 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Evans v. Wintrow9/30/2005
.00 in damages for breach of contract and $76,691.82 in damages for conversion, as well as $40,000.00 in punitive damages. Ms. Evans filed a late motion requesting prejudgment interest, and Mr. Jernigan filed a motion for new trial. The trial court denied both motions on February 20, 2003, and Mr. Jernigan has appealed.
II. The Finality of the February 20, 2003 Judgment
At the outset, we must address an issue regarding the justiciability of this case. Parties are entitled to appeals of right under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a) only from final orders. Under any other circumstance, they are not entitled to appellate review unless they obtain discretionary review in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 9 or 10. There is a substantial question regarding whether the February 20, 2003 judgment is final for the purposes of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a).
A final judgment is primarily one that fully adjudicates all the claims between all the parties. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a); Fox v. Fox, 657 S.W.2d 747, 749 (Tenn. 1983); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Miller, 491 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tenn. 1973); Wilson v. Wilson, 58 S.W.3d 718, 725 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). It leaves nothing else for the trial court to resolve. In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003); Vineyard v. Vineyard, 26 Tenn. App. 232, 241, 170 S.W.2d 917, 920 (1942). Until a judgment becomes final, it remains within the trial court's control and may be modified anytime prior to the entry of a final judgment. Stidham v. Fickle Heirs, 643 S.W.2d 324, 328 (Tenn. 1982); Eldridge v. Eldridge, 137 S.W.3d 1, 20 n.10 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Hall v. Bookout, 87 S.W.3d 80, 85 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
A judgment that does not resolve all the claims between all the parties may nevertheless be considered a final judgment if the trial court certifies it as final in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. A judgment that completely resolves one of multiple claims or that completely resolves all the claims against one of multiple parties is eligible for certification under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 558 (Tenn. 1990); Town of Collierville v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 1 S.W.3d 68, 70 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). However, finality arises only when the trial court has expressly directed the entry of a final judgment because no just reason for delaying the entry of a final judgment exists.
Neither the trial court's December 13, 2002 judgment order nor its February 20, 2003 order denying Mr. Jernigan's post-trial motions are final orders because they do not resolve all the claims between all the parties and because they do not contain the certification required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 designating them as final. At the time these orders were entered, Ms. Evans's claims against Mr. Wintrow were still outstanding.
Normally, the lack of a final order would cause us to dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the case for the entry of a final order. However, we have the power pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 2 to suspend Tenn. R. App. P. 3 for good cause, including the expedition of an appellate decision. Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d at 559. While we are reluctant to suspend the rules to consider an order or judgment that is not final, we have determined that it is appropriate for us to do so in this case in light of our disposition of this appeal on its merits.
III. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 Relief from the Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute
Mr. Jernigan first takes issue with the trial court's decision to grant Ms. Evans relief under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) from the order dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute. Specifically, he asserts that the failure
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|