Bryant Coley, Sr. et al. v. Mike Di Sorbo et al.
Property owners, Bryant Coley, Sr., his son, Bryant Coley, Jr., and their wives, filed a declaratory judgment action against fiduciaries, Mike Di Sorbo and Michelle Di Sorbo, after the Di Sorbos refused the Coleys access to a road that crossed their ward’s property. The Coleys requested that the court declare the road a public road and enjoin the interference of its use. Following a bench trial, the court found that the “route” in question was not a dedicated public road. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint. The Coleys appeal. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Moore Taylor v. John Thomas Taylor
Husband appeals the trial court’s determination that the parties’ residence was marital property; he also appeals the division of the marital property. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Ginger Jackson v. Gursheel S. Dhillon et al
The plaintiff appeals arguing that the trial court erred in setting aside a default judgment and dismissing all claims under the doctrine of res judicata. Based upon the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Jalal Bachour v. Devin Mason, et al
This case arose from two contracts between the same parties for the sale of commercial property. A provision in the second contract that was not included in the first provided that the buyer would retain $75,000 of the contract price if an access road to the property was not completed by a certain date. Completion was defined as occurring “upon the dedication and turning the streets over to the town of Woodbury and/or Cannon County, Tennessee.” The buyer subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment, asking the court to find that completion had not occurred and that he was therefore entitled to keep the $75,000. The trial court ruled against the buyer, holding that he was obligated to pay the full contract price to the sellers. We affirm the result reached by the trial court because we find that the $75,000 clause was not a valid liquidated clause provision, but rather a penalty. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
George Smith v. General Tire and Emily Alexander
A man who was injured in a head-on collision filed suit against the woman driving the car that hit him and the company that owned the car. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by affidavits indicating that the woman unexpectedly blacked out just prior to the collision, probably as a result of her diabetic condition. After examining the affidavits of medical experts for both the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the driver’s loss of consciousness was unforeseeable. The plaintiff appeals the summary judgment. We affirm the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Steve E. Dowlen v. Luana A. Dowlen
Mother and Father were divorced in 2010, and Father filed a petition for modification of the parenting plan seven months later in an effort to reduce Mother’s parenting time. The trial courtdetermined Fatherdid notshow a materialchange of circumstances and denied Father’s petition. Father appealed,alleging the trial court erred in four different ways: (1) concluding Father had not proved a material change of circumstances; (2) precluding Father from introducing evidence of Mother’s mental health prior to the divorce; (3) allowing the parenting plan to stay intact such that Mother is able to return to court to prove her mental stability and seek an increase in her parenting time; and (4) not awarding Father his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Berlinda Lane, and Edward L. Montedonico, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of Berlinda Lane v. Jacob L. Daniel and Daniel J. Lund
This case involves the application of the statute of limitations to an intervening personal injury complaint filed by a bankruptcy trustee after the defendants asserted that the original plaintiff, the debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding, lacked standing to bring the claim. Once the bankruptcy trustee became aware of the claim, he filed a motion for intervention, or in the alternative, for substitution pursuant to Rule 17.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted the trustee’s motion and the trustee later filed an intervening complaint. The trial court, however, later dismissed the case, reasoning that because the first complaint was filed by a party without standing, the original complaint was a nullity. Under this theory, the trial court concluded that the action was commenced upon the filing of the trustee’s intervening complaint, which was undisputedly outside the applicable statute of limitations. Having determined that the plaintiff’s original complaint was not a nullity, we conclude that the trustee’s intervening complaint relates back to the original complaint and, thus, was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Victoria G. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving two minor children, Victoria G. and Ethan G. (“the Children”). The Children were born during the marriage of David G. (“Father”) and Rachel M. (“Mother”). When Father and Mother divorced in 2004, Mother was awarded primary custody of the Children. In 2005, Mother suffered a recurrence of cancer. She and the Children subsequently moved in with her sister, Amanda M., and her sister’s husband, Paul M. When Mother died on October 6, 2005, Amanda M. obtained custody of the Children the following day. Father did not seek custody of the Children until April 2006. The parties engaged in protracted litigation, during which Father was allowed varying types of visitation. In September 2010, Father was granted progressively expanding visitation with the Children, designed toward increasing co-parenting in frequency and consistency over time. The visits did not go well, however, and the Children eventually refused to go with Father. The last attempted exchange, occurring on September 9, 2011, resulted in an incident wherein Father was arrested for assault. Father did not seek visitation with the Children after that date. Paul M. filed a petition seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights on January 26, 2012, based upon the statutory ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit and support. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition after finding clear and convincing evidence that Father had willfully failed to visit the Children for at least four months preceding the filing of the petition, and upon determining that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel., Wendy Harrison v. Danny Scott
