Kirkland Sturgis v. Donna Smith Thompson, 415 S.W.3d 843

Sturgis filed a general sessions complaint in Crockett County seeking possession and rent after purchasing property at foreclosure.
Thompson defended and the General Sessions Court entered judgment for Sturgis on August 9, 2010, ordering possession and $2,800 in rent.
The General Sessions judgment notified Thompson of a ten-day window to appeal to the Circuit Court.
Thompson filed a uniform civil indigency affidavit in the Circuit Court; the judge determined she was non-indigent on August 17, 2010.
Thompson then filed a Pauper’s Oath in lieu of an appeal bond on August 19, 2010 and filed a pleading to appeal on August 14, 2010.
The Circuit Court dismissed Thompson’s appeal on September 10, 2010 for lack of perfection/subject matter jurisdiction, and the appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals followed, challenging the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the de novo appeal was perfected with bond or indigency filing	Sturgis argues Thompson failed to perfect the appeal.	Thompson argues the pauper’s oath suffices under Rule 29.	No; failure to file a proper bond or indigency prevents perfection.
Whether a pauper’s oath can substitute for an appeal bond when indigency is denied	Sturgis maintains bond/indigency requirement cannot be bypassed.	Thompson contends pauper’s oath should be accepted despite non-indigency determination.	No; a pauper’s oath cannot substitute for a statutorily required bond when indigency is denied.

City of Red Boiling Springs v. Whitley, 777 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (bond requirement to perfect appeal supplies jurisdictional basis)
Clay v. Barrington Motor Sales, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (de novo appeal perfected only with notice and bond/indigency filing)
Sweatt v. Tenn. Dept. of Corr., 99 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (indicates process for indigency and nonindigency determinations)