LEXINGTON CHARTER v. FBT OF TENNESSEE INC (2023)

ORDER

Following several years of litigation involving property that ultimately went into receivership, on December 15, 2020, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Approve Accounting, Ratify Actions of Receiver, Authorize Disbursement, Close Receivership, and Discharge Receiver.” That same day, non-parties Regions Bank and RB Affordable Housing (collectively, “Regions”) filed a “Motion to Intervene and Objection to Joint Motion[.]” On December 22, 2020, the trial court denied the motion to intervene, finding it untimely. Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.05, an order denying a motion to intervene is a final judgment. As a result, Regions had thirty days to appeal the order, which was until January 21, 2021. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).

Regions did not file a notice of appeal. Instead, on January 21, 2021, Regions filed a “Motion to Amend Order Denying Regions Bank's Motion to Intervene.” Regions stated in its motion that it was asking the trial court to amend its December 22, 2020 order to allow Regions to object to a motion for fees and expenses that had been filed by the law firm representing Plaintiff Lexington Charter L.P. In its answer to Plaintiff's application for permission to appeal to this Court, Regions admits that its January 21, 2021 motion was filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59 in order to alter or amend the December 22, 2020 order denying intervention. The January 21, 2021 motion to amend was timely filed and extended the time for filing a notice of appeal. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04; Tenn. R. App. P. 4(b). The trial court denied Regions’ January 21, 2021 motion to amend in an order entered on April 19, 2021. As a result, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal regarding the December 22, 2020 order denying intervention was May 19, 2021.

Again, Regions did not file a notice of appeal. Instead, on May 18, 2021, Regions filed another motion to amend in the trial court, again requesting that the trial court grant its previously denied motion to intervene. However, a party is not authorized to file a motion to reconsider a motion to amend a judgment, and such a motion to reconsider does not extend the time for appellate proceedings. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. This Court has held that a second motion for relief from judgment, brought on the same grounds, is an unauthorized motion to reconsider. Daugherty v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance, 798 S.W.2d 754, 757-58 (Tenn. 1990); see also Legens v. Lecornu, No. W2013-01800-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 2922358 *7-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2014). Regions argued in both of its motions to amend that the trial court should allow Regions to intervene to object to the law firm's fee motion. Therefore, Regions’ second motion to amend was an impermissible motion to reconsider that did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal regarding the December 22, 2020 order. As a result, the notice of appeal ultimately filed by Regions on September 23, 2021, was untimely, and the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. In re Bentley D., 537 S.W.3d 907, 910-11 (Tenn. 2017) (“In all civil cases ․ the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.”).

Accordingly, upon consideration of the application for permission to appeal of Lexington Charter, L.P., and the record before us, the application is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded to the trial court for any further necessary proceedings.

PER CURIAM