This appeal arises from a post-divorce petition to modify the father’s child support obligation as set in 2000 under a previous version of the child support guidelines. The dispositive issue is whether there is a “Significant Variance” in the father’s income as required by Department of Human Services Rule 1240-2-4-.05(2)(b)(1) to allow a modification. The trial court found no significant variance in the father’s income; nevertheless, it modified his child support obligation, setting it at the presumptive amount as calculated under the current child support guidelines and using the parties’ current income. We have determined the trial court’s finding of no significant variance was based upon a mathematical error, and we find there is a significant variance entitling the father to a modification of his child support obligation. Accordingly, we affirm the modification of the father’s support but on different grounds than those relied upon by the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Carroll v. Robert Corcoran
Unmarried Father and Mother of infant child filed petitions to establish initial custody, calculate parenting time, set child support, and determine residential sharing schedule. Father sought to have the child bear his surname. The trial court entered a parenting plan and denied Father’s request to change the child’s surname. Father appeals and assigns as error certain parenting plan provisions, the trial court’s award to Mother of her attorney fees, and the trial court’s decision not to change the child’s surname. Mother appeals the trial court’s calculation of the number of days of parenting time for purposes of determining child support. Finding that the court miscalculated the number of days of parenting time, we remand for a redetermination of child support. We also remand the attorney fee award for reconsideration. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Fisher et al. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission et al.
The main issue in this case is whether Rutherford County provided adequate notice, under the Open Meetings Act, concerning a planning commission meeting to vote on the site plan for a mosque. We have concluded that the trial court erred in finding the notice provided to be inadequate under the Open Meetings Act. In all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Nitra Lynn Haggard v. Dylan Haggard
After the trial court entered a final decree of divorce, the wife filed a motion to alter or amend, seeking a modification of the division of marital property. The trial court granted the motion to alter or amend, stating that the court was operating under a misconception concerning the wife’s position at trial, which rendered the division of marital property inequitable. The court awarded an asset previously awarded to the husband to the wife instead. Husband appeals. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Tonya Dotson v. Donald Howard
The father of one child appeals the trial court’s finding of ten counts of criminal contempt for failing to pay ten weekly child support payments and the imposition of consecutive sentences of ten days for each count for a total sentence of 100 days in jail. Petitioner introduced little evidence other than proof that the father had not paid child support; the father defended the petition insisting he did not have the ability to pay support. Medical records introduced into evidence, along with the testimony of the father and his optometrist, established that the father suffered from an autoimmune medical condition that substantially impairs his vision and prevents him from working in bright light, including sunlight, and from working in a hot environment. Additionally, the father has a tenth grade education and is a convicted felon, facts which further impair his employability. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we are unable to conclude that a trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the father had the ability to pay and that his failure to pay support was willful. Accordingly, his conviction of ten counts of contempt for willfully failing to pay child support is reversed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Bringle Farms Partnership v. State of Tennessee
The claimant has filed a notice of appeal from an Order Denying Claimant’s Motion for En Banc Review entered by the Tennessee Claims Commission on February 26, 2013. Because the claimant did not file its notice of appeal with the clerk of the Claims Commission within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Joe Boyd Martin
This case involves a claim first asserted against a decedent’s estate by the decedent’s longtime companion, and then pursued after her death by her heirs The claim was transferred from the probate court to the chancery court and then, by agreed order, to the circuit court for a jury trial. The jury upheld the validity of the claim, and the court entered a judgment on the verdict. The decedent’s heirs then filed post-trial motions contending that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the claim. After extensive briefing, the circuit court agreed with those arguments and vacated its own judgment. We reverse the trial court and reinstate its original judgment. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Martis J. Kelley and Joseph Kelley, Sr. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, individually and d/b/a Erlanger Health System
This is a medical malpractice action filed pursuant to the Tennessee 1 Medical Malpractice Act (“the TMMA.”) The plaintiffs are wife and husband. The sole defendant is a governmental entity subject to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“the GTLA”). The defendant operates a hospital in Chattanooga. The complaint alleges that wife was a victim of medical malpractice at the hospital in February 2010. On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs sent the notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a) (2012), a part of the TMMA. On June 3, 2011, the plaintiffs filed suit against the Hospital Authority. The Authority filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12(6), arguing that the suit was not timely filed because it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-305(b) (2012), set forth in the GTLA. The plaintiffs responded that the period of limitations was extended by 120 days by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) because the plaintiffs had complied with the pre-suit notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 26-121(a). The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely filed. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Pamela Renee Cantrell v. Jessie Arvil Cantrell
Former wife appeals the assessment of past child support to her and the court’s disposition of her motion to hold former Husband in contempt of court. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Leonard Embody v. Robert E. Cooper, Jr.
