Jeremy Dathan Port v. Veronica L. Hatton
The trial court granted the parties a divorce, named the father as the primary residential parent of their one and a half year old child, and permitted him to return with the child to North Carolina, where both parties originally came from and where their families still resided. The mother was granted three days of supervised visitation with the child each month in North Carolina. She argues on appeal that the trial court’s decision was flawed because the court failed to analyze the best interest of the child in accordance with the appropriate statutory factors. She also argues that by allowing Father to take the child to North Carolina and limiting her visitation so severely, the court deprived her of her right to maintain the parent-child relationship, and that its actions were inconsistent with case law stating that “the least restrictive visitation limits are favored in order to encourage the parent-child relationship.” We affirm the trialcourt’s designation of the father as the primary residential parent, and its finding that it was in the child’s best interest that the father be permitted to relocate with the child. We also affirm the parenting plan. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Richardson et al. v. Bates Show Sales Staff, inc. d/b/a Bates RV Exchange
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their action for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation arising out of the purchase of a recreational vehicle from Defendant, a business located and incorporated in the State of Florida. The trial court dismissed the action on the finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the corporation had not purposely availed itself of doing business in Tennessee and did not have sufficient contacts with Tennessee. The trial court further found that the choice of venue clause in the purchase contract between the parties was enforceable and, thus, the proper venue for the action was Florida. Plaintiffs appealed arguing that the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. We affirm the finding that the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant as Plaintiffs did not establish the prima facie case of jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Frieda Lindy Freedman Harold Freedman, As Executor v. Anita Taradash
A beneficiary of the decedent’s estate contends the Executor should be held personally liable for paying two debts of the decedent for which no claim was filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-307. The Executor insists that Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2318(b) afforded him the discretion to pay debts of the decedent because the estate was solvent and the time in which the claims could have been filed had not expired. The probate court ruled in favor of the Executor, finding the payment of the debts was authorized pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-318(b). We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Brown, Sandra McCulley, and Shawn McCulley v. Samir Shtaya
In this case, we address the bond requirements for an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court. The plaintiff property owners were leasing commercial space to the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a forcible entry and detainer action against the defendant in General Sessions Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiffs allegedly locked the defendant out of the property prematurely, causing property damage to the defendant. The defendant then filed a cross-claim in the original General Sessions Court lawsuit for unlawful ouster. The defendant also filed a separate action in the General Sessions Court based on the same allegations of unlawful ouster. The General Sessions Court consolidated the two cases for trial. Ultimately, the General Sessions Court held in favor of the plaintiffs on their forcible entry and detainer claim and awarded attorney fees under the lease. As to the defendant’s cross-claim and separate lawsuit based on unlawful ouster, the General Sessions Court found in favor of the defendant and awarded damages. The plaintiffs sought a de novo appeal to Circuit Court of the rulings in favor of the defendant on his cross-claim and separate claim; the defendant appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. In doing so, all of the appellants — the plaintiffs and the defendant — filed notices of appeal and paid $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk, pursuant to T.C.A. § 8-21-401(b)(1)(C)(i). None of the appellants filed any further bond at that time. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeals, arguing that the Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because they had not complied with the appeal-bond requirement in T.C.A. § 27-5-103. The Circuit Court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeals. The Circuit Court also dismissed the defendant’s appeal sua sponte based on the same reasoning. The plaintiffs now appeal to this Court. We reverse the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ appeals in light of our recent decision Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, LLC, No. W2012-00803-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013), and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Island Properties Associates v. The Reaves Firm, Inc., d/b/a Reaves, Sweeney, and Marcum, et al
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part. The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the error. We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals. Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Brown, Sandra McCulley, and Shawn McCulley v. Samir Shtaya - Dissenting
In this case, the majority concludes that the plaintiffs’ payment of $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103, and therefore, that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing their appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies upon the recent case of Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, LLC, No. W2012-00803-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013). Because I believe Bernatsky is based upon a flawed premise, I respectfully dissent. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville v. Deryl L. Baker
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on January 2, 2013. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Spencer P. et al.
Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to four children were terminated based on findings that they committed severe child abuse upon a sibling and that the best interests of the remaining four children (the parents’ rights to the two severely abused children having been previously surrendered) required termination of their rights. Parents appealed, challenging only the best interest finding. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Wayne Vaughn, as Next of Kin of Pamela Annette Livingston Vaughn v. Mountain States Health Alliance d/b/a Johnson City Medical Center, et al.
The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against numerous healthcare providers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and -122. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the action with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Wayne Vaughn et al. v. Mountain States Health Alliance et al.
The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against numerous healthcare providers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and -122. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the action with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Bank v. Thomas D. Thomas, et al.
Plaintiff Bank accelerated a loan secured by an aircraft after Borrower failed to maintain insurance on the aircraft as required by the loan documents. Bank filed an action to collect amounts due; took possession of and disposed of the aircraft; and sought a judgment for the deficiency. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bank. Defendant Loan Guarantors appeal. We affirm in part; reverse in part, finding that Bank did not provide sufficient notice as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-9-611; and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Leverett, et al. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
A woman who was severely injured in a collision with an automobile driven by an unlicensed minor filed suit against the minor. The minor’s parents’ insurance company denied coverage and refused to defend the suit on the basis of an exclusion in the insurance policy for damages caused by a party driving without permission of the owner or a person “in lawful possession” of the vehicle. No defense was offered, and the injured party obtained a $1 million default judgment against the minor driver. The injured party and the minor’s parents then jointly filed suit against the insurance company, alleging that the insurance company was liable for breach of contract, bad faith, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and violation of the Unfair Claims Practices Act based upon its denial of coverage. The trial court ruled that, as a matter of law, the minor was entitled to insurance coverage under her parents’ policy at the time of the accident. The remainder of the case was tried, and the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory and punitive damages on the bad faith claim. The jury also found the insurance company had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and the trial court trebled the compensatory damages and awarded attorney fees under the Act. The insurance company has raised a number of issues in this appeal, inter alia, the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the question of coverage; the finding of liability for bad faith, the liability and enhanced penalty under the TCPA, and the requirement that plaintiffs should make an election between the punitive damages and the enhanced damages. We affirm the breach of contract holding, including the conclusion that the policy terms provided coverage. We reverse and vacate the holding of liability for bad faith, including the award of punitive damages thereunder, since the statutory cause of action was not plead. We also reverse the award of treble damages under the TCPA, but affirm the finding of a violation of the Act. We affirm as modified the award of attorneys’ fees. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Leverette, et al. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company - Concur and Dissent
I agree with the majority’s analysis of the coverage issue in Section V and its conclusion that TFM breached the contract by denying coverage. As a result of this breach, the judgment against TFM in the amount of $67,000 was appropriate. I concur as well with the analysis of the bad faith claims in Section VI. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Tandy Nathan Dalton
The appellant, Linda Gass (“Heir”), an heir to the Estate of Tandy Nathan Dalton, appeals from an order of the trial court entered on October 30, 2012, which determined that certain specifically described real property upon which Heir lives is an asset of the estate and may be sold by the appellee, Barbara D. Carmichael, the Executrix of the decedent’s estate (“Executrix”), pursuant to the terms of the decedent’s will. Because it is clear that the jurisdiction of this Court was not invoked properly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Krissa E.M.L.
The guardian ad litem for the minor child Krissa E. M. L. (“the Child”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Sevier County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Lanesha L. (“Mother”) to the Child. The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), which already had been involved with the Child’s case through dependency and neglect proceedings, was named in the petition and supported the prosecution of the petition. After a trial, the Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Child after finding that grounds for termination pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113 (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3), had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that clear and convincing evidence had been shown that it was in the Child’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Kruger, et al. v. The State of Tennessee, et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion in this case. In the majority opinion, the majority states the issue raised by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) as: “Whether the trial court erred in holding that the Dyer County Zoning Resolution does not require an applicant seeking a variance to have a written lease.” In a footnote, the majority observes that the appellate record contained “no such finding by the circuit court.” Instead of leaving it at that, the majority goes on to “construe the BZA’s argument as ‘Whether the Resolution requires an applicant seeking a variance to possess a valid lease.’ ” |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Marisa R. Rowland et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County et al.
In this case involving serious injuries sustained in a collision between a school bus and a pickup truck, the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. We must, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Andrews, Jr. v. Deborah L. Clemmer
This case involves the bond requirements for an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in General Sessions Court, and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff sought a de novo appeal to Circuit Court. Within ten days of the General Sessions Court judgment, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and paid $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk, pursuant to T.C.A. § 8-21-401(b)(1)(C)(i). The plaintiff did not file any further bond at that time. The plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff had not complied with the appeal-bond requirement in T.C.A. § 27-5-103. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on that basis. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the appeal from General Sessions Court in light of our recent decision in Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, LLC, No. W2012-00803-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013), and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Andrews, Jr., v. Deborah L. Clemmer - Dissenting
In reaching its conclusion that the plaintiff’s payment of $211.50 satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103 for appealing a case from general sessions court to circuit court, the majority relies upon the recent case of Bernatsky v. Designer Baths & Kitchens, LLC, No. W2012-00803-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 593911 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013). Because I believe Bernatsky is based upon a flawed premise, I respectfully dissent. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Kruger, et al. v. The State of Tennessee, et al.
