from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-15-165 Kyle
the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
D. Siroky, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Riverland,
D. Burleson, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of
B. Goldin, J., Brandon O. Gibson, J., and Kenny Armstrong, J.
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, we could find nothing in the record reflecting
that the trial court adjudicated the claims of nuisance,
inverse condemnation, and trespass, as set forth in the
"Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief and
Petition for Inverse Condemnation" filed in the trial
court on May 18, 2015.
by Order entered on November 21, 2017, the Court directed
Appellant Riverland, LLC to either, within ten (10) days of
the entry of that Order, obtain entry of a final judgment in
the trial court or else, within fifteen (15) days of the
entry of that Order, show cause why this appeal should not
dismissed for lack of a final judgment.
Clerk of this Court received a supplemental record for this
matter containing the trial court's order of November 29,
2017, declaring the order appealed to be a final judgment,
pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Although the trial order certified its order as a
final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules
of Civil Procedure, we determined that the order was
improvidently certified as final. Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
When more than one claim for relief is present in an action,
whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party
claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court,
whether at law or in equity, may direct the entry of a final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
or parties only upon an express determination that there is
no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for
the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination
and direction, any order or other form of decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall
not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties,
and the order or other form of decision is subject to
revision at any time before the entry of the judgment
adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.
according to the language of the Rule, certification of an
order as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 is not appropriate
''unless it disposes of an entire claim or is
dispositive with respect to a party.'' Irvin v.
Irvin, No. M2010B01962BCOABR3BCV, 2011 WL 2436507, at *8
(Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2011). Rule 54.02 does not apply to
all orders that are interlocutory in nature, but rather only
comes ''into play when there are multiple parties,
multiple claims, or both.'' Duffer
v. Lawson, No. M2009B01057BCOABR3BCV, 2010
WL 3488620, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2010). Even if a
trial court's order includes the necessary language from
Rule 54.02, a final judgment pursuant to the rule is not
appropriate unless it disposes of a claim or party. This
Court has stated, ''[a] 'claim' denotes
''the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to
a right enforceable in the courts.'" Irvin
at *8, n. 3 (quoting Chook v. Jones, No.
W2008B02276BCOABR3BCV, 2010 WL 960319, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Mar.17, 2010) (quoting Christus Gardens, Inc. v. Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., No.
M2007B01104BCOABR3BCV, 2008 WL 3833613, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Aug.15, 2008), no perm. app. filed (quoting McIntyre v.
First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 191
(6th Cir.1978))). Thus, based on the language of the Rule,
certification of an order as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 is
not appropriate ''unless it disposes of an entire
claim or is dispositive with respect to a party.''
Id. at *8.
the Court entered an Order on January 5, 2018, finding that
there was still nothing before the Court indicating that the
trial court ever adjudicated the theory of inverse
condemnation. The Court then directed Appellant to, within
ten (10) days of the entry of that Order, obtain entry of a
final judgment in the trial court. In our Order, we also
directed the trial court clerk to, within five (5) days of
the entry of the trial court's order, transmit a
certified, supplemental record to the Clerk of this Court. We
also ordered "[i]n the event that Appellant does not
obtain entry of a final judgment within the time provided
herein, Appellant shall, within fifteen (15) days from the
entry of this Order, show cause why this appeal should not be