’WPC€ …# VUFa %§ 07­äO 4R f 0}u 0Dņ 6 w 6 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Ž 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1uØ U, 0dIU,­U6ŁB) B8DCU 0U˜ AMķU*:żd D3a‡”/ 0@Jv~ŠvÓ AOŪĘ* 0Dš D/4 Bc˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĄĢĄä䥥Ģ0†<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX&āõ$”Ń€²Ń Ö€’’Ö EŻ ƒ&¦)ŻŻ  Żą@°°*ģąŚ  Ś2Ś  Ś÷}±   Ōō„ 3|x‘(-(3‹Z$¤¤Ż ƒāõ!ŻŃ€²ŃŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó†Ӏ2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd(-3¦$©©Ż ƒāõ!ŻŃ€²ŃŻ  Ż€-%Cž’ << G’’< Œ 9p`(Arial óŻ ƒ!ŻŌ€ŌŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŌ€(ŌŌ€(ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€(XŌĢĢņ ņMay€21,€1996ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€(ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'’’dxd }Ż ƒ!ŻŌ€ŌŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ&)ŻŻ  Żą@ ąŚ  ŚŚ  Ś %Ż ƒ!ŻŌ€ŌŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ $Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŻ  Ż.€€AFFIRMANCE€WITHOUT€OPINION.„„The€Court,€with€theĻconcurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirmĻthe€action€of€the€trial€court€by€order€without€rendering€a€formalĻopinion€when€an€opinion€would€have€no€precedential€value€and€oneĻor€more€of€the€following€circumstances€exist€and€are€dispositiveĻof€the€appeal:Ģą ą(1)€the€Court€concurs€in€the€facts€as€found€or€as€found€byĻnecessary€implication€by€the€trial€court.Ģą ą(2)€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict€of€theĻjury.Ģą ą(3)€no€reversible€error€of€law€appears.Ģą ąSuch€cases€may€be€affirmed€as€follows:€€"Affirmed€inĻaccordance€with€Court€of€Appeals€Rule€10(a)".Ģ("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  ŅPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃMonacoŃŃ ŃŅ  BA Op Monaco ŅŅ  BA Op Monaco Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€ŌÓ&€!!X„d&ÓŃ#€!!Xd#ŃŌ€"ŌŻ  ŻŅ Ü ŅŅ ° ŅŁ€€ŁŃ  ŃŃ € ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃßL€')%;+'h|` Å `€€LßĢĢĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFĻTENNESSEE€ĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢEARL€GENE€HESS,€JR.,€€€€€€€€€€:€€ANDERSON€CHANCERYĢIndividually,€and€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€03A01„9509„CH„00303ĢA/N/F€FOR€MINORS€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ĢELIZABETH€GRACE€HESS€and€€€€€€:ĢEARL€GENE€HESS,€JR.€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€HON.€WILLIAM€E.€LANTRIP€Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:€€CHANCELLOR€Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:ĢPATRICIA€LOUISE€HESS€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€:Ģ€€€€€Defendant„Appellee€€€€€€€:€€AFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDĢĢĢĢĢĢĢEARL€GENE€HESS,€APPELLANT,€PRO€SE€ĢĢDAIL€R.€CANTRELL,€WITH€CANTRELL,€PRATT€&€VARSALONA,€OF€CLINTON,ĻTENNESSEE,€FOR€APPELLEEĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€O€P€I€N€I€O€N€ĢĢĢ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sanders,€Sp.J.ĢĢÓÓĢą ąą ąThis€case€is€a€classic€example€of€a€husband's€abusingĻthe€legal€process€to€harass€his€ex„wife.ĢĢą ąą ąBetween€May€and€June,€1995,€the€Plaintiff„AppellantĻfiled€seven€documents€consisting€of€pro€se€complaints,ĻÖ€+Öpetitions,€and€motions,€all€of€which€were€long,€disconnected€andĻlacking€in€stating€a€cause€of€action€upon€which€relief€could€beĻgranted.€€To€summarize€the€content€of€each€document€would€serveĻonly€to€lengthen€this€opinion.€€The€documents€consisted€of€theĻfollowing:€(1)€On€May€5,€1995,€he€filed€"Complaint€for€Abuse€andĻNeglect€of€Children,€and€Contempt€of€Court";€(2)€May€17,€"MotionĻto€Dismiss€Defendant's€Subterfuge";€(3)€€June€12,€"Motion€ForĻContempt€of€Court€for€Denial€of€Visitation";€(4)€June€30,Ļ"Motion€for€Ruling€on€Violation€of€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€CodeĻof€Judicial€Conduct";€(5)€June€30,€"Motion€for€GrandparentsĻVisitation€Rights";€(6)€June€30,€"Motion€for€Summary€Judgment";Ļ(7)€June€30,€Motion€to€Dissolve€Permanent€Restraining€Order".€ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Defendant€filed€a€response€to€each€of€the€motions,Ļtogether€with€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€The€motions€to€dismiss€wereĻpredicated€either€on€TRCP€Rule€12.02,€res€judicata,€or€formerĻdetermination€of€the€issue€raised.ĢĢą ąą ąUpon€hearing€the€complaint€and€motions,€the€courtĻentered€five€separate€orders€dismissing€the€complaint€andĻmotions.€€As€pertinent,€the€court€said:€€"The€Court€has€reviewedĻthe€petitioner's€Complaint€for€Abuse€and€Neglect€of€Children€andĻrespondent's€Motion€to€Dismiss€Complaint€for€Abuse€and€NeglectĻof€Children.€€The€Court€finds€that€the€Complaint€is€non„specificĻas€to€any€alleged€abuse€and/or€neglect,€and€rather,€demandsĻreview€and€modification€of€numerous€terms€of€a€prior€divorceĻdecree.€€The€doctrine€of€res€judicata€requires€that€theseĻdemands€having€already€been€resolved€at€trial,€or€having€beenĻmade€in€petitioner's€Motions€under€another€case€now€pending,ĻCase€No.€94CH1770,€may€not€be€retried€by€this€Court.Ģą ąą ą"The€Court€has€reviewed€the€'Motion€to€DismissĻDefendant's€Subterfuge'€filed€by€Mr.€Hess,€which€the€CourtĻinterprets€as€being€Mr.€Hess's€Answer€to€Defendant's€Motion€toĻDismiss€Complaint€for€Abuse€and€Neglect€of€Children.€€As€stated,Ļthese€divorce€issues,€having€already€been€litigated,€are€notĻreviewable€under€a€different€cause€of€action.€Ģą ąą ą"The€Court€has€reviewed€the€Motion€for€Contempt€ofĻCourt€for€Denial€of€Child€Visitation€filed€June€12,€1995€and€theĻAnswer€and€Motion€to€Dismiss€filed€June€14,€1995.€€The€CourtĻfinds€that€the€prior€divorce€decree€is€res€judicata€as€to€theseĻissues.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€has€mis„stated€the€terms€ofĶsaid€divorce€decree,€as€well€as€the€visitation€schedule€and€anyĻalleged€grandparents'€rights€in€his€Motion€for€Contempt€ofĻCourt.€€Each€and€every€item€in€petitioner's€prayer€for€relief,ĻMotion€for€Contempt€of€Court€for€Denial€of€Child€Visitation,€hasĻbeen€previously€addressed,€either€by€the€Court€during€theĻdivorce€proceedings€or€subsequently€by€Orders€of€the€Court."ĢĢą ąą ąThe€court€found€motions€(4)€through€(6)€were€not€wellĻtaken€and€denied€the€motions.€€He€also€found€motion€(7)€shouldĻbe€denied€because€of€res€judicata.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Plaintiff€has€appealed,€saying€the€court€was€inĻerror.€ĢĢą ąą ą€We€cannot€agree,€and€affirm€in€accordance€with€CourtĻof€Appeals€Rule€10(a).× ƒ, ××  ×ĢĢą ąą ąThe€Appellee,€in€her€brief,€insists€the€appeal€isĻfrivolous€and€taken€solely€for€delay.€€We€agree.ĢĢą ą€€€€"Successful€litigants€should€not€have€to€bear€theĻexpense€and€vexation€of€groundless€appeals."€€ņ ņChaille€v.ó óĻņ ņWarronó ó,€699€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.App.1985);€ņ ņDavis€v.€Gulfó óĻņ ņInsurance€Groupó ó,€546€S.W.2d€583€(Tenn.1977).€€ĢĢą ąą ąThe€case€is€remanded€for€the€trial€court€to€fixĻdamages€pursuant€to€TCA€šš€27„1„122.€€The€cost€of€this€appeal€isĻtaxed€to€the€Appellant.ĢĢĢĢÓӀ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.J.ĢĢĢĢCONCUR:€ĢĢĢ______________________ĢHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.€ĢĢĢ______________________ĢDon€T.€McMurray,€J.Ģ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ĢĢĢą ąą ąĢ