### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON JA N U A RY22, 200 8 S es sio n BEVERL Y J. FARMER v. FI RST TE NNESSEE BANK, N.A., ET AL 

### .

Direc t Appeal fromthe Chancer y Court for Shelb y County No. CH-04-1740- 2 Arnold Gold in, Chan cellor

No. W2006-02016-C OA-R3-C V - Filed May 20, 2008

This appea l involves concurr ent finding s of a spe cial master and a trial court. The bank for eclose d on proper ty and the owne r filed suit , al l egi n g wrong ful fore closure. T he cha ncellor r efe rre d the matter to a spe cial master

for the de termination of two fac tual issues. The spec ial master f ound that the ac count in question was in ar rea rs at the time of the fore closure, and that no pay ments wer e made that wer e not prope rly

cre di t ed to the acc ount. The cha ncellor a dopted the finding s of the spec ial ma ste r a nd g ra nte d th e ba

nk ’s mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Th e owne r a

pp e a ls, and we a ff

ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the C hancery Court Affir med
A LA N E. H I G H ERS , J., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined, and W. F R ANK C RAW FORD , J., did not participate. Beverly J. Farme r, Memphs, TN, pr o s e R. Mark Glover , Chad D. Gra ddy, Memphis, TN, for A ppelleesR u le 1 0 (C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ). M emor andum O pi ni on. Th i s Co urt , w i t h t he concu r r ence of al l j ud ges 1 par t i ci pat i ng i n t he ca s e, m ay affi r m , r eve r s e or m odi 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 oul d ha ve no pr ec ede nt i al va l ue. W hen a case is d ec i ded by m em or andum opi ni on i t s hal l be d e sig n a te d “ M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ” , sh a ll n o t b e p u b lish e d , a n d sh a ll n o t b e c ited o r re lied o n fo r a n y re a so n in any u nrel at ed cas e. -2- M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 1
I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY

Be verly J . Fa rmer ( “Appe llant”) wa s one of se vera l heirs who rec eived from the e state of he r late fathe r, Essie J ackson, a house located in Me mphis. First Tenne ssee Ba nk (“F ir s tT en n essee” or “A ppellee” ) held a

mortg ag e on this proper

ty . The loan pa

y ment amount due to Fir st Tennessee eac h month was $221.60. After Mr. J ackson’ s death, the he irs continued makingpay ments on the loan, although t hey fell behind. First Tennesse e initiated the first for eclosure proce edingin J anuar y of 20 0 3

. M s
. F ar

me r ma d e p arti a l p ay

me n t, an d F ir s t T e nn e s s e e c h o s e n o t to p r o c e e d with the fo re cl o s u re. First Tenne ssee initiated the se cond for eclosure in J une of 2003. F irst Tennesse e likewise did not fore close on the home on this date , h o we v er , b ec ause “one of the heirs” ma de a partial pa y ment on J une 23, 2003.
The a ccount be came delinquent ag ain, and the third f orec losure wa s initiated in Ma rch of 2004. Acc ordingto First Tennessee, the acc ount was four months in arr ear s. The succ essor trustee of the prope rty , David Kirksc ey , a M em phis attorney , sent a letter to the heirs notifying the m that fo re c los ur e pr oc e e din g s w ou ld b e ini tiate d w ith in 3 0 day s unle ss the a c c ount wa s pai d in fu ll
. On J une 22, 2004, Mr. Kir

kscey sent another

let t er t o t h e heirs notifying the m that forec losure proce eding s had bee n initiated. The sale date was set for July 21, 2004, in order to g ive Ms. Fa rmer additional time to bring the acc ount curre nt. The sale w as then postponed a g ain until Au gu st 25, 2004, upon Ms. Far

mer’s r equest for

additional time. Accor ding to F irst Tennesse e, the a ccount rema ined t h ree months overdue, a nd the sale pr ocee ded on August 25. Notice of the sa le was published on three se parate occ asions. First Te nnessee p u rcha sed the prope rty at the auc tion for $10,000.
Ms. Far mer filed suit in cha

ncer y co u rt o n August 27, 2004, alleg ing that First Tenne ssee wrong fully

fore closed on the pr operty . First Te nnessee filed a motion for summary judgme nt, which Chance llor Arnold B . Goldin denied. The chance ry court then ref err ed the matter to a spec ial master, Debor ah M. He nderson, to dete rmine whe ther ther e was evidenc e to suppor t Ms. Fa rmer’ s claim that sh e ha d ma de pay

men ts to F ir st T e nn e sse e that ha d n ot b e e n c re dit e d to the a c c ount, and a lso to deter mine whether

