1

Flora Trentham died during the pendency o

her death being suggested, Fred Trentham, devise

was substituted as a party Defendant in her stea

FILED

March 10, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appe llate Court

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

AT KNOXVILLE

DOROTHY ANN ELLIS) SEVIER COUNTY

 )03A01-9806-CH-00204

Plaintiff-Appellant )

)

)

v . ) HON. TELFORD E. FORG

) CHANCELLOR

)

FLORA TRENTHAM, BUD )

TRENTHAM, and JANICE )

TRENTHAM )

)

Defendants-Appellees ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDE

DOROTHY ANN ELLIS, Pro Se

CYNTHIA RICHARDSON WYRICK OF SEVIERVIL

O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 

This suit was originated by Dorot

Flora Trentham, 1 Bud Trentham and Janice Trent

connection with the parties’ adjacent 

relief:
2

1 . That an injunction be issued a

defendants requiring them to remove 

the Old County Road and requiring t

dirt removed from the side of the h

the Old County Road by placing it i

it was in prior to removal of the d

2 . That this Court perfect an eas

plaintiff has obtained by prescript

County Road, thus providing the pla

to her property;

3 . That the defendants be ordered 

trespass on the plaintiff’s propert

required to remove all improvements 

defendant thereto;

4 . That the plaintiff be awarded 

unlawful trespass and the resulting 

plaintiff’s dwelling due to said tr

of the Old County Road;

5 . That, in the event that this C

perfect an easement by prescription 

an easement be granted to the plain

Tenn. Code Ann. 54-14-103, such eas

sufficient metes and bounds and ext

County Road as previously existing; 

6 . That this Court grant all othe

relief to which the plaintiff is en

the costs of this cause.

The Trial Court found in favor of 

recognizing that his determination res

property becoming landlocked, noted th

the provisions of Title 54, Chapter 14

right-of-way over the Defendants' prop

road.

The Chancellor entered an order p

of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Proced
3

determination and reserved the issue r

proceeding. 

Thereafter, Ms. Ellis filed a pet

condemn a right-of-way pursuant to T.C

The case was thereupon continued 

until it was set for trial on February 

date Ms. Ellis filed a motion seeking 

her ill health and to permit her to ob

Chancellor allowed her 30 days to reta

45 days--which included the 30 days--t

trial. He thereupon set the case to b

and advised that "no further delays wi

On the date of trial Ms. Ellis ap

the Court that she had not retained co

mentally nor physically ready to proce

Chancellor thereupon dismissed the act

her.

Ms. Ellis appeals raising the fol

1 . Did the Trial Court err in dismis

because I cannot afford legal couns

$125 per hour for two attorneys for 

still do not have access to my prop

able to stop the encroachment on to 

property. I am attempting to find 

finish this case contingent on coll
4

the people responsible for damaging 

blocking my access.

2 . Did the Trial Court err in chargi

Court Costs in this Action when Cha

Rainwater approved and signed my Un

Affidavit of Indigency on March 24, 

proceeded as indigent in the last m

County Chancery Court. The Notice 

certified by Sevier County Clerk an

McMahan on August 11, 1998, also sh

As to the first issue, there is a 

dated February 24, 1998, which accompa

Ellis dated March 2, both of which wer

doctor’s statement, which appears to b

hearing date, states the following:

February 24, 1998

To: Judge Forgety

Re: Dorothy Ellis

Dear Sir,

Please be advised that Ms. Dorothy 

extremely ill over the past week an

office for treatment. Ms. Ellis ha

emergency room due to chest pain.

Respectfully,

/s/ Frank H. McNiel, M.D.

Frank H. McNiel, M.D.

No doctor’s report was filed as t

date.
5

As to matters of a continuance, t

granted wide discretion. Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc. , 952 S.W.2d

413 (Tenn.1997); Turtle Creek Apartments v. Po

, 958 S.W.2d 7

(Tenn.App.1997). We cannot find under 

which does not include a transcript of 

Chancellor on April 21, that an abuse 

shown.

As to the second issue, the statu

to proceed i nforma puperis elieves them from the 

making a bond for court costs, but doe

being onerated with court costs if adj

and justified by the record.

The Defendants raise an issue ask

be found to be frivolous and that dama

T.C.A. 27-1-122.

Recognizing that lay persons migh

that being granted pauper status would 

of court costs, we are disinclined to 

with attorney fees for counsel for the 

Finally, we observe, as conceded 

Defendants, that the resolution of the 

to the private condemnation feature of 
6

the merits and Ms. Ellis is still free

precluded-- to pursue this facet of he

For the foregoing reasons the jud

Court is affirmed and the cause remand

below. Costs of appeal are adjudged a

_______________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

 (Not Participating) 

Don T. McMurray, J.