FILED

February 3, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

J OHN T. MEADOR a nd wi f e , ) ROANE CHANCERY

PELEA E. MEADOR, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9510- CH- 00362

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. FRANK V. WI LLI AMS I I I

 ) CHANCELLOR

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

CHARLES E. J OHNSON a nd J AMES O. ) APPEAL DI SMI SSED

CAMPBELL, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

 )

 )

vs . )

 )

 )

 )

MI LLARD V. OAKLEY, )

 )

 Thi r d- Pa r t y De f e nda nt )

J AMES S. SMI TH, J R. , Roc kwood, f or Appe l l a nt s .

WI LLI AM H. SKELTON a nd MI CHAEL S. KELLEY, Ba s s Be r r y & Si ms , PLC,

Knoxville f or a ppe lle e , Milla r d V. Oa kl e y.
2

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J .

Thi s c a s e or i gi na t e d i n t he t r i a l c our t a s a bounda r y l i ne

di s put e . Be f or e we exa mi ne t he me r i t s of t he i ssue s r a i s e d on

a ppeal , howe ve r , i t i s ne c e s s a r y f or us t o a ddr e s s a pr e l i mi na r y

i ssue , i.e . , wa s a notic e of a ppe a l time l y f ile d. If a notic e of

a ppe a l wa s not time l y f ile d, we ha ve no jur i s di c tion to e nt e r t a i n

t hi s a ppe a l. Se e Rul e 4, Te nne s s ee Rul e s of Appe l l a t e Pr ocedur e .

The a ppe lle e , Milla r d V. Oa kl e y, move d t he c our t t o di s mi s s

t hi s appe a l upon t he gr ounds t ha t t he not i c e of a ppe a l wa s not

time l y f i l e d a nd we , t he r e f or e , ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o he a r t he

cas e . Thi s c our t a c t e d upon t he mot i on by de f e r r i ng t he mot i on t o

t he pa ne l de s i gna t e d t o hear t he case and or de r e d t he r e s pect i ve

pa r tie s to br i e f thi s is s ue a l ong with ot he r is s ue s r a i s e d.

The hi s t or y of t hi s c a s e i s s ome wha t pe r pl e xi ng. The or i gi na l

pl a i ntif f s , J ohn T. Me a dor a nd wi f e , Pe l e a E. Me a dor ( pl a i ntif f s )

f ile d an or i gi na l a c t i on s ome t i me i n 1988 a ga i ns t t he s a me

de f e nda nt s a s i n t hi s c a s e , Cha r l e s E. J ohns on a nd J a me s O.

Ca mpbe l l ( de f e nda nt s ) . The de f e nda nt s , i n t ha t c a s e f i l e d a t hi r dpa r t y a c tion a ga i ns t Milla r d V. Oa kl e y. The a c tion a ppa r e ntly wa s
1

Millard V. Oakley was the vendor in the warranty deed by which defendants

claim title.

2

We are unable to ascertain from the record whether the judgment or motion was

filed first. The plaintiffs assert in their briefs, however, that the motion was

filed first. 

3

i ns titut e d as a bounda r y l i ne di s put e , howe ve r , c ouns e l wa s a l l owe d

t o a me nd hi s c ompl a i nt a t the tr i a l to c onve r t the a c tion to a n

act i on in e j e c t me nt. The tr i a l c our t , a f t e r a tr i a l on the me r its ,

f ound tha t the pl a i ntif f s ha d f a ile d to de r a i gn the i r title to a

c ommon s our c e a nd he nc e , f a i l e d t o pr ove t he i r t i t l e a s r e qui r e d in

a n e j e c t me nt a c t i on. Appa r e nt l y no a ppe a l wa s t a ke n f r om t he

j udgme nt of t he c our t i n t he f i r s t a c t i on.

The pr e s e nt act i on wa s ins titut e d on J a nua r y 4, 1991, s e e ki ng,

a mong ot he r t hi ngs , t he e s t a bl i s hme nt of a c ommon bounda r y be t ween

t he l a nds of t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he de f e nda nt s . Aga i n, Milla r d V.

Oa kl e y wa s br ought i n a s a t hi r d- pa r t y de f e nda nt .

1

 Oa kl e y f ile d a

motion f or s umma r y j udgme nt ba s e d upon t he gr ounds of c ol l a t e r a l

e s t oppe l a nd t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a tions . All de f e nda nt s joi ne d

with hi m i n t he mot i on. Af t e r c ons i de r a t i on of t he mot i on f or

s umma r y j udgme nt , t he c our t e nt e r e d a j udgme nt on Ma r c h 16, 1992,

s us t a i ni ng t he mot i on a nd di s mi s s i ng t he a c t i on. The j udgme nt

r eci t e d t ha t t he " s umma r y j udgme nt f i l e d by al l de f e nda nt s i s

s us t a i ne d upon t he gr ounds s e t f or t h i n s a i d mot i on. " On t he s a me

da t e , t he pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a mot i on a s ki ng t he c our t f or f i ndi ngs

of f act a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w.

2

 The mot i on di d not s pe c i f y
4

whe t he r t he a c t i on s ought wa s unde r Rul e 52. 01 or Rul e 52. 02,

Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e . Upon c ons i de r a t i on of t ha t

mot i on, the tr i a l c our t on Decembe r 3, 1992, or de r e d t he pa r t i e s t o

pr e s e nt pr opos e d f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w wi t hi n

t hi r t y ( 30) da ys " a f t e r whi c h t i me t he c our t wi l l r e nde r f i ndi ngs

of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w. " No f ur t he r a c t i on wa s t a ke n unt i l

Fe br ua r y 17, 1994, a t whi c h time the pl a i ntif f s f ile d the i r

pr opos e d f i ndi ng of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w.

The pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d t he i r not i c e of a ppe a l on J une 7, 1995,

be f or e the t r i a l c our t ha d a c t e d upon pr opos e d f i ndi ng of f a c t a nd

c onc l us i ons of l a w. The case i n due cour s e ma de i t s wa y t o t hi s

c our t . The r e c or d a s f ile d in thi s c our t r e f l e c t e d tha t the tr i a l

c our t ha d ma de no di s pos i t i on of t he mot i on f or f i ndi ngs of f a c t

a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w a nd r e ma nde d t he c a s e t o t he t r i a l cour t .

Af t e r r e ma nd, t he t r i a l c our t not e d t ha t " no f i ndi ngs of f a c t a r e

r e qui r e d becaus e t he case wa s not t r i e d on t he me r i t s but f i ndi ngs

a s t o pr oc e dur a l ma t t e r s a r e not pr ohi bi t e d a nd ma y be a ppr opr i a t e

i n thi s c a s e to e xpl a i n the s t a t e of t he c a s e f or t he pur pos e of

a ppeal . " The cour t t he r eaf t e r r eci t e d as hi s f i ndi ngs t he ge ne r a l

hi s t or y of t he cas e l eadi ng up t o t he a ppe a l . Hi s f i ndi ngs a r e not

i nc ons i s t e nt wi t h t he hi s t or y of t he c a s e t ha t we ha ve s e t out

a bove .
5

Fi r s tly, we a gr e e wi t h t he c ha nc e l l or t ha t no f i ndi ngs of f a c t

a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w ar e necess a r y af t e r di s pos i t i on of a case on

motion f or s umma r y j udgme nt . Re qui r e d f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd

c onc l us i ons of l a w a r e l i mi t e d by Rul e 52. 01 to " a c t i ons t r i e d upon

t he f a c t s wi t hout a jur y ... ." Addi t i ona l l y, Rul e 52. 01 e xpr e s s l y

a nd une qui voc a l l y s t a t e s t ha t f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w a r e unne c e s s a r y on Rul e 56 mot i ons ( s umma r y j udgme nt s ) .

We fi nd it ins t r uc tive to r e c ite Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 of t he

Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e ve r ba t i m:

52. 01 Fi ndi ngs Re qui r e d upon Re que s t . — I n al l

ac t i ons t r i e d upon t he f ac t s wi t hout a j ur y, a nd upon

r e que s t ma de by a ny pa r t y pr i or t o t he e nt r y of j udgme nt ,

t he c our t s ha l l f i nd t he f a c t s s pe c i a lly a nd s ha ll s t a t e

s e pa r a t e l y i t s c onc l us i ons of l a w t he r e on a nd di r e c t t he

e nt r y of t he a ppr opr i a t e j udgme nt . The f i ndi ngs of a

ma s t e r , to the e xt e nt tha t the c our t a dopt s the m, s ha l l

be c ons i de r e d a s t he f i ndi ngs of t he c our t . I f a n opi ni on

or me mor a ndum of de c i s i on i s f i l e d, it will be s uffi c i e nt

i f t he f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w a ppe a r

t he r e i n. Fi ndi ngs of f ac t and c onc l us i ons of l aw ar e

unne c e s s ar y on de c i s i ons of mot i ons unde r Rul e 12 or 56

or a ny ot he r mot i on e xc e pt a s pr ovi de d i n Rul e s 41. 02 a nd

65. 04( 6) . ( Empha s i s a dde d) .

52. 02 Ame ndme nt . — Upon mot i on of a pa r t y ma de not

l a t e r t ha n t hi r t y ( 30) da ys a f t e r e nt r y of j udgme nt t he

c our t ma y ame nd i t s f i ndi ngs or ma ke a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs

a nd ma y a me nd t he j udgme nt a c c or di ngl y. The mot i on ma y be

ma de wi t h a mot i on f or a ne w t r i a l pur s ua nt t o Rul e 59.

Whe n f i ndi ngs of f a c t a r e ma de i n a c t i ons t r i e d by t he

c our t wi t hout a j ur y, t he que s t i on of t he s uf f i c i e nc y of

t he e vi de nce t o s uppor t t he f i ndi ngs ma y be r a i s e d on

a ppeal whe t he r or not t he pa r t y r a i s i ng t he que s t i on ha s
6

ma de i n t he t r i a l c our t a n obj e c t i on t o s uc h f i ndi ngs or

ha s ma de a mot i on t o a me nd t he m or a motion f or j udgme nt .

Upon c ons i de r a t i on, we a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he a bove

r ul e s , by t he i r expr e s s t e r ms , exc l ude mot i ons f or s umma r y j udgme nt

from the i r a ppl i c a t i on. Cl e a r l y, Rul e 52. 01 r e l a t e s onl y t o

"act i ons t r i e d upon t he f a c t s wi t hout a j ur y. " Fur t he r Rul e 52. 01

a ppl i e s onl y t o c a s e s whe r e a f i na l j udgme nt ha s not be e n e nt e r e d

a f t e r a tr i a l on t he me r i t s . Rul e 52. 02, on t he ot he r ha nd a l l ows

a pa r t y t o f i l e a mot i on a s ki ng t he c our t t o a l t e r or a me nd i t s

f i ndi ngs or ma de a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs a nd a me nd t he j udgme nt

a c c or di ngl y. Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 mus t be r e a d i n pa r i ma t e r i a .

I n s o doi ng, t he onl y r a t i ona l c onc l us i on tha t can be r eache d i s

t ha t t he j udgme nt me nt i one d i n Rul e 52. 02 r e f e r s t o a j udgme nt

e nt e r e d a f t e r a n " a c t i on ha s be e n t r i e d upon t he f act s . " Whe n

r ul i ng upon a mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt , t he c our t doe s not t r y

a c a s e upon i t s f act s but s i mpl y ma ke s a j udgme nt as a ma t t e r of

l a w as t o whe t he r t he r e ar e di s put e d ma t e r i a l f act s and whe t he r the

mova nt is e ntitle d to judgme nt a s a ma tte r of la w.

While we do not f i nd a ny r e por t e d a ut hor i t y i n t hi s j ur i s di c -

tion s uppor t i ng t he i na ppl i c a bi l i t y of Rul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 t o

s umma r y j udgme nt s , we do f i nd s uppor t f or t hi s pr opos ition i n

Pi ns on v. Smith, a n unr e por t e d opi ni on f r om t hi s c our t , f i l e d i n

J a c ks on, Fe br ua r y 27, 1996: I n Pi ns on, it wa s s t a t e d:
7

 We not e a t t hi s j unc t ur e t ha t j udgme nt wa s e nt e r e d

pur s ua nt to RULE 56, whi c h r e l i e ve d t he t r i a l j udge of

t he ne c e s s i t y of f i ndi ng t he f a c t s or ma ki ng c onc l us i ons

of la w. RULE 52. 01, TENN. R. CI V. PRO. Eve n s o, f i ndi ngs

of f a c t a r e not a ppr opr i a t e unde r RULE 56 be c a us e t he r e

i s no pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s of s umma r y j udgme nt s

s i nc e t he y i nvol ve que s t i ons of l a w onl y. ( Empha s i s

our s ) .

Rul e 52( a ) , Fe de r a l Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e whi c h i s s i mila r

t o our s ha s be e n i nt e r pr e t e d t o e xc l ude s umma r y j udgme nt s f r om i t s

a pplic a tion. In Dr e dge Cor por a t i on v. Pe nny, 338 F. 2d 456 ( 1964) ,

t he c our t obs e r ve d t ha t t he r e wa s no f a c t - f i ndi ng f unc t i on i n

c onj unc t i on wi t h t he e nt r y of a s umma r y j udgme nt a nd t ha t s umma r y

j udgme nt s ar e expr e s s l y e xc l ude d f r om t he a ppl i c a t i on of t he rul e .

See al s o Fl or ha m Pa r k Che vr on, I nc . , v. Che vr on U. S. A. , I nc ., 680

F. Supp 159 ( D. N. J . 1988) a nd t he c a s e s c i t e d t he r e i n.

While we f i nd t he a bove c onc l us i ons t o be di s pos i t i ve of t hi s

i ssue , we wi l l f r om a n a bunda nc e of c a ut i on a ddr e s s t he ma t t e r

f ur t he r . As s umi ng, a r gue ndo, t ha t t he r ul e s do i n f a c t a ppl y t o

s umma r y j udgme nt s ( a c onc e pt whi c h we r e j e c t ) , i t t he n i s of

e xt r e me i mpor t a nc e i n t hi s c a s e a s t o whe t he r t he mot i on f i l e d by

t he pl a i nt i f f s f a l l s wi t hi n t he pur vi e w of Rul e 52. 01 or Rul e

52. 02. Si mpl y s t a t e d, a mot i on f i l e d pur s ua nt t o Rul e 52. 02 t ol l s

t he r unni ng of t he t i me f or t he f i l i ng of a not i c e of a ppe a l . Rul e

52. 01 doe s not . Se e Rul e 59. 02, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e -

dur e . Fur t he r , i f Rul e 52. 02 i s i na ppl i c a bl e , no ot he r mot i on
8

a ppe a r s of r e c or d whi c h woul d t ol l t he t i me f or t he f i l i ng of t he

not i c e of a ppe a l a nd t he not i c e of a ppe a l i n t hi s c a s e i s unt i me l y

a nd, we , t he r e f or e ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de r t he a ppe a l .

The mot i on whi c h wa s f i l e d by t he pl a i nt i f f di d not de s i gna t e

whe t he r it wa s f i l e d pur s ua nt t o Rul e 52. 01 or Rul e 52. 02. I n a ny

e ve nt , it is we ll- s e ttle d la w tha t on motions , the c our t will " l ook

t o s ubs t a nc e r a t he r t ha n f or m. " Be mi s Co. , I nc . v . Hi ne s, 585

S. W. 2d 574, 576 ( Te nn. 1979) . The mot i on unde r e xa mi na t i on he r e i s

ve r y c onc i s e . The body of t he mot i on i s c opi e d ve r ba t i m a s

f ollows :

Come now t he pl a i nt i f f s , t hr ough c ouns e l , a nd

r e s pect f ully move t he c our t f or f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd

c onc l us i ons of l a w i n t hi s c a us e .

I t s e e ms c r ys t a l c l e a r t ha t t he s ubs t a nc e of t he mot i on br i ngs

i t e nt i r e l y wi t hi n t he pur vi e w of Rul e 52. 01, Te nne s s e e Rul e s of

Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e . I t i s e qua l l y c l e a r t ha t t he mot i on doe s not s e e k

a ny r e l i e f a va i l a bl e unde r Rul e 52. 02. The r e f or e , we mus t c onc l ude

t ha t Rul e 52. 02 ha s no a ppl i c a t i on.

The j udgme nt of t he c our t wa s e nt e r e d on Ma r c h 16, 1992. The

not i c e of a ppe a l wa s f i l e d on J une 7, 1995. Si nc e r ul e 52. 01 doe s

not toll the r unni ng of t he time f or f iling a notic e of a ppe a l, the
9

not i c e in thi s cas e wa s unt i me l y f i l e d and we ha ve and ha ve ha d no

j ur i s di c tion of t he c a s e . We c a ndi dl y c onc e de t ha t our or de r of

Augus t 15, 1996, ma y ha ve a dde d t o t he pe r pl e xi ng s t a t e of thi s

cas e . Si nce, howe ve r , at t he t i me we i s s ue d t he or de r , al be i t

unbe known t o us , we ha d no j ur i s di c t i on, t he or de r mus t be he l d f or

na ught. It i s we ll- s e ttle d tha t, whe n the c our t ha s no jur i s di c -

tion of t he s ubj e c t - ma t t e r , i t c a nnot be c onf e r r e d e i t he r by wa i ve r

or c ons e nt , a nd a l l of i t s or de r s a nd de c r e e s a r e a nul l i t y. Se e

Count y of She l by v. Ci t y of Me mphi s , 363 S. W. 2d 291 ( Te nn. 1963)

a nd ot he r a ut hor i t i e s c i t e d t he r e i n.

We hol d t ha t t he not i c e of a ppe a l i n t hi s c a s e wa s not t i me l y

f ile d a nd t hi s a ppe a l mus t be di s mi s s e d. Cos t s inc i de nt to thi s

a ppeal ar e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt .

 ________________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

CONCUR:

_______________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge

_______________________________

William H. Inma n, Se ni or J udge
I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

J OHN T. MEADOR a nd wi f e , ) ROANE CHANCERY

PELEA E. MEADOR, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9510- CH- 00362

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. FRANK V. WI LLI AMS I I I

 ) CHANCELLOR

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

CHARLES E. J OHNSON a nd J AMES O. ) APPEAL DI SMI SSED

CAMPBELL, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

 )

 )

vs . )

 )

 )

 )

MI LLARD V. OAKLEY, )

 )

 Thi r d- Pa r t y De f e nda nt )

ORDER

Thi s appeal came on t o be hear d upon t he r e c or d f r om t he

Cha ncer y Cour t of Roa ne Count y, br i e f s a nd a r gume nt of c ouns e l .

Upon c ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s Cour t i s of opi ni on t ha t the

not i c e of appeal i n t hi s cas e wa s unt i me l y f ile d a nd t he a ppe a l

mus t be di s mi sse d.
11

Cos t s i nc i de nt t o t hi s appeal ar e as s e s s e d t o t he appe l l a nt .

 PER CURI AM