In Re B.D., R.M.T. & V.F.T.
Mother and Father appeal the order of the Juvenile Court for Dickson County, Tennessee terminating their parental rights. Mother’s termination was based on: noncompliance with the permanency plan; failure to visit; failure to establish a suitable home; and the persistence of conditions that prevent return of the children; and the children’s best interests. Father’s termination was based on noncompliance with the permanency plan and the children’s best interests. Finding by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the children’s best interests, as modified, the judgment is affirmed. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Sutton, et al. v. Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, LTD., et al.
In 2004, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Defendants had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy in the State of Tennessee. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss citing two defenses: lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the motion for failure to state a claim but explicitly declined to rule on the jurisdictional question. Defendants have not |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Benjamin F. Darnell, Sr., et al vs. Charles Fenn, et al
Charles Fenn and Dott Fenn owned property in Sevier County. In August 1996, they entered into a contract to sell the property to Benjamin F. Darnell, Sr. The Fenns agreed to finance the sale over a ten-year period. According to the contract, Mr. Darnell was to make monthly payments of $999.11 for ten years, with one final balloon payment of $113,058.43. Mr. Darnell died in February 2004 and his wife, Mary Darnell, continued making the monthly payments. Unbeknownst to Ms. Darnell, on October 14, 2005, the Fenns sold the property to Teddy Jones. Four days later, Ms. Fenn, through her attorney, sent Ms. Darnell a letter terminating the contract based on various alleged breaches. Ms. Darnell filed suit seeking specific performance of the contract. Following a bench trial, the court found that the contract was enforceable; it ordered specific performance. The trial court rejected the claim of the defendant Teddy Jones that he was a bona fide purchaser without knowledge. The Fenns and Mr. Jones appeal. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Lou Eella Sherill, et al. v. Bob T. Souder, M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee doctor finding that, based upon the discovery rule, the one year statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim had expired prior to the filing of the Appellants’ complaint. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Power Equipment Company vs. Eugene England, Claiborne Builders and Developer, Inc., and Wilder Construction Company, Inc., d/b/a Lifetime Homes
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant Claiborne Builders to recover the rental fees from a contract between plaintiff and Claiborne Builders for earth-moving equipment which Claiborne Builders used to remove soil from Wilder's property. The Trial Judge entered Judgment against Claiborne Builders on its contract and Wilder Construction under an implied contract. Wilder has appealed. We reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Bryan Gibson v. Dawne Jones
This appeal involves a claim for specific performance of a land sale contract. Plaintiff made partial payments towards the purchase price for several months after the agreement was reached. In 2005, however, the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated, and the Plaintiff stopped making payments. Defendant then informed the Plaintiff that the agreement was cancelled and began looking for another buyer. After the presentation of Plaintiff’s proof, the trial court found that Plaintiff was unable to perform under the agreement within a reasonable time. The trial court also found that the agreement expressly permitted the Defendant to cancel the agreement in the event of Plaintiff’s non-performance. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronnie Gale Martin v. Deborah Elaine Kent Martin
This is the second time these parties have been before this court on matters relating to their divorce. In the first appeal, we rejected the husband’s argument that he lacked the financial resources to pay the wife in cash for her share of the marital estate. However, we vacated the trial court’s award of alimony requiring the husband to pay the wife’s health insurance premiums because there was insufficient proof presented regarding the issue at trial. On remand, the trial court allowed the husband to sell various properties in order to pay the wife for her share of the marital estate, but the court refused to require the wife to pay half the income taxes associated with the sales or the real estate taxes on the properties. The trial court found that the husband had the ability to pay the wife’s health insurance premiums, and the wife did not, and it ordered the husband to pay such premiums. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay wife post-judgment interest on the original cash award of marital property. In addition, the court found the husband in contempt and ordered him to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees incurred on remand. The husband appeals. We affirm as modified and remand for further proceedings. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Michele Locastro Corbin v. Richard Todd Corbin
This appeal involves retroactive child support. The parties were divorced in 1996 and submitted a marital dissolution agreement that was approved by the trial court. In 1999, the parties submitted a consent order modifying the marital dissolution agreement to provide that the father would not pay child support, but he would be responsible for providing health insurance coverage and paying for one-half of uncovered medical, dental, orthodontic, and optical expenses. The consent order was approved by the trial court. In 2006, the mother sought to have the consent order set aside on the basis that it was void as against public policy, and she sought an award of retroactive child support to the date of the 1999 consent order. The trial court granted retroactive child support only to the date of the mother’s petition seeking such support. Mother appeals, claiming that retroactive child support should be awarded to the date of the 1999 consent order. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Louise Lela Tolbert and Danny Taylor In the Matter of L.T.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of both the mother and father as to their minor daughter. After a trial, the trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination existed and that termination would be in the child’s best interest. The father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not ordering that he undergo a psychological evaluation. After review of the record, we find that counsel for father did not ask the trial court to have the father undergo a psychological evaluation, and that the issue is therefore waived on appeal. The father does not dispute that grounds for termination and the best interest of the child were established by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension Fund v. Gary Brukardt, et al.
