Kidd vs. Hawthorne
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
GLENNA KIDD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant v. ANN HAWTHORNE Defendant-Appellee C/A No. 01A01-9808-CV-00413 BEDFORD COUNTY Circuit No. 7894 FILED December 22, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT NASHVILLE APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE GLENNA KIDD, Appellant P. O. Box 499 1508 Highway 64 West Shelbyville, TN 37162 Pro Se NO BRIEF FILED FOR APPELLEE AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge CONCUR: FRANKS, J. McMURRAY, J. OPINION Goddard, P.J. This suit originated in the General Sessions Court for Bedford County wherein Ann Hawthorne prosecuted an unlawful detainer warrant as to certain real estate against Glenna Kidd. Thereafter, Ms. Kidd filed a claim against Ms. Hawthorne and sometime during the proceedings, perhaps after the counter-claim was filed, the parties and the Court treated the original Plaintiffs and counter-Defendants as Ann Hawthorne and Ken Hawthorne. The General Sessions Judge found in favor of the Hawthornes, granted them possession and, as best we understand, a judgment of $100 for rent. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court wherein the Circuit Judge dismissed the counter-claim and awarded judgment in favor of the Hawthornes against Ms. Kidd in the amount of $1827.13.1 Ms. Kidd has filed a document styled Informal Brief which does not meet the requirements of Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and advances no issues on appeal. Moreover, there is no transcript or statement of the evidence as to the hearing below. Under such circumstances an appellate court must presume the judgment of the Trial Court is supported by sufficient evidence. J. C. Bradford & Co. v Martin Const. Co., 576 S.W. 1 o f t h e W e p r e s u m e b y t h e t i m e o f t r i a l i n t h e C i r c u i t p r o p e r t y h a d b e e n r e s t o r e d t o t h e H a w t h o r n e s . 2 C o u r t , p o s s e s s i o n 2d 586 (Tenn.1979); Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W. 2d 649 (Tenn.App.1988); Daniel v. Metropolitan Government, 696 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn.App.1985). For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of the judgment and costs below. Cost of appeal are adjudged against Ms. Kidd and her surety. _______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J. CONCUR: ________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J. ________________________________ Don T. McMurray, J. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
