Troy Noles v. Michigan Powersports, Inc. d/b/a Champion Motorsports & Champion Powersports
This case involves a dispute over whether Tennessee courts have personal jurisdiction over two Michigan corporations regarding an alleged violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found that Tennessee had personal jurisdiction over the Michigan corporations and the corporations filed an interlocutory appeal. We find that the Tennessee Long Arm Statute provides Tennessee with personal jurisdiction over the corporations and that the decision comports with the requirements of due process; therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent herewith. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of L.F.B. and D.M.D.
This is a mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights to her oldest son and daughter. Because we find that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s termination on three (3) alternative grounds and that termination is in the children’s best interest, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Miracle Kaa Nichols vs. James Virgil Nichols, Jr.
In July of 2002, Miracle Kaa Nichols ("Wife") sued James Virgil Nichols, Jr. ("Husband") for divorce. The case was tried and a Final Decree was entered in September of 2004 awarding, inter alia, Wife a divorce, and finding and holding that the real property located at 24766 Martel Road in Lenoir City, Tennessee ("the Farm") was marital property and should be divided with each party to receive "one-half the value of the land and mobile home." Husband appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in classifying the Farm as marital property, or, in the alternative, that the Trial Court erred by failing to divide the marital estate equitably. Wife also appeals the marital property division. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley Huffnagle v. Frederick Huffnagle
This appeal involves post-divorce criminal contempt sanctions. The former wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to hold her former husband in contempt for failing to pay spousal support and to maintain a life insurance policy and a club membership. The trial court determined that the former husband was guilty of eighteen separate acts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 180 days in jail. After the former husband appealed the contempt sanction, the trial court stayed its order pending appeal. We have determined that the former wife failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her former husband had willfully failed to pay spousal support or to discharge his other financial obligations. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Wendy S. Rushing v. Christopher B. Spain
The trial court denied the State’s petition for child support and retroactive child support for Respondent/Father’s two minor children. We reverse. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Finova Capital Corporation v. Billy Joe Regel, Individually, d/b/a Bartlett Prescription Shop
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant Billy Joe Regel, Individually, and d/b/a/ Bartlett Prescription Shop on the grounds of laches, and Plaintiff Finova Capital Corporation appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Morris M. Dickson v. City of Memphis Civil Service Commission
The City of Memphis appeals from the trial court’s reversal of the Civil Service Commission’s decision to terminate a City employee/Appellee for violation of the substance abuse policy. The trial court found that the positive drug test, which provided the only substantial and material evidence for Appellee’s termination, was inadmissible as evidence for failure of the City failed to comport with 42 U.S.C. §290. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charles E. Crews, d/b/a Dexter Ridge Shopping Center v. Michael L. Cahhal, et al.
This Court reversed a judgment of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the court entered judgment for Plaintiff, as authorized by the appellate court, and also, on motion of Plaintiff, awarded attorney fees for the appeal. Defendant-Appellants appeal, asserting that the award of attorney fees was not authorized by the appellate court and, therefore, the trial court did not have authority to award same. Appellants also assert that the award of attorney fees was excessive, and Appellee asserts, in a separate issue, that the award of fees was inadequate. Both parties appeal. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kathryn Henley Davidson v. Richard Leonard Davidson
This appeal involves the division of marital property following the dissolution of a nine-year marriage. The wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Chancery Court for Dickson County. Following a bench trial, the court granted the wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, divided the parties' marital estate, and denied the wife's requests for spousal support and attorney's fees. The wife takes issue on this appeal with the manner in which the trial court classified, valued, and divided the parties' property. We have determined that the trial court's decision regarding the parties' marital estate must be modified with regard to the division of the increase in the value of the marital home and the increase in the value of the husband's retirement. Accordingly, we modify the judgment and affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Patti Zakour v. UT Medical Group, Inc., et al.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant doctors and medical clinic in this medical malpractice action. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error at several stages of the trial, including jury selection, witness’ testimony and jury instructions. Further, the plaintiff argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
David Anthony Norman v. Melissa Dawn Norman
In this third appeal from a Williamson County divorce, the wife challenges the trial court's valuation and distribution of the marital estate and award of alimony upon remand. Both parties seek an award of attorney's fees. The husband seeks damages for frivolous appeal. We affirm the trial court's valuation and distribution and award of alimony and deny the husband's frivolous appeal damages request. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Connie J. Norris v. East Tennessee Children's Hospital, et al.