This is a shareholder class action which was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim. The case alleges breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing against members of the Board of Directors who procured and approved a merger. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the complaint alleges sufficient facts to allow the case to go forward, and, therefore, dismissal was in error. The decision below is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Financial Corporation, a Successor to Union Planters Corporation And Subsidiaries v. Marsh Usa, Inc., et al.
On appeal, Regions Financial Corporation (“Regions”) asserts numerous reasons why the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel should not bar its claim against the Defendants National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (“National Union”) St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”), and Twin City Fire Insurance Company (“Twin City”) (collectively “Defendant Excess Insurers”). Regions originally sued Defendants in federal court seeking indemnification pursuant to its insurance contract, and the District Court granted Defendants summary judgment because Regions failed to give simultaneous notice. Regions has now sued Defendant Excess Insurers in circuit court for breach of the same insurance contract. Regions claims that during the federal court appeal it discovered new evidence that it had given simultaneous notice to Defendant Excess Insurers through their agent. Regions claims, however, that it could not have discovered this evidence earlier because Defendant Excess Insurers concealed the agency relationship. The trial court granted Defendant Excess Insurers’ motions for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
O’rane M. Cornish, Sr. v. Mark Caldwell, et al.
This is an action for wrongful death and loss of consortium. The trial court dismissed the action upon determining it was filed beyond the one-year statutory limitations period. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sam McCormick v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
In this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in allowing the executor of the plaintiff’s estate to be substituted as the party plaintiff where the party plaintiff died before suit was filed in his individual capacity. We are also asked to determine whether the defendant waived the issue of plaintiff’s capacity by first raising the issue in a post-answer motion to dismiss. We find that a suit brought in the name of a deceased person amounts to a nullity, and thus, is not amenable to substitution. We further find that an objection based on the fact that the plaintiff was deceased when the complaint was filed can be made at any time during the proceedings, in any appropriate manner, and such objection stops the cause at whatever stage it may be, whenever made known to the court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Alan Peters v. Sharon Olene (Coats) Peters
The Wife in this divorce action takes issue with the grounds upon which the trial court granted the divorce, the distribution of marital property, the calculation of Husband’s monthly income and the designation of life insurance. We affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Bielfeldt v. M. Don Templeton and Ruby Templeton
This case arises from a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. In the contract, Appellee Sellers made no warranty concerning the exact acreage of the tract. Appellant Buyer was given the right to have the tract inspected and surveyed prior to closing; however, he did not exercise that right. At the closing, Appellant also executed a waiver to any claims arising from a determination that the assumed acreage was incorrect. A survey performed after the closing indicated that the tract was approximately three acres less than the parties thought. Appellant Buyer brought suit against Appellee Sellers on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Cynthia Diane Free v. James Jason Free, et al.