Diane Benson and the Northwest Tennessee Shooting Sports Association filed requests for variances to devote property to a Use Permitted on Appeal within a Forestry-Agricultural- |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Thomas L. H. H.
The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child, who was born addicted to drugs and with extensive medical needs, on the ground of persistence of conditions; Father, who was incarcerated when the child was born, appeals, contending that the termination of his rights is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We have determined that the evidence shows that the Father’s lack of participation in the care of the child and the treatment of the child’s medical needs constitutes neglect; that the neglect persists and is reasonably probable to continue; that it will not be remedied; and that continuation of the relationship would put the child at further risk, thereby diminishing the child’s complete integration into a safe and stable home. Consequently, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alex Friedmann, Individually and as an Associate Editor of Prison Legal News v. Corrections Corporation of America
This is the second appeal in an action seeking settlement agreements and settlement reports from Corrections Corporation of America pursuant to the Public Records Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-301 et seq. In the first appeal, this court determined that CCA is the functional equivalent of a governmental entity in operating correctional facilities and remanded the action to the trial court to determine whether the documents requested by the petitioner fell within the statutory definition of public records set forth at Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-301. On remand, CCA refused to turn over two categories of documents, settlement agreements and settlement reports, arising out of inmate litigation, arguing that they did not fall within the statutory definition of public records and are confidential. CCA additionally argued that the settlement reports are protected as attorney work product. The trial court held that both the settlement agreements and reports are public records, that the settlement reports do not constitute attorney work product, that CCA is required to produce the settlement agreements and reports, and that the petitioner is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(g). We affirm the finding that the settlement agreements are public records and that CCA is required to produce the settlement agreements. We also affirm the trial court’s findings that the settlement reports are public records and that CCA has failed to demonstrate that the settlement reports were produced “in anticipation of litigation;” therefore, the reports are not attorney work product and CCA must produce the reports. Further, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees incurred at trial that pertained to requiring CCA to produce the settlement agreements. Finally, we find the petitioner is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal to the extent they pertain to the settlement agreements, but not the settlement reports. On remand, the trial court shall make the appropriate award. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jaycee W.
This is a dependency and neglect case focusing on Jaycee W. (“the Child”), the minor daughter of Ellie H. (“Mother”) and Jerry W. (“Father”). At age five weeks, the Child suffered a suspicious broken leg. Further examination revealed multiple other broken bones. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) immediately took the Child into protective custody and filed a dependency and neglect petition alleging that the Child was severely abused in the custody of her parents. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found that the Child was dependent and neglected and that both parents had committed severe child abuse. Both appealed to the trial court. Following a trial de novo, the trial court made the same findings. Mother appeals the trial court’s finding that she is guilty of severe child abuse. We affirm. |
Perry | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Natasha A.
The mother of the minor child at issue appeals the termination of her parental rights. The juvenile court found several grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights and that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sullivan Electric, Inc. v. Robins & Morton Corporation
A subcontractor on a large project in Texas sued the general contractor claiming the general contractor breached an agreement the parties made regarding claims both had against the owner of the Texas project. The parties agreed the subcontractor would be entitled to a pro rata share of the settlement or judgment amount if the subcontractor’s claims were not itemized. The settlement agreement between the general contractor and the owner did not include an itemization of the subcontractor’s claims. The subcontractor had been given a prepayment of its claim against the owner in the amount of $300,000, and applying this to the subcontractor’s pro rata share, the general contractor determined the subcontractor was not entitled to anything more. The trial court deducted the $300,000 from the subcontractor’s claim and awarded the subcontractor its pro rata share of the difference. Both the subcontractor and general contractor appealed, the subcontractor claiming it was not awarded enough and the general contractor claiming the subcontractor was awarded too much. We reverse the trial court’s award and hold the $300,000 the subcontractor received as a prepayment was more than it was entitled to pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, the contractor did not breach its agreement, and the subcontractor was not entitled to any damages. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
