### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Bri

efs August 28, 2001

In re: Estate of Lois Chandler

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 98-55595-1 John F. Weaver, Chancellor
FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2001

No. E2000-03055-COA-R3-CV

Buster Chandler, Jr. (“Chandler”) was app oint ed administrator o f the estate of his

mother, Lois Chandler, who died inte state in 1998. Chandler is incarcerated in Kentucky for a murder he committed in 1990. Chandler requested the Chancery Court arrang e for his transportation from prison in Kentucky to Knoxville, Tennessee, so he could be present for the hearing rega rding the clos ing of his mother’s estate and so he could meet with the Knox County Attorney Gene ra l regarding his murder conviction in Kentucky. Chandler argued that the Attorney General wanted to try him for the murder in Knoxville and would assist in obtaining a pardon from the governor of Ken tuc ky. The Chancery Court denied his request, closed his mothe r’ s estate, and assessed court costs against Chandler as administrator. Chandler appeals. We affirm the Chancery Court.

Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed; Case Re

manded.

D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., and H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS , J., joined.

Buster Chandler, Jr., pro se App ell ant , Ed dyvi lle , Ke ntu cky.

OPINION
Background1 It should be not ed that these motions were filed under a different docket number than t he instant appeal, but the technical record from the C hancery Court in this matter contains these mo tions.

2 We note that this Court’s Order of Augus t 2000, held that Cha ndler could proceed on appe al in f orma pauperis.

-2-

Lois Chand ler di ed int estat e in Ma rch 19 98. In October 1998, Lois Chandler’s son, Buster Chandler, Jr., who is incarcerated in Kentucky, filed a Petition for L etters of Administration withthe Chancery Court. The Cha ncery Court entered an order appointing Chandler the ad ministra tor

of Lois Chandler’s estate (“Estate”). Although the record on appe al is unclear, the Chancery Courtapparently

set a hearing r

egarding the

closing of the Es

tate to take place in Aug

ust 2000. Chandler

then filed a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testimonial[sic] in April 2000, requesting the Chancery

Court order that

he be transported from prison in Kentucky to the Chancery Court in Kn oxville, Tennessee, for the heari ng.

In his motion, Chandler argued he had a cons titutional r ight to be present at the hearing. Chandler also cite d an additional g

round not related

to the Estate matter. Chandler stated he was serving time in Kentucky prison for murder he co

mmitted in Knoxville in

1990. Chandler contended

that the Knox County

Attorney Ge

neral wished to

try Chandler for the murder, but was notable to do so due to Chandler’s incarceration in Kentucky. Chandler argued that if h

e were able to come to Knoxville for the Estate hearing, he could work with the Attorney Gener al to obt ain a pardon from the governor of Kentucky and be r etried for the murder in Knoxville.

The Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court responded to Chandler’s motion b y written correspondence which informed Chandler that the C

hancery Co

urt did not have au

thority to issue a writ of habeas

corpus. The Clerk

and Master also in

formed Chandler

that a ll statutory requirements

of the Estate’s administration had been completed and that, therefore, the Estate would be closed once Chandler paid court costs and executed the Order Closing Estate.

Prior to filing a Notice of

Appeal, Chandler filed motions with this Court requesting that the Estate hearing be

held in abeyance; an injunction be issued ordering the Chancer y Court not to close the Estate and securing Chandler’s presen ce a t the hearing; and an interlocutory order be issued advising Chandler

as to his rights regarding the closing of his mother’s Estate. 1 Chandler also complained that he did not have the funds to pay the court costs which totaled approximately $50.00. In response, this Court entered an order in August 2000, remanding the matter

to the Chancery Court for consideration of Chandler’s habeas corpus motion in light of a recent opinion by our

Supreme Court, Logan v. Winstead , 23 S.W.3d 297 (Tenn. 2000), and ordering the Chanc ery Court not to close the Estate until the habeas corpus issue was decided. 2

