May 11–May 17, 2024

• Tennessee Court of Appeals: “It is clear that [Pro Se Appellant] is, to put it lightly, frustrated with everyone associated with this matter, including HSBC, various counsel, and at least three judges.”  But because, in this particular phase of this multidecade litigation, Pro Se Appellant’s “forty-two issue” appeal fails to comply with briefing rules, this appeal is dismissed: (1) due to “her failure to effectively cite to the record”; (2) because her brief “does not contain an appropriate table of authorities” (a more unusual failure); and (3) because the brief’s arguments are sufficiently skeletal that they are waived.
• Litigants fight over “the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act.”  At the time their dispute arose, the PPA required the Defendant to place retained funds in a separate, interest-bearing escrow account, which it did not do.  The PPA was then amended to exempt the Defendant (a government entity) from that requirement.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “While the PPA is a remedial statute, it is clearly remedial with respect to contractors being paid in a timely fashion. It is not remedial towards those who retain funds owed to contractors.”  So the version of the PPA that was in effect at the time of the Defendant’s non-compliance governs here, because a substantive right was involved and that right “already had accrued by the time of the PPA’s amendment[.]”  But the award of attorney’s fees against the Defendant is reversed, because the statute’s fee-shifting provision requires bad faith, and “[g]iven the complete lack of evidence or factual findings underpinning the Trial Court’s conclusory determination that [Defendant] acted in bad faith, an award of attorney’s fees to [Plaintiff] under the PPA cannot be among the acceptable alternative dispositions.”  The Plaintiff is entitled to statutory interest under the earlier version of the statute, though.
• Pro Se Plaintiff sues four defendants for damages arising out of an automobile accident.  Three of them win dismissal (the claim against the fourth is not adjudicated), and Pro Se Plaintiff appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Can’t do that.  The judgment isn’t final, so “[t]he appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final judgment without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final judgment has been entered.”
• Trial Court (January 23, 2024): Enters an order of protection against Respondent.  Respondent (February 23, 2024): I appeal!  I “made the mistake of not remembering that January had 31 days and not 30,” though.  Tennessee Court of Appeals (May 15, 2024): That mistake is jurisdictional, and “we are not permitted to waive the untimely filing of a notice of appeal in civil cases.”  So actually, you do not appeal; instead, your appeal is dismissed.
• Plaintiff who slips and falls while jumping off a diving board in a City-owned pool injures his knee.  He then sues City for negligence for its alleged failure to properly maintain the diving board or disclose its dangerous condition.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Something called the “Tennessee Recreational Use Statute” provides “an affirmative defense to a landowner when a person is injured while engaging in a recreational activity on the landowner’s property.”  As relevant here, a section of that law says that a statutory landowner will owe “no duty of care to keep such land or premises safe for entry or use by others” for recreational activities including (among other things) “water sports.”  Tennessee Court of Appeals: A city pool is “land” or “premises,” and swimming and diving are “recreational activities” within the meaning of the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute, so the City’s affirmative defense prevails.