### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs April 26, 201 0 JUD Y K . F LAKE v. S AM UEL GUY F LAKE D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r H a rd em a n C o u n ty N o. 16215 W i l l i am C . C ol e, C hancel l or

N o. W 2010- 00165- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M ay 24, 2010

T hi s i s an appeal fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s or der on A ppel l ant/ H us band’ s Pet i t i on forR el eas e of Funds. A ft er t he t r i al cour t ent er ed a Fi nal D ecr ee i n t hi s di vor ce a ct i on, the A ppel l antfi l ed a p e t i t i o n f

o rt h e r e l e a s e o f

h i s p o r t i o n o f

t h e f u n d s r e c e i v e d f

r o m t h e s a l e o f

t h e mar i t al hom e, w hi ch ar e cur r ent l y bei ng hel d by t he cl er k of t he t r i al cour t
. A ft era hea r i ng, t he t r i al cour tor der ed tha t o n ly p art of the moneym aybe r el eas ed. T he t r i al cour tor der ed t hatt he r emai nder be hel d unt i l t he concl us i on of a s epar at e t or tact i on fi l ed byper s ons notpar t i es t o t he di vor ce a ct i on, i n w hi ch A ppel l ant w as named a s a def endant

. Fi ndi ng t hatno fi nal j udgm entexi s t s i n t hi s act i on, t hi s C our tdi s m i s s es t he appe al forl ack of su bje ctm at t er ju ri s d ic tio n . Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3. A ppe al as of R i ght ; A ppeal D i s m i s s ed and C as e R em anded J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J
. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W
. S. , and D AV I D R. F ARMER , J
. , j oi ned. R onal d W

. K i m and W i l l i am A

. W oot en, C or dova, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , Sam uel G uy Fl ake. St ephen L. H al e, B ol i var , T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ee, J udyK
. Fl ake. OP I NI ON T hi s act i on began on J une 29, 2007, w hen A ppel l ee J udyK ayFl ake ( “M r s . Fl ake” ) fi l ed a compl ai nt for di vor ce agai ns t A ppel l ant Sam uel G uy Fl ake ( “M r . Fl ake” )

. M r s . Fl ake a lleg e d g ro u n d s o f

in a p p ro p ria te m a rital c o n d u c t, or in th e a ltern a tiv e irre c o n c ilab le d if f e re n c e s. M r. F lak e f

iled a n a n sw e r on Ju ly3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . P rio r to th e f ili n g o f th e c o m p lain t, M r . Fl ake w as ch arg ed w i t h r api ng hi s s t ep- gr anddaught er . O n A ugus t13, 2007, he pl ed gui l t yt o s exual bat t er yb y an aut hor i t yfi gur e. A tt he t i m e t he compl ai ntfordi vor ce w asThis Co urt no tes that Tennessee C ode Ann otated §21- 1- 108 was repealed in 2002
. 1 -2- fi l ed, t hr oughoutthe pr ocee di ngs , and pr es ent l y , M r . Fl ake w as i ncar cer at ed. I tappea r s fr om t he r ecor d t hatats om e p o int d u ri ng t he di vor ce pr ocee di ngs t he m arit al ho m e w as so ld. O n M ay1 6 , 2 0 0 8 M r. F lake fil ed a p eti ti o n w ith the tri al co u rt r eques t i ng t hatt he pr ocee ds fr om t he s al e of t he m ar i t al hom e be he l d i n t he es cr ow acc ount of t he cl os i ng at t orney . T he t ri al cour tent er ed a c ons entor deron M ay21, 2008, or der i ng that the pr ocee ds fr om t he s al e of the mar i t al hom e be he l d i n es cr ow byat t or ney , C har l es W ar dl ow . O n Sept ember 18, 2008, M r s . Fl ake fi l ed a mot i on t o t r ans fert he pr ocee ds fr om t he s al e of the mar i t al r es i dence i nt o t he r egi s t r yof t he cour t
. O n N ovember 5, 2008, t he t r i al cour t e n t e r e d a n o r d e ra war d i n g o n e - h a l f o f t h e p r o c e e d s f

r o m t h e s a l e o f

t h e ma r i t al h o m e to M rs. F lake

. T h e tr ial co u rt o rde red that M r. F lake ’s o n e-h alf b e h eld in the reg istry o f th e c o u rt u n til a tr ia l w a s h e ld o r a s e ttle m e n t r e a c h e d

