Heather P. Hogrobrooks Harris v. Tijuana M. Harris (Watson) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                       07/27/2022
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    HEATHER P. HOGROBROOKS HARRIS v. TIJUANA M. HARRIS
    (WATSON) ET AL.
    Chancery Court for Shelby County
    No. CH-21-1110
    ___________________________________
    No. W2022-00784-COA-R3-CV
    ___________________________________
    The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks
    jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
    KENNY ARMSTRONG, J.; STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S.; CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J.
    Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks Harris, pro se appellant.
    Darius Shawn Green, pro se appellee.
    Thomas Roosevelt Branch, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tijuana Harris.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    On June 10, 2022, pro se Appellant, Heather P. Hogrobrooks Harris, filed a Notice
    of Appeal in this Court. According to the Notice of Appeal, Appellant was appealing an
    order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered on May 3, 2022. Pursuant to
    Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court did a preliminary
    1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides:
    This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm,
    reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal
    opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum
    opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and
    shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
    review of the appellate record to determine whether this Court had subject matter
    jurisdiction over the appeal. Based on that review, we determined that this Court likely did
    not have subject matter jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely
    filed.
    A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the
    final judgment. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4. This thirty-day requirement may not be waived.
    American Steinwinter Investor Group v. American Steinwinter, Inc., 
    964 S.W.2d 569
    (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). An appellate court cannot extend the time for filing a notice of
    appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 2. “In civil cases, the failure to timely file a notice of appeal
    deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” Arfken & Associates, P.A.
    v. Simpson Bridge Co., Inc., 
    85 S.W.3d 789
    , 791 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted).
    In fact, “[i]f the notice of appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court is required to dismiss
    the appeal.” 
    Id.
    The order appealed was entered by the trial court on May 3, 2022. There is no
    indication that any of the motions listed in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)
    were timely filed. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal should have been filed with the Clerk
    of this Court within thirty (30) days after May 3, 2022, or by June 2, 2022. Appellant did
    not file a notice of appeal by that date, however. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed
    with this Court until June 10, 2022.
    On June 17, 2022, this Court entered an Order setting forth the aforementioned
    jurisdictional issue caused by Appellant’s untimely Notice of Appeal. Further, the Court
    directed Appellant to “within fifteen (15) days of entry of [the] Order, show cause why this
    appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely file the notice of appeal.”
    On June 28, 2022, Appellant filed a response to the Court’s show cause Order.
    Therein, Appellant states that she did not learn of the entry of the May 3, 2022 Order until
    June 7, 2022, which is when she filed her notice of appeal. However, the May 3, 2022 order
    is signed by the trial court judge and includes a certificate of service from the trial court
    clerk, which certifies that the order was served on Appellant on May 4, 2022.2 The trial
    court’s order meets the requirements of Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
    for the valid entry of a judgment. In sum, Appellant’s response to this Court’s Order to
    show cause does not include any explanation or new information sufficient to give this
    Court subject matter jurisdiction over the untimely notice of appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P.
    2.
    In light of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs of this matter
    are assessed to Appellant, Heather P. Hogrobrooks Harris, for which execution may issue,
    2
    Even using the date from the certificate of service, May 4, 2022, Appellant’s notice of appeal was
    still untimely when filed on June 10, 2022.
    if necessary.
    PER CURIAM
    

Document Info

Docket Number: W2022-00784-COA-R3-CV

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/27/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/27/2022