Ana Tania Gomez v. Sable-Imagination On Sand
E2017-00107-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Ana Tania Gomez and Joaquin Gomez (Mexican residents) sued ten individuals/entities in Sevier County Chancery Court over their involvement in a Pigeon Forge dinner-show business, asserting claims including declaratory relief, quiet title, breach of contract, corporate/ nonprofit statute violations, veil-piercing, fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.
- After a two-day bench trial, the trial court ruled for defendants on all claims and dismissed the complaint.
- Plaintiffs timely appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, listing three issues: (1) whether the enterprise was a partnership; (2) whether defendants breached fiduciary duties; (3) whether partner oppression occurred.
- The appellants’ brief failed to develop arguments: it did not separately analyze each issue, contained minimal factual recitation, cited no legal authority for the asserted statutes, and offered only a conclusory assertion regarding Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-404 et seq.
- The Court of Appeals held the issues waived for failure to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) requirements (argument and authority), and dismissed the appeal, taxing costs to the appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the business was a partnership | Gomez argued the enterprise was a partnership entitling them to partner-based protections | Defendants argued it was not a partnership (trial court found no partnership) | Waived on appeal for failure to brief/argue; appeal dismissed |
| Whether defendants breached fiduciary duties | Gomez asserted defendants violated fiduciary duties under Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-404 et seq. | Defendants denied fiduciary breaches; trial court found no breach | Waived on appeal for skeletal briefing lacking authority or specific analysis; appeal dismissed |
| Whether partner oppression occurred | Gomez claimed partner oppression against them | Defendants disputed oppression; trial court found none | Waived on appeal for inadequate briefing; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (issue may be waived when brief fails to meet Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) requirements)
- Forbess v. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (failure to cite authority or develop argument constitutes waiver)
- McGarity v. Jerrolds, 429 S.W.3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to cite authority waives the issue)
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Supreme Court, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (skeletal arguments that merely construct an outline result in waiver)