. T he p arti es fi l ed a M ar i t al D i s s ol ut i on A gr eement( “M D A ”) on A pr i l 24, 2009. Pur s uantt o t hi s agr eement , t he par t i es agr eed thatM r . Fl ake w as ent i t l ed t o one- hal f of the pr ocee ds fr om t he s al e of the mar i t al hom e, w hi ch w as t hen bei ng hel d byt he t r i al cour t
. T he ag ree m entnot ed t hatM r s . Fl ake’ s one- hal f s har e had pr evi ous l ybeen di s bur s ed t o h er. A lth o u g h th e M D A w a s f iled o n A p ril 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , it w a s n o t ap p ro v e d b yth e trial c o u rt u n til M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 9 w h e n th e tr ia l c o u rt e n te re d a F in a l D e c re e o f D iv o rc e . O n M ay1, 2009, pr i ort o t he fi l i ng of t he Fi nal D ecr ee, A ppel l ees D ebor ah M

. D ool en and J ohn K

. D ool en ( col l ect i vel yt he “D ool ens ”) fi l ed an I nt er veni ng Pet i t i on forI nj unct i on. T he D ool ens r eques t ed, pur s uant t o T enn. C ode. A nn. § 21- 1- 108, t hatt he tr i al cour ti s s ue a n in ju n c tio n a g a in st th e a ss e ts o f M r. F lak e b e in g h e ld b y th e trial c o u rt, fre e z in g a ll as se ts curr ent l yhel d byt he cour t
. T he D ool ens s t at ed that they w er e t he par ent s of a c hi l d on 1 w hos e beha l f t heyhad fi l ed an i nt ent i onal t or tact i on agai ns tM r . Fl ake ( t he “D ool en l aw s ui t ”) in the C i r cui tC our tof H ar deman, C ount y , T ennes s ee. O n M ay21, 2009, t he D ool ens fi l ed an a m ended pe t i t i on. I n t he amended pet i t i on, t heyal l ege thatt he r i ght s of t he m i norchi l d w i l l be vi ol at ed and t he chi l d w i l l s uffe ri r r epar abl e harm i f r el i ef i s notgr ant ed.

M r . Fl ake f

i l ed a r es pons e t o t he pet i t i on and a pe t i t i on forr el eas e of f unds on J une 1 8 , 2 0 0 9
. He a d mi t s i n h i s r e s po ns e t h a tt h e Do o l e n s h a v e f i l e d a t o r ta c t i o n a g a i n s th i m. H ow ever , he r eques t s t hat t he t r i al cour t r el eas e t he funds bei ng hel d s o t hat he m ay payfor l egal r epr es ent at i on. A t t ache d t o hi s r es pons e, w as a l et t erfr om hi s at t or ney s et t i ng outt he fee arr angement
. T he l et t ers t at es t hatt he agr eement t o r epr es entM r . Fl ake i n “ce r t ai n l egal m att ers” is co n ti n g en t up o n the re lease o f f u n d s. A cc o rdin g to the let ter, M r. F lake ’s a tto rn e yre q u ire s a $ 5 ,0 0 0 n o n -re f u n d a b le re tain e r, a n d a n a d d iti o n a l $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 to b e h e ld in-3-

es cr ow forexpens es . Fur t her , t he l et t erp rov ides t hateac h t i m e t he es cr ow acc ountdr ops bel ow $6, 000, t he at t or ney w i l l pet i t i on t he t r i al cour tt o r el eas e an a ddi t i onal $10, 000 t o be pl ace d i n t he es cr ow acc ount
. T he l et t er defi ned t he scope of re pr es ent at i on as “s er vi ces for [M r . Fl ake’ s ] defe ns e i n t he ci vi l s ui t , D ool en v. Fl ake.

. . . ” H ow ever , t he l et t erexpl ai ns t hat this de scripti o n m ayn o t be a co m p let e li st of the w o rk to b e d o n e. O n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , M r. Fl ake f i l ed a r es pons e t o t he D ool ens amended pet i t i on. T hi s amended r es pons e i s i dent i cal to h is o ri g in a l r e s p o n s e . T he t r i al cour t hel d a hear i ng on N ovember 24, 2009. Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, t he t r i al cour tent er ed an “ O r deron Pet i t i on for R el eas e of Funds” on D ece m ber 8, 2009. T he or der stat es th at t h e C lerk a n d M aster is ho lding $ 6 5 , 9 9 1
. 2 8 o n b eh alf o f M r. F lake

. T h e tri al co u rt found t hat M r . Fl ake had ent er ed i nt o a fe e agr eementw i t h hi s at t or neyt o obt ai n l egal fee s forr epr es ent at i on i n t he l aw s ui t fi l ed byt he D ool ens . T he t r i al cour tor der ed t hat$5, 000 be r el e a s e d t o M r . Fl a k e ’ s a t t o r n e y f o r l e g a l f

e e s t o b e i n c u r r e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t he agr eement
. T he t r i al cour t or der ed t hat t he r emai nder of t he funds be hel d byt he C l er k and M a st e r b e “ a ttac h e d f

o r sa tisf a c tio n o f a n yju d g m e n t [ in th e D o o len ’ la w su it] p re se n tly p e n d in g in th e C ir c u it C o u rt o f H a rd e m a n C o u n ty, T e n n e s s e e a t B o liv a r.” O n J anua ry6, 2010, t he D ool ens fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. T he D ool ens s ubm i t t ed t hatM r . Fl ake i nt ended t o us e t he m oney r el eas ed t o appea l t he dec i s i on of t he t r i al cour t , i ns t ead of

us i ng i tforhi s defe ns e i n t he D ool en l aw s ui t
. T he D ool ens r eques t ed t hat t he t r i al cour t s et as i de i t s or der r el eas i ng funds , or i n t he al t ernat i ve, r es t r i ctt he us e of the fu n d s. “T h e T en n esse e R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re d o n o t auth o ri ze ‘m o ti o n s to rec o n side r. W e c o n s tr u e th is m o tio n to b e a m o tio n to a lte r o r a m e n d p u rs u a n t to T e n n . R
. C iv . P . 5 9 .0 4 .” McCr acken v. B r entw ood U ni ted Met

hodis t Church , 958 S. W
. 2d 792, n. 3 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e re co rd d o es n o t r ef lect t h at t h e tri al co u rtev er ruled o n the m o ti o n to rec o n side r. M r . F lake , ti m elyfi l ed not i ce of appea l on J anuary6, 2010. M r . Fl ake r ai s es t he f o l l o wi n g i s s u e f

o ro u rr e v i e w: W het hert he C hance r yC our tpr op erlydeci ded t he O r deron Pet i t i on fort he R el eas e of Funds pur s uant t o T
. C

. A

. §29- 6- 101 a n d r e l e v a n tT e n n e s s e e Ca s e l a w. M r . Fl ake r eques t s t hat t hi s C our t ent er an orde r r el eas i ng an addi t i onal $30, 000 of t he funds b e in g h e ld , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e f e e a rr a n g e m e n t b e tw e e n h im a n d h is a tto rn e y . A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, t hi s C our tent er ed on or deron A pr il 2 8, 2010, or der i ng M r . Fl ake t o obt ai n a fi nal ju d gm entort o s how caus e as t o w hyt hi s appea l s houl d notbe d ism issed fo r fa il u re to a p p ea l a fina l ord er. Sp ec ifi ca ll y , the o rde r st ated that this C o u rt-4-

cou l d n ot fi nd any t hing i n the re c o rd r efl ect i ng t hat the tr i al cou rtrul ed o n the D oo l ens’ pet i t i on t o i nt er vene. M or eover , t he t r i al cour t di d notas s es s cos t s i n t he or derappea l ed. I n r es p o n se t o t hi s C our t ’ s or der , t he t r i al cour tent er ed an or deron M ay12, 2010, gr ant i ng per m i s s i on t o fi l e an I nt er l ocut or yA ppeal

. T he orde r r eci t es t he hi s t or y of t he ca s e. H ow ever , i tdoes noti ndi cat e w het her t he t r i al cour t everadj udi cat ed t he D ool en’ s pet i t i on to interv en e a n d fo r in

jun cti o n , o r th e m o ti o n to rec o n side r, n o r do es itasse ss co sts. F u rt h er, t he or derdoes notcont ai n anyl anguage w hi ch w oul d m ake i t fi nal pur s uantt o R ul e 54. 02.

