Court Opinion

ID: 9915926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 00:08:31.714216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:40.692512
License: Public Domain

01/08/2024
                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                            AT KNOXVILLE
                                     January 3, 2024 Session

             JOHN SCHMEECKLE v. BRITTANY DEKREEK ET AL.

                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County
                          No. 22C874 Kyle E. Hedrick, Judge
                       ___________________________________

                              No. E2023-01297-COA-R3-CV
                          ___________________________________

This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 19, 2023.1 The Notice of Appeal was
not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until September 7, 2023, more than thirty days
from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because
the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

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

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J.; JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J.; and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.

John Schmeeckle, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Pro Se Appellant.

Trevor Scott Baskin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Chattanooga Lindsay
Properties, LLC, and Brittany DeKreek.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION2

1
 We note that the appellant states on his notice of appeal that he is appealing the judgment entered on
February 2, 2023; however, the timely Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter or amend was not disposed of
until the July 19, 2023 order.
2
Rule 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       shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not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.
        The Hamilton County Circuit Court (“Trial Court”) entered an order on February 2,
2023 granting a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted filed by the defendants, Brittany Dekreek and Chattanooga Lindsay
Partners, LLC. On March 6, 2023, the appellant, John Schmeeckle (“Appellant”), filed a
motion asking the Trial Court to reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit. The Trial Court
conducted a hearing on Appellant’s motion to reconsider on March 20, 2023. The Trial
Court treated this motion to reconsider as a motion to alter or amend filed pursuant to Tenn.
R. Civ. P. 59, which extended the time to file a notice of appeal until thirty days after the
Trial Court’s order resolving this motion. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(b) (providing that the
time for filing a notice of appeal shall begin to run from the date the order is entered
disposing of the Rule 59 motion). According to the record, the Trial Judge verbally denied
the motion to reconsider at a hearing on March 20, 2023, but a written order was not entered
at that time.3

        On April 10, 2023, Appellant filed a “Motion to Reverse this Court’s Decision of
March 20, 2023 because of Judicial Error,” in which he states that he seeks reversal of the
Trial Court’s March 20, 2023 decision “which denied [Appellant’s] motion to reconsider
this court’s Order of February 2, 2023 dismissing [Appellant’s] lawsuit.” In a subsequent
rebuttal to the defendants’ response, Appellant acknowledges that at the March 20, 2023
hearing, the Trial Court categorized the March 6, 2023 motion to reconsider as a motion to
alter or amend the judgment and states that he has no objection to that categorization.

        The Trial Court entered an order on July 19, 2023, denying the initial motion to
reconsider, which was treated as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend, and declining to
modify the Trial Court’s February 2, 2023 judgment in any way. Appellant subsequently
scheduled his second motion for hearing and filed an addendum to his motion, in which he
states in pertinent part:

       [Appellant] submitted this motion after Judge Marie Williams on March 20,
       2023 denied [Appellant’s] “motion to reconsider this Court’s dismissal of
       [Appellant’s] lawsuit.” Judge Williams’s oral order of March 20 was never
       accompanied by a written order. Now, a written order has been entered,
       allowing [Appellant’s Motion to Reverse this Court’s Decision of March 20,
       2023 because of Judicial Error] to be heard.

The Trial Court treated the April 10, 2023 “Motion to Reverse this Court’s Decision of
March 20, 2023 because of Judicial Error” as a second Rule 59 motion and denied the
motion by written order on August 15, 2023.

3
  Following two motions to recuse filed by Appellant, the Trial Judge denied the motions but sua sponte
recused herself in this matter. Another Trial Judge was appointed to preside over this case on May 19,
2023.
                                                 -2-
        Appellant filed his notice of appeal with this Court on September 7, 2023. Upon
receipt of the appellate record and pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b), this Court reviewed
the record on appeal to determine if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
appeal. The appellate record reveals that Appellant’s notice of appeal appears to be
untimely filed, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Therefore,
this Court entered an order directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not
be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction resulting from an untimely notice of appeal.
Appellant responded to the show cause order attempting to demonstrate why this appeal
should proceed. In his response, Appellant asserts that the Trial Judge informed him during
the hearing on the second motion that a court order would be entered that Appellant could
appeal within thirty days. Appellant requests this Court allow this appeal to continue in
the interest of justice and to conform to the Trial Judge’s statement. Appellant also argues
that the errors and misconduct by the Trial Judge “were so egregious as to merit special
consideration of the circumstances.” Additionally, Appellant asserts that the April 2023
motion should not have been treated as a second Rule 59 motion because it raised issues
concerning misconduct of the Trial Judge.

