## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Febr uary 5, 200 4 S es sio n WEND ELL F REE LS andw ife, GWEN ETH F REE LS v. GU S W. CH ILTON

Direc t Appeal fromthe Circ uit Court for Morgan County No. 6165C Hon. Russell S im m ons, Circuit Judge

F ILED MARCH 8, 2004 No. E2003-01319-COA- R3-CV
Plaintiffs obtained two judgments in General Sessions Court. On appe al to Circuit Court the second judgment w a s v a c ate d f

or la c k o f j urisdic tio n. On

a pp e al w ea ff

ir m.
Te nn. R. App. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t heCi r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d.
H ER SCH EL 

### P I CKE N S 

### F RAN KS 

### , J
. delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES 

### D. S US ANO 

### , J R 

### ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL 

### S WINEY 

### , J ., joined.
Jame s F ra

nk Wils on , Wart

burg , T e nn e sse e , f

or Appe lla nts
. Wil liam A. Newc omb, Harriman, Tenne ssee, f or Appe llee.

OP IN ION

P laintif f s w ere aw ard ed a m o n etaryJ u d gm en t ag ain st d ef en d an t i n Se ssio n s C o u rt , a nd de f e nda nta ppe a l e d t o C i r c ui tCourt , whe r e t he Courtde c l a r e d the Jud g men tvo i d f orl a c k o f ju ris d ic tio n , an d d is m is s e d th e ca s e .

Pl a i nt i f f s ha ve a ppe a l e d t o thi s Courta nd t he s ol e i s s ue r a i s e d i s: “ whe t he rt he M or g a n Coun t yC i r c ui tCourte rr e d whe n i tdi s mi s s e d p l a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i ms a r i s i ng a f

t e rJa nua ry4, 20 00 wi t h p r e j udi c e , a f

t e rf i ndi ng t he f

i r s tGe ne r a l Se s s i ons CourtJud g m ent was f i na l a nd t he s e c ond G e n e ra l S e s s io n s C o u rt J u d gm e n t w a s v o id d u e to lac k o f ju ris d ic tio n b yth a t C o u rt.” The r e c or d s hows t ha tpl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a de t a i ne rwa rr a nta g a i ns tt he de f e nda nta nd a

### -2-

J u d gm e n tw a s e n t e r e d th e r e o n o n J a n u a ry 4 , 2 0 0 0 , gr a n t i n g p l a i n t i ffs p o s s e s s i o n o f th e i rp r o p e r t y, w it h a m o n etaryjud gm en t of $ 2 , 2 6 1
. 5 3
. A s the T ri al C o u rte x p laine d , n o o the r ac ti o n w as tak en in Session s C ou r tun t i l Feb ruary8, 20 00 w hen plai nti f f s ob t ai ned an execu t i on f r om t he C l er k, atw hich ti m e t he Jud g ment w as sa t i sf i ed. W hi l e no f

ur t her pr oce ss i ss ued, ther e w as a f ur t her hea ri n g in Gen e r a l Se s s i ons Courton De c e mbe r18 , 20 00 a nd Ja nua ry29 , 20 01, a nd a n Or de r was e nt e r e d o n Fe brua ry 15, s i g ne d by t he Judg e of t he Gen e r a l Se s s i ons Cour t , i ndi c a t i ng t ha tt he Ja nua ry4, 20 00 O r der had n ot been ap pealed and w as t hu s f i nal, bu t t he Co urt “r et ai ns j uri sdict i on ov ert he p ar t i es s ol e l yf ora nyi s s ue s whi ch m i g ht ari se as a r e s ul tof t he L e s s orbe i ng pl a c e d i n p os s e s s i on of t he r e nt a l pr ope r t yf

ort he be ne f

i tof t he L e s s e e . ” Pl a i nt i f

f s w e r e awa r de d a mone t a ryJud g men ti n the a m o u n t o f

$ 2 4 , 1 6 4 .1 9
. The de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue be f or e t he Tr i a l C ou r t w as whe t he rt he Ge ne r a l Se s s i ons C ou r t“had con t i nu i ng j uri sdict i on af t ert he f i r stt r i al ”, and t he J ud g e asked the at t orney s t o br i ef t hat issu e. Su b seq u en tl y , the C o u rtd eterm ine d that:

. . . t he docu m ents of

t he G eneral Sessi on s C ou r tand t he tes t i m on yof w i t nesses t hat t he judgm ent ent er ed bythe G eneral S essi on s C ou r to n J anu ary4 , 20 00 w as a f i nal j udg men t
. An e xe c ut i on was i s s ue d on t hi s f i na l j udg men t , a nd t he Gen e r a l Se s s i ons Cour ti n i t s O r de rf

i l e d Fe brua ry15 , 20 01 mad e a f i ndi ng t ha tt he “ Ja nua ry4, 20 00 O rd e r h a s n o t b e e n ap p e a le d f ro m an d is fin a l. The Courtha s f

ound n o st a tut e ora ppe l l a t e de c i s i on whi c h g r a nt s t o a G eneral Sessi on s C ou r ta con t i nu i ng jur i sdict i on o ver a case af t era decisi on has been m a d e an d th e tim e f

o r ap p e a l h a s lap s e d , . . . Th e C ou r t f

i nd s t hat t he f

i r stj ud g m ent of

t he G eneral Sessi on s C ou r tdated J anu ary4, 20 00 w as a f i nal j ud g m ent and thataf t ert he ten ( 10 ) day s t o ap peal had exp i r ed the G eneral Sessi on s C ou r thad no juri sdict i on to t rythe case ag ai n an d en t er a sec on d jud g m ent. The secon d jud g m ent of t he G eneral Sessi on s C ou r tf i l ed Feb ruary15 , 20 01 w as a nu l l i t y . Orders enter ed b ya t r i al cou r taf t eri tl oses jurisd icti o n are nu ll it ies. ( C it ation s o m it ted ). O n ap p eal, p laintif

f s ap p aren tl y d o n o t qu estio n the co rr ectn ess o f the T ri al C o u rt ’s decisio n , b u t a rgu e that the T r i al C ou r tsho uld n ot have d i sm i ssed t he case w i t h “p r ej ud i ce”. D ef en d an t i n h is b ri ef

p o ints o u t th at t h e T ri al C o u rtm ad e n o r ef eren ce to “p rejud ice” w h en it dism i ssed plai nti f

f s’ case . W hi l e t he Tr i a l Court ’ s a c t i ons c ons t i tut e d a n i nvol unt a rydi s mi s s a l , Te nn. R. Ci v. P. 41
. 02 ( 3) st at es:

( 3) U nless the co urti n it s orderf or dis m i ssal other w i se speci f i es, a dism i ssal un der t hi s su bd i vi s i on a nd a nydi s mi s s a l no tpr ovi de d f ori n thi s Rul e 41 , othe rt ha n a d ism issal f

o r lack o f jurisd icti o n o r f

o r im p rop er ve n u e o r f

o r lack o f a n ind isp en sab le p a rty , o p e ra te s as an ad ju d ic a tio n u p o n th e m e rits

. (E m p h a s is ad d e d ).

### -3-

D ism issals o n jurisd icti o n al grou n d s are n o t o n th e m erit s b eca u se th eyd o n o t con clu d e the r ig h ts o f ac tio n . S ee Ro u d le v. L yle , 6 8 2 S.W
. 2 d 2 1 9 ( T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); W. R. Gr ol l e tCo. v . Ta y l or , 398 S. W
. 2d 81 ( Te nn. Ct
. App. 19 65) , Te nn. Code Ann. § 28- 1- 105. Th e Tr i al C ou r t ’ s J ud g m ent w as no tan adjud i cat i on up on t he m er i t s, because h e speci f i cal l yst at ed th a t h e w a s d is m is s in g th e ac tio n f o r “la c k o f

ju ris d ic tio n .” Acc or di ng l y , we a f

f i r m t he Jud g men tof

t he Tr i a l Court , de nyt he r e que s tt hat t he a ppe a l be decl a r e d f

r i vol ous , a nd a dj udg e t he c os ta g a i ns tt he a ppe l l a nt s W e nde l l Fr e e l s a nd G w eneth Freel s.



### _________________________ H ER SCH EL 

### P I CKE N S 

### F RAN KS 

### , J.