In re Paschke

1

ERIC DANIEL PASCHKE v. JESSICA RUTH PASCHKE

No. E2023-00239-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

February 7, 2024

Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2023

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Bradley County No. 2022-CV-229 Jerri Bryant, Chancellor

Appellant filed this declaratory judgment action against his sister seeking to enforce a contract concerning property owned by the siblings' parents at their deaths. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the contract was unenforceable, as there was no meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake of fact. The trial court further found that a conveyance of real property was barred by the statute of frauds. Because Appellant has failed to supply this Court with a transcript or statement of the evidence presented at trial, we must affirm the trial court's finding that there was no meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake.

Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded

Jeffrey A. Miller, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellant, Eric Daniel Paschke.

Sheridan C.F. Randolph, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jessica Ruth Paschke.

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, and KENNY ARMSTRONG, JJ joined.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 26, 2022, Petitioner/Appellant Eric Daniel Paschke ("Appellant" or "Eric") filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the Bradley County Chancery Court ("the trial court"). Therein, Appellant alleged that his stepmother, Donna Fay Paschke ("Mother") died intestate and was survived by her husband, Michael Paschke ("Father"), her daughter, Respondent/Appellee Jessica Ruth Paschke ("Appellee" or "Jessica") and another stepson, James Aaron Paschke ("James"). Father died two days after Mother, also intestate.

Appellant alleged that the family came together shortly after the deaths of Mother and Father, and entered into a written and signed distribution agreement. Appellant attached the "writing" to his petition. The handwritten document provides as follows:

(Image Omitted)

The writing also contains three signature lines, which appear to reflect the signatures of all three children.

Appellant further alleged that despite signing this document, Appellee thereafter repudiated the agreement. Appellant therefore asked for a declaratory judgment declaring the writing to be an enforceable contract, as well as attorney's fees.

Appellee filed an answer on September 8, 2022. Therein, Appellee admitted that "there was a writing purportedly regarding property disposition" but argued that the writing was unenforceable. Appellee also asserted that her assent to the writing was procured with duress. As defenses in addition to duress, Appellee asserted that the contract lacked consideration, was ambiguous, and was barred by the statute of frauds.

On November 1, 2022, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no enforceable contract existed because the agreement lacked consideration, was "so vague and ambiguous as to prevent a court from being able to identify the property or enforce the terms[,]" and lacked identification or description of the land conveyed so as to satisfy the statute of frauds. Appellee supported her motion for summary judgment with a memorandum of law, her own affidavit, the affidavit of a witness to the agreement,^[2] and a statement of undisputed material facts. Appellant thereafter responded in opposition, relying on his own affidavit.

For whatever reason, the case was not disposed of via summary judgment. Instead, the trial court conducted a bench trial "on the merits" on December 1, 2022. The trial court entered its final order dismissing Appellant's petition on January 24, 2023. As an initial matter, the trial court first ruled that James was a necessary party to the action,^[3] and that, having waived service of process, he agreed to be bound by the trial court's order. The trial court then recited the proof submitted concerning the deaths of Mother and Father, as well as the execution of the writing in dispute. In particular, the trial court noted that the dispute concerned real property that was owned by Mother alone; Appellee was the only "natural child" of Mother. The trial court further found as follows:

On Nov 17, 2021, days after the funeral, the parties met after the sudden death of both parents to talk about who wanted what in the estate. [Appellee] had met with an attorney and had given him information about both parents' deaths. The attorney told her something about administering both estates in the same probate. While it is unclear to Court what the attorney said, [Appellee] believed she was advised that both estates would be administered as one estate. This information was incorrect.

At the meeting of November 17th, upon discussion of who wanted which estate property, James [] wrote a document that was not produced at trial. [Appellee] wrote a second document; this document was signed by all three parties. The Court credits Katerina Kanavos's testimony describing [Appellee] as begging for additional time to think about everything before signing anything.

The trial court further detailed that "there could have been consideration," but "the lack of consideration was influenced by the fact" that the parties made "a mistake of fact and law between all of them in thinking that the real property was owned by both parents.

It was not." As the trial court then explained,

Since the parties did not make a knowing decision about who owned what and likewise did not know what they were giving up, there was a mutual mistake of fact. The real property belonged to [Mother]. None of the parties knew the law and none knew that the property was in [Mother's] name only. Further, probating both matters in one estate is mistake of law by the lawyer first advising [Appellee] on the probate matters.

The trial court therefore held that law providing that a contract among family "was enforceable where the parties acted with a full knowledge of their rights" was not applicable, citing Wood v. Lowery, 238 S.W.3d 747 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). The trial court further ruled that the contract failed because it did not include a sufficient property description to satisfy the statute of frauds pursuant to Baliles v. Cities Service Company, 578 S.W.2d 621 (Tenn. 1979). With regard to the personal property, the trial court held there was no meeting of the minds because there was "[n]o proof that everyone knew what property was referenced nor what their rights in the property were." So the trial court dismissed the petition for a declaratory judgment, and Appellant timely appealed to this Court.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant raises a single issue in this appeal, which is taken from his brief: "Whether the trial court erred in finding that the document entered into by the parties was not an enforceable contract."

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"We review the judgment of a trial court in a bench trial de novo upon the record, according a presumption of correctness to the factual findings of the court below." Marla H. v. Knox Cnty., 361 S.W.3d 518, 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). We review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo with no presumption of correctness. Burress v. Shelby Cnty., 74 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

IV. ANALYSIS

In this case, the trial court made two alternative rulings in dismissing Appellant's petition for a declaratory judgment: (1) that there was no meeting of the minds on the contract due to a mutual mistake of fact and a mistake of law; and (2) that, at least as to the real property at issue, the contract failed due to the statute of frauds. When the trial court makes independent, alternative rulings in support of its decision, the appellant is required to appeal both rulings, lest his argument be waived. See Hatfield v. Allenbrooke Nursing &Rehab. Ctr., LLC, No. W2017-00957-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 3740565, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2018) ("Generally, where a trial court provides more than one basis for its ruling, the appellant must appeal all the alternative grounds for the ruling." (citing 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 718; Tower Oaks Blvd., LLC v. Procida, 219 Md.App. 376, 392, 100 A.3d 1255, 1265 (Md. 2014))). In other words, "where a trial court provides more than one separate and independent ground for its judgment and a party fails to appeal one or more of the independent grounds, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court on the ground that was not challenged on appeal." Buckley v. Elephant Sanctuary in Tenn., Inc., 639 S.W.3d 38, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Hatfield, 2018 WL 3740565, at *7).

Here Appellant's designated issue broadly encompasses both rulings. And Appellant has specifically addressed both rulings in the argument section of his appellate brief. What Appellant has not done, however, is provide this Court with an appropriate record from which we can review both of these issues. "This Court's authority to review a trial court's decision is limited to those issues for which an adequate legal record has been preserved." Taylor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 158 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). To achieve this end, Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the appellant "have prepared" a transcript or statement of the evidence "as is necessary to convey a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal." Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) (involving transcripts); see also Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c) (involving statements of the evidence). Thus, the appellant generally...