R u l e 1 0 o f t h e R u l es o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p ea l s o f T en n esse e p ro v i d es: 1

T h i s C o u rt , w i t h t h e co n cu rr en ce o f al l j u d g es p art i ci p at i n g i n t h e case, m ay affi rm , reve rs e o r m o d i fy t he ac t i ons of

t he t r i al c our t by m em or andum opi ni on w hen a f or m al opi ni on w o u l d ha ve no prec edent i al val ue. W hen a cas e i s deci ded b y m em orandum opi ni on i t s h all b e des i gn at ed “M EM O RA N D U M O PI N IO N ”, sh al l not be publ i s hed, a nd s hal l not be c i t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny
r eas on i n any unrel at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON N ove mb er

17, 200 9 S es sio n
GEO RGE SANDERS, I ndi vi dua ll y a nd d/b/ a S MS CONTRACTO RS, INC.,

ET AL 

### . v. DR. SAMMY HOLL OW AY, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelb y County No. CH-05-0577 A rnold B . Goldi n, Chan cellor

No. W2008-02566-C OA-R3-C V - Filed Dec ember 9, 2009

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; App e al D ism iss e d

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined.

S t acy Alane Clinton and Addie Burks, Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llant, Breath of Lif e Christian Church.

Ge or ge D. Mc Cr ary , Bartle tt, Te nn e sse e , for the Ap pe lle e , Ge or ge Sa nd e rs , I nd ivi du a lly a ndd/b /a SMS Contractors, I nc.
Elizabe th B. S tengel and Jose ph T. Getz , Memphis, Tennesse e, for the Appellee , Bricks, Inc.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

Th is l aws uit

wa s c omm e nc e d b y Pla int if f/Ap pe lle e Ge or g e Sand e rs , ind ivi du a lly and d/b /a SMS Contractors, I nc., (“SMS”; collectively , Mr. S ander s) as an action to enfor ce a m echa nics and
mate ri a lme n’ s li e n f

ile d in the Cha nc e ry Court fo r S he lby

County in M arc h 2 00 5. In h is c omp la int , Mr. Sander s named as Def endants Dr. Sammy

Holloway

(Dr. H olloway

); Br eath of

L ife Christian-2-

Churc h ( “ the Churc h” ); Natio na l B ank of Com me rc e (“NB C” ); and B ri c ks , Inc . ( “ B ri c ks ” ). In Apr il 20 05 , th e Churc h a

ns we re d a nd fi le d a c ounte r- c la im a g a ins t Mr . San de rs and a c ro ss- c la im a g a ins t Br icks. Mr. Sander s answer ed the Churc h’s counter -cla im in J une 2005. B ri cks answere d Mr. Sanders’ complaint and the Churc h’s cr oss-claim in J une 2005. In J une 2005, B ricks also counter

claimed a g ainst Mr. Sanders, a nd filed a c ross-cla im ag ainst the Church. Mr. Sanders answe red Br ick’s counte r-c omplaint on J une 30, 2005; the Church a nswere d Br ick’s cross-claim on J uly 15, 2005. Followingconsidera ble discover

y and protra cted pr ocee dings in the trial court, the trial c ourt issue d fi n d i n gs o f fac t and conc lusions of law in the matter on Oc tober 10, 2008. The trial court found that, on or a

bout September 24, 2003, the Churc h and B ricks ente red into a g ener al contra ct wh er ei n Bricks ag ree d to serve a s the g ener al contra ctor for the completion of c onstruction of a worship ce nter pre viously begun by another contra ctor; that the terms and provisions of the c ontrac t spoke for themselves; that B ricks re tained Mr. Sande rs to serve as the proj ec t m anage r with the approva l of the Church; that SMS Contrac tors did w ork direc tly for the Church in the ca pacity of a subcontrac tor; that Br icks was entitl ed to a perce ntag e of the profit on work done by SMS pursuant to Bric ks’ contra ct with the Church; that the Churc h did not perfor m its admini strative duties in a timely manner , causing delay s; that Br icks was owed $908,868.53 under the contra ct, not including amounts due under

a cost a ddendum t o t h e co n t ract which wa s ref err ed to a spe cial master ; that Br icks was e ntitled to re ceive an 11% “ commission” on increa sed and/or a dditional costs for any pa rt ic ula r l ine ite m and

on the va lue of

e xtra wo rk on the pr oje c t; and that B ri c ks pe rf or me d f ull y and prope rly and was owed the contra ct balance of $908,868.68, plus interest in t he amount of 2.5% from January

