IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

CHRISTINE (GOMEZ) CHAMBERS v. SALOMON GOMEZ, JR.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Fayette County

No. 15965PP William C. Cole, Chancellor

________________________________

No. W2015-00799-COA-R3-CV – Filed December 23, 2015

_________________________________

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 

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

KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J.W.S., AND ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J.

Leah J. Roen, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Salomon Gomez, Jr.

Rachael Emily Putnam, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Christine Gomez Chambers.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that if multiple parties 

or multiple claims are involved in an action, any order that adjudicates fewer than all the 

claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not final or appealable. 

Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction over final 

orders. See Bayberry Assoc. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990). 

 

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designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and shall not be cited or 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.
Pursuant to the mandates of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate

Procedure, we reviewed the appellate record to determine if the Court has subject matter

jurisdiction to hear this matter. After this review, it appeared to the Court that it does not

have jurisdiction. Specifically, we could find nothing in the record reflecting that the trial

court adjudicated: 1) the claim for criminal contempt as to Defendant Angelice Gomez, asset 

forth in "Wife's Fifth Petition for Citation of Criminal and Civil Contempt and Motion to Set 

Aside Pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60", filed in the trial court on August 26, 2014; and, 2) the 

request that the Court set aside the portion of the parties' Final Decree of Divorce which 

awarded the parties' business and/or enjoin Appellant Salomon Gomez, Jr. from making 

transfers of the business, as set forth in "Wife's Fifth Petition for Citation of Criminal and 

Civil Contempt and Motion to Set Aside Pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60", filed in the trial 

court on August 26, 2014.

By Order entered on November 4, 2015, the Court entered an Order directing 

Appellant Salomon Gomez, Jr. to either obtain entry of a final judgment in the trial court or 

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to appeal an appealable order 

or judgment. Appellant filed a response to our Order on November 10, 2015. The Court 

directed Appellee Christine (Gomez) Chambers to file a response by Order entered on 

November 20, 2015. Appellee filed her response on November 30, 2015, wherein she 

requested that the Court dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee further 

requested that the Court grant her an award of appellate attorney fees.

It appears that the order appealed is not a final judgment. The trial court did not 

adjudicate the claim for criminal contempt as to Defendant Angelice Gomez. Moreover, the 

trial court did not adjudicate Appellee’s request to set aside the portion of the parties' Final

Decree of Divorce which awarded the parties' business and/or enjoin Appellant from making 

transfers of the business. Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this 

appeal and the appeal must be dismissed.

Conclusion

Because the trial court has not yet entered a final judgment, the appeal is dismissed 

without prejudice and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent 

with this Opinion. All requests for relief contained in Appellee’s response are respectfully 

denied. Should a new appeal be filed, the Clerk of this Court shall, upon request of either 

party, consolidate the record in this appeal with the record filed in the new appeal. Costs of 

this appeal are taxed to the appellant, Salomon Gomez, Jr., and the surety for which 

execution may issue if necessary.

PER CURIAM