IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 4, 2023

MARK RANSOM ET AL. v. LAKEFRONT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rhea County

No. 19-CV-11265 John Harvey Cameron, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2023-00805-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

In this real property dispute, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ assertions that they were 

entitled to an easement over the land of the defendant. Among other things, the trial court 

held that an easement was not essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ land. 

Although the plaintiffs now appeal, we decline to address their arguments due to their 

noncompliance with applicable briefing requirements and therefore dismiss the appeal.

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

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT 

and KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ., joined.

Howard L. Upchurch, Pikeville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Katherine Ransom and 

Mark Ransom.

Sam D. Elliott, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lakefront Estates Homeowners 

Association, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

The plaintiffs/appellants in this matter, Mark and Katherine Ransom (“the 

Plaintiffs”), commenced the present litigation by filing a complaint for declaratory 

 

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opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and 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

12/20/2023
- 2 -

judgment in the Rhea County Chancery Court (“the trial court”), wherein they requested 

the trial court to declare their rights “in and to an easement serving real property located in 

Northern Rhea County, Tennessee . . . .” The Plaintiffs, who noted that they were the 

owners of a 23.47 acre tract of real estate, stated that the named Defendant, Lakefront 

Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Lakefront”), was the fee simple owner of an 

adjacent 5.15 acre tract of real estate. Per the complaint, a common predecessor in title of 

the parties, Merrilee Bridwell (“Ms. Bridwell”), had conveyed the 5.15 acre tract to 

Lakefront’s immediate predecessor in title, Walt Dickson (“Mr. Dickson”), in May 2006, 

and the Plaintiffs alleged that they had become fee simple owners of the 23.47 acre tract 

by way of a conveyance from Ms. Bridwell in December 2018. Further, as evidenced 

through a quitclaim deed that was attached to the complaint as an exhibit, Lakefront had 

previously acquired its adjacent tract of real estate from Mr. Dickson in December 2014. 

In seeking to establish easement rights over a roadway that traversed Lakefront’s 

property, the Plaintiffs alleged in part that the desired easement was “the only convenient 

and feasible method of affording access . . . to the lower portion of the Plaintiffs’ property 

and barn area.” Further, among other allegations, the Plaintiffs asserted that, at the time 

Ms. Bridwell had transferred the 5.15 acre tract to Mr. Dickson, she had relied upon a 

representation from Mr. Dickson that an easement would exist over the small section sold 

to him to the remainder of her property. Subsequent to the filing of the Plaintiffs’ 

complaint, Lakefront filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the Plaintiffs had no 

right to any easement. According to Lakefront, the Plaintiffs had “other reasonable and 

practicable modes of ingress and egress into their property.” 

Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Lakefront by 

dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint and granting Lakefront relief pursuant to its 

counterclaim. As part of the basis for its decision, the trial court referred to evidence that 

showed other means of access to the Plaintiffs’ land was available, specifically concluding 

that an easement across the servient estate was “not essential to the beneficial enjoyment 

of the [Plaintiffs’] land.” The trial court further held, among other things, that there was 

no proof that Lakefront had made any misrepresentations of any kind to the Plaintiffs that 

they relied on. 

The Plaintiffs now appeal to this Court and request that we reverse the trial court 

and hold that they have a permanent easement for ingress and egress based upon theories 

of easement by implication and necessity, as well as easement by estoppel. Although the 

Plaintiffs specifically raise two issues in pursuit of such relief on appeal, we do not reach 

the merits of their issues due to their noncompliance with applicable briefing requirements 

imposed by the rules of appellate procedure and the rules of this Court. Whereas Rule 27 

of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure requires, among other things, that an 

appellant’s brief include an argument section containing a statement of the applicable 

standard of review for each issue as well as the reasons the trial court’s decision is incorrect, 

and further in part requires that the argument include “appropriate references to the record 
- 3 -

. . . relied on,” Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7), Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of 

Tennessee requires that written argument in regard to each appellate issue contain, among 

other things, “[a] statement of each determinative fact relied upon with citation to the 

record where evidence of each such fact may be found,” Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6(a), and also 

further provides that no assertion of fact will be considered on appeal “unless the argument 

contains a reference to the page or pages of the record where evidence of such fact is 

recorded.” Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6(b). Here, aside from the fact that there is no statement of 

the standard of review for each issue in connection with the Plaintiffs’ offered argument, 

we observe that the argument section of the Plaintiffs’ brief is entirely devoid of any 

citations to the record in support of the assertions made therein. For instance, in support 

of their first raised issue as to their supposed entitlement to an easement “by implication 

and necessity,” the Plaintiffs present a series of statements in support of what they contend 

the “facts of the case at bar require” but which are all devoid of any supporting citation to 

the record. The same basic deficiency accompanies the Plaintiffs’ presentation of their 

argument on their “easement by estoppel” issue. Indeed, whereas multiple statements are 

made throughout the included argument, no citations are provided to the record. 

This Court may properly decline to consider an issue that has not been briefed in 

accordance with applicable rules, Clayton v. Herron, No. M2014-01497-COA-R3-CV, 

2015 WL 757240, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015), and we have previously held that 

a party’s “failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this 

Court waives the issues for review.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

2000). Here, given the Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with applicable briefing requirements, 

we conclude that they have waived any issues raised and that the appeal should be 

dismissed. See Thomas v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. M2015-01849-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 

2859813, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017) (“Based upon Thomas’s failure to comply 

with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and R. Tenn. Ct. App. 6, we conclude that Thomas has waived 

any issues raised, and the appeal should be dismissed.”). As a result, the appeal is hereby 

dismissed, and the case is remanded for such further proceedings that are necessary and 

consistent with this Opinion. 

 s/ Arnold B. Goldin 

 ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE