In re Estate of James Kemmler Rogers
M2015-01439-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- Decedent died June 11, 2014 in California; estate admitted to Kern County probate; Appellees are Decedent's two children; Appellant Kryder claimed creditor status in Tennessee probate.
- Kryder resided on a portion of Kryder's Tennessee farm; Decedent lived there providing handyman services in lieu of rent.
- Decedent moved to California after a 2012 auto accident; his mental status and intent to remain in California are disputed.
- Appellant filed a petition to probate Decedent’s estate in Giles County, Tennessee on November 7, 2014; will executed in Texas was filed later.
- Trial court denied the petition on February 10, 2015, finding Decedent domiciled in California; cross-petition for ancillary probate and Rule 11 sanctions followed; multiple post-judgment filings occurred.
- Appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment due to unresolved standing issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kryder had standing to pursue probate in Tennessee | Kryder, as purported creditor, has standing to pursue probate. | Appellees contend Kryder lacked standing absent a viable creditor claim; threshold issue unresolved. | Dismissed for lack of final judgment; standing must be resolved first. |
| Whether the trial court’s judgment was final and appealable under Rule 54.02 | Judgment was final as to multiple matters despite standing issue. | Finality depended on standing; without ruling on standing, judgment cannot be final. | Appeal dismissed for lack of finality due to unresolved standing; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. 2013) (standing and final judgment considerations require explicit findings and proper finality)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three indispensable standing elements; injury, causation, redressability)
- ACLU of Tenn. v. Darnell, 195 S.W.3d 612 (Tenn. 2006) (defining constitutional standing)
- Darnell, 195 S.W.3d 612 (Tenn. 2006) (standing analysis in Tennessee law)
- Petty v. Daimler/Chrysler Corp., 91 S.W.3d 765 (Tenn.App. 2002) (three indispensable standing elements)
- In re Estate of Smallman, 398 S.W.3d 134 (Tenn.2013) (standing and procedural thresholds in probate)
- Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Hooker, 840 S.W.2d 916 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991) (final judgment certification requirements under Rule 54.02)
- Bayberry Assoc. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (requirements for finality under Rule 54.02)
- Fox v. Fox, 657 S.W.2d 747 (Tenn.1983) (no just reason for delay must accompany final judgment under Rule 54.02)
- Shofner v. Shofner, 181 S.W.3d 703 (Tenn.Ct.App.2004) (definition of finality and appealability)