Artrip v. Crilley

• Citation: 688 S.W.2d 451
• Parties: David ARTRIP and Diane Artrip, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David CRILLEY and Shelley Ford Crilley, Defendants-Appellants.
• Decision Date: 11 January 1985
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 451

688 S.W.2d 451

David ARTRIP and Diane Artrip, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David CRILLEY and Shelley Ford Crilley, Defendants-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee Western Section, at Knoxville.

Jan. 11, 1985.

Application for Permission to Appeal

Denied by Supreme Court

April 1, 1985.

Mindy Norton Seals, Morristown, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Jefferson City, for defendants-appellants.

NEARN, Presiding Judge, Western Section.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a boundary line dispute.

Eight issues are suggested for our consideration by counsel for appellants. Three of these have to do with the record on appeal and it is conceded that if appellants cannot prevail on the "record" issues, the other issues are moot. Appellants cannot prevail on the "record" issues and the judgment below will be affirmed.

Present counsel for defendants-appellants did not represent them at trial. Defendants elected to defend pro se. A full trial was had and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs as aforesaid. Defendants then decided to obtain counsel. In attempting to prepare his appeal counsel learned that plaintiffs had engaged the services of a Court Reporter who had taped the proceedings but had not transcribed the proceedings as counsel for plaintiffs had no desire to appeal. Appellants' counsel then sought to have the Court order the tape turned over to him. The Court denied the request. That denial is one of the "record" issues. Then, appellants prepared a statement of the evidence with information provided by his clients. That statement was objected to by counsel for plaintiffs-appellees who filed her version of a statement of the evidence. By order of the Court, appellants' statement was rejected and appellees' statement was approved by the Court. That approval is the subject of the remaining "record" issues.

The Trial Court is the final arbiter of the transcript or statement of the proceedings. Rule 24(b)-(f), T.R.A.P. Whether the proceedings be memorialized by a stenographer, tape or by counsel's memory, it is subject to correction. Stenographers may err, tapes may be altered and memories may fail. When a dispute arises, the one who directed the proceedings, the Trial Judge, is not only the best one, but is the only one who can resolve such disputes absent extraordinary circumstances, such as the death of the Trial Judge. See 24(e), T.R.A.P. Whether or not counsel, who was not at the trial, feels that he could or might have been able to file a more "complete" transcript of the evidence with the aid of the tapes is now completely immaterial. The Trial Judge has approved a statement of the evidence and by the act of such approval certifies that such record is true, fair and, for appellate purposes, complete. In addition, we note that when counsel for appellant filed his statement of the evidence, which was after...