brief failedto comply with T.R.A.P. 27. Id. In Duchow , this Court stated that "we are notrequired to verify unsupported allegations in aparty's b rief by p ainstakingly reviewing the record." Id. a t 693. Howev er, Duchow did not deal with a pro se litigant. Parties who choose to represent themselves are entitled to fair a nd equal treatment. Irvin v. City of Clar ksville , 767 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. App. 1988). However, they are not excused from complying with applicable substantive and procedural law, andthey must follow the same substantive and procedural law as the represented party. Id. (citations omitted).-3-

In conclusion, we note that the Fosters contend the Trial Judge was in error for aw arding the proceeds of the ins urance settleme nt to Mr. Gl enn. How ever, th eir brief says they are disinclined to pursue th

is featur e of the c ase and ask that we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as rende red.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of the judgment awarded Mr. Glenn and costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Larry Glenn and his surety.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE