Wright v. Sieglitz, 012121 TNCIV, E2020-00867-COA-R3-CV

Docket Nº:E2020-00867-COA-R3-CV
Opinion Judge:PERCURIAM
Party Name:DONALD R. WRIGHT v. CAROL SIEGLITZ, ET AL.
Attorney:Daniel Lyn Graves, II, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Donald R. Wright. Thomas J. Seeley, III and Brett Nathaniel Mayes, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellee, Carol Sieglitz.
Judge Panel:D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J.; JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J.; and KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.
Case Date:January 21, 2021
Court:Court of Appeals of Tennessee

DONALD R. WRIGHT

v.

CAROL SIEGLITZ, ET AL.

No. E2020-00867-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

January 21, 2021

January 13, 2021

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Washington County No. 19-DM-0917 John C. Rambo, Chancellor

This is an appeal of a case seeking judicial determination of child support. Because the appellant, Donald R. Wright ("Appellant") attempted to raise an issue regarding a separate case, which was not timely appealed, and all issues with regard to the instant case were waived, we dismiss this appeal.

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

Daniel Lyn Graves, II, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Donald R. Wright.

Thomas J. Seeley, III and Brett Nathaniel Mayes, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellee, Carol Sieglitz.

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J.; JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J.; and KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

PERCURIAM

Upon a review of the motion to dismiss2 filed by the appellee, Carol Sieglitz ("Appellee"), the response to the motion filed by Appellant, and the record on appeal, we have determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed in accordance with Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure with regard to the issue raised on appeal and that Appellant waived any other issues which might have been raised.

In November of 1947, the Chancery Court at Johnson City, Tennessee entered a divorce decree in a suit between Earnest Wright and Bonnie Wright. That divorce decree provided, as pertinent: Complainant herein filed a petition for a divorce on the 26th day of August, 1947, seeking the dissolution of his marriage from defendant on the grounds of adultery by the defendant and denying the paternity of the child born to defendant on December 31, 1946; . . ..

* * *

It appears to the full satisfaction of the court from all the testimony presented that defendant is guilty of adultery and that the said child is not the child of the complainant, Earnest Wright, and the facts alleged in the bill are true and sustained by proof; that complainant has not been guilty of like acts and has not condoned the same.

Appellant is the child who was born to Bonnie Wright in 1946.

Approximately sixty-seven years after entry of the 1947 divorce decree, and approximately eleven years after the death of Earnest Wright, Appellant filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento County ("the California Court") a "Petition for Determination of Entitelment (sic) to an Estate and Request for Copy of the Trust" alleging that Appellant was the biological child of Earnest Wright. The California Court found Appellant's claim to be without merit and dismissed his petition with prejudice in March of 2015.

In 2017, Appellant filed in the Chancery Court for Washington County, Tennessee ("the Trial Court"), a "Petition for Judicial Determination of Parentage and Set Aside the Portion of the Final Decree that renders the Petitioner, Donald Ray Wright, an Illegitimate Child," which was assigned case number 17-DM-0488. On December 12, 2017, the Trial Court entered an order stating that the 1947 divorce decree had failed to properly adjudicate Appellant's parentage. At that time, Appellant was seventy...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP