The trial court did not base its decision to transfer the case on section 16–11–102, and, in fact, did not even reference this statute. We note that, on at least one prior occasion, the Court of Appeals has interpreted section 16–11–102 as requiring the transfer of a THRA claim to circuit court, even though a provision of the THRA, Tennessee Code Annotated section 4–21–311(a) (2011), vests jurisdiction of such claims in chancery court. Williams v. City of Milan, No. W2010–00450–COA–R9–CV, 2011 WL 538868 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 16, 2011). On the other hand, other Tennessee decisions have held that when a claim is filed in chancery court, which involves both liquidated and unliquidated damages, the chancery court acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim in its entirety.
The trial court did not base its decision to transfer the case on section 16–11–102, and, in fact, did not even reference this statute. We note that, on at least one prior occasion, the Court of Appeals has interpreted section 16–11–102 as requiring the transfer of a THRA claim to circuit court, even though a provision of the THRA, Tennessee Code Annotated section 4–21–311(a) (2011), vests jurisdiction of such claims in chancery court. Williams v. City of Milan, No. W2010–00450–COA–R9–CV, 2011 WL 538868 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 16, 2011). On the other hand, other Tennessee decisions have held that when a claim is filed in chancery court, which involves both liquidated and unliquidated damages, the chancery court acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim in its entirety.
Indeed, this Court has previously indicated that "the proper vehicle" for review of a trial court's order regarding a transfer to another court is to file an application for interlocutory appeal to this Court. See Williams v. City of Milan, No. W2010-00450-COA-R9-CV, 2011 WL 538868, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011) (noting that a Rule 3 appeal of the trial court's order denying transfer was dismissed, but a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal was granted). "The lack of subject matter jurisdiction is so fundamental that it requires dismissal whenever it is raised and demonstrated."
As such, we find its reasoning highly persuasive. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 4(g)(1) (providing that unpublished opinions are merely persuasive authority in unrelated cases); cf. Williams v. City Of Milan, No. W2010-00450-COA-R9-CV, 2011 WL 538868, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2011) (noting that an unpublished case, while not controlling authority, was "highly persuasive" under the circumstances). Moreover, decisions from this Court have followed similar reasoning to conclude that a more culpable state of mind is required to prove criminal contempt rather than civil contempt.
As this Court has pointed out before, if a party wishes to appeal from an order adjudicating a request to transfer a case between the circuit and chancery courts of a particular county, seeking permission to appeal from both the trial court and this Court pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure would be the appropriate method by which to seek review. See Williams v. City of Milan, No. W2010-00450-COA-R9-CV, 2011 WL 538868, * 3 n.5 (Tenn. Ct. App., Jackson, Feb. 16, 2011). Because the order transferring the case below is not a final judgment, this appeal is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellants, Walter Stephen Stewart and Leah Jan Stewart, for which execution may issue if necessary.