1 Ru le 10 (C ourt o f Ap pea ls). Mem orandum Opinion . -- (b) The Court, wit h the concu rrence of all judges

part ici pati ng in t he case, may af fi rm, rever se or m odify the act ions of the t ri al cour t by mem orandum opini on when a formal opi nion woul d have no pr ecedenti al v alue. W hen a case i s decide d by memorandum opini on it shall be desi gn ated " MEM ORAN DUM OPINION," shal l not be publ ished, and shal l not be ci ted or

rel ied upon for any r eason i n a subsequent unrel ated case. 1 

# FILED Oct. 20, 1995 Cecil Crowson, Jr
. Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COU RT OF A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT NA SHVILLE

MAXIE L. NICHOLS and ) From the Chancer y Court o f W. MA X NICHOLS, ) Davidson County at Nashville ) Plaintiffs/App ellants, ) Hon. C. All en High, C hancellor ) VS. ) Davidson C hancery N o. 94-3181-II ) Appeal No. 01A01- 9506-CH-00247 TENNESSEE STUDENT ) ASSI STA NCE CORP., ) AF FIRMED ) Defendant/Appellee. ) Maxie L. Nichols, pro se ) W . Max Nichols, pro se ) ) Sandra E. Keith ) Assistant Att orney Gener al ) Nashvil le, Tennessee ) Attorney for Defendant/Appellee

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION 1 HIGHERS, J.

This is an appeal from t he trial court's judgment in favor of Defenda nt on Plaintiffs' fraud and contract allegatio ns.
Appellants are William Max Nichols, maker of certain notes represent ing student loans, and his father, Maxie L. Nichols, who w as co-maker on said notes. The A ppellee is Tennessee Stude nt Assistance Corporation (TSAC), a non-profit cor poration creat ed by the General Assembl y to guar antee and administer

loans made by educati onal institution l enders to s tudents attending post-seco ndary schools in Tennessee. T. C.A. § 49-4-203(1)- (3) (1990).

W illiam Max Ni chols, recei ved four student loans in the l ate 1970s on w hich hi s father co-sig ned. William Max Ni chols defau lted o n these loans and on September 14, 1992, TSAC rec ove red a ju dgme nt ag ains t App ell ants in t he am ount of $ 18, 138.26. In October of 1994, Appellan ts filed a complaint agai nst TSAC, alleg ing that v arious irregul arities occurred in connection with the servicing of the loans, incl udi ng fraud, contract interference, and inducement to breac h of contract.2

TSAC filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment on the grounds of
res judicata , soverei gn immunity , and failure to s tate a claim. T he chancellor granted TSAC's motion. I t is from this decision that this appeal ar ises.

Appellants filed a motion with the Court of Ap peals, Middle Sect ion, to consider as post-judgment

facts certain documents indicat ing that TSAC assigned the notes to the U .S. Department of Education and, ther efore, was not the holder of the notes at the time of the 19 92 judgmen t. Judge Cant rell denied A ppellants' moti on, noting that the allege d assignments did not occur after the trial court's j udgment, an d therefore we re not postjudg ment facts pursuant to T.R.A.P. 14. Con sequently , the Court found th at th e documents wer e inappropriat e for considerat ion under T.R.A.P . 14.

Appella nts have raised two issues for our consideration on app eal. The fir st i s whether the trial cour

t erred in g ranting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss and/or f or Summary Judgment. According to Appellants, there exist genuine iss ues of material fact with respect to whether App ellee was the holder of the not es at the time the 199 2 judgment w as entered. Appell ants' second as sertion of err or is that th e trial court abused i ts discreti on bydenying Appellants Motion for Continua nce on the hearing of TSAC's Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judg ment. Appellants contend that they should have been permitted to introduce newly discovered evidence indicating that TSAC wa s not the holder of the notes at the time o f the previous judgment.

Because this Court

has denied Appell ants' motion f o r considerat ion of postjudgment f acts, we are precluded from considering any proffered document s relating to Appellants' allegatio n that TSAC w as not the holder of the no tes. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence c ontained in the r ecord before us to sustain suc h a contention. Acco rdin gly, A ppellan t's first i ssue is w ithout merit as there exi sted no disputed i ssue of material fact as to whether TSAC was the hold er of the notes at the time judg ment was entered.

With respect to Appe llants' sec ond issue, a tr ial judge will n ot be put in err or for denying a motion for conti nuance in the absenc e of a showing of abuse of discreti on
. Moorehead v. State , 40-9 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn. 1956); Kerney v . Cobb , 658 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Tenn. App. 1983 ).3

The record does not reveal upon what basis the chance llor d enied Appellants' Motion for Continuance. Concomitantly , we find nothing in the record to suggest the chancellor

abused his discre tion in deny ing such moti on. We therefore affirm the trial court's deni al of Appellants' Motion for Cont inuance.
The judgment is accordingly affirme d. Costs on appeal are taxed to Appe llants.

HIGHERS, J.

CONCUR:

TOMLIN, J.

FARMER, J.