Wednesday, May 27, 2009

In order to avoid dismissal pro se litigants must comply with rules 6 and 27


This is an appeal from an order of the trial court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Lasalle Bank National Association (Lasalle Bank). It appears from the record before us that Lasalle Bank obtained a judgment for possession in the General Sessions Court of Madison County for the parcel of real estate which is the subject of this appeal. It further appears from the record that the Defendant, Louis Hammond, executed a deed of trust on a parcel of real estate described as 39 Cherokee Drive, Jackson, Tennessee, to secure a note payable to United Companies Lending Corporation. The deed of trust was ultimately assigned to Lasalle Bank. The property was subject to foreclosure proceedings and was sold at public auction to Lasalle Bank.

Opinion may be found at the TBA website:

"Rule 27(a) or of rule 6 of this Court, with the exception of what we construe to be his statement of facts.  Appellant cites no authority, states no issues, and, notwithstanding the requirements of Rule 27(a)(8), does not ask this Court to grant him any relief.  Appellant also filed several documents which are designated as Exhibits A through J, some of which appear in the record and some of which do not. Pro se litigants are granted a certain amount of leeway in drafting their pleadings and briefs. We apply less stringent standards than those applied to papers prepared by lawyers. C&W Asset Acquisitions, LLC v. Oggs, 230 S.W.3d 671, 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).  Parties who represent themselves are entitled to fair and equal treatment by the courts.  Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).  However, the courts must also be mindful to balance fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigants adversary. Pro se litigants are not excused from complying with applicable substantive and procedural law and must follow the same as the represented party.  Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). Pro se litigants should not be padversaries and the courts cann59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)." Id.