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.

Ahmad v. Ahmad

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

February 22, 2017

OMAR AHMAD
v.
EZAD AHMAD

         Appeal from the Probate Court for Madison County No. 14-16049 Christy R. Little, Judge

         Because the order appealed does not comply with Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the order is not a final judgment. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction and this matter must be dismissed.

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

          J. Steven Stafford, P.J.W.S., Arnold B. Goldin, J., and Kenny Armstrong, J.

          Gordon Wallace Sherrod, III, Henderson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Omar Ahmad.

          Joseph Tilton Howell, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellees, Ezad Ahmad.

          Joshua Brian Dougan, Guardian ad litem, Jackson, Tennessee.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]

          PER CURIAM.

         Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that if multiple parties or multiple claims are involved in an action, any order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not final or appealable. Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction over final orders. See Bayberry Assoc. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990).

         Pursuant to the mandates of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we reviewed the appellate record to determine if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. After this review, it appeared to the Court that it does not have jurisdiction. Specifically, the order of the trial court appealed in this matter fails to comply with Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

         Rule 58 provides that an order of final disposition is effective when the judgment is marked on its face with one of the following:

(1) the signatures of the judge and all parties or counsel, or
(2) the signatures of the judge and one party or counsel with a certificate of counsel that a copy of the proposed order has been served on all other parties or counsel, or
(3) the signature of the judge and a certificate of the clerk that a copy has been served on all ...

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.