the ac count was in a

rre ars at the time of the for eclosure

. The spec ial master he ld a hea ringon October

18, 2005. Ms. Far

mer re prese nted her self. Th e c rux of Ms. F arm e r’ s argume nt w a s th at sh e ha d ma de pa y me nts that F ir st T e nn e sse e fa ile d to cre dit to her ac count. Specific ally , Ms. Far mer c laims that in August of 2003, she made advanc e-3-

pa y me nts fo r t

hr e e months , a

nd that ha d F ir st Te nn e sse e pr op e rl y c re dit e d th e se a dv anc e pa y me nts , then the ac count would not have be en in ar rea rs in August of 2004.
Mr. Kirksce y

handled the f

orec losure proc eeding s for F irst Tennesse e
. M r
. Kir k s c e y te s tified that at the first initiated for eclosure , Ms. F arme r brought his off ice a cashie r’s c heck in the a

mount of $1,490, and thus, F irst Tennesse e chose to not forec lose on the home. Of that pay ment, $790 went to First Tenne ssee, with the r emainder applied to t h e fo re clos ure c osts. Mr. Kirkscey had no knowledg e how F irst Tennesse e applied this $790 to Ms. Fa rmer’ s acc ount.
Mr. Kirksce y

testified conc erningthe sec ond initiated forec losure:
The next time this wa s turned over to me for fore closure was in J une of 2003, and w e we nt throug h the same pr ocedur e at that point . . . . [T] hat fore closure w as also ca ncelled. At that time, someone - - one of the he irs - - a

nd we don’ t know who - - on June the 23rd of 2003, the y pa id 2 21 do lla

rs and 60 c e nts to t

he ba nk

. [ A] lt ho ug h th at di d not co v er the fore closure c osts, the bank dec ided to canc el the fore closure, which I

did.
As to t he Au gus t 20 04 fo re c los ur e , M r. Ki rk sc e y te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: [T] he last for eclosure was orig inally set J uly the 21s t of 2004, and I have indications here that someone called and they said they neede d another 30 day s to tr

y to raise the mone y . And I talked to the bank, and we adjourne d the [ ] last fore closure from J uly the 21st of 2004 - - [ ] to Au gus t 25 th o f 2 00 4, g ivi ng an add iti on a l 34 da y s to tr y to bringup - - you know, to bringit curre nt.

. . . And it was not brought c urre nt, a nd we went ahea d with the sale on August 25th of 2004.
First Te nnessee purcha sed the prope rty , as no other individuals at the a uction made a

bid.
Ms. F arm e r a c kn ow le dg e d that sh e ma de no pa y me nts fr om Jul y

21 to Augus t 25 , th e date of the for eclosure :

T H E JU D G E : [M]r

. K ir k s c e y c o n tinued [t he fore closure] until Au gus t 25 th s o that s ome pa y me nts c o u l d b e m a d e
. N o w , my qu e s t i o nis: Be tween July

21st of 2004 and August 25th of 2 0 0 4 , w e r e any

p ay me n ts ma d e , [ ] s p e c i f i c a l l y t o M r
. K i r

k s c e y? MS. FARMER: No.M s. Farm er m en t i o n s o n s ev eral oc casi o n s i n he r bri ef t h e “i nj u n ct i o n he ari n g , ” i n w h i ch s h e cl ai m s t h at M r. 2 K i r ksc ey gave a d i fferent ac coun t t han h i s t es t i m on y at t he s peci al m as t er ’ s hear i ng
. N o t r ans cr i pt w as t aken at t hat

“ inju n c tio n ” h e a rin g , n o r d id M s. F a rm e r fil e a sta te m e n t o f th e e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th is h e a rin g
. See gener al l y In re M
. L. D. , 182 S. W

. 3d 890, 894 ( Tenn. Ct

. A pp. 2005) ( “[ A ] ppel l ant ha s t he dut y t o pr epa r e t he r ec or d w hi ch conve ys a f ai r , a cc ur at e, a nd c om pl et e ac count of w hat t r ans pi r ed i n t he t r i al c our t r ega r di ng t he i s s ues w hi ch f or m t he bas i s of th e a p p e a l.”) . T h u s, w e w ill n o t co n sid e r sta te m e n ts in h e r b rie f.

-4- T H E JU D G E : Okay

. No p ay ments were made to Mr. K i r k s c e y? MS. FARMER: No.
Ms. Far mer did testify

that on the morning of the fore closure, she attempted to meet Mr. Kirkscey and pay him the full a

mount due , but Mr

. Kirksce y was not in his of fice

. In any

event, Ms. F arme r’s argume nt wa s that pa

y me nts we re no t du e duri ng that ti me be c a us e sh e ma de “ a dv anc e ” pa y me nts i nAu gu s to f

2 0 0 3 , a l th o u g hs h e h a d

n o p r o o f o f th e s e a dv an c e p aym e n t s o th e r th anh e r t e s t i m o ny:
THE J UDGE: I s that your claim, Ms. Far mer, that you g ave Mr. Kirksce y

a ca shier’s c h eck that he has testified [at thi s hear ing that] he did not rec eive? M S

. F A RM E R : Th a t’ s my cla im, a ndthat w a s a lso his

testimony on September 29th, 2004. 2

. . . THE J UDGE: [Y] ou g ave that to him in August of 2003, but

you do not kn ow wher e you boug ht the cashie r’s c heck? MS. FARMER: No. THE J UDGE: You do n o th av e a co p y o f t h e ca shier’s chec k? MS. FARMER: No, no. T H E JU D G E : And y ou didn’t g et a r ec ei p t from Mr.

K i r k s c e y? MS. FARMER: Yes. It’s with the copy of my cashie r’s c heck. TH E JUD GE : Wel l, whe re is a ll o f t hat? M S. F A RM E R: I t’s - - I can’ t fi n d it

. I ’ v e lo o k e d

u p and down. I g ave it to my

sist er , wh o Ibelieve threw it aw ay
. Mr. Kirksce y

testified that the only

pay ment he re ceive d from Ms. Fa rmer w as the c ashier’ s chec k in the amount of $1,490, which he rec eived dur ing the first initiated fore closure pr ocee ding.M s. Farm er presents fi v e i ss u es i n he r bri ef. A l l i ss u es exce p t i ss u e fou r pert ai n t o t h e special m ast er’s 3

re p o rt. Issu e fo u r, w h ic h is n o t d isc u sse d a n y w h e re e lse , state s: “ W a s t h e P la in tiff’ s d e p riv a tio n o f th e rig h ts to D i s covery w i t h t he l egal r i gh t s t o t h e P r od uct i on of D ef endan t ’ s D ocum ent s t o i nspectan ac t t o con cea l evi dence?” W e w i l l no t ad d res s t h i s i ss u e. Si m i l arl y , va ri o u s co n st i t u t i o n al “catch ph ras es” are u sed t h rou g h o u t M s. Farm er’s bri ef, b u t n o c o n stitu tio n a l ar g u m e n ts a re p re se n te d , an d th u s, w e w ill n o t ad d re ss th e m
. See N ewc om b v

. Kohl er Co. , 222 S. W

. 3d 368, 400 ( Tenn. Ct

. A pp. 2006) ( “I t i s not t he funct i on of t he appe l l at e cour t t o r es ea r ch and cons t r uct t he p a rtie s’ a rg u m e n ts.” ). -5- The spec ial master f

ound that the mortg ag e wa s in arr ear s in the amount of $1,245.59 at the tim e of the fo re c los ur e , a

nd that Ms. F arm e r pr e se nte d no e vid e nc e that sh e ma de pa y me nts that F ir st Te nn e sse e fa ile d to c re dit to he r a c c ount. Th e sp e c ia l ma ste r’ s r e po rt re c omm e nd e d th at F ir st Tenne ssee should be a llowed to take possession of the proper ty

. Ms. Far mer filed a

n objection to the spec ial master’ s repor t on J uly 10, 2006. F ir st Te nn e sse e fi le d a

re sp on se to M s. F arm e r’ s obje c tio n an d als o f ile d a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. On Se pte mber 1 5, 20 06 , th e c ourt a do pte d th e sp e c ia l ma ste r’ s f ind ing s a nd g ra nte d F ir st Te nn e sse e ’s mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Th e c ha

nc e llo r’ s o rd e r s tate s in

re le va nt p art : The Court adopts the f

indings of the Special Master [.]

. . . The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to pr oduce a ny evidenc e t o s u p p o rth er al l ega t i o n th atth e S p ec i al M as t er ’s re p o rtan d fi n d i n gs should not be adopted in full by this Court. Additionally , this Court finds that the Plaintiff has p ro du ced no evidence to support her alleg ations asserte d in the Complaint. Specifica lly , this Court finds that First Te nnessee has prove n, throug h the introduction of evidenc e and af fidavit testimony , that there is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t in this case, and that the fore closure of Plaintiff’s home was not wrong ful as a matter of law

.

. . . This appea l timely

followed.
II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED
Ms. F arm e r p re se nts se ve ra l issu e s f or our r e vie w; ho we ve r, the on ly iss ue we ne e d a dd

re ss is whether the trial court e rre d in adopting the specia l master’ s repor t. First Te nnessee contends that 3 this a ppeal should be dismissed bec ause Ms. F arme r fa iled to comply with Rule 6 of the Rules ofFir st T en n ess ee p o i n t s o u t t h at M s. Farm er on l y ci t es t o t h e reco rd 3 t i m es t h rou g h o u t he r 14 pa g e b ri ef. 4 F irst T e n n e sse e c o m p la in s th a t M s. F a rm e r’ s A rg u m e n t se c tio n “ d o e s n o t t ra c k th e ‘sta te m e n t o f th e issu e s’ se c tio n in
a n y c o h e re n t w a y , d o e s n o t ap p e a r to e v e n a d d re ss o f a ll [s ic ] th e iss u e s ra ise d

. . . a n d d o e s n o t p ro v id e a n y sp e c ific fa c tu a l o r l e g a l a rg u m e n ts a s to w h y , b a se d o n th e e x istin g re c o rd , th e d e c isio n o f th e c o u rt b e lo w sh o u ld b e o v e rtu rn e d .” A s alrea d y st ated , w e w i l l o n l y ad d ress t h e m ain i ssu e o f t h e spe cial m aster’s rep o rt, as the o t h er issue s raised b y M s. F a rm e r a re n o t m e n tio n e d a g a in , n o r d o e s sh e su p p o rt th e m w ith a n y a u th o rity . W e d o n o t b e liev e th is a p p e a l sh o u ld b e d ism isse d , h o w e v e r, a s M s. F a rm e r is re p re se n tin g h e rs e lf a n d w e a re w ill in g to a ff o rd h e r so m e lee w a y
. -6- the Court of Appea ls a

nd Rule 27 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e. For the re asons 4 stated below, w e af

firm.
III
. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW When dealing with concur rent findings of a special master a nd chanc ellor, we g ener ally do not disturb such findings on appea l. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 1-113. “Aconcur rent findingof fa ct by a Master and a tr ial court is co n cl u s i v e o n appea l, except where the findingis on an issue not appropr iate for

ref err al, wher e it is based on an e rror of law or a mix ed question of f

act and law, or wher e the fac tual finding is not based on mater ial evidenc e.” Auss enberg v. Kram er , 944 S.W .2d 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Archer v . Archer , 907 S.W .2d 412, 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 95 ))

. Th e sta

nd ard of re vie w i s si mil ar t o th e sta nd ard e mpl oye d in

the re vie w o f a

jur y ve rd ic t: “we must affirm if ther e is any materia l e vidence to support the trial court’ s concur renc e.” Archer v. Archer , 907 S.W .2d 412, 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). We reviewa trial c ourt’s con cl usions of law under a de novo sta

nd ard up on the re c or d w ithno pr e sumpt ion of c or re c tne ss. Union C arbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 8 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 9 1 (T en n
. 1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g Estate of Adkins v. W hite Consol. Indus., Inc. , 788 S.W .2d 815, 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989))

.

IV. D I S CUS S I ON
As p reviously

discussed, the c hance ry

court re fer

red this ca se to the spec ial master f or the de te rm inatio n o f two fa c tua l issu e s: 1) wh e the r the a c c ount wa s in ar re ars at the tim e of

the Au gus t 20 04 fo re c los ur e , a

nd 2) wh e the r M s. F arm e r m a de pa y me nts that F ir st T e nn e sse e fa ile d to c re dit to the acc ount. The spec ial master f ound t h at t h e ac co u n t was in arr ear s and that Ms. Fa rmer’ s acc ount had bee n proper ly cre dited. Fr om the rec ord, we fin d t h at t hese f actua l findings a

re supported by materia l e vidence

. Other than her own testimony , Ms. F arme r offe red no proo f t hat she made any

pay ments to Mr. Kirksce y

that wer e not cr edited to her acc ount. The spec ial master specific ally

asked Ms. F arme r if she ha d any documentation, includinga copy of the a lleg ed c a sh ie r’ s che c k. Ms. F arm e r state d that she g ave the do c ume ntatio n to he r s ist e r, wh o thre w i t out. Mr

. K i r k s c e y t e s t i f i e d th atM s
. F ar

m e r d i d n o tg i v e h i ms u c ha

p ay m e n t , o r a ny o th e r p ay m e n ts be sid e s th e $1 ,4 90 c a sh ie r’ s c he c k f or the ini tia l f

or e c lo su re. As to t

he arr e ara g e amou

nt, Ms. Fa rmer pr esente d the spec ial master with a statement dated August 1 0, 2004, which showe d an arr ear ag e amount of $1,245.59. Thus, we f ind material e vidence in the rec ord to support the concur rent finding s of the spec ial master a nd the cha

ncellor.-7- V. C ONCL US I ON
We a ff ir m fo r the re a so ns state d he re in. Cos ts of thi s a pp e a l are taxed

to A pp e lla nt, B e ve rl y J

. F ar m e r , an d h e r s ur e ty, f o r w h i c he x e c ut i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ AL ANE. HI GH ERS , P. J. , W .S.