Linda R. Kerley v. George Olin Kerley
E2020-01137-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- George Olin Kerley (Husband) appealed an August 18, 2020 trial-court order that granted Linda R. Kerley (Wife) a divorce.
- Husband had previously filed a petition for contempt; Wife answered and filed a counter-petition and later filed an additional contempt motion. The trial court expressly reserved contempt issues for final hearing.
- The August 18 order granted divorce and stated Wife was entitled to "her reasonable attorney’s fees which will be determined upon submission of an affidavit of counsel." The record contains no subsequent order fixing an amount.
- Because contempt claims remained pending and the attorney-fee award was not reduced to an amount certain, the August 18 order did not resolve all claims between the parties.
- The Court of Appeals issued a Rule 13(b) show-cause order asking why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Husband did not respond to the show-cause order.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and taxed costs to Husband.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 18 order is a final, appealable judgment when contempt claims remain reserved | Husband: the divorce order is appealable as of right | Wife: reserved contempt claims prevent finality | Court: not final; contempt unresolved means no final judgment |
| Whether reserving determination of attorney’s fees prevents finality | Husband: the divorce decree may be appealed despite fee determination later | Wife: unresolved attorney-fee amount prevents a final adjudication of all claims | Court: not final; order reserving fee amount is not a final disposition |
| Whether failure to respond to the Court’s show-cause affects appealability | Husband made no response to show-cause | N/A (procedural) | Court noted failure to respond and dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 2003) (final judgment must resolve all issues and leave nothing for the trial court to do)
- State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (same definition of final judgment cited)
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only)