IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

December 3, 2016 Session

TRACY VANN KNOCKE v. JAMES JOSEPH KNOCKE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradley County

No. V-15-461 Lawrence Howard Puckett, Judge

No. E2016-01347-COA-R3-CV

The Final Judgment of Divorce entered in this case reserved the issue of the division of any 

deficiency indebtedness resulting from the foreclosure of the parties’ marital residence 

prior to the time of trial. The Permanent Parenting Plan, incorporated into the Final 

Judgment, also indicated that the precise amount of child support, as a portion of the total 

support payment ordered by the trial court, had yet to be determined. As such, it is clear 

that the order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the proceedings below. 

As a result of this jurisdictional defect, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

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

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.; D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J.; AND CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J.

Alan R. Beard, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant. 

Joshua H. Jenne, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Upon review of the record for this appeal, this Court directed the appellant to show 

cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there is no 

“final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of the parties” from which 

 

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

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.

12/12/2016
an appeal as of right would lie. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Counsel for the appellant has 

filed a response to the show cause order, acknowledging that the final decree is deficient in 

that it fails to adjudicate all issues. However, counsel asks that rather than dismiss this 

appeal, this Court provide the parties with additional time within which to secure a final 

order resolving the deficiency.

“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 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)). 

“[A]ny order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer 

than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time 

before entry of a final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all 

parties.” Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Because there are unresolved claims and issues in the 

proceedings below, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this 

appeal. 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.”). Although our Supreme Court in Bayberry

remarked that there is “no bar” to the suspension of the finality requirements of Rule 3(a) 

pursuant to Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, there has been no 

argument made by counsel in this case that would support suspension of the requirements 

of the rule. See id. (noting that “there must be a good reason for suspension”). 

Moreover, the question exists whether such a suspension would be proper given 

developments in the law subsequent to Bayberry. See Ingram v. Wasson, 379 S.W.3d 

227, 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (“Lack of appellate jurisdiction cannot be waived.”) (citing 

Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996)). 

Inasmuch as this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal, the case is 

dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final judgment has been 

entered. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, James Joseph Knocke, and his surety, 

for which execution may issue if necessary. 

PER CURIAM