Mindy Donovan v. Joshua R. Hastings - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part

Case Number
M2019-01396-COA-R3-CV

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that some of the issues raised by the defendant/appellee, Joshua R. Hastings, are untimely. Mr. Hastings was required to raise issues related to the voluntary dismissal of claims and his motions to compel within thirty days of the final judgment. See TENN. R. APP. P. 4(a). After ruling on those issues, the trial court deemed the May 24, 2019 order to be a final judgment. See TENN. R. CIV. P. 58. But Mr. Hastings did not seek an appeal within thirty days of that order. So appellate review is limited to what took place after the time for appeal of the May 24, 2019 order ran, the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff/appellant Mindy Donovan.

Authoring Judge
Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Originating Judge
Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal
Case Name
Mindy Donovan v. Joshua R. Hastings - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version