Sonya Brooks v. Ron Woody, 577 S.W.3d 529

Brooks was terminated January 14, 2011 and filed a General Sessions civil warrant in January 2012; the parties dispute whether it was filed on January 17 (Brooks’ position) or issued/stamped January 20/23 (official record).
Brooks’s suit was transferred to Roane County Circuit Court; Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment based on statute of limitations; Brooks submitted affidavits to show timely filing.
On March 9, 2017 the trial court dismissed Brooks’ entire lawsuit with prejudice, finding the civil summons issued January 20, 2012 made her suit untimely; the order reserved taxation of costs for a later date.
Brooks filed a motion to alter or amend on September 29, 2017; the trial court denied it as untimely on December 11, 2017, concluding the post-judgment motion was filed well beyond Rule 59.04’s 30-day limit.
Brooks filed a notice of appeal (via commercial carrier) on January 10, 2018. Defendants argued the appeal was untimely because the March 9, 2017 order was a final judgment despite reserving costs.
The Court of Appeals held the March 9, 2017 order was a final, appealable judgment (taxation of costs is incidental) and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Brooks’ notice of appeal and post-judgment motion were untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 9, 2017 order was final	Not final because taxation of costs was reserved; companion case remained pending; order lacked an explicit finality certificate	Final because it resolved all of Brooks’ substantive claims and left only costs to be taxed	Order was final; reservation of costs does not defeat finality
Whether Brooks’ notice of appeal was timely	Notice filed Jan 10, 2018 was timely under her view of dates and tolling	Notice untimely because 30-day appeal period began on entry of March 9, 2017 final judgment	Notice of appeal untimely; appellate court lacks jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether Brooks’ motion to alter or amend was timely	Motion filed Sept 29, 2017 was timely or should be considered	Motion untimely under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 (30 days) so trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule	Motion untimely; trial court correctly denied it for lack of jurisdiction
Whether separate/companion case or lack of explicit certificate prevented finality	Because court heard matters together, the cases should be treated as consolidated so March 9 order was not final	Cases had separate docket numbers and were never formally consolidated; resolving one did not require resolving the other	Cases were separate; lack of explicit certificate did not prevent finality when the order dismisses the case in its entirety

Word v. Metro Air Servs., 377 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2012) (extrinsic evidence generally cannot be used to impeach filing/issuance date on court filing unless the face is ambiguous)
Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2009) (30-day appeal period is triggered by entry of final judgment; appellate jurisdiction is jurisdictional and mandatory)
Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2003) (untimely post-trial motions do not toll appeal periods and trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on them)
Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2004) (the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal in civil cases is jurisdictional)
In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 2003) (final judgment resolves all issues leaving nothing else for the trial court to do)
Mengle Box Co. v. Lauderdale Cnty, 230 S.W. 963 (Tenn. 1921) (taxation of costs is incidental and does not affect finality when the merits are fully disposed)
Cockrell v. Cockrell, 83 S.W.2d 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935) (taxation of costs is an incident to the merits and does not determine finality)