Court Opinion

ID: 9917474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 15:10:30.402219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:45.790062
License: Public Domain

01/11/2024
                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                               AT JACKSON
                                            January 2024

 STATE OF TENNESSEE EX REL. WILLIAM GOETZ v. DONEL AUTIN
                         ET AL.

                      Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County
                        No. CT-1100-19    Rhynette N. Hurd, Judge
                         ___________________________________

                               No. W2023-01385-COA-R3-CV
                           ___________________________________

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

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

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S.; ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J.; and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J.

Larry E. Parrish, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, William Goetz.

John Lewis Wardlaw, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellees, Donel Autin and Dana
Autin.

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION1

       On September 29, 2023, Appellant, William Goetz, filed a Notice of Appeal in this
Court. The Notice of Appeal related to an order of the trial court entered on August 29,
2023. Pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court did
a preliminary review of the appellate record to determine whether this Court had subject

      1
          Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals 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      opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and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.
matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Based on that review, we determined that this Court
likely did not have subject matter jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not
timely filed.

        A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the
final judgment. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4. This thirty-day requirement may not be waived.
American Steinwinter Investor Group v. American Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569
(Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). An appellate court cannot extend the time for filing a notice of
appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 2. “In civil cases, the failure to timely file a notice of appeal
deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” Arfken & Associates, P.A.
v. Simpson Bridge Co., Inc., 85 S.W.3d 789, 791 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted).
In fact, “[i]f the notice of appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court is required to dismiss
the appeal.” Id.

       In this case, Appellant is seeking to appeal an order entered by the trial court on
August 29, 2023. Thus, Appellant’s Notice of Appeal should have been filed with the Clerk
of this Court on or before September 28, 2023. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). However,
Appellant did not file his Notice of Appeal with this Court until September 29, 2023, which
was more than thirty (30) days after August 29, 2023.

       On December 27, 2023, this Court entered an Order setting forth the aforementioned
jurisdictional issue caused by Appellant’s untimely Notice of Appeal. Further, the Court
directed Appellant to “within fifteen (15) days of entry of [the] Order, show cause why this
appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely file the notice of appeal.” Appellant
filed a Response on January 4, 2024, in which he stated that he inadvertently filed the
Notice of Appeal after the thirty (30) day deadline, and candidly admitted that this “Court
has no discretion, and appellant has no defense. Therefore, the Court has no subject matter
jurisdiction.”

       In light of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs of this matter are
assessed to Appellant, William Goetz, for which execution may issue, if necessary.

                                                            PER CURIUM

                                               -2-