Dawn Moss v. Gregory Heerdink, M2017-01368-COA-R3-CV

Plaintiff Gregory Heerdink sued defendant Dawn Moss in general sessions for unpaid labor/services performed at her residence (claim ~ $20,855); general sessions awarded $24,952.91.
Defendant appealed to the circuit court; counsel appeared and denied existence of an enforceable contract, asserting a personal/romantic relationship.
The circuit court originally set trial for April 20, 2017, then continued by agreed order for mediation and reset trial to June 8, 2017.
Mediation (May 10) was missed by defendant and her counsel; on June 8 neither defendant nor her counsel appeared and gave no notice.
Plaintiff proceeded with trial in defendant’s absence, presented evidence, and the court entered judgment for $24,952.91 based on a verbal contract and itemized labor/materials.
On appeal defendant (pro se) argued the trial should not have proceeded without her and that the work was gratuitous due to a romantic relationship; no trial transcript or Rule 24(c) statement of the evidence was filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding when defendant and her counsel did not appear	Plaintiff: court had notice and properly proceeded; defendant abandoned appearance	Moss: court should have continued trial; counsel erred in letting matter go without her	Court: no abuse of discretion; defendant had notice and offered no Rule 59/60 justification for relief
Whether the appellate record supports reversal of the judgment (sufficiency of evidence / gratuitous relationship defense)	Plaintiff: evidence at trial supported judgment; appellant failed to preserve record	Moss: work was gratuitous because of a romantic relationship, so no basis for award	Court: no transcript/statement of evidence on appeal; must assume trial evidence supported findings; affirm judgment

Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants afforded some leeway but must comply with rules)
McDonald v. Onoh, 772 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (appellant’s duty to prepare appellate record)
Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (absence of preserved record requires assumption that evidence supported trial court)
Guseinov v. Synergy Ventures, Inc., 467 S.W.3d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (notice and opportunity to be heard are minimal due process requirements)
Morrow v. Drumwright, 304 S.W.2d 313 (Tenn. 1957) (continuance decisions rest within trial court’s discretion)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for due process notice/opportunity to be heard)