Session June 18, 2019
from the Chancery Court for Madison County No. 71535 James F.
appeal arises from a divorce between parties with no minor
children. The husband appealed raising numerous issues
related to property division. He also challenges the trial
court's denial of his request for alimony. The appellate
record contains no transcript or statement of evidence that
complies with Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Further the husband's brief is woefully
deficient. Because of the husband's failure to comply
with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules
of this Court, there is no basis upon which to conclude that
the evidence preponderates against the findings of the
chancery court and the rulings based thereon. We affirm the
judgment of the chancery court and remand the case for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery
Court Affirmed and Remanded
Edward Polk, Jackson, Tennessee, Pro Se. Mitchell G.
Tollison, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Sherita
D. McGee, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J.
Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., and Thomas R. Frierson, II, J.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
D. McGEE, JUDGE
Facts &Procedural history
Edward Polk ("Husband") and Sherita Michelle Polk
("Wife") were married in 1992 and have no minor
children. In 2014, Wife filed for divorce. Husband timely
filed an answer and counter-complaint.
period of discovery, several pre-trial motions, and an
unsuccessful mediation, the court held a four-day bench trial
in 2017 and 2018. Each party was represented by an attorney
throughout the trial. The trial court issued a letter ruling
and filed the same with the clerk on September 11, 2018. An
order of absolute divorce was entered on October 15, 2018.
The trial court declared the parties divorced pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-129. The court attached
to the order a spreadsheet which detailed the division of
assets and debts for each party in a manner the court deemed
filed several post-trial motions, including a motion to
contest the terms of the order of absolute divorce, and he
raises similar issues in this appeal. Wife filed a motion for
clarification of issues. The trial court heard the motions on
November 5, 2018, and took the matter under advisement. The
court issued separate letter rulings on November 16, 2018,
addressing all issues raised by Husband and Wife, except for
Husband's request to "correct the address on the
property division worksheet to read 244/246 Airways
Blvd." The court indicated it would reconsider the
alimony issues in a separate order. The letter rulings were
memorialized in orders entered on December 10, 2018. A
separate order on alimony was filed with the trial court on
March 1, 2019, which terminated the alimony award to Wife
contained in the order of absolute divorce. Husband timely
filed a notice of appeal. Wife does not present any issues on
presents the following issues, as quoted from his brief:
1. Whether the trial court's amended final order on
alimony filed March 1, 2019 reflects equitable consideration
to the Appellant's economic disadvantage that would
result from a failure to award him additional income
producing marital property and/or alimony for spousal support
2. Whether the trial court can seize and withhold
Appellant's home insurance proceeds and if $7, 246.46 of
Appellant's home insurance proceeds, which was awarded to
Appellee to satisfy her request for attorney fees, be amended
and awarded to Appellant for recovering damages to the
2a. Whether the trial court may order Appellant to pay for a
service that the court asked Appellee's attorney to do.
3. Is Appellant entitled to have an equitable share of
4. Whether Appellant should be awarded or credited for paying
deficiency balance on foreclosed marital home.
5. Whether Appellant is entitled to relief in the form of a
reimbursement award for the seizure of his rents by Appellee
before the resolution of all actions, proper notice and
transfer of deeds.
6. Whether the marital debt, especially non-evidenced debt,
should be removed from the work sheet attached to the
absolute order of divorce filed October 15, 2018.
7. Should the address for Appellant's awarded marital
property be corrected on the work sheet attached to the
absolute order of divorce filed October 15, 2018?
Transcript or Statement of Evidence
initial matter, we note that Husband proceeds pro se in this
appeal. It is well settled that pro se litigants
must comply with the same standards to which lawyers must
adhere. Jackson v. Lanphere, No.
M2010-01401-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 3566978, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Aug. 12, 2011). As explained by this Court:
Parties who decide to represent themselves are entitled to
fair and equal treatment by the courts. The courts should
take into account that many pro se litigants have no legal
training and little familiarity with the judicial system.
However, the courts must also be mindful of the boundary
between fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the
pro se litigant's adversary. Thus, the courts must not
excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same
substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are
expected to observe.
Jackson, 2011 WL 3566978, at *3 (quoting Hessmer
v. Hessmer,138 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. Ct. ...