IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

March 7, 2019 Session

LUCAS D. BOTTORFF ET AL. V. ANNE A. SEARS

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County

Nos. 2018-185, 217CV3155 James G. Martin, III, Judge

No. M2018-01232-COA-R3-CV

After the administrator of an estate obtained a judgment vesting title to real property in 

the estate, the administrator filed a detainer summons against the decedent’s daughter in 

general sessions court seeking possession of the property. The general sessions court 

determined that the estate was entitled to possession of the property, and the decedent’s 

daughter appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court granted possession of the 

property to the estate and ordered the decedent’s daughter to vacate the premises within 

thirty days. The decedent’s daughter appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ANDY D. BENNETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT,

JR., P.J., M.S., and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., joined.

Anne A. Sears, Franklin, Tennessee, pro se.

Lucas D. Bottorff, Brentwood, Tennessee, pro se.

OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Anne A. Sears resided with her mother, Sally Sears (“Decedent”), at 1019 

Boxwood Drive, Franklin, Tennessee (the “Boxwood Property”) for approximately 

twelve years. Following Decedent’s death in July 2016, Ms. Sears continued living at the 

Boxwood Property, and a dispute arose between Decedent’s estate and Ms. Sears 

regarding ownership of the property.

1

 The administrator of the estate, Lucas D. Bottorff, 

 

1 Ms. Sears claimed that Decedent transferred title to the Boxwood Property to her in exchange for 

caregiving services Ms. Sears provided to Decedent. 

05/23/2019
- 2 -

filed suit against Ms. Sears in the chancery court for Williamson County on December 7, 

2016, seeking to recoup certain assets allegedly belonging to the estate, including the 

Boxwood Property. After hearing the matter, the chancery court entered an order on May 

31, 2017, vesting title to the Boxwood Property in the estate.2 Ms. Sears appealed the 

chancery court’s judgment and continued living at the Boxwood Property.

On November 13, 2017, while Ms. Sears’s appeal of the chancery court’s decision 

was still pending,3 Mr. Bottorff initiated this lawsuit by filing a detainer summons in the 

general sessions court for Williamson County seeking possession of the Boxwood 

Property. In an order entered on April 16, 2018, the general sessions court found that Ms. 

Sears had failed to obtain a stay of the chancery court’s judgment, granted possession of 

the Boxwood Property to the estate, and ordered Ms. Sears to vacate the premises within 

ten days. Ms. Sears appealed the general sessions court’s decision to the circuit court for 

Williamson County. The circuit court heard the matter on May 25, 2018, and in an order 

entered on June 7, 2018, granted possession of the Boxwood Property to the estate. The 

court then ordered Ms. Sears to vacate the property within thirty days. Ms. Sears 

appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The only issue on appeal involves the subject matter jurisdiction of the general 

sessions court and the circuit court.4 Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court’s 

authority to adjudicate a particular case or controversy. Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 

S.W.3d 727, 729 (Tenn. 2000). A court obtains subject matter jurisdiction from either a 

statute or a constitutional provision. First Am. Trust Co. v. Franklin-Murray Dev. Co., 

L.P., 59 S.W.3d 135, 140 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). It cannot be conferred on a court by the 

conduct or agreement of the parties. Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532, 542 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. 2006). A judgment entered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is 

void. First Am. Trust Co., 59 S.W.3d at 141. Therefore, we must vacate a trial court’s 

judgment and dismiss the case if we determine the court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. 

 

2 The chancery court concluded that Ms. Sears breached a fiduciary duty she owed to Decedent by 

transferring title to the Boxwood Property to herself by using her authority as Decedent’s attorney-in-fact 

pursuant to a power of attorney. Bottorff v. Sears, No. M2017-01363-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 3574745, at 

*1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2018) (perm. app. denied Tenn. Dec. 6, 2018). Thus, the chancery court 

declared the quit claim deed transferring title to Ms. Sears void ab initio. Id.

3 This Court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment on July 25, 2018. Bottorff, 2018 WL 3574745, at *7. 

On January 7, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an order recalling the mandate pending Ms. 

Sears’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 

4

In his appellate brief, Mr. Bottorff asserted a mootness argument, but he abandoned it during oral 

argument.
- 3 -

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction “depends on the nature of the cause 

of action and the relief sought.” Id. at 140. If a court’s subject matter jurisdiction is 

challenged, the first step is to “ascertain the nature or gravamen of the case.” Staats, 206 

S.W.3d at 542. Second, the court must “determine whether the Tennessee Constitution, 

the General Assembly, or the common law have conferred on it the power to adjudicate 

cases of that sort.” Id. A determination regarding the existence of subject matter 

jurisdiction presents a question of law that we review de novo without a presumption of 

correctness. Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436, 

446 (Tenn. 2012).

ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, we note that Ms. Sears is a pro se litigant. This court has 

stated the following principles about pro se litigants:

Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal 

treatment by the courts. The courts should take into account that many pro 

se litigants have no legal training and little familiarity with the judicial 

system. However, the courts must also be mindful of the boundary between 

fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. 

Thus, the courts must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the 

same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected 

to observe.

Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 62-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted); see 

also Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. Ct App. 2003). Additionally, we 

allow pro se litigants some latitude in preparing their briefs and endeavor to “give effect 

to the substance, rather than the form or terminology,” of their court filings. Young, 130 

S.W.3d at 63.

On appeal, Ms. Sears argues that both the general sessions court and the circuit 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this detainer action. Tennessee 

Code Annotated section 16-15-501(d)(1) provides that the general sessions courts “shall 

have unlimited original jurisdiction” to adjudicate “cases of forcible entry and detainer.” 

See also Fletcher Bright Co. v. Darr, No. 03A01-9308-CV-00277, 1994 WL 71211, at *2 

(Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 1994) (stating that Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-501(d)(1) gives the 

general sessions courts unlimited jurisdiction in cases involving unlawful detainer). 

Thus, the Tennessee General Assembly has conferred subject matter jurisdiction to 

general sessions courts to adjudicate detainer actions. Additionally, the General 

Assembly has conferred circuit courts with subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate 

appeals of decisions from general sessions courts in detainer actions. See Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 27-5-108(a)(1) (providing that “[a]ny party may appeal from a decision of the 

general sessions court to the circuit of the county within a period of ten (10) days on 
- 4 -

complying with this chapter”); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-128 (stating that “[a]n 

appeal will also lie in suits commenced before general sessions judges, under this chapter 

[i.e., forcible entry and detainer], within the ten (10) days allowed by § 27-5-108”). 

 

In contradiction of the foregoing statutes that specifically confer subject matter 

jurisdiction upon general sessions courts and circuit courts to adjudicate detainer actions 

such as the one at bar, Ms. Sears contends that the general sessions court and the circuit 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this detainer action because it is related to the 

chancery court’s decision discussed above. She argues that subject matter jurisdiction 

vested solely in this court to hear any matters related to the chancery court’s decision 

when she timely filed her notice of appeal in that case. 

Generally, the timely filing of a notice of appeal will divest a trial court of subject 

matter jurisdiction and vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. Waters v. Ray, No.

M2006-01453-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 2557360, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2008). 

The enforcement of judgments, however, is an exception to this principle. In accordance 

with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62, “judgments may continue to be enforced pending an appeal 

unless a stay is ordered by the trial court.” Underwood v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 782 

S.W.2d 175, 177 (Tenn. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Bazner v. Am. States Ins. 

Co., 820 S.W.2d 742 (Tenn. 1991); see also Clark v. Shoaf, 302 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tenn. 

Ct. App. 2008). Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 62.01 provides for an automatic 30-

day stay of a trial court’s judgment except in certain situations that are not applicable 

here. If an appellant wants to prevent enforcement of a judgment pending appeal after 

expiration of the automatic stay, he or she must obtain a stay by giving a bond. TENN. R.

CIV. P. 62.04; see also TENN. R. CIV. P. 62.05 (providing the bond requirements). 

The record on appeal shows that, following the expiration of the automatic stay of 

the chancery court’s April 16, 2017 judgment, Ms. Sears failed to obtain a stay pending 

appeal. Thus, the judgment became enforceable on May 15, 2017. It remained 

enforceable when Mr. Bottorff sought to enforce the judgment on November 13, 2017, by 

filing a detainer summons in the general sessions court and when Ms. Sears appealed to 

the circuit court. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court had subject 

matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this detainer action.

 

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, and this matter is remanded with 

costs of appeal assessed against the appellant, Anne A. Sears, for which execution may 

issue if necessary.

________________________________

 ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE