IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

May 8, 2017 Session

IN RE HAILEY K., ET AL.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Knox County

No. 152626 Timothy E. Irwin, Judge

No. E2017-00397-COA-R3-PT

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The Trial Court Judge announced a ruling 

from the bench at the conclusion of the final hearing below and then subsequently entered a 

written order vacating the oral ruling. The order vacating the oral ruling contemplates 

further proceedings in the Trial Court. Because there is no final written order terminating 

the parental rights of the appellant, Shanna K., to her children, we have no jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., AND JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J.

Shanna K., Knoxville, Tennessee, appellant, pro se. 

Herbert Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, and Kathryn A. Baker, Assistant 

Attorney General, General Civil Division, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, 

Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

James E. Corcoran, III, Knoxville, Tennessee, Guardian Ad Litem.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 

1Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, 

may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by 

memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no 

precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it 

shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be 

published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any 

unrelated case.

05/16/2017
After being advised by the Trial Court Clerk of the order granting the parties a new 

trial, this Court directed the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the lack of a final judgment. The appellant 

has filed no response to the show cause order.

“A final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else 

for the trial court to do.’ ” In Re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) 

(quoting State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). 

“[A]ny order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer 

than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time 

before entry of a final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all 

parties.” Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Because there is no order in this case resolving any of the 

claims at issue between the parties, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to 

adjudicate this appeal. See Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990) 

(“Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by statute, 

appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only.”). 

 

Because there is no final judgment in this case, we lack jurisdiction to consider the 

appeal. This appeal is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Shanna K., for 

which execution may issue if necessary. 

PER CURIAM