This appeal arises from a challenge to the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1), a law restricting the carrying of firearms in Tennessee. Leonard Embody (“Embody”) challenged the validity of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1) in a case filed against Attorney General and Reporter Robert E. Cooper, Jr. (“Respondent”) in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) on grounds that the law violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 26. The Trial Court upheld the law as constitutional. Embody filed an appeal to this Court. We hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1) is a valid regulation of the carrying of firearms that does not contravene either the Second Amendment or Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 26. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Taylor H., et al
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on the four minor children (“the Children”) of mother, Kelly H. (“Mother”) and father, Bernard H. (“Father”). A termination petition was filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) after the third custody episode involving these parents. The petition alleges the sole statutory ground of severe child abuse. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father had committed severe child abuse pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(4) and § 37-1-102. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of John Leonard Burke
Robert LaFever appeals the Trial Court’s order of July 12, 2012 dismissing his notice of will contest after finding and holding, inter alia, that the Last Will and Testament of John Leonard Burke had been admitted to probate in solemn form and could not be challenged in a later will contest. We affirm the Trial Court’s July 12, 2012 order. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Ruby Blackmon v. Eaton Electrical, et al.
Appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits was denied based upon a finding of work-related misconduct. Appellant sought review in the chancery court, which upheld the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. On appeal to this Court, Appellant claims that the chancery court erred in denying her request for a continuance and in affirming the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee without considering the evidence which purportedly would have been introduced had a continuance been allowed. We affirm the decision of the chancery court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tyrone Spates v. Tracy Howell and Robert Preston
Appellant appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the prison’s medical staff for failure to properly diagnose and treat him. The trial court determined that Appellant prisoner’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which was not tolled by operation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s findings concerning his status as an indigent person. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Trey Wood, III v. Jennifer Rose Wood
Mother appeals the trial court’s order naming Father primary residential parent and setting child support. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
D'Army Bailey, et al. v. Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
Plaintiffs, former part-time Shelby County employees, claim they were wrongfully excluded from Shelby County’s retirement plan. The trial court dismissed all claims based on the six year limitations period applicable to contract actions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Willowmet Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, Tennessee
The homeowners’ association of a residential subdivision in Brentwood,Tennessee seeks just compensation from the City of Brentwood for loss of property rights in a portion of the subdivision’s open space. The City acquired the property by purchasing it from the developers of the subdivision without the Association’s knowledge. The Declaration of Protection Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the subdivision, which the developers drafted and of which the City was on notice, states that the developers “will deed the completed Open Space on the subject Properties to the Association free and clear of any encumbrances before the first Lot is conveyed to a Lot Owner.” Although they sold the first individual lot in 2001, the developers did not convey any of the open space to the homeowners’ association until after the sale to the City. This action by the homeowners’ association ensued. The trial court summarily dismissed the action on the City’s motion, finding the homeowners’ association did not own a compensable property right in the Open Space when it was sold to the City. We have determined the homeowner’s association had an equitable interest in the Open Space pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions when it was sold to the City; therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
