Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Murray v. Miracle

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

September 23, 2014

BOBBY MURRAY, ET AL.
v.
DENNIS MIRACLE, ET AL

Session July 9, 2014.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed, in part; Vacated, in part; Case Remanded. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County. No. 16543. Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor.

Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed, in part; Vacated, in part; Case Remanded.

Bobby Murray and Loretta Murray, Harriman, Tennessee, Pro se appellants.

Mark N. Foster, Rockwood, Tennessee, for the appellees, Dennis Miracle and Robert Daniel Smith.

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JOHN W. MCCLARTY and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.

OPINION

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE.

Page 400

Bobby Murray and Loretta Murray (" Plaintiffs" ) sued Dennis Miracle and Robert Daniel Smith (" Defendants" ) with regard to a dispute involving real property located in Roane County, Tennessee. After a trial, the Chancery Court for Roane County (" Trial Court" ) entered its judgment on February 11, 2013, finding, inter alia, that Defendants did not dispute that Plaintiffs had a right to improve the roadway at issue, but that the parties disagreed regarding the nature of the road work to be performed. In its judgment, the Trial Court, inter alia, appointed a Special Commissioner to supervise the proposed road work and detailed how the work should be implemented. Plaintiffs appeal the Trial Court's judgment. We find and hold that Plaintiffs have significantly failed to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 rendering this Court unable to address any of Plaintiffs' potential issues. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court's judgment, find Plaintiffs' appeal frivolous, and award Defendants damages for frivolous appeal. Defendants raise an issue on appeal regarding whether the Trial Court erred in reversing its order regarding discovery sanctions. We find and hold that the Trial Court erred in interpreting our previous Opinion to require reversal of the sanctions. We, therefore, vacate the Trial Court's September 25, 2012 order, reinstate the Trial Court's September 22, 2010 order awarding Defendants[1] attorney's fees against Plaintiffs as discovery sanctions, and remand to the Trial Court to address Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of these sanctions.

Background

This is the second time this case has been before us on appeal. We discuss in this Opinion only those facts directly relevant to the issues involved in this appeal. Additional background is contained in our Opinion in Murray v. Miracle, No.E2010-02425-COA-R3-CV,

Page 401

(Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2011), Rule 11 appl. perm. appeal denied Jan. 11, 2012 (" Murray I " ).

In Murray I, we reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims because of Plaintiffs' failure to comply with court orders regarding discovery, among other things. Specifically, in Murray I, we considered whether the dismissal for failure to comply with a discovery order ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.