2005. In its findings, the trial c ourt ref err ed the c alculation of amounts owed to Br icks under the cost adde ndum and amounts due to Mr. Sande rs or SMS to a special master

.
In its conclusions of law, the tria l court found that Dr. Holloway had ex ecute d the contra ct on behalf of the Churc h in his capac ity as pre sident of the non-pr ofit corpor ation. The c ourt dismiss ed with pre

judice the c laims ag ainst Dr. Holloway in his persona l capa city . The trial c ourt held that the C hurch had materia lly brea ched the contra ct with Br icks, and re lieved B ricks fr om any obligation to complete the projec t within the tim e spec ified in the contra ct. The court c oncluded that the Church wa s not e ntitled to any set-off s or deduc tions from amounts owed to B ricks. The trial court dismissed the claims of Mr. Sanders in his individual c apac ity and dismissed the mecha nics
and mate ri a lme n’ s li e n “ fi le d in su pp or t” of his “ c la ims fo r a dd iti on a l c omp e ns a tio n o r p ro fi t a g a ins t the Church unde r the [ c]ontract”. The court found t hat S MS was entitl ed to present to the specia l master its claims for la

bor and material provide d to the Chu rc h i n its capac ity as a subc ontrac tor. The trial c ourt also held that t h e C h u rch ha d failed to de monstrate its alleg ations of fra ud,
conver sion, breac h of contra ct, or violatio n o f th e T e nn e s s e e Co n sumer Protec tion Act ag ainst Br icks
o r M r

. S an d e r s

. T h e tr i a l c o urth e l d th a t th e c o n tr a c t d i d n o t p r o v i d e d f o r th e p aym e n to f

a t t o r n e ys fee s, and re serve d the awa rd of discr etionary

costs pendingthe conc lusion of matters re fer red to the specia l master.

In November

2008, Br icks filed a motion moving the court to en t er judgment in its favor. On De c e mbe r 8 , 2 00 8. Th e tr ial c ourt e nte re d a

n o rd e r o f j ud g me nt i n f avo r o f B ri c ks . In it s-3-

Dec ember

order the trial court held that Br icks was entitled to judg ment ag ainst the Church in the amount of $908,868.68, plus interest at the r ate of 2.5% ac cruingfrom January 1, 2005, until paid. The trial c ourt order ed costs to be pa id by the Church. The Churc h filed a timely notice of a

ppeal to this C ourt. Additionally , SMS , Br icks and the Church have s ubmitted position statements to the specia l master. The specia l master had not c oncluded his re port as of N ovember 17, 2009, when the
matte r w a s h e ard

by thi s Co ur t.

Issues Presented

The Churc h prese nts the following issues, a s we slig htly rew ord them, for

our re view: ( 1 ) W h e th e r

th e tr i a l c o urte r

r e d i ni t s e v i d e n t i ar

y r u l i n g s b y: A. Admitting pay

applications into evidenc e B. Ex cluding testimony of the Churc h’s witnesses (2) Whether the trial c ourt err ed by limit ing issues at trial to “a b o v e t h e li ne” items and ref

err ing “ below the line” items to a special maste r. (3) Whether the trial c ourt err ed in its interpretation of the contra ct and
c a lc ulatio n o f d ama g e s. (4 ) Whe the r t he tria l c ourt e rr e d in de te rm ini ngtha

t th e Churc h mate ri a lly br e a c he d th e c on tr a c t.

