# FILED February

3, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N THECOUR

TOFAPPEALS

J OHN T. M

EADOR a n dwi f e , ) R OANE C HANC ER Y PELEA E. M EA D O R , ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9510- C

H - 00362 ) Pl a i ntif f s - A pp e lla nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. FR ANK V. W

I LLI AM SI I I ) C HANC ELLOR ) ) ) ) ) C HAR LESE. J OHNS ON a n dJ AM ESO. ) A

PPEA LD I SM I SSED C A M PBELL, ) ) D

e f e n d a nt s - A

pp e l l ees ) ) ) vs . ) ) ) ) M I LLAR D V. OAKLEY, ) )

Thi r d- Pa r t y D

e f e nda nt )

J A M ESS . SM

I TH , J R. , R

oc kw ood, f or A

ppe l l a nt s . W I LLI A M H . S K ELTO N a n dM I C H A EL S . K

ELLEY , Ba s s Be r r y&

Si m s , PLC, K n o x v ille f or a pp e lle e , M illa r dV

. O a kl e y .2 O PI 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 w e ex a m i n e t h e m

e r i t s o f t h e i ssu e s r a i s e do n a pp eal , how

e 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 m i na r y i ssu e , i.e . , w

a s a n o tic e o f a pp e a l tim e l yf ile d . If a n o tic e o f a pp e a l w

a s n o t tim

e l yf ile d , w

e h a v e n ojur i s di c tio ntoe nt e r t a i n t hi s a pp e a l. Se e R u l e 4 , Te nn e s s ee R u l e s o f A

pp e l l a t e Pr o cedur e . Th e a pp e lle e , M

illa r dV

. O a kl e y, m

ove d t he c our t t o di s m i s s t hi s ap p e a l upon t he gr ounds t ha t t he not i c e of a ppe a l w a s not tim e l yf i l e d a nd w

e , 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 m ot i on by de f e r r i ng t he m ot i on t o t h e p a n e l de s i g n a t e dt oh ear t h e case andor de r e dt h e r e s p ect i v e p a r tie s tob r i e f thi s is s u e a l o n gw itho t he r is s u e s r a i s e d . Th e hi s t or y of t hi s c a s e i s s om e w ha t pe r pl e xi ng. The or i gi na l p l a i ntif f s , J o hnT. M e a d or a n dw

i f e , Pe l e a E. M

e a d or ( p l a i ntif f s ) f ile dano r i gi na l a c t i on s om e t i m e i n 1988 a ga i ns t t he s a m e de f e nda nt s a s i n t hi s c a s e , C ha r l e s E. J ohns on a nd J a m e s O . Ca m pbe 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 ya c tio na g a i n s t M illa r dV

. O a kl e y . Th e a c tio na pp a r e ntlyw a s1MillardV. Oakley was the vendor in the warranty deed by which defendants

claim title.

2Weare unable to ascertain from the record whether thejudgment ormotion was filedfirst. The plaintiffs assert in their briefs, however, that the motion was filed first. 3 i n s titut e das a bounda r y l i ne di s put e , how e ve r , c ouns e l w

a s a l l ow

e d t oa m e n dhi s c o m

p l a i nt a t the tr i a l toc o nv e r t the a c tio ntoa n act i o ninej e c t m

e nt. Th e tr i a l c o ur t , a f t e r a tr i a l o nthe m e r its , f oundth a t the p l a i ntif f s h a df a ile dto d e r a i g nthe i r title toa c o mmo ns 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 din a nej e c t m

e nt a c t i on. A

ppa r e nt l y no a ppe a l w a s t a ke n f r om

t he j udgm e nt of t he c our t i n t he f i r s t a c t i on. Th e pr e s e nt act i o nw a s in s titut e do nJ a nua r y 4, 1991, s e e ki ng, a m ongot he r t hi ngs , t he e s t a bl i s hm e nt of a c om

m on bounda r yb e t w

een t h e l a nds of t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he de f e nda nt s . A g a i n , M

illa r dV

. O a kl e yw

a s br ought i n a s a t hi r d- pa r t y de f e nda nt . 1O a kl e yf ile da m o tio nf or s um

m a r y j udgm

e nt ba s e d up on 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 m i t a tio n s . A

ll de f e n d a nt s jo i n e d w ithhi m

i n t he m

ot i on. A

f t e r c ons i de r a t i on of t he m ot i on f or s um m a r y j udgm

e nt , t he c our t e nt e r e d a j udgm e nt on M

a r c h 16, 1992, s u s t a i ni n gt he m

ot i on a nd di s m

i s s i ng t he a c t i on. The j udgm e nt r eci t e dt ha t t he " s um m a r y j udgm

