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.

Rollick v. Citizens Bank of Blount County

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

July 21, 2017

KIMBERLY GILES ROLLICK
v.
CITIZENS BANK OF BLOUNT COUNTY, ET AL.

          Assigned on Briefs June 1, 2017

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. L-19217 David Reed Duggan, Judge

         A plaintiff filed a complaint against three entities asserting claims for breach of contract, among others. The trial court granted each defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal as to two of the three orders dismissing her complaint, and the Court of Appeals granted the third defendant's motion to be dismissed from the appeal. On appeal, the plaintiff argues the trial court improperly granted the third defendant's motion to dismiss for procedural reasons, and she complains the trial court refused to provide her with a transcript of the hearings. Finding no merit to the plaintiff's arguments, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

          Andy D. Bennett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Charles D. Susano, Jr., and Kenny W. Armstrong, JJ., joined.

          Kimberly Rollick, Maryville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          James A. Haltom, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

          Brandon Derek Sizemore, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Wilson & Associates PLLC.

          OPINION

          ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE.

         Procedural Background

         Kimberly Giles Rollick filed a complaint against Citizens Bank of Blount County ("CBBC"), J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), and Wilson & Associates, PLLC ("W&A") on February 2, 2016. She alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud and racketeering, usury and racketeering, and violations of the truth and lending law. W&A filed a verified denial and answer to the complaint. When Ms. Rollick failed to respond to W&A's verified denial, W&A filed a motion to dismiss. CBBC filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Ms. Rollick's causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Chase filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata.

         The trial court held a hearing on CBBC's motion on April 8, 2016, and it issued an order on April 21, 2016, dismissing the complaint against CBBC "with prejudice as being time barred by the applicable statutes of limitation." Finding no reason for delay, the trial court wrote that its order "shall constitute a final order pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02." The court heard arguments on Chase's and W&A's motions to dismiss on June 6, 2016, and it issued an order on June 9 granting Chase's motion and an order on June 20 granting W&A's motion. In its order granting W&A's motion, the court wrote: "This Order is a final Order as it relates to Defendant W&A in accordance with Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure."

         Ms. Rollick filed a Notice of Appeal on July 8, 2016, in which she appealed only two of the three orders the trial court issued dismissing her complaint: she appealed the order granting W&A's motion to dismiss, and she appealed the order granting Chase's motion to dismiss. Then, on August 4, 2016, Ms. Rollick filed a "supplement/ amendment" to her notice of appeal in which she sought to add the order granting CBBC's motion to dismiss to the other orders she was appealing. CBBC objected to Ms. Rollick's attempt to supplement or amend her initial notice of appeal, arguing that the thirty-day period within which an appellant must file a notice of appeal is "mandatory and jurisdictional" pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 4. CBBC also moved for an order dismissing it from the appeal. This Court agreed with CBBC and issued an order on March 29, 2017, denying Ms. Rollick's request to supplement or amend her notice of appeal and dismissing CBBC from the appeal. We wrote:

The appellant's supplement/amendment to her Notice of Appeal, which was filed on August 4, 2016, and supplemented the Notice of Appeal originally filed on July 8, 2016, was not filed within thirty (30) days of the April 21, 2016 date of entry of the Rule 54.02 final judgment dismissing the appellant's case against CBBC. Because the appellant's August 4, 2016 supplement/amendment to her Notice of Appeal is the only notice of appeal document directed to the April 21, 2016 judgment, the Court concludes that a timely notice of ...

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.