### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON May 23, 200 7 S es sio n JO HN RUFF v. RALEI GH ASS EMBL Y OF GOD CHURCH, I NC.

Direc t Appeal fromthe Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. 37009-7 T.D. Donna M. F ields, Ju dge

No. W2006-01255-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jul y 23, 2007
On re mand purs ua nt t o T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d § 27 -3 -1 28 , th e tr ia l c ourt e nte re d ju dgme nt i n fa vo r o f D e fe nd ant w ithre sp e c t to Pla int if f’ s c la im f

or a ssa ult . We a ff

ir m. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t heCi r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., and H O LLY M. KI RBY , J ., joined. J ohn Ruff, Pro s e . Evan Na hmias, Memphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, Ra leigh Assembly of God Churc h, Inc. OP IN ION This is the fourth appea

ranc e of this case in this Court. This lawsuit commence d in J anuar y 1991, wh en P l ai ntiff/Appellant John Ruff ( Mr. Ruff) f iled an ac tion ag ainst Raleigh Assembly of God Church ( “the Churc h”) a lleg ing a ssault and batter y , false i mprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This lawsuit has had a le ng thy and complicated journey from the trial court to this Court and back aga in, the details of whic h are rec ited in Ru ff v . R ale igh Asse mb ly of God Church, Inc

. , No. W2001-02578-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL21729442 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2003), perm. app. de nied (Te n n. J an. 5, 2004). It curre ntly conce rns only

Mr. Ruff’s c laim for a ssa ult . F oll owin gthepr e vio us a pp e a l, o n July

14 , 2 00 3, we re ma

nd e d th is m atte r p ur su ant t o T e nn e s s e e Co d e Ann o tate d § 2 7

- 3

- 1 2 8 f

o r e ntr y o f a f in a l o r d e r o nM r . Ru ff’ s a s s a

u lt c la im

. We state d: In its J uly

12, 2001 judgme nt, the trial court mentions that Mr. Ruff f iled a complaint ag ainst the churc h for “ assault and battery , false imprisonment, intentional infli ction of emotional di stress and outra g eous conduc t.” L ater in the judgme nt, the trial court states that “no battery , false imprisonment, outra g eous conduc t or intent i onalW i t h r es pec t t o t h e t r i al cou r t ’ s f ai l u r e t o r u l e on t h e as s au l t c l ai m on t h e f i n al i t y of t h e j u dg men t , w e s t at ed: 1
In hi s f o urt h i ss ue, M r. R u ff

a rg u e s t hat t he t ri al co urt co m m i t t ed err o r when i t f ai l ed t o render a deci s i on on h i s as s aul t cl ai m. Rul e 3( a) of t he R ul es of

Ap pel l at e Procedur e pro vid es t hatf i nal ju d g m e n ts a re a p p e a la b le a s o f rig h t. See T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 (a ). T h e ru le go e s o n to p ro v id e tha t i f “mul t i p l e cl ai m s fo r r el i ef are i nvo l ved i n an act i o n, any ord er t hat ad judicat es f

ewer t han al l t he cl ai ms . . . i s not en f

orce abl e or appeal abl e a nd i s s ubj ectt o re vi s i on at an y t i me bef ore ent r y of

a f i nal ju d g m e n t.” T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 (a ). F ro m th e r e c o rd b e fo re us , i t ap p e a rs tha t t h e trial c o u rt faile d to r en der a de ci s i on on M r . Ruf f ’ s a s s au l t c l ai m. B ec au s e t h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s or der di d n ot r en der a de ci s i on o n the a ssa u lt c la im the re w a s n o fi n a l ju d g m e n t. O ur Supr eme Co ur t ha s r ecogn i zed t hat“ [ u] nl es s an ap peal f r om an i nt er l ocut ory o r der i s provi ded b y the rules or by s t at ut e, appel l at e c our t s ha ve j ur i s di ct i on over f i nal j udgment s onl y . ” B ayb erry As s oc s . v . Jones , 7 8 3 S
. W
. 2 d 55 3 , 55 9 (T enn. 1 9 9 0 ) ( ci t i ng A et na Ca s . & Sur. Co

. v. M i l l er , 491 S .W .2 d 8 5 ( T e n n .1 9 7 3 )) . R u le 2 o f th e T e n n e sse e R u le s o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , h o w e v e r, a llo w s this Cour t t o s u s pen d, f

or g ood c au s e, “ t h e r equ i r eme n t s or pr ov i s i on s of an y of t h es e r u l es , ” e x ce pt f

or R u le s 4 , 1 1 a n d 1 2
. See T e n n . R . A p p . P . 2
. T h e re fo re , t h e re is “no b a r to the su sp e n sio n o f R u le 3(a)

. ” B ayberr

y Ass ocs . , 783 S. W
. 2d a t 559. In o rd e r t o su sp e n d the re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 3 (a ), this C o u rt m u st a ff irm a tive ly sho w tha t t h e ru le is su sp e n d e d a n d m u st g ive a “g o o d re a so n ” fo r th e su sp e n sio n . See Ba yber r y Ass ocs . , 783 S. W
. 2d at 5 5 9 ; s ee al

s o T e n n . R
. A p p . P
. 2
. T h e sta te d p u rp o se b e h ind R u le 2 is t o e m p o w e r th e c o u rts “to r el i eve l i t i gan t s of

t he cons equen ces of

nonc om pl i anc e wi t h t he r ul es i n t hos e ci r cums t anc es i n w hi ch it is a p p ro p ria te to d o so .” T e n n . R . A p p . P . 2 (a d v is o r y c o m m issio n c o m m e n t). W e fi n d it appropri at e t o do s o her e. T hi s Co ur t , on i t s own mot i on an d purs uan t t o R ul e 2, s us pends Rul e 3( a) in th is c a se . See T en n. R
. A p p . P
. 2
. T his i s t he t hird ap p ea l i n a ca se w i t h a t o rtured hist o ry. T he se part i es ha ve been ent ang l ed i n t hi s ca s e f or ove r t en y ear s an d ar e e nt i t l ed t o s om e f orm of cl osu r e. W e f i nd t hi s t o b e “goo d reas o n” t o s uspend t he ap p l i cat i o n of R ul e 3 (a) and ad d res s t he m eri t s o f M r. R u ff’s ap p e a l. R u ff , 2003 W L 21729442, a t * 5.
-2- inflic ti o no f

e mo ti o n a l d is tr e s s o c c ur r e d

. ” T h e tria l c o urt n e g le c te d to me nti o nthe assault claim. As such, unde r Tenne ssee Co d e An notated sec tion 27-3-128 , we re mand to thetria l c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s consistent with this opinion. On remand, the trial

court is instructed to render a dec ision on Mr. Ruff’s assault claim. Ru ff , 2003 WL21729442, at *6 (e mphasis added)

. 1 On re mand, the trial c ourt revie wed the rec ord and enter ed judgme nt in f avor of the Church based on the previous trial tra nscript. The tria l court did not hold an additional trial or take further proof on the assault claim. Mr. Ruff appeals the trial court’ s judgme nt, asserting , inte r a lia , the trial c o urt e r r e d b y r e f u s in gto gr ant h im

a n e wtrial o r

e v id e nti ar

y h e ar in go n the assau lt

c la im

. We aff irm.-3- Issues Presented Mr. Ruff pre sents ten issues for our revie w. The disposi tive issue, howeve r, as we per ceive it, is whether, upon re mand un d er Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 27-3- 128, the trial cour t was re qu ired to per

mit Mr. Ruff to conduct additional discover y and to hold a new

trial or evide ntiary he ari ngwi th r e sp e c t to Mr . Ru ff ’s a ssa ult c la im. Stan dard of Revie w The issue prese nted on appea l is a question of law. We r eview qu es t i o n s o f l aw de novo , with no presumption of corr ectne ss afforded to the conclusions of the trial c ourt. Tay lor v . F e ze ll, 158 S.W .3d 352, 357 (Tenn. 2005)

. Anal y sis Mr
. Ru f f a s s e rts th e tria l c o urt w a s r e qu ir e d , u p o nr e ma n d p ur s u ant t o T e nn e s s e e Co de Anno tate d § 27 -3 -1 28 , to allo w him to co nd uc t add iti on a l disc ov e ry and to hol d a new tr ia l on his assault claim. We disagree . Th e Cod e pr ov ide s: The c ourt shall also, in a ll c ases, wher e in its opinion, c omplete justice ca nnot be had by rea son of some def

ect in the r ecord, want of proper parties, or oversight without c ulp a bleneglig e nc e , r e mand

thec a us e to t he c ourt be low fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s, with proper dir ections to eff ectuate the objec ts of the orde r, and upon such terms a s may be de e me d right. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 2 7- 3- 12 8( 20 00 ). Th is s e c tio n a uth orizes a r e mand

