Patrick Michael Wallen v. LC Germantown Owner, LLC

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed Patrick Michael Wallen’s appeal because his notice of appeal was filed after the applicable thirty-day deadline. The court held that Wallen’s second post-judgment motion did not toll the appeal period because it either constituted an unauthorized serial Rule 59.04 motion or was a Rule 60.02 motion filed after the notice of appeal, when the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The court assessed appellate costs against Wallen.

Holdings

1. The June 9, 2025 notice of appeal was untimely. The April 29, 2025 order resolving Wallen's first timely Rule 59.04 motion triggered a new thirty-day appeal period that expired on May 29, 2025.
2. The May 22, 2025 motion, construed as a serial Rule 59.04 motion, did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal because it merely repeated grounds asserted in Wallen's first Rule 59.04 motion.
3. Treating the May 22 motion as a Rule 60.02 motion did not make the appeal timely. Filing the notice of appeal on June 9 divested the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction, rendering its June 13 order void ab initio and ineffective to extend the appeal period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the June 9, 2025 notice of appeal was timely when the circuit court entered its final judgment on March 27, 2025, resolved Wallen's timely first Rule 59.04 motion on April 29, 2025, and Wallen filed a second post-judgment motion on May 22, 2025.
2. Whether the second post-judgment motion was an unauthorized serial Rule 59.04 motion that did not extend the time for appeal.
3. Whether treating the second motion as a Rule 60.02 motion affected the appellate deadline or validated the circuit court's June 13, 2025 order entered after the notice of appeal.

Disposition

dismissed