e nt f i l e d byal l de f e n d a nt s i s s u s t a i n e dupon t he gr ounds s e t f or t h i n s a i d m ot i on. " O

n t he s a m

e da t e , t he pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a m ot 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 . 2The m

ot i on di d not s pe c i f y4

w he t he r t he a c t i on s ought w a s unde r R

ul e 52. 01 or R

ul e 52. 02, Te nn e s s e e R

ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e . U pon c ons i de r a t i on of t h a t m ot i on, th e tr i a l c o ur t o nD ecem b e 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 n di n gs of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons of l a w w i t hi n t hi r t y ( 30) da ys " a f t e r w hi c h t i m

e t he c our t w

i 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 . " N o f ur t he r a c t i on w a s t a ke n unt i l Fe br ua r y1 7 , 1 9 9 4 , a t w hi c htim

e the p l a i ntif f s f ile dthe 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 th e t r i a l c our t ha d a c t e d upon pr opos e df i ndi ng of f a c t a nd c onc l us i ons o f l a w . Th e case i ndu e cour s e m a de i t s w

a y t o t hi s c our t . Th e r e c or da s f ile dinthi s c our t r e f l e c t e dth a t the tr i a l c our t ha d m

a d e no di s pos i t i on of t he m ot i on f or f i ndi ngs of f a c t a n dc onc l us i ons of l a w a nd r e m

a nde d t he c a s e t o t h e t r i a l co ur t . A f t e r r e m

a 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 db ecau s e t h e case w a s not t r i e d on t he m e r i t s but f i ndi ngs a s t o pr oc e dur a l m a t t e r s a r e not pr ohi bi t e d a nd m a y be a ppr opr i a t e i nthi s c a s e toe xp l a i nthe s t a t e of t he c a s e f or t he pur pos e of a pp eal . " Th e cour t t h e r eaf t e r r eci t e das hi s f i n di n g s t h e g e n e r a l hi s t or yof t he cas e l eadi n gupt o t he a ppe a l . H i s f i ndi ngs a r e not i n c ons i s t e nt w

i t h t he hi s t or y of t he c a s e t ha t w e ha ve s e t out a bove .5

Fi r s tly , w

e a gr e e w

i 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 n dc onc l us i ons of l a w ar e n ecess a r yaf t e r di s p o s i t i o no f a case on m o tio nf or s um

m a r y j udgm

e nt . R

e 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 m

i t e d by R

ul e 52. 01 to" a c t i ons t r i e d upon t h e f a c t s w

i t h o ut ajur y... ." A d di t i on a l l y , R

u l e 5 2 . 0 1 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 R ul e 56 m

ot i ons ( s um

m a r y j udgm

e nt s ) . We fi n dit in s t r u c tiv e tor e c ite R u l e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 of t he R ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e ve r ba t i m : 52. 01 Fi ndi ng s R e qui r e d upo n R

e que s t . — I nal l ac t i ons t r i e d upo n t he f a c t s w i t hout a j ur y , a nd upon r e que s t m

a de by a ny pa r t y pr i or t o t he e nt r y of j udgm e nt , t h e c our t s ha l l f i nd t he f a c t s s p e c i a llya n ds h a ll s t a t e s e p a r a t e l yi 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 yof t he a ppr opr i a t e j udg me n t . The f i ndi ngs of a m a s t e r , to th e e xt e nt th a t the c o ur t a d op t s the m , s h a 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 m e m or a ndum

of de c i s i on i s f i l e d, it w ill b e s u ffi 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 h e r e i n . Fi ndi ng s o f f a c t and c o nc l us i o ns of l aw ar e unne c e s s a r yo n de c i s i o ns o f m o t i o ns unde r R

ul e 1 2o r 5 6 or a ny ot he r m

ot i on e xc e pt a s pr ovi de d i n R ul e s 41. 02 a nd 65. 04( 6) . ( Em

pha s i s a dde d) . 52. 02 A

m e ndm e nt . — U pon m ot i on of a pa r t y m a 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 udgm e nt t he c our t m

a yam e n di t s f i ndi ngs or m a ke a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs a n dm a y a m e nd t he j udgm

e nt a c c or di ngl y. The m ot i on m

a ybe m a de w i t h a m

ot i on f or a ne w

t r i a l pur s ua nt t o R ul e 59. Whe nf i ndi ngs of f a c t a r e m a de i n a c t i ons t r i e d by t he c our t w

i t hout a j ur y, t he que s t i onof t he s uf f i c i e nc y of t h e e vi de n ce t o s uppor t t he f i ndi ngs m a y be r a i s e d on a pp eal w

