# IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE AT NASHVILL E Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Ju ly 30, 2 00 9

ANNE S. WI LSO N v. SCOT T BOW MAN

Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 06-1125-II Car ol L. McCoy, Chancellor

No. M2009- 01382-COA-R 10-CV - F iled Augu st 13, 2009

This application for a T en n

. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appea l conce rns how an appea ling party may use a t ri al co u rt ’s rec ording of a hear ing. We g rant the appellant’ s Rule 10 application. 1 

## Fur thermore
, we reve rse the chanc ellor’s J une 5, 2009 order and rema nd the matter for the chanc e llor to rule on appellee ’s objections and resolve the parties’ differ ence s as to the content of the transcr ipt or statement of

the evidenc e.

Tenn. R. App . P . 10 Extraordinary Appeal; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Re verse d and Rem anded

AN D Y 

## D. B E N N E T T 

## , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P A T R I C I A 

## J

. C O T T R E L L 

## , P.J ., M.S., joined. F R A N K 

## G. C L E M E N T 

## , J R 

## ., J ., filed a c oncurr ing opinion.

Thomas F. B loom, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Scott Bowman.

Claire M. Sawy er a

nd L ew Conner , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, A nne S. Wil son.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION 2

T h e T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 0 a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a n s w e r f u l l y s e t f

o r t h p a r t i e s ’ p o s i t i o n s a n d t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s

. 1

T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n t t o T e n n

. R

. A p p P

. 2
, w e s u s p e n d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 2 4
, 2 5 a n d 2 9 a n d f i n d o r a l

a r g u m e n t t o b e u n n e c e s s a r y P u r s u a n t t o T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 5 ( c )

. S e e H a m m o c k v

. S u m n e r C o

. , N o

. 0 1 A 0 1

- 9 7 1 0

- C V

0 0 6 0 0
, 1 9 9 7 W L 7 4 9 4 6 1 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. D e c

. 5 , 1 9 9 7 ) ( N o

. T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 1 a p p l i c a t i o n f i l e d

. )

T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. R

. 1 0 p r o v i d e s : 2

T h e C o u r t , w i t h t h e c o n c u r r e n c e o f a l l j u d g e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e c a s e , m a y a f f i r m , r e v e r s e , o r m o d i f y t h e

a c t i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t b y m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n w h e n a f o r m a l o p i n i o n w o u l d h a v e n o p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e

. W h e n a c a s e i s d e c i d e d b y m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n , i t s h a l l b e d e s i g n a t e d “ M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N , ” s h a l l n o t b e p u b l i s h e d
, a n d

s h a l l n o t b e c i t e d o r r e l i e d o n f o r a n y r e a s o n i n a n y u n r e l a t e d c a s e

.

## The appellant, Scott Bow man, has fi l ed an application for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10

extraordinary appea l from a ruling of the Davidson County Chance ry Court reg arding the transcr ipt of the underly

ing case being prepa

red for a Tenn. R. App. P. 3 appea l as of ri gh t

. T h is court has alre ady addre ssed the transc ript of this case thr ee times, twice g ranting extensions for the filing of the transcr ipt and once addre ssing a motion to dismiss for the filing of an incomplete transcr ipt. I n the last order , filed April 2, 2009, this court stated:

The appellant, just p rior to the Marc h 4, 2009 deadline, filed a transcr ipt prepa red from the CD rec ording s made by t h e t ri al court. Howeve r, the transcr ipt was incomplete beca

use the rec ording p ro v i ded to the court repor ter by the trial court consisted of only two disks when it should have consisted of three disks. The court repor ter has now obtained the missing disk an d s tands rea dy to complete the transcr ipt.

. . . We decline to dismiss the appea l based on the mistake co n ce rn i n g t h e CD

rec ording s of the proce eding s. I n order to allow the case to be decide d on its merits, the appe llant should be allowed a n opportunity

to corre ct the tra

nscript.

I t i s there fore order ed that the motion to dismiss be denied. The appellant shall have fi ft een (15) day s from the date this order is enter ed within which to file with the trial court cler

k a supplemental or amende d transcr ipt that will convey a fair,

acc urate and complete acc ount of what transpire d in the trial court with respe ct to the issues that are the basis of the appea l. Any questions conce rning whether the transcr ipt convey s such a fair, a ccur ate a nd complete a ccount sha ll be addre ssed to the trial court. I f a trans cr i p t of any nece ssary portion of the proce eding s is unavailable
, the t rial court may approve a st atement of the evi d en ce re g arding that portion.

On April 14, 2009, the appellant filed a C orre cted Transcr ipt and a Statement of t he Evidence for Minor Omissions in Transc ript and a Notice of I ssues to Which They P er t ain. Appellee filed a Motion to S trike the propose d corr ecte d transcr ipt and statement of the e vidence

.
The trial court g rante d the motion to strike and relied on Tenne ssee Supreme Court Rule 26, Davidson County L ocal Rule 8, and an o rder of the Chance ry Courts for the Twentieth J udicial District, dated April 10, 2007, prohibiting the cler k and master from filing and ce rt ify ing the

rec ording s as part of the rec ord on appea l. The chanc ellor further found, “that the J AVS rec ording s of the trial court proce eding s do not constitute a transc ri p t o r s t atement of the evidenc e or proce eding
, nor shall they be used on appea l as a t ra nscript or statement of the evidenc e or proce eding .”

The appellant filed an application for a Tenn. R. A pp. P. 10 appea l, w hich the appellee has vigor ously opposed. A Rule 10 appea l is discretionar y with the appellate court and may be g rante d “(1) if the lower court has so far depar ted from the acc epted and usual course of judicial proce eding s

-2-

## as to require immediate revie w, or (2) if nece ssary for complete deter mination of the action on appea l

as ot h erw ise provided in these rules.” Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a)

. The Advisory Commi ssion Comments to Rule 10 states that “[t] he circ umstances in w hich revie w is a vailable under this rule
, h o we ver, are very narr owly circ umscribed to those situations in which the trial court o r t h e intermediate appellate court has acte d in an arbitra ry fashion, or as may be nece ssary to permit complete appellate revie w on a later appea l.” Rule 10 appea ls lie wher e the ruling of the trial court repr esents a fundame ntal illega lity
, wher e the ruling constitutes a failure to proce ed acc ording to essential require ments of the law, wher e the action of trial judge was without leg al authority
, wher e the action of the trial judge constituted a plain and palpable abuse of discretion, or wher e either party has lost a rig ht or interest that may never be rec apture d. State v. W illoughby
, 594 S.W .2d 388, 392 (Tenn. 1980)

.

Tenne ssee Supre me Court Rule 26 applies to courts of rec ord “authorized by the Supreme Court of Tenne ssee to use videotape or CD-ROM equipment to rec ord court proce eding s.” The rule allows a CD-ROM re cording to be a “ transcr ipt” within the meaning of Tenn. R. A pp. P. 24 if the

rec ording is rec orded and maintained in acc ordanc e with t h e p ro ce d u res outlined in the rule. 3 

## Neither party arg ues that the rec ording of the chanc ery court hear ing complied with the proce dures of Rule 26. So the rec ording s themselves cannot be the transcr ipts require d by Tenn. R. App. P. 24. 4



## Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) states that if a “conte mporane ously rec orded, substantially verba tim

rec ital of t he evidence or proce edings is available
, the appellant shall have prepared a transcript

.

. . .” (empha sis added)

. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 26 does not say that rec ording s that do not meet the Rule 26 require ments cannot be used to prepa re a transcr ipt or a statement of the evidenc e. Even though t h e ch an ce ry court is not require d to make the rec ording s, it did. The rec ording s beca me publi c
re cords, and the appellant had a right of acc ess t o them and to use t hem t o the ex tent h e co u l d t o

5



## cre ate a transcr ipt or statement of the e vidence

. 6



## Simi larly
, Davidson County L ocal Rule 8 does not provide justification for the chanc ellor’s order . Rule 8(a) states:

T e n n

. S u p

. C t

. R u l e 2 6 i s a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t “ t h e c i r c u i t a n d c h a n c e r y c o u r t s d o n o t , a s a 3

g e n e r a l m a t t e r , m a k e a r e c o r d o f a l l t h e p r o c e e d i n g s w h i l e c o u r t i s i n s e s s i o n

. ” T r u s t y v

. R o b i n s o n , N o

. M 2 0 0 0

- 0 1 5 9 0

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 1 W L 9 6 0 4 3
, * 2 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. F e b

. 6
, 2 0 0 1 )

.

