IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

August 16, 2017 Session

ERIKA LOUISE DEWALD v. BAYA PAUL DEWALD

Appeal from the General Sessions Court for Wilson County

No. 2014-DC-48 John Thomas Gwin, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2016-01598-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

This is a divorce case involving numerous pleadings. Because the order appealed is not 

final in that it fails to adjudicate husband’s petition for contempt and motion for 

sanctions, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 

3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

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

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRANDON O.

GIBSON and KENNY ARMSTRONG, JJ., joined.

Thomas F. Bloom, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Baya Paul Dewald.

A. Ensley Hagan, Jr. and Andrea Hagan, Lebanon, Tennessee; Yancy Belcher, Mt. Juliet, 

Tennessee, for the appellee, Erika Louise Dewald.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

BACKGROUND

Erika Louise Dewald (“Wife,” or “Appellee”) and Baya Paul Dewald (“Husband,” 

or “Appellant”) were married on July 6, 2002. One minor child was born to the marriage. 

 

1 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

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opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and 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.

09/22/2017
- 2 -

On March 17, 2014, Wife filed a “Petition for Absolute Divorce” in the General 

Sessions Court for Wilson County. On April 21, 2014, Husband answered Wife’s 

petition. Following failed attempts at drafting a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”), 

Husband filed a counter-complaint for divorce. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101.

In an order filed May 20, 2014, the trial court ordered that Husband would vacate 

the marital residence and Wife would enter the residence to collect a court-approved list 

of household items.2The order also stated that, “[b]oth parties [were] restrained and 

enjoined from speaking directly to the other by any means. All communications between 

the parties shall go through their respective counsel. A violation of this order will result 

in the offending party being held in criminal contempt of court.” On June 20, 2014, 

Husband petitioned the court to hold Wife in civil contempt based on his allegations that 

she violated several provisions of the trial court’s May 20, 2014 order. Additionally, on 

November 24, 2014, Husband filed a motion asking the trial court to impose sanctions on

Wife and Wife’s attorney. 

The case was tried on February 22, 2016, February 26, 2016, February 29, 2016, 

and March 1, 2016. On August 2, 2016, the trial court entered a “Final Decree of 

Absolute Divorce.” On August 10, 2016, Wife filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Final 

Decree,” seeking, inter alia, an award of additional personal items and restoration of her 

maiden name. On August 17, 2016, Husband filed a motion to alter or amend the final 

decree, wherein he also sought additional marital property and attorneys’ fees. 

Furthermore, Husband specifically requested that the trial court, “[r]ule on [his] 

outstanding Petition for Contempt against the Wife.” 

On August 24, 2016, the trial court granted Husband’s attorney’s motion to 

withdraw. On September 20, 2016, the trial court issued an order on the parties’ cross 

motions to alter or amend the final divorce decree. The trial court did not specifically 

address Husband’s petition for contempt. Husband appeals. 

Although the parties raise several issues for review, Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee 

Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates that we first consider whether we have 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b); Person v. 

Kindred Healthcare, Inc., No. W2009-01918-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 1838014, at *2 

(Tenn. Ct. App. May 7, 2010). It is well-settled law that, “[u]nless an appeal from an 

interlocutory order is provided for by the rules or by statute, appellate courts have 

jurisdiction over final judgments only.” Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 

(Tenn. 1990) (citation omitted); see also In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 

(Tenn. 2003) (noting that an appeal as of right may be taken only after the entry of a final 

 

2 Because the parties were unable to agree on a list of items, the trial court attached a list 

specifically enumerating the items that Wife was permitted to collect as “Exhibit A” to its May 20, 2014 

order. 
- 3 -

judgment). We do not reach the substantive issues due to the fact that the order(s) 

appealed are not final so as to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on this Court. Tennessee 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a) provides: 

In civil actions every final judgment entered by a trial court from which an 

appeal lies to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals is appealable as of 

right. Except as otherwise permitted in rule 9 and in Rule 54.02 Tennessee 

Rules of Civil Procedure, if multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are 

involved in an action, any 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. 

A final judgment is one that completely defines the parties’ rights and leaves 

nothing else for the trial court to do. Davis v. Davis, 224 S.W.3d 165, 168 (Tenn. Ct. 

App. 2006) (citation omitted). An order that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims, 

rights, or liabilities of all the parties is not final. In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 

at 645.

Accordingly, before this Court can adjudicate a Tennessee Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 3 appeal as of right, Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 13(b) requires us to 

first consider whether the order appealed is final so as to confer subject-matter 

jurisdiction on this Court. Here, our review of the record and the trial court’s orders 

indicate that the trial court did not rule on Husband’s petition for contempt or his 

November 24, 2014 motion for sanctions.3

Furthermore, the trial court did not direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or 

more but fewer than all of the claims or parties pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee 

Rule of Civil Procedure. In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) 

(“However, there is a mechanism, found in Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil 

Procedure, by which a party may appeal an order that adjudicates fewer than all of the 

claims, rights, or liabilities of fewer than all the parties.”).

In the absence of a final judgment, we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over 

this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed, and the case is remanded for 

further proceedings as may be necessary and consistent with this Opinion. Costs of the 

 

3 Wife may also have an outstanding petition for contempt. On April 1, 2015, the trial court 

entered an order addressing the claims raised at a September 11, 2014 hearing. The order states, “This 

cause having come before the court on the 11th date of September, 2014 for hearing upon . . . Husband’s 

Petition for Contempt and Wife’s Petition for Contempt.” If the Wife did file a petition for contempt, the 

record does not contain a copy of that petition or indicate that the trial court ruled on her petition. If Wife 

does have an outstanding petition, the trial court must also address it before its decision will be considered 

final. 
- 4 -

appeal are assessed against the Appellant, Baya Paul Dewald, and his surety, for all of 

which execution may issue if necessary. 

_________________________________

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE