Opinion

Michael Szemborski v. Roger Sayner

Court
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Nov 4, 2010
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Charles D. Susano
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.3%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned November 4, 2010

MICHAEL SZEMBORSKI, ET AL. V. ROGER SAYNER

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County

No. 08-0785 W. Frank Brown, III, Chancellor

No. E2010-01950-COA-R3-CV - FILED NOVEMBER 4, 2010

The order from which the appellant Roger Sayner seeks to appeal was entered in the trial

court on August 18, 2010. A notice of appeal was filed with and received by the trial court

clerk on September 21, 2010. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack

jurisdiction of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs taxed to the

appellant.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

C HARLES D. S USANO, JR., D. M ICHAEL S WINEY, AND J OHN W. M CC LARTY, JJ.

Whitney Durand, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Roger Sayner.

Adam U. Holland, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellees, Michael Szemborski and Julie

Szemborski.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

By order entered October 15, 2010, we directed the appellant Roger Sayner to show

cause why this appeal should not be dismissed “as having been untimely filed.” On October

1

Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows:

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“MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be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.

20, 2010, the appellant filed with us a pleading styled “Motion for Waiver Pursuant to Rule

4.” The motion is supported by the affidavits of the appellant’s attorney, Whitney Durand,

and the attorney’s assistant, Jillian Alexander. The affidavits do not attempt to refute the

correctness of the respective dates of entry/filing of the order and the notice of appeal.

The appellees have filed a response in which they state that we do not have

jurisdiction of this appeal because the notice of appeal was not “filed with and received by

the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed

from.” Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). They correctly point out that we are not at liberty to waive the

strict application of Rule 4(a). See American Steinwinter Investor Group ex rel. American

Steinwinter, Inc. v. American Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tenn. Ct. App.

1997); see also Jefferson v. Pneumo Services Corporation, 699 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1985).

The appeal of the appellant Roger Sayner is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to

Roger Sayner. Case remanded, pursuant to applicable law, for enforcement of the trial

court’s judgment and the collection of costs assessed by the trial court.

PER CURIAM

-2-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.