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.

Shields Bey v. Wilson & Associates, PLLC

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

November 17, 2017

VERRINA M. SHIELDS BEY
v.
WILSON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, ET AL.

          Assigned on Briefs October 2, 2017

         Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-16-0783-2 Jim Kyle, Chancellor

         This is an appeal challenging the trial court's order denying a motion for interlocutory appeal. Due to the deficiencies in Appellant's brief on appeal, we find that she waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal.

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

          Verrina M. Shields Bey, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro se. Gerald Morgan, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellee, Wilson & Associates, PLLC.

          Edmund Scott Sauer, Brian Robert Epling, and Erin Alexandra McFall, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

          Brandon O. Gibson, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Charles D. Susano, Jr., and Richard H. Dinkins, JJ., joined.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

          BRANDON O. GIBSON, JUDGE.

         Background

         Verrina Michelle Shields Bey ("Appellant"), filed a "Petition [to] Quiet Title to Set Aside and Void Foreclosure Claim and Declaratory [] Injunction" on May 9, 2016, concerning real property located at 2486 Harvard Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, against Wilson & Associates, P.L.L.C. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively "Appellees"). Although it is difficult to discern from the sparse record, it appears that the trial court may have orally ruled, on May 10, 2016, that Appellant's complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. Nothing in the record indicates that a written order was entered memorializing the trial court's oral ruling. On May 11, 2016, Appellant filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal with the trial court. The trial court denied the motion on May 20, 2016. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2016.

         On November 8, 2016, this Court directed Appellant to obtain entry of a final judgment or show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. After Appellant failed to respond to the November 8, 2016 order, this Court issued a second order to show cause directing Appellant to obtain a final order. Appellant again failed to obtain a final order, and on March 20, 2017, the trial court entered its written order, reflecting its sua sponte dismissal of Appellant's complaint as being barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold that Appellant's brief on appeal is fatally deficient and hereby dismiss the appeal.

         Discussion

         Our ability to review the merits of this appeal is greatly hindered by the state of the brief submitted by Appellant. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27[2] governs briefs submitted to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

         Rule 27(a)(7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appellant's brief must contain an argument setting forth "the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, including the reasons why the contentions require appellate relief, with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record (which may be quoted verbatim) relied on." Tenn. R. Ct. App. Rule 27(a). According to the Tennessee Supreme Court, "[a]n issue may be deemed waived, even when it has been specifically raised as an issue, when the brief ...


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.