Kim Maura Baxstrom (Webb) v. Kirk Ewing Webb
E2017-01651-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Dec 11, 2017Background
- Appellant Kim Maura Baxstrom appealed an order granting a Rule 60 motion in a Hamilton County Circuit Court case (No. 10D973).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record under Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) to determine appellate subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Court found unresolved claims and issues remaining in the trial court proceedings.
- Appellant argued the Rule 60 relief was improperly granted and that reversal would conclude the case.
- Appellee contended the order was not final or appealable.
- The Court of Appeals directed the appellant to show cause but ultimately concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order granting Rule 60 relief is appealable now | Baxstrom: the Rule 60 order was wrongly granted; reversing it would end the case | Webb: the order is not final or appealable because unresolved issues remain | The order is not appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether appellate finality requirements should be suspended under Tenn. R. App. P. 2 | Baxstrom: implicitly urged review despite nonfinality (argues error) | Webb: opposed, arguing order is interlocutory | Court: appellant failed to show a meritorious reason to suspend Rule 3(a); jurisdictional defect remains |
| Whether the Court can proceed under interlocutory exception (Bayberry) | Baxstrom: did not present a convincing suspension argument | Webb: reliance on final-judgment rule; no suspension warranted | Court: declined to invoke suspension; noted suspension requires good reason and may be constrained by later authority |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice | Baxstrom: sought appellate review now | Webb: sought dismissal | Court: dismissed without prejudice; appellant may file new appeal after final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 2003) (defining final judgment as one resolving all issues and leaving nothing for the trial court)
- State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (same finality principle cited)
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (noting appeals lie only from final judgments unless rules/statute allow suspension)
- Ingram v. Wasson, 379 S.W.3d 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (holding lack of appellate jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (supporting the rule that appellate jurisdictional defects are not waivable)