### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Marc h 25 , 200 4

ANNA FA YE FLOYD, ET AL 

### . v. J OHNNY TE SAR, ET AL 

### .
Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Sevier C ounty No. 01-2-065 Te lf

ord E. For gety, Jr ., Chancellor
F ILED MAY 25, 2004
No. E2004-00025-COA- R3-CV

An n a Fa y e F loy d, Michae l Evere tte Floy d, and Da vid Earl F loy d, minor children, by and throu gh their mother and natura l gua rdian Linda Fl o y d (“Plaintiffs”) , sued JohnnyTesar , Marse ll Tesar, J o b e y G r e e n , W i l b u r n G r e e n , a n d M art h a L e e ( “ D e f e n d a n t s ” ) t o q u i e tt i t l e t o l a n d i n S e v i e r C o u n t y, Tenne ssee. Af

ter a bench trial, the Trial Court held, inte r a lia , that the minor Plaintiffs are the true owner s of the land, and that Def endants JohnnyTesar

and Mar sell Tesar had committed fra ud upon the Plaintiffs, knowing ly

clouded Plaintiffs’ title, and tre spassed upon Plaintif fs’ land. TheTrial Court also awa

rded Plaintiffs dama g es and attorney ’s fe es aga i n s t Defe ndants J ohnny Tesar and Marse ll Te sar. Def

endants appea l but raise no specific issues on appea l and point to no error in the re c or d. We a ff

irm.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d; Case Re m anded

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., E. S. and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., joined.
J ohnny Tesar , Sevierville, Tenne ssee, pro se Ap pe llant. Marse ll Tesar, Mur fre esboro, Te nnessee , pro se Ap pe llant. Wil burn Gre en, Sevierville, Tennesse e, pro se Ap pe llant.
R. B. Hailey , Sevierville, Tenne ssee, for the Appellee s, Anna F ay e F loy d, Michae l Evere tte Floy d, David Ea rl Floy d, by

Linda Floy d, Mother and N atura l Guardia n, and Robert Croc ker.R ul e 10 of t he R ul es of

t he C our t of

Ap peal s provi des : “ T hi s Co ur t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e of al l j udges 1 p art i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af f i rm, r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i nio n when a formal opi ni on woul d hav e n o prece dent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s d eci ded by m emo r andum o pi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

‘ M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N , ’ s hal l not be publ i s hed, an d s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny u nr el at ed
cas e. ”
Jo b ey G reen died d uri ng t he p end ency o f t hi s sui t

. A n A d m i ni st rat o r Ad Li t e m was app o i nt ed t o represent 2 J o b e y G re e n ’s inte re st a t t ria l, b u t no a p p e a l wa s fil e d o n J o b e y G r e e n ’s b e h a lf . A lso , M a rth a L e e ha s c h o se n no t t o a p p e a l. -2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

Given the state of the brie fs filed in this matter and the rec ord, i t is difficult t o piece toge ther a rec itation of the facts in this case, let alone the issues on appe al. We even r ece ived a brief filed by a per son who is neither a named party to this sui t nor an amicus curiae . In a dd iti on , s ome of t he named Def

endants a re not involved in this appea l. Marse ll Tesar, a named De fendant, filed 2 an appe llate brief

, but voluntarily

chose not to appe ar at trial.
Plaintiffs sued Def

endants see king to quiet titl e to par cels of r eal pr operty in Sevier County , Tenne ssee totaling approximately eig hty -two ac res. P l ai ntiffs claimed, in pa rt, that Def endants e ng ag ed in an “ illega l, evil and ne fa ri o u s scheme ” to “stea l a part of the minor [P laintiffs’] land.”

The c ase pr ocee ded to a be nch trial a nd a F inal J udg ment was e ntere d Dec ember 17, 2003, holding, a s relevant to this appeal, that the minor Plaintiffs Anna F ay Floy d, Michae l Edward F loy d, a ndDa vidEa

rl F loy d a rethetrue ow ne rs o f thepr op e rty in q ue sti on ; th a t c e rt a in d e e ds to Def endants Marse ll Tesar and Martha L ee c oncerning the property in question are null and void; and that D e fe nd a nts John ny

Te sa r andMa rs e ll T e sa

r p ra c tic e d a

fr audup on themin or

Pla int if fs , kn ow ing ly

c lou de d Pl a int if

fs ’ t itl e , a ndtr e sp a sse d u po n Pl a int if fs ’ l a nd . T he Tri al Co urt a lso awa rded Plaintiffs nominal damag es in the amount of $100 for the trespass and attorney ’s fe es in the a mou nt o f $ 42 ,6 75 .0 0, a g a ins t John ny Te sa r andMa rs e ll T e sa r. De fe nd a nts app e a l to thi s Co urt.
O u r ab il ity to r e s o lv e th is ap p e a l is h a mp e r e d b y th e f a c t th a t D e f

e n d a n ts make no re fe re nc e to any

pa rt of there c or d w hic h th e y

c la im s ho ws a ny

e rr or by theTria l Co urt. D e fe nd a nts also failed to r aise a ny

specific issue and instead arg ue only that both the t rial and the Trial Court’s de c isi on we reun fair . N e ith e r d o a ny of thepa rt ie s, inc lud ing tho se re pr e se nte d by c ou ns e l, c ite to a ny le g a l auth ority

in s up po rt

of the ir po sit ion . O n a

pp e a l, “ [r]e vie w g e ne ra lly wi ll e xten d o nly

to tho se iss ue s pr e se nte d fo r re vie w. ” Te nn
. R. Ap p. P. 1 3. Ap pe llants , inthi s c a se theDe fe nd a nts , are require d to include in their brief, among other thi ng s, “[a] statement of the issues presente d for revie w” and an ar g ument “with citations to the authorities and appropriate ref ere nces to the rec ord . . . .” Te nn. R. App. P. 27 (a)(4) and (7)

.-3- As best we c an tell, Defenda nts object to the Tria l Court’s ultim ate c onclusion in the c a se
. Af te r a tho ro ug h re vie w o f the re c or d, we ho ld that th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t the Tria l Cou rt ’s fi nd ing s. As thee vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t th e Tria l Co urt’ s f ind ing s, and no er ror of law being shown or even arg ued, we aff irm the Trial Court’s Final J udg ment enter ed De c e mbe r 1 7, 20 03 , ina ll r e sp e c ts.

The judg ment of the Trial Court is affirmed, and this c ause is re manded to the Trial Cou rt fo r c oll e c tio n o f the c os ts b e low . T he c os ts o n a pp e a l are a sse sse d a g a ins t th e Ap pe lla nts , J ohnny Tesar and Mar sell Tesar , and their sur ety

.

___________________________________ D. MI CHAEL

SW INEY, JUDGE