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

Briefs J anuary

31, 2003
NAOMI HAUSLER v. DISCOUNTS R US, INC.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Smith County No. 4963-W John D. Wootten, Jr., Judge

No. M2002-01465-COA-R3-CV - Filed Mar ch 13, 2003

Plaintiff, pro se, appeals the action of the trial court in deny ing her Petition in the Natureof a Petition to Vaca te a Void Jud

gment a nd Collate

ral Atta ck. We af

firm the t rial cou rt.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

W IL LI AM B. C AIN , J., delivered the opinion of the cour t, in which B EN H. C ANT RELL , P.J., M.S., and P ATRIC IA J. C OTT RELL , J., joined.
Naomi Haulser, Carthage, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Arthur C. Grisham, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Discounts R Us, Inc.

OPINION

This case was initiated in the General Sessions Court of Smith Cou nty, Te nnessee, when Appellee, DiscountsR Us, filed su it ag ainst Appellant Naomi Hausler, “[f]or $$6,870.20 due by
contract, which amount is within the jurisdictional limit of the court pursuant to TCA 16-15-501 and which includesattorne

ys ( sic ) fees andinterest at 9.9% per annum as of Februar y 13, 2001, and credits of $.00, plus additional interest and fees from February 13, 2001, to judgment plus costs of this suit.” The general sessions court ci vil warr ant was se

rved upo n Appella

nt, Naomi Hausler, on November

20, 2000, and the c as e set for trial therein on February 15, 2001. Trial of the case was continued until February

22, 2001, when it came on to be heard before the g eneral sessions judge. Ms. Hausler did not appe ar, and on February 22, 2001, judgment against her in the amount of $4,949.92 was entered. Ms. Hausler did not appeal the judgmen t, and it became

final ten days a

fter

en tr y.

After

the judg ment bec ame final, the judgmen t credito r cause d executio n to issue, and same was levied upon her bank account at Citizens Bank of Carthage wher eupon the bank paid the sum of $2,028.62 into the registry of the court. On August 10, 2001, Ms. Hausler filed a pleading in the general sess ions c ourt entitled Petition in the Nature of a Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment and-2-

Collateral Attack. DiscountsR Us filed a Motion to Di smiss the Pe tition to which Ms. Hausler filed a Response. The general sessions court dismissed the Petition.

O n Novembe

r 19, 2001 , Ms. Haus ler file d, in the Cir cuit Court

for Smith

County, he r Petition in the Nature of a Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment and Collateral Attack. O n May 17, 2002, the Circu

it Court of Smith County dismissed the Petition of Plaintif f, and Ms. Hausler

timely appealed.

On the op ening p age of her brief, Ms. Hausler, pro se Appellant, invites this Court to dismiss her appe al as friv olous “[i]f

this tribunal finds that counsel for Discounts verified on record that the actual note was available for inspection, that an officer of the original Lender

validated the debt, and that an accounted was verified.” The appeal is totally fr ivolous without regard to the conditions of her offer.

The trial court, in

its Order of Dismissal of May 17, 2002, following a hearing on May 6, 2002, held:

Th e p la in ti ff ap pe ar ed , p ro se , a nd th e d ef en da nt ap pe ar ed by i ts at to rn ey. Based upon a review of the entire r ecord and representations made by the plaintiff and by counsel f

or the defendant in open court, the co urt finds that the plaintiff was serv ed with pr

ocess in c asedocket number 8758-24-179 in theGeneral Sessions Court of Smith County, Tennessee, that the plaintiff was a ware that she had been ordered to appear in court on the assig ned trial date, and that the plaintiff failed to appear intentionally on the assigned hearing date. The court furt her find s that a default judgmen t was prop erly

entere d in favor

of Discou

nts R Us, I

nc., ag ainst NaomiHausler

by the Gene

ral Sessions Court of

Smith County, and that the General Sessions Courthad jurisdiction of both the subject matter and the pe

rson of N aomi Hausler. Subsequent to the entry of the judgment by the

General Sessions Court of SmithCounty, Discounts R Us, I nc., caused a

levy to be issue d again st

property of Ms. Hausler, following which she filed pape rs in the General Sessions Court for Smith County

on Augu st 10, 2001 , entitled “Petitio n in the Nature o f a Petitio n to Va cate a Void Judgment and a Collateral Attack.” A hearing was held by the General Sessions Court for Smith County, Tennessee, on October 25, 2001, at which time that court ruled that the petition filed by Ms. Hausler should be dismissed because that court lacked

jurisdiction to reopen a final judgment. Ms. Hausler then filed the present proceedi ngs and has asserted in her Motion in Limine and Memorandum

of Law that the judgme

nt rendered

by the Gene

ral Sessions Court for SmithCounty, Tennessee, w as void on the grounds that the court lacked persona l and subject matter jurisdiction, and further as ser ting that this court should rule on her petition as a matter of law, without any discovery

and without the submission of any proof. From

all of which the court holds that the General Sessions Court of Smith County Tennessee had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the-3-

proceeding s filed therein, that the plaintiff in these proceedings ha d notice of t h e procee dings in the General Sessions Court and had an opportunity to appear

a nd contest the issues but failed to do so, andthat there was no asp ect of t he pro ceedin gs in the General Sessions Cou rt for Smith County, Tennessee, which violate d due process . Accor

dingly , it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s action herein is dismissed with prejudice. Costs are taxed against the plaintiff.
The record shows without dispute: 1. The gener al sessions court civil warrant was served on Naomi Hausler on November 21, 2000; 2. On the face of the warrant trial wa s set for February 15, 2001; 3. Trial wa s held on F ebruar y 22 , 2001 and

default judgmen t was ente

red ag ainst Nao mi Hausler at that time; 4. No timely appeal wa s filed by Naomi Hausler

. In the Order of May

17, 2002, t

he Circui t Court of Sm

ith County held “that the plaintiff was a ware that she had been or dered to appear in court on the assigned trial date, a nd that the plaintiff failed to appear intentionally on the a ssigned hearingdate.” The record in the circuit court a t the May 6, 2002 hea ring fu rther dis closes:

M S. HAUSLER: Well, I’m her e to vacate this void judgement an d collateral attack.

THE COURT: Now then, there was, I take it, in Sessions Court, some kind of tr ial; is tha t right? MS. HAUSLER: No. I

t was a default judgement placed agains tme. THE COURT: Okay. So a lawsuit was filed a g ainst you by Discounts -R-Us. You were served. There wa sn’t - - you didn’t appear; is that rig

ht? MS. HAUSL

ER: Right. THE COURT: A default was entered ag ainst you? MS. HAUSL

ER: Right. THE COURT : Did y ou appea l that judgment within

10 day s? MS. HAUSLER: No, I

did not, because I didn’t know that there was a judgment placed against me at that time.

THE COURT: You were served, and was not a Court da

te set on that summons? MS. HAUSL ER: There were two different Court date s set; one was for the16th, and then I under stand that the Court date was also for the 22nd.

THE COURT: All right. Did you a ppear on the 16th or - - MS. HAUSL

ER: No, I

did not. THE COURT : Why

not? MS. HAUSL

ER: Well, I didn’t think they had a case, because there’s no contract there. I

didn’t sign any c ontract with these people.-4- THE COURT: I

realize t hat, and that

may be exactly

right, but why did y ou not app ear in Se ssions Cour t? MS. HAUSL

ER: I w as told, un

fortuna tely , by somebody

that I should not appear be cause it was not relative to, y ou know, - - so I was given the wrong information. THE COURT: Was this a lawyer?

MS. HAUSL

ER: No, no, it wasn’t

. THE COURT: So somebody gave you some free

advice that wasn’t worth - - MS. H AUSLER: Anythin g.

THE COURT: - - a nything. So you’re say ing that they c an’t - - you’re say ing that they can’t c onduct dis covery

in this case

that y ou have f

iled ag ainst them because it’s a collateral attack?

MS. HAUSL

ER: There ’s no disc overy , no. This is a void judg ement. It was void from the time the Order was signed. THE COURT: Well, may be true, I don’t know, but the pr

oblem is if you didn’t appear

and contest it at

th e right time, you’ re suppose to appeal that within 10 da

ys o f the ent

ry of the jud

gement . Why

didn’t y ou do that? MS. HAUSLER: Like

I said, I didn ’t realize there was a judgment placed against me.

. . . .
THE COURT : Okay , all right, so you ne ver appealed any

thing that Judge Pre ston did; is t

hat right, ma’a

m? MS. HAUSLER: No. I wa s going to, because I was going to - - THE COURT: You’ve got to anser my question. MS. HAUSL

ER: No, I

didn’t.

In short, the amount sued for and the instrument sued upon in thegeneral sessions court was well within the subject matter j uris diction of that cour t. Ms. Hau sler waspersona lly s erved w ith process

. Ms. Hausler knew the trial date set for he aring the case in g eneral sessions c ourt. Ms. Hausler intentionally refused

to appear. Default judgment was then properly

entered against her by the general sessions court. She did not appeal within ten day s of the entry of the gene ral sessions court jud gment. T he judg ment thus b ecame f inal.

Every jurisdictional fact necessary fo r sust aining both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the general sessions court affirmatively a

ppears in this record. The judgment of the general sessions court was valid, binding and final, and the trial court correctly so held. New York Cas. Co. v. Lawson , 24 S.W.2d 881 (Tenn. 1930).

No rm al ly, pro se litigants are accorded a degree of defer

enc e b ased upon their status as laymen. In this ca se, Ms. Hausler has abused her status in a manner that would bring instant-5-

disciplinary

proceedings against a membe r of t he bar. In h er reply brief before this Court, she asserts: Mr. Grisham, in his so-c alled Br ief of De fendant /Appelle e, offe

rs nothing to dispute any of the points of law ar

ticulate d by

Naomi Ha

usler in Appellant’s opening brief. Mr. Grisham cites no fact appeari ng in the ori ginal record to verify that DiscountsR Us., Inc. established standing or

damages as such Discounts’ judgment is faciall y void. Mr. Grisham should be invited to testify before a federal grand jury regar ding the intersta te scheme of fraud he is involved in which consists of buying charged-off

commercial paper at

a d ee p di sc oun ts (Dis co unt s R U s - ge

t it ?) usually 1 and 1⁄2 ce

nts on the d

ollar bou ght bund

led wher e only the fac e value o f the bund le is known. After purchasing worthless commerc ial paper, Grisham and others similar situated in this sca

m, harass a

nd intimida

te people like Naomi Hausler in to pay ing something they don’t

owe. The cause of justice, i deals of fair play

and respect for the ruleof law (criminal as well as civil) require this court vacate the void judgment (no stand ing, no eviden

ce) and remand A

rthur C. Grisham t

o other authority for

inquiry into the criminal mis conduct o f Grisha m.

This impertine

nce pale s into insignificance in comparison to documents filed by her in the general sessions court and appended to Appellee’s brief.

“A brief in no case can be used as a ve hicle for the convey ance of hatred, contempt , insult, disrespect or professional discourtesy of any natur

e for the court of

review, trial judge, or opposing counsel; invectives are not argument, and have no place in legal discussion, but tend only to produce prejudice and discord.” Trice v. Hewgley , 381 S.W.2d 589, 5 97 (Te nn. C t. App . 1964 ) (quo ting 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1327).

Ms. Hausler

asserts in her bri ef that sh e was “u nable to secure compete nt counse l.” This is understandable in view of the weakness of her position.

The appeal in this case is frivolous, and, pursuant to Tennessee C ode A nnotated section 27-1- 122, Appe

llee is entitled to reasonable attorney ’s fees for defending the a ppeal. Davis v. Gulf Ins. Group
, 546 S.W.2d 58 3, 586 (Te nn. Ct. App . 1977); McDonald v. Onoh , 772 S.W.2d 9 13, 91 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

The judgmen

t of the tr ial cour t is in all re spects a

ffirmed , and the c ase is remanded to the trial court for assessment of reasonable attorney ’s fees on appeal and c ollect ion of costs which are

assesse d to Appellant.

___________________________________ WILL IAM B. CAI

N, JUDGE