B a e z, e t a l r e fe rs to the c ro ss- de fe nd a nts wh o a lso e nte re d in to the Ag re e me nt. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Su bmitt ed on B ri ef

s, A ugus t 23 , 200 6 BA R BA R A L. WO LF , A S Tr us te e fo r LA N I W OL F an d SH A Y E W OL F , v.

JOHN L UTH ER SU MM ITT
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Monroe County No. 14922 Hon. Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor

No. E2006-00407-COA- R3-CV - F ILED OCTO BER 2, 2006

I n this disput e over a

rig ht of way , the Trial Court g rante d summary judgme nt to defendant on g ro un ds the su it w a s b arr e d b y re s ju dic a ta

or c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l. O n a pp e a l, w e a ff

ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.
Th oma s F . M abry , Kno xvill e , T e nn e sse e , f or app e llant.
J ohn Carson, I I I ., Madisonville, Tennesse e, for appellee

.

OP IN ION Plaintiff filed a Complaint ag ainst defe ndant to determine her right to use an e x isting roadbe d extending fr om a c ounty road to he r prope rty . The roa dbed extends along the boundary betwee n the par cels owne d by defe ndant. During the cour se of the pr ocee dings, p l ai n t i ff a nd defe ndant Summit t announce d to the Court that they had reac hed an ag ree ments, and the Chanc ery Cou rt e nte re d a n A g re e d O rd e r o n J un e 24 , 200 4. Th is A g re e d O rd e r p ro vid e s in pa rt , a s f oll ow s: Sai d ri gh t of way

shall be . . . appr ox imately twelve ( 12) fe et in width, and shal l be a right of

way to the lands of Wolf and B aez, et al acr oss the lands of 1 S u m m i t tw h e r e t h e e x i s t i n g r o a d b e d l i e s o n S u m m i t t ’ s p r o p e r t y.-2- This Order

shall not affe ct Plaintiff’s ac cess or rig ht to use that portion of the roadbe d crossing the land of any other party , as those matters are rese rved pe nding fu rthe r h e ari ng of

thi s Co urt. Other tha n as set forth in this Orde r, no party to this agr eeme nt shall have a ny c la im o r d e ma ndup on the oth e r. Spe c if ic a ll y , W olf n or

B a e z sha ll b e a llo we d to enlar g e, extend, or re ro u te this rig ht of way

by nece ssity , condemnation, or otherwise. Further, ne ither Wolf nor Ba ez shall ma k e claim or demand for any other rig ht of way a c ro ss S umm itt

. Pla int if f la te r c ha lle ng e d th e Ag re e d O rd e r b y fi lin g a Mo tio n Pu rs ua nt t o T .R. C.P. Rul e 60 , w hic h th e Cou rt de nie d. OnJuly

15 , 2 00 5, plaint if

f f ile d a no the r C omp la int

a g a ins t defe ndant Summit t , an d soug ht a dec laratory judgme nt, declaring “ that plaintiff is the owner of a rig ht-of-w ay

extending fr om her orig inal property to the Dr. L ee Road and de signate[ing] its location and extent”. On Aug ust 25, the defe ndant filed a Motion to Dism iss Pursuant to T.R.C .P. Rul e 12, and later supplemented his Motion by filing a Statement o f Un d i sputed Fa cts containe d in the Chance ry Court Ag ree d Orde r in the first suit by the plaintiff. This ple ading also reque sted that the Motion be treate d as a Motion for Summary J udg ment. Subsequently , the Chance ry Court entere d a n O rd e r g ranti ng su mma

ry jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f d e fe nd a nt, a nddis mis sin g the Complaint . A tim e ly appea l has bee n filed.

The issue a s st at ed on appe al is whether the Court err ed in g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of

the def endant on the g rounds of e ither re s judicata or c ollatera l estoppel.
Ou r r e vie w o n a

pp e a l of a su mma ry jud g me nt de te rm inatio n is de novo without any presumption of cor

rec tness being acc orded to the Trial Court’s J udg ment. Guy v . Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W .3d 528-534 (Te nn. 2002).

T h e d ef en d an tar gu es t h att h e d o ct ri n es o f r es j u d i cata and collateral e stoppel prec lude the plaint if

f’ s c la im, be c aus e theprior Ag re e d O rd e r e sta

bli sh e d th e ri g hts of

thepa rt ie s. The doc trine of res judicata voids the second suit betwe en the sa me parties that are privi e s inthe sa me c aus e of a c tio n w ithre sp e c t t o all issu e s w hic h w e reor c ou ld have be en litigated in the forme r suit. C o l l at eral estoppel oper ates to bar a sec ond suit between the same parties and their privies on a diffe rent c ause of action only

as to i ssu e s w hic h w e re a c tua lly lit ig a te d a ndde te rm ine d inthe fo rm e r s uit

. Ma sse ng ill

v . S c ott , 7 38 S.W. 2d62 9, 63 1 ( Te nn . 1 98 7) . T he Ag re e d O rd e r r e lie d on to e sta bli sh these de fense s shows on its face that it is not a final judg ment. Application of e ither re s judicata or collater al estoppel re quires a prior final judg ment on the merits. Goeke v. W oods , 777 S.W .2d 347, 34 9 ( Te nn . 1 98 9) (r e g ard ing re s ju dic a ta ); Be aty , 15 S.W .3d at 824 (re g arding collater al estoppel); Scales v . Scales , 564 S.W .2d 667, 670 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977). T h e Agr eed O rder dismiss ed theSpecifica lly the Ag ree d Orde r states, “ This Order shall not affe ct P laintiff’s acce ss or rig ht 2 to use that portion of the roa dbed cr ossing the land of any other pa rty , as those matter s are rese rved pending further

hearing of

this Court.” -3- plaintiff’s cla ims ag ainst the defe ndant in the prior suit, but it reserve d adjudica t i o n o f t he other parties’ rig hts. Howeve r, the plaintiff’ s Answer to defe ndant’s Reque st to Admit states that: “Unde r 2 the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedure , the Ag ree d Orde r ent er ed o n J u n e 24, 2004 is a F inal Orde r.”
Due to the state of the plea dings, the Trial Court treated the Ag ree d Orde r as a final judgme nt and dismissed the suit on the gr ounds stated.

Whil e the“ Ag re e d O rd e r” app e ars on its fa c e no t to be a fi na l ju dg me nt, plaint if

f w ill no t be he ardto c omp la in a bo ut the Tria l Co urt’ s a c tio n. T. R.A .P. 36 , s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p art : No thi ng in this ru le sh a ll b e c on str ue d a s r e qu ir ing re lie f b e g rante d to a pa rty res po nsibl e fo r an e rr or

or wh o f a ile d to take wh a te ve r a c tio n w a s r e a so na bly available to preve nt or nullify the harmful eff

ect of an er ror. The plaintiff, in e ffe ct, s t i p u l ated or ag ree d that the Ag ree d Orde r wa s a final judgme nt and ca nnot now fault the Trial J udg e for t re at i n g t h e Order a s a final judg ment, which establishes the ba sis of the res judicata def ense. Ac c or din g ly , w e affi rm th e Judg me nt o f the Tria l Co urt a ndre ma nd , w iththe c os t of the a ppeal a ssessed to the plaintiff, B arba ra L . Wolf.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.