The Chancery Court issued a Notice in which it requested Chandler answer a se ries of questions relate

d to his habeas corpus motion. Chandler, thereafter, filed a motion in which he stated that he could not answer the questions in the Notice because he was pro se and did not have access to Tennessee law books. In his motion, Chandler again requested the Chancery C

ourt hold3 In his Notice of Appeal, Chandler designated the State of Tennessee as the appellee. Due to the na ture of this matter, however

, the Stat e has not fi

led anythi

ng with this Cou rt. Al so, aft

er fil ing his Notice of

Appeal, Chandler fileda mo tion to proceed inf orma paupe ris , but the record on app eal does not contain an o rder from this Cour t adjudica ting this motion. C handler ha s been allow ed to pro ceed in this ap peal in forma paupe ris

. -3- the hearing in abeyance and arra nge for Chandl e r’s transportati on to the hearing . Chandler also reiterated his request to meet with the Knox County Attorney General reg arding his criminal matter while in Knoxville for the Est

ate hearing. I

n a separate

motion, Chandler re

quested the Knox Coun

ty Attorney General be allowed to

intervene i n this est ate matter t o assist C handler in o btaining a pardon from the Kentucky governor.

The Clerk and Master entered a Master’s Report in October 2000, recommending the Chancery Court deny Chandler’s motion to hold the closing

of the Estate

in abeyance. The Clerk and Master stated

in his report that

Chandler had cited no valid reason for delaying the closing of the Estate except for

Chandler’s inabil

ity to pay court costs assessed for closing the Estate. I n denying Chandler’s request for an abeyance, the Clerk and Master s

tated that Chandle

r “is attempting t

o use the probate estate as a vehicle to contest the jurisdiction of his conviction in the State of Kentucky.” The Clerk and Master recommended since all requirements for the Estate’s administration had been met except for payment of costs, the Estate be closed, with costs assessed to Chandler which c

ould be paid in installments pending his release from prison. The Chancery Court approved the Ma ster’s Report and entered an Order

of Confirmation in November 2000. Chandler timely filed a Notice of Appeal in December 2000 , in which he desig

nated the St

ate of Tenn essee as the appellee. 3 We affirm the Chanc

ery Court a

nd dismiss this appea

l.

Discussion

Chandler represented him

self in the Chancery Court and in this Court. “ Pro se litigants who invoke the comp

lex and sometimes tec

hnical procedur

es of the courts

assume a very heavy burden.” Irvin v. City of Clark sville , 767 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). This Court has held that “[p]arties who choose to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment by the courts.” Hodges v. State Attorney Gen. , 43 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Parties proceeding pro se , however, “are not excused from complying w

ith the same applicable substantive and procedural law that represented parties must comply with.” Id.

Although Chandler never f iled a brief in sup

port of his argum

ents on appeal,

he did fileseveral motions with this Court. Under Tenn. R. App. P. 29, Chandler’s b rief was due in thi

s Courtin January

2001. Chandler

missed this deadline

for reasons not e

xplained by the

record. This Courtpartially g

ranted a motion Cha

ndler filed in Dec

ember 2000, in whic

h Chandler reque

sted this Courtwaive requireme

nts related to

the substance, filing and service of appellate briefs. Due to the restrictions imposed by

Chandler’s incarceration, the Court granted Chandler’s motion to the extent that he was not required

to comply with the front cover color requirements and requirement of filing four copies as set forth in Tenn. R. App. P. 29 and 30.-4- In March 2001, Chandler filed a motion in which he requested pe rmission to cite to federal law in his brief instead of Tennessee law since he did not ha

ve access to

Tennessee law books at his prison in Kentuc

ky. Chandler

also asked his

appeal be held in abeyance pending this Court’s determination of this issue. We denied Chandler’s motion, holding that the “law in Tennessee has long been that administration of estates should be timel y administered and closed as quickly as possible. . .[,]” ci ting McFarlin v. McFa rlin , 785 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tenn. Ct. A p p. 1989). This Court, sua sponte , however, gave Chandler an extension of time in which to file

his brief, setting the

new deadline for April 2001. Instead of filing his brief in A pri l 2001, however, Chandler filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for extraordinary app eal to ou r Supreme Court. Cha ndler’s Rule 10 application wa

s denied in June 2001.

Chandler never f

iled a brief with th

is Court.
Despite Chandler’s failu

re to file a brief, we have liberally reviewed all of Chandler’s motions contained in the record on appeal in an attempt to

determine Chandle

r’s issues on appe

al. See Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp. , 32 S. W.3d 222, 227-28 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that “[a]ltho ugh [this Court has] no duty to exhaustively search thi s r ecord to verify unsupported allegations in a brief, . . . we have been liberal in our interpretation of the [ pro se appellant’s] brief”). From Chandler’s vario

us motions, we glean that Chandler’s issues on appeal primarily concern the Chancery Court’s refusal t

o order he be tra

nsported from pri

son in Kentucky

to Tennessee for the Estate hearing; the Chancery Court’s closing of the Estate; the Chancery Court’s refusal to provide him with assistance of counsel; and the Chancery Court’s assessment of cos

ts for the administration of the Estate to Chandler. Chandler also contends this Co

urt erred in its re

fusal to allow him to c

ite to federal case law and claims this Court did not allow him to file an appellate brief.

With the exception of a

motion filed in late October 2001, this Court has considered and adjudicated all of Chandler’s motions. Chandler’s final motion, filed in October 2001, raises

no new issues not alre ady reviewed and decided by this Court. Accordingly, we deny Chandle r’s motion filed on October 22, 2001.

Wi th respect to Chandl

er’s allegatio

ns o f error regarding the Chancery Court’s closin g of the Estate an d assessin g court costs to Chandler, the proof in the record does not show any reversible error. The proof contained in the reco rd on appeal shows that the Chancery Court correctly ordered the Esta

te to be closed sinc

e all requ irements of the ad ministration of the

Estate

were met. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-1-101, et seq. ; § 30-2-101, et seq . Ac cord ingl y, we affirm the Chancery Court’s Order of Confirmation.

Chandler’s issue that the Chanc ery Court e rred in refusing

to provide him transportation from a prison in Ke ntucky to Te

nnessee is without m

erit. ThisTennessee Chancery Courthad no authority or power to order Kentucky authorities to transport Chand ler from a Kentucky prison to Tennessee for an estate hearing. Likewise, Chandler’ s issue that the Chancery Courterred in refusing to appoint him counsel is without merit as Chandler h as no right to appointment of counsel in this civil matter.-5- We next review the re

percussions o

f C handler’s failure to file a brief in support of his appeal. Chandler

missed two deadline

s for filing his br

ief, the second o

f which was gra

nted to him by this Court lo

ng after the fi

rst deadli ne had passed. I

nstead of using th

e extension of time granted by this Court to

file his brief in April 2001, Chandler filed an application for extraordinary appeal to our Supr eme Court. We acknowl edge that Ch andler is p roceeding pro se and that due to his incarceration, he has repeatedly urg ed this Court to appoint h im counsel or allow

him to cite to federal case law since he does not have access to Tennessee law books in prison. Chandler, however, must com

ply with the sa

me substantive law an

d procedural ru

les as all other liti

gants as thi s Co urt seek s to tre at a ll l iti gant s fa irl y and equ all y. Hodges v. State Attorney Gen ., 43 S.W.3d at 920. Therefore

, we find no merit in

this, or in any

issue, arguabl

y raised by Ch

andler on appea

l.

Conclusion

The judgment

of the Chancery Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the Chancery Court for such further proceedings as may be requ

ired, if any, consistent with this Opinion, and for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the Appellant, Buster Cha ndl er, J r., and his sur ety.

___________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE