1 Ru le 10 (C our t of A ppe als). Mem orandum Opinion . –(b) The Co urt, with the concurr en ce of alljudges (con tinue d...) 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON ASSIG NED O N BRIE

FS DEC EMBER

6, 2001 SEARS, ROEBU CK AND CO. v. WILLIAM RILEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000892-01; The Honorable Rita L. Stotts, Judge

No. W2001-01981-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 16, 2002

Th is appeal a

rises fr om the fili ng of a

civil war rant by the Appellee ag ainst the A ppellant in th e General Sessions Court of Shelb y County . The Appellee alleged that the Appellant owed on an account in the amount of $3,345.56. The trial court entered a judg ment in fa vor of the Appellee. The Appellant appealed the judgment of t he general sessions court to the Circuit Court of Shelby Co un ty. The Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the Appellant stated that he did not oppose the motion for

summary judgmen t. The trial court entered an order g ranting summary

judgment in favor of the Appellee.
The Appellant appeal s the or der of the Circuit Court of Shelby County granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
A LAN E. H IGHERS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVID R. F ARMER , J., and H OLLY K IRBY L ILLARD , J., joined. William Riley, Memphis, TN, pro se Jason O. Young, Jr., Memphis, TN, for Appellee

OPINION 11 (.. .cont inued)

part ici pati ng in the ca se, may affi rm, reve rse or modify t he act ions of the tri al c ourt by memorandum opinion when a formal opi ni on wo uld have no pre cedent ial value . When a cas e is deci ded by memorandum opinion i t s hall be designate d “MEMORANDUM OP INI ON ,” sha ll not b e pu blishe d, an d sha ll not b e cited or relie d on for an y rea son in a subsequent unrel ated case

. -2- I. Facts and Procedural History
On August 14, 20 00, the Appe llee, Sears R oebuck & C o (“Sears”) , instituted a collection action against the Appellant, William Riley (“Mr . Riley”), by fi ling a civil warrant in the General Sessions Court of Shel by County. Sears entered a verified statement of a ccount, stating that Mr. Riley owed Sear s on an acc ount in the amount of $3,345.56. The hearing on the matter was scheduledfor October 24, 2000. On October 24, 2000, Mr. Riley appeared and

requested a trial on the matter. A trial date was scheduled for January 9, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Mr. Riley appeared and requested additional time to prepare for the trial. A t r ial date was scheduled for January 30, 2001. On Jan

uary 30, 2001, M

r. Riley appear ed and sta ted that he was not

prepar ed to procee d to trial. Mr. Riley failed

to file a sworn de nial nor d id he pre sent any

evidenc e to disput

e the val idity of his indebtedness. The general sessions court enter ed a judgment

for Sears based on the verified statement of account filed by

Sears. Mr. Riley appeale d the judgment of the general sessions court to the Circuit Court of Shelby County

. On May 29, 2001, Sears f

iled a motion for summary judgment. Sears alleged that Mr. Riley had presented no evidence to dispute the validity of his indebtedness nor had he filed anything in the record to dispute

the valid ity of his indebtedness. On July 13, 2001, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held. Mr. Riley stated a t the hearing that he did not oppose the motion for summary judgment . On Au gu st 14, 2001, the trial court entered an order g ranting summary judgment in favor of Sears. This appeal followed. II. Law and Analy sis The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court

erred by granting summary judgmen t in favor of Sears

. The standards governing an a ppellate court’s review of a trial court’s grant of summary judg ment are well settled in Tennessee. See Carvell v . Bottoms , 900 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995). Summary judg ment is to be rendered

by a trial cou rt “if the pleading s, deposit

ions, answers to interr

ogator ies, and a dmissions on

file, tog ether wi

th the affidavits, if any , show that there is no genu

ine is sue as to any

materia l fact and that the

moving pa

rty is entitle d to a judgment as a matter of law.” T ENN
. R. C IV
. P. 56.04. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court and the appellate court must consider the matte r in a lig ht most fav orable

to the nonmoving party a

nd must allow all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s fa

vor. See Carv ell , 900 S.W.2d at 26; By rd v. Hal l , 847 S.W.2d 208, 215 (Tenn. 1993).
The party see

king summary judg

ment bears the bur den o f demonstrating that no genuine issue of mat erial fact exists. See Bai n v. Wells , 936 S.W.2d 6 18, 622 (T enn. 1997 ); Downe n v .-3-

Allstate Ins. Co. , 811 S.W.2d 523, 524 (Tenn. 1991). Once the moving party satisfies that

burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set f orth specific facts establishing that there a r e disputed, mater ial fac ts creating a genuine issue to be r esolved by the trier

of fact. See Byr

d , 847 S.W.2d at 215. In appea ls from grants of summary judgment, the appellate court must decide whether the trial court correctly

appl ied Rule 56. See Hi ll v. Chatt anooga , 533 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975). The appellate court must make an entir ely fresh de terminat ion beca use only questions of law ar

e prese nted; no pr

esumption

of corr ectness accompanies the trial court’s decision. See id.
In the case

at b ar, Mr. Riley

failed to provide a

ny e vidence disputing

his indebt

edness to Sears or the validity of

the verified statement of account. Mr. Riley even stated at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment that he did not oppose the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Riley has raised no i ssues of l aw upon w hich to ove

rturn the motion for

summary judgmen t on appea

l. Accordingly , we affirm the trial court’s gra nt of summary judgme

nt in favor of Sears. III. Conclusion
For the foregoingreasons, the decisionof the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed agains t the Appellan t, William Rile y, a nd his sure

ty, for which executio n may issue if ne ce ss ar y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE