Adams v. Conner

• Docket Number: W2023-00151-COA-R3-CV
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: MICHAEL ADAMS v. SHAVETTA CONNER ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

MICHAEL ADAMS
v.
SHAVETTA CONNER ET AL.

No. W2023-00151-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

December 28, 2023

Assigned on Briefs September 1, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-3566-22 Gina C. Higgins, Judge

This case originated in general sessions court with the filing of a pro se civil warrant. The defendant also filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff. The plaintiff's civil warrant was quickly dismissed in the general sessions court. The defendant/cross-plaintiff eventually obtained a judgment against the plaintiff/cross-defendant. The plaintiff/cross-defendant promptly filed a notice of appeal. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of his civil warrant due to his notice of appeal being untimely. The trial court also dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of the judgment on the cross-complaint for failure to prosecute. We reverse both rulings and reinstate the plaintiff's appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded

Michael Ray Adams, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro se.

Robert L.J. Spence, Jr., and Alexxas J. Johnson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee Shavetta Conner.

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J. and JEFFREY USMAN, J., joined.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE

2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case began on or about February 25, 2021, when Plaintiff/Appellant Michael R. Adams ("Appellant") filed a pro se civil warrant against Defendant/Appellee Shavetta Conner ("Appellee") in the Shelby County General Sessions Court ("the general sessions court"). The civil warrant was assigned docket number 2078272. According to the civil warrant, Appellant was injured while performing work on Appellee's property.

On or about March 23, 2021, Appellee filed a cross-complaint against Appellant, which was assigned docket number X2078272.^[2] The cross-complaint sought damages for negligence, harassment, malicious prosecution, fraud, and lost wages, as well as attorney's fees.

On August 12, 2021, the original civil warrant was dismissed without prejudice for "want of prosecution." Appellant did not appeal this ruling at this time.

Eventually, Appellee was awarded $600.00 in damages in connection with her cross-complaint. Although the judgment is undated, both parties agree that that this judgment was entered on August 15, 2022, as reflected in a general sessions court docket sheet stating that a trial took place on that date.^[3] In any event, on August 19, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Shelby County Circuit Court ("the trial court"), citing "Case ID: 2078272."

In the trial court, Appellee immediately filed a motion to dismiss any appeal of the dismissal of Appellant's original civil warrant on the ground that Appellant did not timely appeal that judgment.

On October 10, 2022, Appellant filed an amended complaint alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, malicious prosecution, filing false allegations, and personal injury, seeking $500,000.00 in punitive and compensatory damages.

On October 19, 2022, Appellee filed a second motion to dismiss and to limit the issues presented in the appeal. Therein, Appellee explained that because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant's appeal of the dismissal of his original civil warrant, the amended complaint should likewise be dismissed. Appellee therefore

3

asked that the trial court enter "an Order limiting the issues of this action to the issues raised in Appellee's general sessions cross action."

Appellant responded in opposition to Appellee's motion to dismiss on October 21, 2022. Therein, Appellant argued, inter alia, that "the final judgment in case # 2078272(GS) came on 8-15-2022, where plaintiff filed an appeal of that judgment on 8-19-[2022] to the Circuit Court." Thereafter, Appellant filed a number of motions in support of his claim that he was entitled to a de novo hearing on his complaint and in furtherance of his effort to have the cross-complaint dismissed. Two letters sent by Appellant to the trial court judge were also filed in the record.

On February 13, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting Appellee's motion to dismiss "upon merits and for lack of prosecution." Therein, the trial court ruled that Appellant "had until August 23, 2021 to file an appeal of the dismissal [of Appellant's general sessions court civil warrant] entered on August 12, 2021." So the trial court dismissed Appellants appeal "as to all of Appellant's claims arising in tort or any other cause of action previously dismissed by the General Sessions Court on August 12, 2021." The trial court further ruled that Appellant's appeal of Appellee's judgment on the cross-complaint filed in general sessions court would likewise be dismissed for failure to prosecute.^[4] Appellant thereafter appealed to this Court.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant raises four issues in this appeal, primarily arguing that the trial court erred in not allowing him the de novo hearing to which he was entitled. In our view, this appeal involves two questions: (1) whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Appellant's appeal of the August 12, 2021 dismissal of his civil warrant; and (2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant's appeal of the $600.00 judgment on the cross-complaint for failure to prosecute. We conclude that the trial court erred in both respects.

III. ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, we note that Appellant is proceeding pro se in this appeal, as he did in the proceedings in both the trial court and the general sessions court. "While entitled to fair and equal treatment before the courts, a pro se litigant is still required to comply with substantive and procedural law as do parties represented by counsel." Gilliam v. Gilliam, No. M2007-02507-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4922512, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2008) (citing Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)).

4

As explained by this Court, "[t]he courts should take into account that many pro se litigants have no legal training and little familiarity with the judicial system. However, the courts must also be mindful of the boundary between fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant's adversary." Jackson v. Lanphere, No. M2010-01401-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 3566978, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2011) (quoting Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d at 903 (internal citations omitted)). "[T]he courts must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe." Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d at 903. We keep these principles in mind as we consider the two issues presented in this case.

A.

We begin with the trial court's decision to dismiss Appellant's appeal of the August 12, 2021 dismissal of his general sessions court judgment. As best we can discern, the trial court dismissed this portion of Appellant's appeal on the basis that his notice of appeal was not timely. Relevant to this issue, Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-108 provides that "[a]ny party may appeal from a decision of the general sessions court to the circuit court of the county within a period of ten (10) days on complying with this chapter." It is well settled that in the absence of a timely filed notice of appeal, the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the general sessions court. See Discover Bank v. McCullough, No. M2006-01272-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 245976, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2008) ("[U]nless a party perfects its de novo appeal within ten days from the date of the judgment, the circuit court does not obtain jurisdiction over the appeal."); Vanderbilt Univ. v. Haynes, No. M2001-02688-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 239819, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2003) ("A timely appeal is a mandatory requirement without which the Circuit Court does not obtain jurisdiction.").

On appeal, Appellee asserts that the trial court was correct to dismiss this portion of Appellant's appeal because the ten-day time period for appealing the dismissal of Appellant's civil warrant began on the day that the civil warrant was dismissed, August 12, 2021. Because Appellant's notice of appeal was filed over a year later, Appellee contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear any appeal of the dismissal. In his reply brief, Appellant contends that the trial court erred because he filed his notice of appeal within ten days of the August 15, 2022 final judgment in the general sessions court.^[5]

5

[omit] Thus, the resolution of this issue turns on whether Appellant was required to appeal the dismissal of his civil warrant within ten days of the August 12, 2021 judgment dismissing it, or within ten days of the August 15, 2022 judgment adjudicating Appellee's cross-claim. If the former, the trial court did not err in dismissing that portion of Appellant's appeal. If the latter, the trial court's...