Court Opinion

ID: 9911876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 22:08:45.736237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:50.094828
License: Public Domain

12/20/2023
                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                              AT KNOXVILLE
                             Assigned on Briefs December 4, 2023

   MARK RANSOM ET AL. v. LAKEFRONT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
                     ASSOCIATION, INC.

                      Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rhea County
                      No. 19-CV-11265 John Harvey Cameron, Judge
                          ___________________________________

                                No. E2023-00805-COA-R3-CV
                            ___________________________________

In this real property dispute, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ assertions that they were
entitled to an easement over the land of the defendant. Among other things, the trial court
held that an easement was not essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ land.
Although the plaintiffs now appeal, we decline to address their arguments due to their
noncompliance with applicable briefing requirements and therefore dismiss the appeal.

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

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT
and KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ., joined.

Howard L. Upchurch, Pikeville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Katherine Ransom and
Mark Ransom.

Sam D. Elliott, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lakefront Estates Homeowners
Association, Inc.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION1
       The plaintiffs/appellants in this matter, Mark and Katherine Ransom (“the
Plaintiffs”), commenced the present litigation by filing a complaint for declaratory

       1
           Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

               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       opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and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.
judgment in the Rhea County Chancery Court (“the trial court”), wherein they requested
the trial court to declare their rights “in and to an easement serving real property located in
Northern Rhea County, Tennessee . . . .” The Plaintiffs, who noted that they were the
owners of a 23.47 acre tract of real estate, stated that the named Defendant, Lakefront
Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Lakefront”), was the fee simple owner of an
adjacent 5.15 acre tract of real estate. Per the complaint, a common predecessor in title of
the parties, Merrilee Bridwell (“Ms. Bridwell”), had conveyed the 5.15 acre tract to
Lakefront’s immediate predecessor in title, Walt Dickson (“Mr. Dickson”), in May 2006,
and the Plaintiffs alleged that they had become fee simple owners of the 23.47 acre tract
by way of a conveyance from Ms. Bridwell in December 2018. Further, as evidenced
through a quitclaim deed that was attached to the complaint as an exhibit, Lakefront had
previously acquired its adjacent tract of real estate from Mr. Dickson in December 2014.

        In seeking to establish easement rights over a roadway that traversed Lakefront’s
property, the Plaintiffs alleged in part that the desired easement was “the only convenient
and feasible method of affording access . . . to the lower portion of the Plaintiffs’ property
and barn area.” Further, among other allegations, the Plaintiffs asserted that, at the time
Ms. Bridwell had transferred the 5.15 acre tract to Mr. Dickson, she had relied upon a
representation from Mr. Dickson that an easement would exist over the small section sold
to him to the remainder of her property. Subsequent to the filing of the Plaintiffs’
complaint, Lakefront filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the Plaintiffs had no
right to any easement. According to Lakefront, the Plaintiffs had “other reasonable and
practicable modes of ingress and egress into their property.”

       Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Lakefront by
dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint and granting Lakefront relief pursuant to its
counterclaim. As part of the basis for its decision, the trial court referred to evidence that
showed other means of access to the Plaintiffs’ land was available, specifically concluding
that an easement across the servient estate was “not essential to the beneficial enjoyment
of the [Plaintiffs’] land.” The trial court further held, among other things, that there was
no proof that Lakefront had made any misrepresentations of any kind to the Plaintiffs that
they relied on.

       The Plaintiffs now appeal to this Court and request that we reverse the trial court
and hold that they have a permanent easement for ingress and egress based upon theories
of easement by implication and necessity, as well as easement by estoppel. Although the
Plaintiffs specifically raise two issues in pursuit of such relief on appeal, we do not reach
the merits of their issues due to their noncompliance with applicable briefing requirements
imposed by the rules of appellate procedure and the rules of this Court. Whereas Rule 27
of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure requires, among other things, that an
appellant’s brief include an argument section containing a statement of the applicable
standard of review for each issue as well as the reasons the trial court’s decision is incorrect,
and further in part requires that the argument include “appropriate references to the record
                                             -2-
. . . relied on,” Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7), Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of
Tennessee requires that written argument in regard to each appellate issue contain, among
other things, “[a] statement of each determinative fact relied upon with citation to the
record where evidence of each such fact may be found,” Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6(a), and also
further provides that no assertion of fact will be considered on appeal “unless the argument
contains a reference to the page or pages of the record where evidence of such fact is
recorded.” Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6(b). Here, aside from the fact that there is no statement of
the standard of review for each issue in connection with the Plaintiffs’ offered argument,
we observe that the argument section of the Plaintiffs’ brief is entirely devoid of any
citations to the record in support of the assertions made therein. For instance, in support
of their first raised issue as to their supposed entitlement to an easement “by implication
and necessity,” the Plaintiffs present a series of statements in support of what they contend
the “facts of the case at bar require” but which are all devoid of any supporting citation to
the record. The same basic deficiency accompanies the Plaintiffs’ presentation of their
argument on their “easement by estoppel” issue. Indeed, whereas multiple statements are
made throughout the included argument, no citations are provided to the record.

       This Court may properly decline to consider an issue that has not been briefed in
accordance with applicable rules, Clayton v. Herron, No. M2014-01497-COA-R3-CV,
2015 WL 757240, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015), and we have previously held that
a party’s “failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this
Court waives the issues for review.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App.
2000). Here, given the Plaintiffs’ noncompliance with applicable briefing requirements,
we conclude that they have waived any issues raised and that the appeal should be
dismissed. See Thomas v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. M2015-01849-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL
2859813, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 5, 2017) (“Based upon Thomas’s failure to comply
with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and R. Tenn. Ct. App. 6, we conclude that Thomas has waived
any issues raised, and the appeal should be dismissed.”). As a result, the appeal is hereby
dismissed, and the case is remanded for such further proceedings that are necessary and
consistent with this Opinion.

                                                      s/ Arnold B. Goldin
                                                    ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE

                                            -3-