T he i s su es n o tw ith stan d ing , w e m u st fir st de term ine w h ethe r thi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e t hi s appea l

. T enn. R
. A pp. P. 1 3 (b). R u le 3( a) of t he Tennes s ee Rul es of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re d e f in e s a n a p p e a l as o f

rig h t f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t as f

o llo w s: I n ci vi l act i ons everyfi nal j udgm ent ent er ed by a t r i al cour tfr om w h ich a n a p p e a l li e s to th e S u p re m e C o u rt o r C o u rt o f A p p e a ls is a p p e a lab le a s o f rig h t. E x c e p t a s o th e rw ise p e rm itt e d in ru le 9 a n d in R u le 5 4 .0 2 T e n n e ss e e R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , if m ul t i pl e part i es orm ul t i pl e cl ai m s forr el i ef ar e i nvol ved i n an act i on, any or der t hat adj udi cat es few ert han al l t he cl ai m s ort he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of fe w ert han all t he part i es i s not e n f o r c e a b l e o r a p p e a l a b l e a n d i s s u b j e c tt o r e v i s i o n a ta n yt i me befo re ent ryof a f

i na l ju d g m ent adj ud i cat i ng al l t he clai m s, ri g h ts , a n d lia b iliti e s o f a ll p a rt ie s . T e n n . R . A p p . P
. 3 (a ). T h e p a rties h a v e n o t f iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r an in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l, and the or derappea l ed fr om t he t r i al cour t w as not m ade fi nal pur s uant t o R ul e 54. 02 of t he T ennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. C ons equent l y , w e m us t det er m i ne i f t he or derappea l ed w a s a f in a l ju d g m e n t. A fi nal j ud gm ent i s "one t hat r esol ves al l t he i ssues i n t he case, ' l eaving n othi ng el se for t he tr i al cou rtt o d o. ' " I n re E s tate of

Henders on , 121 S. W
. 3d 643, 645 ( T enn. 2003) ( q u o t i ng S tate ex r el

. McA l li s terv. G oode , 9 6 8 S

. W
. 2 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 0 (T en n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 )). A ny t r i al cour t or der t hat adj udi cat es few ert han al l t he cl ai m s ort he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of f e w e r th a n a ll th e p a rties is n o t f in a l o r a p p e a lab le a s o f rig h t. State ex r el

. G ar r is on v. Scobey , N o. W 2007- 02367- C 0A

- R 3- J V , 2008 W L 4648359, at*5 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. O ct
. 22, 2008)

. I f t he orde r appea l ed i s nota fi nal j udgm ent , t hi s C our tdoes nothave s ubj ectm at t er ju ri s d ic tio n to a d

ju d ic a te th e a p p e a l. Henders on , 121 S. W
. 3d at645. A s s tate d a b o v e , the trial c o u rt h a s n o t y e t ad ju d ica ted th e D o o len s’ p e tit io n to-5-

i nterven e and for i njunct i on , or t he m oti on t o recon si der, no r di d the t ri al cou rtasses s cost s. I nt er vent i on i s gover ned byT ennes s ee Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 24. A pet i t i onerm ay in ter v e n e a s o f

rig h t p u rsu a n t to R u le 2 4 .0 1 o r w ith p e rm iss io n o f th e c o u rt p u rsu a n t to R u le 24. 02. I n t hi s cas e, how ever , t he t r i al cour t never i s s ued an or deral l ow i ng ordi s al l ow i ng t he D oo l ens t o int ervene. T he tr i al cou rton l yi ssued an order on M r. F l ake’s p et i t i on for r el ease o f f u n d s. M o reo v er, th e tri a l c o u rt d id n o t ru le on the D o o lens ’ m o ti o n to rec o n side r. A ccor di ngl y , t her e i s no fi nal or deri n t hi s acti on. C ons equent l y , t hi s C our tdoes nothave su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n to ad jud icate this ap p ea l. T en n . R
. A p p . P
. 3 (a). T hi s appea l i s di s m i s s ed for l ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. C os t s of t hi s appea l a re a s s e s s e d a g a in s t th e A p p e lla n t, S a m u e l G u yF la k e , a n d h is s u re ty.

_________________________________ J
. S T E VE N S T AF F OR D, J UDGE