TOWN & COUNTRY JEWELERS, INC., ET AL.
JESSICA LYNN TROTTER AKA JESSICA LYNN TROTTER-LAWSON
Session June 27, 2017
from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-03-0204-2
Jim Kyle, Chancellor
creditors appeal the denial of their motion to extend a
judgment pursuant to Rule 69.04 of the Tennessee Rules of
Civil Procedure. Although we reverse the trial court's
ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over judgment
creditors' motion, we affirm the trial court's
decision to deny the motion where it was not filed
"[w]ithin ten years from the entry of [the underlying]
judgment[, ]" as required by Rule 69.04.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery
Court Reversed in Part; Affirmed in Part; and Remanded
Geoffrey G, Gaia, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants,
Town & Country Jewelers, Inc., Linda L. Rozen, and Doron
L. Parker, and Mitchell S. Ashkenaz, Memphis, Tennessee, for
the appellee, Jessica Lynn Trotter-Lawson.
Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the
court, in which W. Neal McBrayer and Brandon O. Gibson, JJ.,
STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE
January 31, 2003, Town & Country Jewelers, Inc.
("Town & Country"), Linda L. Rozen, and Doron
Rozen (collectively, "Appellants") filed suit
against Jessica Lynn Trotter-Lawson ("Appellee")
and Andrew Timothy Sheriff (together with Appellee,
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged that the
Defendants had misappropriated over $100, 000.00 from
Appellants while Appellee was employed by Town & Country.
On April 9, 2003, the trial court granted Appellants a
default judgment against Appellee. Thereafter on April 23,
2003, Appellants and Appellee entered into a consent judgment
whereby Appellants were awarded a judgment of $493, 685.81
against Appellee. Eventually a default judgment was also
entered against Mr. Sherriff in the amount of $519, 357.47.
On this day, August 11, 2003, the underlying action was fully
thirteen years later, on June 20, 2016, Appellants filed
separate motions requesting scire facias to revive the
judgments against Defendants. Only the motion to renew filed
against Appellee is at issue in this case. On August 5, 2016,
Appellee filed a response to Appellants' motion raising
the affirmative defense of the expiration of the statute of
hearing, the trial court entered an order on August 24, 2016,
denying Appellants' request to revive the judgment
against Appellee. Therein, the trial court rejected
Appellants' argument that Appellee's failure to
respond to their motion within thirty days required the trial
court to grant their motion. The trial court further
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter because
Appellants failed to act within the statutory ten-year period
pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110(a)(2).
The trial court designated its order as final and appealable.
Appellants thereafter appealed.
raise three issues concerning the trial court's denial of
their motion to extend the judgment against Appellee. In our
view, however, Appellants' issues may be summarized as a
single issue: Whether the trial court correctly denied
Appellants' motion to extend the judgment against
Appellee. Appellee also requests damages for a frivolous
case, Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their
motion to extend the 2003 judgment. The trial court's
decision to deny Appellants' motion to extend the
judgment was based on an interpretation of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, this case presents a
question of law, which we review de ...