he t he r or not t he pa r t yr a i s i ng t he que s t i on ha s6

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 m a de a m ot i on t o a m

e nd t he m

or a m o tio nf or j udgm

e nt . U ponc ons i de r a t i on, w e a r e of t he opi ni on t ha t t he a bove r u l e s , by t he i r expr e s s t e r m s , ex c l u de m

ot i ons f or s um

m a r y j udgm

e nt fro m the i r a pp l i c a t i o n . C l e a r l y , R

ul e 52. 01 r e l a t e s onl y t o "act i o n s t r i e d upon t he f a c t s w i t hout a j ur y. " Fur t he r R ul e 52. 01 a ppl i e s onl y t o c a s e s w he r e a f i na l j udgm e 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 m e r i t s . R

ul e 52. 02, on t he ot he r ha nd a l l ow s a pa r t y t o f i l e a m ot i on a s ki ng t he c our t t oa l t e r or a m e nd i t s f i ndi ngs or m

a de a ddi t i ona l f i ndi ngs a nd a m e nd t he j udgm

e nt a c c or di ngl y. R

ul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 m us t be r e a d i n p a r i m a t e r i a . I ns o doi ng, t he onl y r a t i ona l c onc l us i onth a t canb e r eache di s t h a t t he j udgm

e nt m e nt i one d i n R

ul e 52. 02 r e f e r s t o a j udgm e nt e nt e r e da f t e r a n " a c t i on ha s be e n t r i e d upon t h e f act s . " W h e n r ul i ng upon a m

ot i on f or s um

m a r y j udgm

e nt , t he c our t doe s not t r y a c a s e upon i t s f act s b u t s i m p l ym a ke s a j u d g m

e nt as a m

a t t e r o f l a w as t ow

h e t h e r t h e r e ar e di s p ut e dm a t e r i a l f act s an dw he t he r the m o v a nt is e ntitle dtoju d g m e nt a s a m

a tte r o f la w

. W hile w e 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 - tio ns uppor t i ng t he i n a ppl i c a bi l i t y of R ul e s 52. 01 a nd 52. 02 t o s u mma r yj udgm

e nt s , w

e do f i nd s uppor t f or t hi s pr opos itio n i n Pi ns onv . S m

ith, 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 w a s s t a t e d :7 W e not e a t t hi s j unc t ur e t ha t j udgm e nt w a s e nt e r e d pur s u a nt to R

U LE56, w

hi c h r e l i e ve d t he t r i a l j udge of t h e ne c e s s i t y of f i ndi ng t he f a c t s or m a ki ng c onc l us i ons of la w . R U LE52. 01, TEN

N . R. C I V . PR O . 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 R U LE56 be c a us e t he r e i s no pr e s um

pt i on of c or r e c t ne s s of s um m a r y j ud g me nt s s i n c e t he y i nvol ve que s t i ons of l a w onl y. ( Em

pha s i s our s ) . Ru l e 5 2 ( a ) , Fe de r a l R ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e dur e w

hi c h i s s i m

ila r t oour s ha s be e n i nt e r pr e t e d t o e xc l ude s um m a r y j udgm

e nt s f r om

i t s a pp lic a tio n . In D r e dge C

or por a t i on v. Pe nny , 338 F. 2d 456 ( 1964) , t h e c our t o bs e r ve d t ha t t he r e w a s no f a c t - f i ndi ng f unc t i on i n c onj unc t i on w

i t h t he e nt r y of a s um m a r y j udgm

e nt a nd t ha t s um

m a r y j udgm e nt s ar e expr e s s l ye xc l ude d f r om t he a ppl i c a t i on of t he ru l e . See al s o Fl or ha m

Pa r k C

he vr on, I nc . , v. C he vr on U

. S . A . , I nc ., 6 8 0 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.

W hile w e 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 ssu e , w

e w i l l f r om

a n a bunda nc e of c a ut i on a ddr e s s t he m a t t e r f ur t h e r . A

s s um i 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 u mma r yj udgm

e nt s ( a c onc e pt w hi c h w e r ej e c t ) , i t t he n i s of e xt r e m e i m por t a nc e i n t hi s c a s e a s t o w he t he r t he m

ot i on f i l e d by t h e pl a i nt i f f s f a l l s w i t hi n t he pur vi e w of R ul e 52. 01 or R

ul e 52. 02. Si m

pl y s t a t e d, a m

ot i on f i l e d pur s ua nt t o R ul e 52. 02 t ol l s t h e r unni ng of t he t i m e f or t he f i l i ng of a not i c e of a ppe a l . Ru l e 52 . 0 1 d oe s not . Se e R ul e 59. 02, Te nne s s e e R ul e s of C

i vi l Pr oc e - dur e . Fur t he r , i f R ul e 52. 02 i s i na ppl i c a bl e , no ot he r m ot i on8

a ppe a r s of r e c or d w hi c h w oul d t ol l t he t i m e 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 m e l y a nd, w e , 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 . Th e m ot i on w

hi c h w a 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 w he t he r it w

a s f i l e d pur s ua nt t o R ul e 52. 01 or R

ul e 52. 02. I n a ny e v e nt , it is w

e ll- s e ttle dla w

th a t onm

o tio n s , th e c o ur t w ill " l o o k t os ubs t a nc e r a t he r t ha n f or m . " Be m i s C o . , I n c . v . H

i n e s , 585 S . W . 2 d574, 576 ( Te nn. 1979) . The m ot i on unde r e xa m

i na t i on he r e i s ve r yc onc i s e . The bodyof t he m ot i on i s c opi e d ve r ba t i m a s f o llo w s : Co m

e now t he pl a i nt i f f s , t hr ough c ouns e l , a nd r e s p ect f u llym

ove 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 m

s 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 m ot i on br i ngs i t e nt i r e l y w

i t hi n t he pur vi e w of R ul e 52. 01, Te nne s s e e R ul e s of C i v i 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 m ot i on doe s not s e e k a nyr e l i e f a va i l a bl e unde r R ul e 52. 02. The r e f or e , w e m us t c onc l ude t ha t R ul e 52. 02 ha s no a ppl i c a t i on. Th e j udgm

e nt of t he c our t w a s e nt e r e d on M

a r c h 16, 1992. The not i c e of a ppe a l w a s f i l e d on J une 7, 1995. Si nc e r ul e 52. 01 doe s not to ll the r unni ng of t he tim e f or f ilinga n o tic e o f a pp e a l, th e9

not i c e inthi s cas e w a s u nt i m

e l yf i l e dan dw

e h a v e andha ve ha d no j ur i s di c tio nof t h e c a s e . W e c a ndi dl y c onc e de t ha t our or de r of A ugus t 15, 1996, m a y ha ve a dde d t o t he pe r pl e xi n gs t a t e o f thi s cas e . Si n ce, h o w e v e r , at t h e t i m e w e i s s u e dt h e or de r , al b e i t unbe know

nt o us , w

e ha d no j ur i s di c t i on, t he or de r m us t be he l d f or n a u g ht. It i s w

e ll- s e ttle dth a t, w h e nthe c o ur t h a s n ojur i s di c

- tio nof t he s ubj e c t - m a t t e r , i t c a nnot be c onf e r r e d e i t he r by w a 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 C ount yof She l by v. C i t y of M

e m phi 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 w a s not t i m

e l y f ile da nd t hi s a ppe a l m us t be di s m

i s s e d . Co s t s in c i de nt tothi s a pp eal ar e as s e s s e dt ot h e app e l l a nt .

________________________________ D on T. M

c M ur r a y, J . CONC UR:

_______________________________ C ha r l e s D

. Sus a no, J r . , J udge

_______________________________ W illia m H . Inm a n , S e ni or J u d g eI N THECOUR TOFAPPEALS

J OHN T. M

EADOR a n dwi f e , ) R OANE C HANC ER Y PELEA E. M EA D O R , ) C. A . N O . 03A 01- 9510- C

H - 00362 ) Pl a i ntif f s - A pp e lla nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. FR ANK V. W

I LLI AM SI I I ) C HANC ELLOR ) ) ) ) ) C HAR LESE. J OHNS ON a n dJ AM ESO. ) A

PPEA LD I SM I SSED C A M PBELL, ) ) D

e f e n d a nt s - A

pp e l l ees ) ) ) vs . ) ) ) ) M I LLAR D V. OAKLEY, ) )

Thi r d- Pa r t y D

e f e nda nt )

O RDE R Thi s app eal cam

e o nt ob e h ear dupon t he r e c or d f r om t he C h a n cer yCo ur t of R oa ne C ount y, br i e f s a nd a r gum e nt of c ouns e l . U ponc ons i de r a t i on t he r e of , t hi s C our t i s of opi ni on t h a t the not i c e o f app eal i nt hi s cas e w a s u nt i m

e l yf ile da nd t he a ppe a l m u s t b e di s m

i sse d .11

C o s t s i n c i de nt t ot hi s app eal ar e as s e s s e dt ot h e app e l l a nt . PER CU RI A M