W e n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h i s c o u r t ’ s A p r i l 2
, 2 0 0 9 o r d e r i m p l i c i t l y a p p r o v e s o f a t r a n s c r i p t 4

p r e p a r e d f

r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r e c o r d i n g

.

T h e t e r m “ p u b l i c r e c o r d ” i n c l u d e s s o u n d r e c o r d i n g s m a d e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o f o f f i c i a l 5
b u s i n e s s b y a n y g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c y

. T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 1 0

- 7

- 5 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 )

.

U n d e r T e n n

. R

. A p p

. 2 4 ( c )
, t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t o p r e p a r e a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e i f n o s t e n o g r a p h i c r e p o r t , 6

s u b s t a n t i a l l y v e r b a t i m r e c i t a l o r t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o r p r o c e e d i n g s i s a v a i l a b l e

.


## -3-

## The Six th Circuit Court has been authorized by t h e S u p re m e Court to use audiovisual rec ord i n gs as the officia l rec ord of court proce eding s pursuant to Supreme Court R u l e 26. Unless order ed by the aff ecte d court, no other court will rec ord or utiliz e such audio -v i s u al rec ording s as the officia l rec ord on appea l, nor shall any court be require d to maintai n an exhibi t list and trial log with respe ct to an audiovisual rec ording

. The Clerk s o f C o u rt and Clerk & Master shall not file or cer tify such rec ording s, except from the Six th Circuit Court, as part of the rec ord on appea l unless direc ted to do so by the cour t from which the a

ppeal is take n.

No one arg ues that these rec ording s are the officia l rec ords of the court, and no one is try ing to have the rec ording s cer

tified or filed. J ust like Supreme Court Rule 26, L ocal Rule 8 does not say that the

rec ording s cannot be used to prepa re a transcr ipt or a statement of the evidenc e.
Finally
, we must examine the April 10, 2007 order of the Chance ry Courts for the Twentieth J udicial Dis trict, p ro h ibiting t he clerk and master from filing and cer tify ing the rec ording s as part of the rec ord on appea l. This order
, like Supreme Court Rule 26 and L ocal Rule 8, does not prohibit the use of the re co rd i n g s to prepa re a transcr ipt or statement of the evidenc e. I t mere ly say s the

rec ording s themselves cannot constitute or be used as transcr ipts and that the cler k and master cannot file or c ertify

the re cording s as par

t of the re cord on a

ppeal.

The appellant’ s Application for Ex traordina ry Appea l is g rante d beca use it is “nec essar

y to permit complete appellate revie w on a l at er appea l.” Tenn. R. App. P. 10, Advisory Comm’n Comments. We reve rse the chanc ellor’s J une 5, 2009 order and rema nd the matter for the chanc ellor to rule on appellee ’s objections and resolve the parties’ differ ence s as to the content of the transcr ipt or statement of

the evidenc e. Te nn. R. App. P. 24 (b), (c) , & ( e). 7



## Costs of this appea l are taxed to the appellee, f or which e x ecution may

issue.

___________________________________ ANDY D . BEN

NETT, JUDGE

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 2 4 ( e ) c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t , i n r e s o l v i n g s u c h d i s p u t e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l e v e n t u a l l y a p p r o v e 7

a t r a n s c r i p t o r s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t c o n v e y s a f a i r , a c c u r a t e a n d c o m p l e t e a c c o u n t o f w h a t o c c u r r e d i n t h e t r i a l

c o u r t

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d n o t d e c l i n e t o a p p r o v e a n y s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e r e b y l e a v e t h e a p p e l l a n t w i t h

a n i n a d e q u a t e r e c o r d t o p u r s u e t h e a p p e a l

. I f n e i t h e r p a r t y s u b m i t s a n a c c u r a t e t r a n s c r i p t o r s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t m a y p r e p a r e i t s o w n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e

.


## -4-