        In order to be timely, a notice of appeal “shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate
court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from . . . .” Tenn. R.
App. P. 4(a). “The thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and
jurisdictional in civil cases.” Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004). The
thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal may be extended by the timely filing of
one of four allowed motions pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. Those motions are:

       (1) under Rule 50.02 for judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed
       verdict; (2) under Rule 52.02 to amend or make additional findings of fact,
       whether or not an alteration of the judgment would be required if the motion
       is granted; (3) under Rule 59.07 for a new trial; or (4) under Rule 59.04 to
       alter or amend the judgment.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. Rule 59.01 clearly and unambiguously provides that these four
motions “are the only motions contemplated in these rules” which will extend the time for
filing an appeal. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. Furthermore, Rule 59.01 provides: “Motions to
reconsider any of these motions are not authorized and will not operate to extend the time
for appellate proceedings.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. If a notice of appeal is not filed in a
civil case in a timely fashion from the date of entry of the final judgment, we are not at
liberty to waive the procedural defect and must dismiss the appeal. See Arfken & Assocs.,
P.A. v. Simpson Bridge Co., Inc., 85 S.W.3d 789, 791 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Am.
Steinwinter Investor Group v. Am. Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tenn. Ct. App.
1997); Jefferson v. Pneumo Services Corp., 699 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

      Although the filing of a second motion pursuant to Rule 59 is in certain
circumstances permissible if the judgment was amended in response to a previous Rule 59
                                          -3-
motion, the second motion to alter or amend in this case was not filed in response to any
changes made to the judgment. As the Trial Court found, Appellants’ April 10, 2023
“Motion to Reverse this Court’s Decision of March 20, 2023 because of Judicial Error” is
essentially a motion seeking to reconsider the initial reconsideration of the Trial Court’s
February 2, 2023 order dismissing the case. Appellant argues that his April 2023 motion
was not filed pursuant to Rule 59 and the Trial Court erred by treating it as such. However,
Appellant’s motion begins, “Comes now [Appellant], with this motion to reverse this
court’s decision of March 20, 2023 (which denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider this
court’s Order of February 2, 2023 dismissing [Appellant’s] lawsuit), because of judicial
error.” It is clear that Appellant was seeking to alter or amend the oral ruling of the Trial
Judge from the March 20, 2023 hearing denying the motion to reconsider.

        Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59, which allows for the filing of a motion to alter or amend,
specifically states that motions to reconsider previous Rule 59 motions will not extend the
time to file a notice of appeal. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. “Because Rule 59 motions delay
appeals and finality, successive Rule 59 motions are not allowed.” Parks v. Mid Atlantic
Finance Co., Inc., 343 S.W.3d 792, 799 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted).
Therefore, Appellant’s second motion to alter or amend, which he titled a “Motion to
Reverse this Court’s Decision of March 20, 2023 because of Judicial Error,” is an
impermissible, successive Rule 59 motion that would not toll the time for filing an appeal
with this Court. Therefore, the Trial Court’s final appealable judgment was entered on July
19, 2023, when the court denied in writing the initial Rule 59 motion. As such, Appellant’s
notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the final judgment, depriving this
Court of jurisdiction. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(b); Gassaway v. Patty, 604 S.W.2d 60, 61
(Tenn. Ct. App. 1980) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction in case where party filed
post-trial motions in serial manner in an attempt to extend time to appeal and stating: “The
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provide procedures to be followed in order that
the rights of the parties can be resolved with certainty and finality. To validate appellant’s
appeal would require us to disregard the express language of the rules and the result would
enable parties to file repeated post-judgment motions in the trial court.”).

       Appellant asks this Court to allow the appeal to proceed in the interests of justice,
based on comments allegedly made by the Trial Judge at a hearing, and due to “egregious”
error and misconduct by the Trial Judge that requires “special consideration of the
circumstances.” However, we are not permitted to waive the untimely filing of a notice of
appeal in civil cases. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4(a).

      This appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant,
John Schmeeckle, for which execution may issue.

                                                         PER CURIAM

                                            -4-