Discussion

As an initial matter, although ne ither par ty to this l awsuit has ra ised the issue of whe ther the order appea led is a final judg ment, we must revie w the re cord sua sponte to determine whether we have jur isdiction t o ad

j u dicate this appe al. E.g., State ex rel Garrison v. Scobe y , No. W2007-02367-COA-R3-JV, 2008 WL 4648359, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2008)( no perm. app. filed ); Tenn. R.App. P. 13(b).

Rul e 3( a ) o f t

he Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f A

pp e llate Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art :

In civil actions eve ry

final judg ment enter ed by a trial court from which a n appea l lies to the Supreme Court o r C ourt of Appe als is appea lable as of rig ht. Ex cept a s otherwise pe rmitted in rule 9 and in Rule 54.02 Tenne ssee Rul es of Civil Procedur e, if multipl e par

ties o r m u l t i ple claims for relief are involved in an ac tion, any order that a dju dic a te s f

e we r t ha n a ll the c la ims or the ri g hts a nd lia bil iti e s of f

e we r t ha n a ll the pa rt ie s is no t e nf

or c e a ble or a pp e a la ble and is su bj ect to r e vis ion a t any tim e befor e entr

y of a final judgme nt a djudicating all the claims, rig hts, a nd liabiliti es of
a ll p art ie s.-4-

Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3 (a ). Un de r c e rt a in c ir c ums tances , a jud g me nt whic h a dju dic a te s f e we r t ha n a ll of the c laims asserted by

the par ties may be made final and appea lable pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tenne ssee Rul es of Civil Procedur e. I n order to enter judgme nt under Rule 54.02, howe ver, the trial court must make an expli cit finding that there is “no jus t rea son for delay ” and must expressly direc t that a fina l judgment be enter ed. In the abse nce of an orde r mee ting the require ments of Rule 54.02, any trial court or der that adju d i cate s fewe r than a ll the claims or the rig hts and liabiliti es of f ewe r tha n a ll the pa

rt ie s is no t fi na l or a

pp e a la ble a s of ri g ht. E.g., State ex

rel Garrison v. Scobe

y , WL 4648359, at *5.
Upon re view of the re co rd in this case, we have de termined that ther e has not be en a f inal judgme nt entere d in this case. Rea ding the trial co u rt ’s finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law toge ther with its order of

judgme nt in favor of Br icks, we f ind that trial court has not disposed of Mr

. Sanders’ claims ag ainst Br icks, Br icks’ counte r-c laims ag ainst Mr. Sanders/SMS, or the Church’s claim of ne g lige nt supervisio n aga i nst Bric ks. Furthe r, although the par ties assert the tr ial court ent eredsu mm ary

ju dgmen t in favo r of NBC , t here is no ord er di sp os in g of t he cl aim s agai ns t N BC in the rec ord bef

ore us.
Addition al l y , t he trial c ourt’s judg ment is not final where the amount of damag es has not be e n f ull y and fi nal ly

de te rm ine d. As no te d a bo ve , th e amou

nt o f d ama g e s to wh ic h B ri c ks is entitled under the cost addendum portion of the contra ct has been ref err ed to a spec ial master. The de te rm inatio n o f a

mou nts du e SMS i n it s c a

pa c ity a s a su bc on tr a c tor

lik e wi se ha s b e e n r e fe rr e d to a spec ial master. The specia l master has not yet made his de terminations. The order of judg ment enter ed by

the trial court in f

avor of Br icks in D ece mber 2008 was not ente red a s a final judg ment pursuant to Tenne ssee Rule of Civil Procedur e 54.02, and, inde ed, would not be a ppropriate for a Rule 54.02 desig nation.

In li g ht o f t

he fo re g oin g , w e do no t hav e jur isd ic tio n to a dju dic a te the iss ue s r a ise d o n a pp e a l. This appea l is dism issed for f ailure to appeal a final j udg ment. Costs of t his appea l are taxed to the Ap pe lla nt, B re ath o f L if

e Chr ist ian Chur ch, and it s su re ty , f or wh ic h e xec uti on

may iss ue if
n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER , JUDGE