IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 15, 2016

NANCY M. HOUSTON v. ROCKY J. HOUSTON

Direct Appeal from the General Sessions Court for Roane County

No. 14-CV-337 Larry Michael Warner, Judge

No. E2015-00925-COA-R3-CV-FILED-FEBRUARY 5, 2016

This appeal arises out of a divorce case. Due to the deficiencies in Defendant’s brief on 

appeal, we conclude that he waived any consideration of any issues on appeal. The 

appeal is dismissed. 

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

BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. STEVEN 

STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., joined.

Rocky J. Houston, Ashland, Kentucky, Pro se. 

Sharon L. Reynolds, Kingston, Tennessee, for the appellee, Nancy M. Houston

OPINION

 

Facts

Nancy M. Houston (“Wife”) and Rocky J. Houston (“Husband”) were married on 

June 22, 1984. The parties separated on or about January 11, 2013, after Husband was 

incarcerated.

Wife filed a complaint for divorce on March 31, 2014, pursuant to Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 36-4-101(14), citing irreconcilable differences or in the 

alternative, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-101(5), citing that 

Defendant has been convicted of a crime under the laws of the State of Tennessee that 

would render him infamous. The trial court determined Wife had established grounds for 

divorce and awarded Wife an absolute divorce on January 20, 2015. 

Husband appeals. 
2

Discussion

Our Court’s ability to review the merits of this appeal is hindered by the state of 

the brief submitted by Husband. Briefs submitted to the Tennessee Court of Appeals are 

governed by Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides:

(a) Brief of the Appellant. The brief of the appellant shall contain under 

appropriate headings and in the order here indicated:

(1) A table of contents, with references to the pages in the brief;

(2) A table of authorities, including cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes 

and other authorities cited, with references to the pages in the brief where 

they are cited;

(3) A jurisdictional statement in cases appealed to the Supreme Court 

directly from the trial court indicating briefly the jurisdictional grounds for 

the appeal to the Supreme Court;

(4) A statement of the issues presented for review;

(5) A statement of the case, indicating briefly the nature of the case, the 

course of proceedings, and its disposition in the court below;

(6) A statement of facts, setting forth the facts relevant to the issues 

presented for review with appropriate references to the record;

(7) An argument, which may be preceded by a summary of argument, 

setting forth:

(A) the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, 

and the reasons therefor, including the reasons why the contentions require 

appellate relief, with citations to the authorities and appropriate references 

to the record (which maybe quoted verbatim) relied on; and

(B) for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review 

(which may appear in the discussion of the issue or under a separate 

heading placed before the discussion of the issues);

(8) A short conclusion, stating the precise relief sought.

Defendant’s brief wholly fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 27. It does 

not include the table of contents required by subsection (1), the table of authorities 

required by subsection (2), a statement of issues presented for review as required by 

subsection (4), a statement of the case pursuant to subsection (5), a statement of facts 

section or references to the record in accordance with subsection (6), or an argument 

section containing references to the record and the applicable standard of review as 

required by subsection (7). 

Although we realize the “legal naivete” of a pro se litigant, “we must not allow 

him an unfair advantage because he represents himself.” Frazier v. Campbell, No. 
3

W2006-00031-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2506706, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2006) 

(citing Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 651-52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)). 

“Pro se litigants who invoke the complex and technical procedures of the courts 

assume a very heavy burden.” Irvin, 767 S.W.2d at 652. They are entitled to fair 

and equal treatment, but they must follow the same substantive and procedural 

requirements as a represented party, and they may not shift the burden of litigating their 

case to the courts. Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App.

2000). 

“[T]he Supreme Court has held that it will not find this Court in error for not 

considering a case on its merits where the plaintiff did not comply with the rules of this 

Court.” Bean v. Beam, 40 S.W.3d 52, 54-55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Crowe v. 

Birmingham & N.W. Ry. Co., 156 Tenn. 349, 1 S.W.2d 781 (1928)). “[A]ppellate courts 

may properly decline to consider issues that have not been raised and briefed in 

accordance with the applicable rules.” Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873, 919 (Tenn.

2009). “We have previously held that a litigant's appeal should be dismissed where his 

brief does not comply with the applicable rules, or where there is a complete failure to 

cite to the record.” Commercial Bank, Inc. v. Summers, No. E2010-02170-COA-R3-CV, 

2011 WL 2673112, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2011). Defendant’s brief wholly fails 

to comply with the provisions of Rule 27 regarding the content of briefs. He did not 

include a single reference to the appellate record, he did not properly cite applicable law, 

and perhaps the most glaring omission is that he did not clearly raise any issues to 

suggest that the trial court erred in granting wife an absolute divorce and in the division 

of marital property. We therefore decline to examine the merits of any issues on appeal

and dismiss this appeal. 

Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Costs are taxed to the 

appellant, Rocky J. Houston, for which execution may issue if necessary.

_________________________________ 

BRANDON O. GIBSON, JUDGE