This is a post-divorce action seeking a change in child custody. The initial action was filed by the natural mother, the Appellee herein, and the trial court determined that primary residential custody should be with her. The paternal grandparents, the Appellants herein, also moved the court for custody of the two minor children. The trial court denied the grandparents’ petition for custody. The grandparents appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Lawrence County v. George Shaffer, et ux, et al
After Lawrence County landowners installed a gate across an unpaved rural road, the County filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights of all the parties whose properties adjoined that road, as well as the right of the County to remove the obstruction. The landowners who installed the gate argued that the road had never been legally declared a county road and that the gate was necessary to prevent their neighbors from trespassing on their property. After a hearing, the trial court found (1) that the road was a county road and (2) that its entire length was contained in an easement which no one was allowed to obstruct. The court accordingly ordered the landowners to remove the gate. We affirm. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.C.S., A Minor Child
The Father, C.E.S., and Mother, L.L.S., were not married at the time of the birth of their minor child, A.C.S., on September 27, 2006. The birth certificate was initially caused to reflect the child’s surname as that of Mother. On November 17, 2006, the Father filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, to establish parentage for joint custody. An Order of Parentage, reserving the issue of changing the child’s surname, was entered by the Juvenile Court, through Special Referee, on February 27, 2007. The Juvenile Court Referee subsequently ordered that the child’s surname be changed to that of Father by Order entered December 13, 2007. Following an appeal of the Referee’s decision, the Juvenile Court, by Special Judge, affirmed the Referee’s decision and ordered that the surname of the child be changed to that of Father. Mother appealed, claiming that Father failed in meeting his burden of proof of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that changing the minor child’s surname was in the best interest of the child. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Estate of Charles Thomas Mccraw, Deceased v. JoAn Likins
This appeal arises from a decedent’s testamentary obligation to distribute his estate in accord with a marital dissolution agreement. The trial court determined that the decedent’s codicil obligated his estate to pay joint debts that the decedent incurred with his fiancè, and his estate could not seek contribution from fiancè for paying more than half of the debts. The trial court also determined that this distribution did not violate the marital dissolution agreement that decedent had negotiated with his ex-wife. We affirm the trial court on these two determinations. We, however, reverse the trial court’s finding that the estate was not required to reimburse fiancè for payments that she made on the debts after the decedent’s death and before the trial court ordered the estate to pay the debt. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Shelby County Sheriff's Department v. Michael Harris
Shelby County Sheriff’s Deputy appealed the termination of his employment for violation of SOR-104–Personal Conduct to the Civil Service Merit Board. The Board modified the punishment to suspension without pay. The Sheriff’s Department appealed the Board’s modification to the Shelby County Chancery Court, which upheld the Board’s decision. The Sheriff’s Department appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sue Leggett v. Paul Allen Dorris, et al.
This is an appeal from a nuisance case. The plaintiff landowner filed a complaint alleging a continuous nuisance caused by grading completed on adjacent property. The plaintiff alleged that the grading had altered the natural drainage pattern, causing damage to her house. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The defendants sought summary judgment, raising the statute of limitations as a defense. The trial court agreed and granted defendants’ motion. Finding that a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute, we reverse. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Mattie Piana, et al. v. Old Town of Jackson, et al.
This is an wrongful death action arising under a theory of premises liability. Plaintiff’s husband died as a result of injuries he sustained after tripping over a piece of concrete embedded in a dirt path. Plaintiff alleged that two of the defendants, who were under a separate maintenance contract with the owner of the property, failed to exercise the required due care in the maintance, inspection, and repairs of the path. The trial court granted directed verdicts for both defendants after finding that neither owed a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. We agree that defendant Brooks Shaw did not have a duty to maintain the path. However, we have determined that defendant Town and Country did owe a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact for the jury to decide. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Shelby County Health Care Corporation, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Appellant hospital filed suit against Appellee insurance company for damages arising from Appellee’s alleged impairment of the Appellant’s hospital lien. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellant hospital, finding that Appellant had perfected its lien under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101, and that the Appellee had impaired that lien pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-104. The trial court, however, limited Appellant’s recovery to the amount of coverage under the insurance policy. We affirm as modified herein. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. v. Christina Tucker Davis, as Executrix of the Estate of Stephen G. Tucker, deceased, and Dorothy Tucker Waters, and Teresa Cureton
In this interpleader action, plaintiff held an IRA account established by decedent. When decedent died dispute arose between his companion and his blood relatives, because he had designated his companion as the sole beneficiary of his IRA account, but in his Will he gave the IRA account to his relatives. The contending parties raised this dispute in their pleadings and after an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court ruled that the designee on the IRA account was entitled to the proceeds because the relatives did not carry the burden of proof to establish undue influence was exercised on the decedent when he established the IRA account. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand with the cost of the cause taxed to appellants. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Holliman, et al. v. Frank McGrew, M.D., et al.
This is a wrongful death action brought under a theory of medical malpractice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs filed their complaint after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. After careful review, we find that Plaintiffs had notice of their claim no later than February 27, 2003, and their lawsuit was not timely filed. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