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s to c or re c t a de fe c t in the re c or d or so me ov e rs ight of the tr ia l c ourt that ha s o c c ur re d a bs e nt “ c ulp a

ble neg lige nce.” Id. ; Kill ian v . Ca mp be ll , 760 S.W .2d 218, 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). T his section, ho we ve r, “ do e s n ot a

uth orize c ourt s to ind

ulg e pie c e me a l and

pr otr a c te d li tig atio n c on c e rn ingfa c ts that should have obviously been e stablished at the o ri gi n al trial.” Kill ian , 760 S.W .2d at 222. Rather, se ction 27-3-128 is “g ear ed toward a cor rec tion of the rec ord rat h er t h an a r emand a fter reve rsal of the trial court.” First T enn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Hurd Lock &Mfg. , 816 S.W .2d 38, 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). Thus, although the takingof additional proof is permissible or requir ed whe n nece ssary to effe ctuate c omplete justice, it is not required in all cases upon re mand under the statute. See id. ; Bd. or Comm’r of Roane County v . Parker , 88 S.W .3d 916, 921 (Tenn. C t
. Ap p. 2002)(distingui s h i n g re m and under § 27-3-128 f rom rema nd for ne w trial and holdingtrial court corr ectly limit ed evidenc e on re mand to purpose imposed by appellate court rather than pe rmitting a new tr ial); First T

enn. Bank, 8 16 S.W. 2d

at 41 (h old ingtria l c ourt re qu ir e d to c on du c t th os e proce eding s nece ssary

to effe ctuate c omplete justice, whic h may include the takingof additional proof)

.-4-

In the pre sent ca se, we find no error in the trial cour t’s ref usal to hold an evidentiar

y hearing on Mr. Ruff’s a ssault claim wher e the matter had, i n fa ct , been f

ully litigated in the 2001 proce eding s. As we noted in our 2003 opinion, in 2001 this matter was he ard by the trial cour

t over the course of five da

y s. Ruff v. Raleigh Assembly of God Church, Inc. , No. W2001-02578-COAR3-CV, 2003 WL21729442, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2003), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Jan. 5, 2004). The r ecord ref

lects that Mr. Ruf

f conduc ted substantial discovery duringthe cour se of litigation and the proof was fully prese nted at trial. We held, a fter a thorough revie w of the r ecord, that the evidenc e did not preponde rate ag ainst the trial cour t’s finding s with respec t to Mr. Ruff’s claims. Howe ver, w e noted that the trial cour t had “f ailed to re nder a

decision on his assault claim.” Id. at *5. Al tho ugh th e tr ial court ’s fi na l orde r w a s te c hn ic a lly ins uf fi c ie nt whe reit f

a ile d to specific ally

rule on the a ssault claim, in 2001 the trial court he ld a full trial on all the claims, took substantial proof, and ma de deta iled finding s. Thus, our order on rema nd instructed the trial court “to re n d er a dec ision”; it neither instructed nor pe rmitted the trial cour t to hold a new trial or evidentiar y hearing or

to take additional proof. On the contra ry , in this case, whe re a

full evidentiary trial had be en conduc ted, the taking of additional proof by the trial court would have r esulted in the sort of “pie ceme al and pr otrac ted litigation co n cer ning f acts that should have obviously been e s t a b l i s h e d at th e o r i g i n a l tr i a l ” p r o s c r i b e d b y Kill ian
. Unlike an order of remand followingreve rsal or an order unde r § 27-3- 128 instructing the trial court to conduct f urther procee dings w ith respec t to a sp e c if ic iss ue no t f

ull y lit ig ate d p re vio us ly , o ur 20 03 or de r dir e c te d the tr ia l cou rt to co rr e c t it s order by specific ally including a hol ding on the assault claim based on the evidenc e pre sented at the 20 01 tria l. N oth ingfu

rt he r w a s r e qu ir e d b y

thetr ia l c ourt
. The trial c ourt clea

rly conducte d a thorough revie w of the rec ord in this ca se, as have we . Inl i ghto f th i s re v i ew , we cann o ts ay th e e v i d e n c e p re p o n d er at es aga i n s tth e tri al co urt ’s fi n d i n gs and aff irm judgme nt in favor of the Church. Mr. Ruff’s re maining issues a ddress the pr opriety of the trial cour

t’s proce dural determinations and are pretermitted as unnecessa ry to our dispositi on of this matter. Hol din g Th e jud gme nt o f the tr ia l c ourt is a ff ir me d. Cos ts of thi s a

pp e a l are taxed to theAp pe lla nt, J ohn Ruff.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE