Robert Ledford v. George Raudenbush ( 2004 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs, June 29, 2004 ROBERT LEDFORD v. GEORGE RAUDENBUSH Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County No. CV-03-144 Hon. John B. Hagler, Circuit Judge No. E2004-00170-COA-R3-CV - FILED JULY 29, 2004 The defendant appeals from the Trial Court’s awarding Judgment to plaintiff for $1,000.00. The record on appeal is insufficient to review alleged error. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed. HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CHARLES D. SUSANO , JR., J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY , J., joined. George Laudenbush, appellant, pro se. OPINION This action originated in Sessions Court wherein Robert Ledford was granted default judgment against George Raudenbush, III., in the amount of $1,000.00. The matter was appealed to Circuit Court, and on November 18, 2003, the Circuit Court entered Judgment against George Raudenbush, as follows: Mr. Robert Ledford is granted a Judgment for $1,000.00 because Mr. George Raudenbush has no right of title, leasehold, or otherwise, since a bank had previously foreclosed on the property; no damage was done to the property; no repairs have been made to any property belonging to Mr. George Raudenbush; and the $1,000.00 was extracted from Mr. Robert Ledford for blocking his truck until he paid the money. George Raudenbush has appealed, pro se, to this Court, and has raised these issues: 1. Did the trial court err in granting appellee Robert Ledford judgment as pertaining to appellant’s contract between Richard and Clifford Arp as to establish rights and privileges of appellant to manage property? 2. Did the trial court err in granting appellee Robert Ledford judgment as to the appellant’s knowledge of foreclosure or possession? 3. Did the trial court err in granting appellee Robert Ledford judgment as to damages done to the property and repairs made? The only record in this Court is a copy of the Sessions Court Judgment and a copy of the Order of the Circuit Court affirming the Judgment entered in the Sessions Court. There is no transcript of evidence, and appellant’s pro se brief does not meet the minimum requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure as to form and contents. In the absence of an evidentiary record, we conclusively presume that the evidence before the Trial Court was sufficient to support the judgment, and we are constrained to affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. The Judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, and the cause, remanded, with the cost of the appeal assessed to George Raudenbush. ______________________________ HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J. -2-