Tag: civil procedure

Plaintiffs Counsel Beware: Tenn. Court of Appeals issues new opinion on “finality” of general sessions judgments

If you’ve ever filed a lawsuit involving multiple claims or multiple parties, you probably already know how Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 works. If you don’t, here’s a primer that I wrote in 2017.

Yesterday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a new opinion on this topic, which is a must read for sessions lawyers.

The case, Mary Bradley v. Catherine A. Pesce, W2023-00583-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Ap. Dec. 19, 2023)(full copy here), involves a lawsuit against two defendants, filed in general sessions court in 2020. Plaintiff served one defendant, but never got the other served. After taking a judgment in June 2022 against the served defendant, plaintiff nonsuited the claims against the never-served defendant in January 2023.

Using the date of the dismissal, the judgment defendant filed an appeal of the June 2022 judgment. The issue, of course, was whether her appeal was timely under Tenn. Code. Ann. § 27-5-108, which provides “[a]ny party may appeal from a decision of the general sessions court to the circuit court of the county within a period of ten (10) days.”

Wasn’t the defendant required to appeal within 10 days of the June 2022 judgment?

Looking to Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a), the Court of Appeals first asked whether a ruling in a matter is “final” where other claims (like a cross-claim) are still pending. The Court noted that the “finality rule” is applicable even in general sessions cases, citing other opinions that “the time for filing a notice of appeal [does] not begin to run until every claim raised in the general sessions court [is] adjudicated.” Further, the Court considered the 2018 amendments to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-108, which provide that one party’s timely appeal takes all issues to the circuit court, even when other claims remain pending.

In the end, the Court concluded that because “the general sessions court action …was against two parties: Appellant and Ms. Weaver,” then “[t]he judgment against Appellant was not final and appealable until all the claims of all the parties were adjudicated,” and “[t]his occurred on or about January
5, 2023.” As a result, the appeal of the June 2022 ruling was not a final order until the dismissal order was signed.

In short, the concepts behind Rule 54.02 apply in Tennessee General Sessions Court, and litigants should keep this opinion in their mind any time a case involves multiple claims and parties.

Here, it seems like the judgment debtor acted out of necessity (and not by design). Frankly, the safest course of action would have been to file the appeal in June 2022 and be entirely certain that the appeal was timely (which would have, by operation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-108, taken the entire matter to circuit court).

On the other side of the aisle, an experienced plaintiff’s lawyer knows the incredible challenges that an evading or difficult-to-serve defendant presents, and that lawyer should take precaution to make any partial judgment final (and executable) as soon as possible.

This could be done in a few easy ways. The plaintiff could ask for text in the sessions judgment that tracks the language of Rule 54.02, making it clear that the order is a final order. The plaintiff could, at the time of the entry of the initial judgment, dismiss the other claims and parties. Or, if the other claims and parties were simply too crucial, the plaintiff could delay all relief or, at worst, live with a bit of ambiguity as to the finality of the partial judgment.

The appellate court’s reasoning is sound, but a savvy plaintiff has a number of ways to protect their client.

A more pressing question is this: If the “partial” sessions judgment isn’t final in a situation like this, then shouldn’t the Court Clerk refuse to issue execution? (Spoiler: Most will issue execution, but, based on this case, they shouldn’t.)

Who knew Pineapple Express had such technically accurate legal scenes?

Service of process can drive me and my clients crazy. Before filing the lawsuit, I am in total control of all aspects of the timing of the case, from the initial review to filing the Complaint.

But, once I file the complaint and send it to be served on the defendant, we are sometimes at the mercy of luck and a little bit of good timing.

Nobody wants to be served with a lawsuit (for obvious reasons), and, until you get them served, they have no responsibility to answer and the case doesn’t move forward.

In many cases, a plaintiff has to employ creative tactics to get the process into the hands of the defendant.

You’ve probably seen this in a movie, where the process server hides in the bushes, hands somebody a piece of paper, and yells “You’ve been served!” as he runs away.

So, yes, I thought about the opening sequence from Pineapple Express, when I read a recent opinion by Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Lyle about an evading defendant and an irritated process server, in Joyce B. Martin v. Devon Lawrence, et. al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 20-1091-III.

In that case, the process server was knocking on the defendant’s door, had confirmed that the defendant was inside the house, and, when the defendant refused to come to the door, attempted service pursuant to Rule 4.04(1) by “plac[ing] the summons and complaint into a clear plastic sleeve and tap[ing] it to the glass front door before leaving the [Defendant’s house].”

(The opinion was silent on whether the process server yelled “You’ve been served!” as he walked away, but I would bet money that he did.)

On these facts, however, Chancellor Lyle found the service ineffective. Rule 4.04(1) provides that if a defendant “evades or attempts to evade service,” then the process server may perfect service of process “by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, whose name shall appear on the proof of service, or by delivering the copies to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the individual served.”

Citing this Rule’s plain language—which expressly imposes a requirement that the summons be left “with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein”—the Judge found that merely taping the summons to the outside of a home does not meet the statutory requirements, even under these circumstances.

(Note: You can read more analysis of this opinion (and see a full copy) by visiting the Nashville Bar Association’s Trial Court Opinion page, which will be updated soon with more notable decisions.)

In a surprise twist, then, Seth Rogen’s stoner private process server turns out to be a highly effective process server whose work would be approved even by Chancellor Lyle (though she may question other aspects about his…demeanor and tactics).

In each instance in the movie clip he, in fact, personally serves each person. We lawyers can be awful to watch movies with, since we love to nit-pick the accuracy of the Hollywood depictions of the job, but this sequence complies with the law (except the part when he’s driving and using illegal substances).

But, other than that–congratulations to Seth Rogen–this clip could be shown in a first-year Civil Procedure class. Who knew?