Charles Stromsnes v. RRM, E2021-00246-COA-R3-CV

Charles and Penny Stromsnes sued Recreation Resource Management, Warren Myer, and Gail Edwards in Loudon County General Sessions; the case was tried de novo in Loudon County Circuit Court in September 2020.
After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, the Trial Court granted defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02.
The Stromsneses appealed pro se to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appellate briefs filed by the Stromsneses omitted required elements (no table of authorities, no developed argument with authority or record citations, no statement of the case, no standards of review) and contained only vague assertions of error.
The Court of Appeals concluded the briefs violated Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6, treated the issues as waived, affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment, and assessed costs to the appellants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Trial Court erred in granting involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02	Stromsnes claimed multiple trial errors and sought reversal	RRM et al. argued the appeal should be dismissed/affirmed because plaintiffs failed to preserve issues by adequate briefing	Waived on appeal for failure to comply with briefing rules; judgment affirmed
Whether the appellants’ briefs complied with Tenn. R. App. P. 27	Stromsnes submitted briefs that listed purported errors but provided no citations or developed legal argument	RRM et al. argued briefs lacked required table of authorities, authority citations, statement of case, and standards of review	Court held briefs did not comply with Rule 27 and therefore claims were waived
Whether Court should excuse defects because appellants were pro se	Stromsnes contended pro se status merits leniency	RRM et al. relied on the rule that pro se litigants must still follow procedural rules	Court acknowledged pro se status but held it does not excuse failure to follow appellate rules; no relief granted
Whether appellate court must research or construct arguments for appellant	Stromsnes implicitly asked court to consider alleged errors despite scant briefing	RRM et al. argued the court should not research or develop appellant’s arguments	Court refused to construct arguments or verify unsupported allegations; declined to review issues, affirming waiver

Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (pro se litigants entitled to fair treatment but not exemption from rules)
Paehler v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (same principle regarding pro se litigants)
Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (courts should balance leniency to pro se litigants with fairness to adversaries)
State v. Cross, 362 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2012) (appellant must provide citations to authority and record; bare assertions insufficient)
Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of Supreme Court, 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (court will not research or construct arguments for a party)
Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (skeletal arguments that merely assert claims do not preserve issues)
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to cite record and authority as required results in waiver)