May 13, 2015
BANK OF VERNON
LARRY LUNAN, ET AL.
Session April 13, 2015
Appeal from the Law Court for Sullivan County No. C38233
Larry Lunan and Susan Lunan, Kingsport, Tennessee, pro se appellants.
Frank A. Johnstone, Kingsport, Tennessee, and Justin B. Little, Tuscaloosa, Alabama pro hac vice, for the appellee, Bank of Vernon.
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W. MCCLARTY, and THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ., joined.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE
Bank of Vernon ("Plaintiff") sued Larry Lunan, Susan Lunan, and Bad Toys, Inc. ("Defendants") alleging, among other things, that Defendants were in default on several loans secured by specified motor vehicles ("the Motor Vehicles"). After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order allowing Plaintiff to sell the Motor Vehicles. Defendants moved to stay the sale and also moved for indigency status. The Trial Court initially found Defendants to be indigent, but after further hearing entered an order on July 11, 2014 finding Defendants not indigent and denying Defendants‟ motion for stay unless Defendants posted a bond in the amount of $25, 000.
Defendants filed an appeal to this Court. Defendants then filed a "Motion to Proceed Under the Status of Forma Pauper for Appeal Filed, " which this Court treated as a motion for review pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 18(c) of the Trial Court‟s order revoking indigency status. By order entered on September 18, 2014, this Court denied Defendants‟ motion and held that Defendants were not indigent for purposes of the appeal. Pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 18(e), upon our denial of indigency status, Defendants could have filed a motion with our Supreme Court for leave to proceed as indigent. Defendants did not file such a motion with our Supreme Court.
In their brief on appeal Defendants discuss only one issue, i.e., whether the Trial Court erred in ruling in its July 11, 2014 order that Defendants were not indigent. This issue is moot. In essence Defendants are asking us to reconsider our Order affirming the Trial Court‟s determination that Defendants are not indigent. Defendants, however, have provided no new information which might justify reconsideration of this issue. As such, we decline to reconsider our decision affirming the Trial Court‟s order finding Defendants to be not indigent.
Defendants neither raised nor discussed any issues with regard to the Trial Court‟s underlying judgment holding that Plaintiff could sell the Motor Vehicles. Rule 13 of Tenn. R. App. P. provides that "[r]eview generally will extend only to those issues presented for review." Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). As no issues were raised with regard to the Trial Court‟s judgment allowing Plaintiff to sell the Motor Vehicles, we affirm.