Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Jo Ann Street
W2016-01026-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Property purchased by Ida B. Street was secured by a deed of trust later owned by Chase Manhattan; Ms. Street had two bankruptcies (1998, 2003) but the Court of Appeals previously held the deed was not paid and Chase Manhattan was owner (Chase I).
- A 2003 erroneous release of the deed of trust was recorded by a prior holder; Chase sued to set aside the releases, obtained summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- A 2008 foreclosure sale transferred title to Chase Home Finance, LLC; Chase sought and obtained a detainer/possession judgment in 2010 against Jo Ann Street (Ms. Street’s daughter), who later appealed to the circuit court.
- After multiple proceedings, continuances, and hearings (and no trial transcript in the appellate record), the circuit court entered final judgment in January 2016 granting possession to Chase, finding Chase had standing, foreclosure was proper, and Appellant produced no proof of post‑2003 loan payments.
- Appellant proceeded pro se on appeal and filed a brief the Court characterized as deficient (lack of record citations, authority, and developed argument); Appellee moved to dismiss for noncompliance with appellate briefing rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chase) | Defendant's Argument (Street) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase properly foreclosed and has title/standing | Chase: foreclosure and title are valid following prior appellate ruling; owns deed and may possess | Street: Chase produced no record of foreclosure, offered questionable affidavits, HUD showed $0 balance; lacks standing | Held: Court affirmed foreclosure/title; prior appellate decision establishes Chase’s ownership and right to foreclose; Street’s challenges waived by deficient briefing |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Appellant’s summary judgment motion | Chase: denial was proper; trial proceeded on disputed facts | Street: trial court failed to rule with required findings under Rule 52.01 when denying summary judgment | Held: Denial of summary judgment is not reviewable after a full trial on the merits; issue not reviewable here |
| Whether trial court failed to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law (Rule 52.01) | Chase: trial court’s written order was sufficient and detailed | Street: court failed to state reasons and statutory findings | Held: Court found the nine‑page final order sufficiently detailed and compliant with Rule 52.01; no reversible error |
| Whether other procedural errors (continuances, counsel issues, contempt, rent, bona fide purchaser status) warrant relief | Chase: procedural rulings proper; no reversible error | Street: alleged denial of continuance, ineffective assistance, contempt, improper rent/eviction procedures | Held: These issues largely waived due to skeletal briefing and lack of record citations/transcript; appellate court declines to address them on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as counsel)
- Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009) (parties must thoroughly brief appellate issues)
- Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of Sup. Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (skeletal argument waives an issue)
- Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (failure to include adequate appellate argument may constitute waiver)
- J.C. Bradford & Co. v. Martin Constr. Co., 576 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1979) (where no transcript is included on appeal, trial court’s factual findings are presumed supported)
- Lovelace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01 findings facilitate appellate review)