This is a medical malpractice case arising out of the postoperative treatment and care of Emit Greg Norris ("the child"), the minor child of Connie J. Norris ("the plaintiff"). At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the remaining defendants moved for a directed verdict. The trial court determined that the plaintiff had failed to present a prima facie case of acts or omissions of medical negligence that proximately caused the condition that resulted in the child's death. Accordingly, the trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Matthew Ballard v. Serodino, Inc.
Matthew Ballard filed this action pursuant to the federal Jones Act, seeking damages for the injuries he sustained when he fell on the deck of a barge owned and operated by his employer, Serodino, Inc. ("the defendant"). The jury returned a verdict assessing 75% of the fault to the plaintiff and 25% of the fault to the defendant. As a consequence of the jury's allocation of fault, the plaintiff was awarded $37,500, i.e., 25% of the total damages found by the jury. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that there is no material evidence to support a finding that he was 75% at fault. He also argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Maria Angela Stefanelli Bell vs. Julian Baker Bell, III
The divorced mother was permitted by the Trial Court to relocate with her two children to Cincinnati, Ohio from Hamilton County, Tennessee. The father has appealed. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Edward Johnson, et al. v. Katie E. Wilson, et al.
This litigation arose out of an automobile accident. The parties settled the plaintiffs' claims for $30,000; in due course, the defendants' insurance carrier paid the plaintiffs the full amount of the settlement. Sometime after the payment had been made, the defendants moved the trial court to hold the plaintiffs and their attorney in contempt because of their failure to satisfy the lien of a third party and because of their failure to pay a $500 attorney's fee ordered by the trial court. The trial court denied the motion. The defendants appeal the trial court's action, but only with respect to the court's failure to hold the plaintiffs' attorney in contempt. We affirm and hold that the defendants' appeal is frivolous in nature. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Envision Properties, LLC v. Paul Richard Johnson, et al.
This is a suit to quiet title to real property. The issue presented is whether the trial court correctly decreed that any legal or equitable interest of Paul Richard Johnson in the real property purchased by Envision Properties, LLC was extinguished by operation of the doctrine of adverse possession. Based on the stipulated proof, we hold that there was not clear and positive proof of adverse possession sufficient to constitute an ouster of a co-tenant. Therefore, Paul Richard Johnson has an undivided one-fifth interest in the property. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Carol Lyn Roberts v. William Frederick Roberts
In this post-divorce proceeding, Carol Lyn Roberts (“Mother”) seeks to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ minor child, Victoria Noel Roberts (DOB: June 25, 1997). William Frederick Roberts (“Father”) filed a petition in opposition to the move. Following a bench trial, the court determined, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108, that the parties were spending “substantially equal intervals of time” with their child and that it was in the child’s best interest to remain in Tennessee. Accordingly, the court denied Mother’s request to relocate. Mother appeals. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court’s decision and grant Mother’s request to relocate with the child. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
James Michael Edenfield vs. Kara Leigh Cooper Edenfield
The chief point of contention in this bitterly fought divorce case involves the valuation and disposition of a one-half interest in a service company which the husband and his business partner founded and worked for during the marriage. Both parties had asked the court to award the husband the share of the business, and the wife had asked the court to award her the monetary equivalent of one-half its value. Instead, the trial court awarded the business to the wife, together with all the debt associated with it. The wife argues on appeal that actions by the husband rendered the company valueless and the distribution of property and debt was, consequently, inequitable. Because we find that the business had no value apart from the efforts of its principals, we modify the valuation of property and allocation of debt. Because of the modification, we remand the case to the trial court to reconsider the question of attorney fees. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tina Cox, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.
In a class-action case, in which a settlement had been agreed to, certain members of the class were allowed to opt out of the class action based on the representations of their purported attorneys that their clients had been notified of the settlement and the proposed opt out and that they approved of same. Subsequently, litigation was commenced by the former members of the class in another jurisdiction, and the original defendants were compelled to defend the case incurring expenses, including attorney fees. The original defendants, and one of the attorneys for the class, filed motions against the purported attorneys for the opted out class members for them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for making false representations to the court that resulted in the court allowing the opt out. The respondent attorneys moved to dismiss the motions filed on the basis that, if there was contempt, it was criminal only and on the basis of judicial estoppel. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent attorneys holding that any contempt was criminal and not civil and on the basis of judicial estoppel. The motions of the original defendants and a plaintiffs' attorney were dismissed. The defendants and plaintiffs' attorney have appealed. We affirm. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Federal Express Credit Union v. Barry Lanier
In this appeal, we are called upon to evaluate the propriety of the trial court’s decision to award a creditor a deficiency judgment against the debtor following the sale of the collateral after the debtor defaulted on the loan. The debtor filed an appeal to this Court arguing that the creditor failed to provide him with reasonable notice of the sale of the collateral and that the creditor did not conduct the sale in a commercially reasonable manner. We hold that the creditor did not provide the debtor with reasonable notice. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
James Lester Qualls v. Randy Camp, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Personnel and Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, et al.
Petitioner, James Lester Qualls, appealed the decision of the Civil Service Commission, which had overturned the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and reinstated the Department of Corrections’ disciplinary actions against Mr. Qualls. Upon determining that the Civil Service Commission had failed to make written findings for review, the chancery court vacated the order and remanded the matter to the Civil Service Commission for findings. Mr. Qualls filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to include an award of attorney’s fees. The chancery court granted the motion and awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Civil Service Commission and Department of Corrections filed a motion to alter or amend in chancery court and now appeal to this Court, asserting this action does not fit within 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and, alternatively, the attorney’s fees award is unreasonable. We dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ursula Daniels v. George Basch, et al.
Purchaser of a residence filed a suit against sellers and real estate agent for rescission of the contract and damages, claiming that Defendants engaged in misrepresentation by suppressing or concealing the existence of a TVA easement along the backside of the property. The Davidson County Chancery Court granted Defendants summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory Eidson v. Lee Moore, Jr.
After the trial court denied an inmate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the inmate filed a suit against the trial judge seeking injunctive relief and damages pursuant to section 29-21-108 of the Tennessee Code. The trial court dismissed the inmate’s complaint for numerous reasons, including the judicial immunity of the trial judge. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
Rick A. Hughes and Lisa J. Hughes v. Richard C. Poulton and Annette L. Poulton
This is a property dispute between next-door neighbors over a gate across a driveway easement. The two neighbors shared a common driveway from the public road in front of both properties. After a clash between the two neighbors' dogs, one neighbor erected a fence on the boundary line with a gate across the other neighbor's portion of the driveway. This lawsuit followed. The trial court enjoined the defendant neighbor from placing the fence and gate over a portion of an easement that was the only existing driveway to the plaintiff's residence on the adjoining property. The trial court found that the gate was not necessary for the defendants' use and enjoyment of their property, and held that the defendants' erection of the gate constituted an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' right to use the easement. The defendants appealed. We affirm, finding that, although the gate may not have been an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' right to use the easement, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that it was not necessary for the defendants' use and enjoyment of the property. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
John Jay Hooker v. Phil Bredesen, et al. - Concurring
I fully concur with all aspects of the Court’s well reasoned majority opinion. Nevertheless, I wish to address the scurrilous, unfounded and unprofessional personal attacks made by Appellee against the person holding the position of and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee. Unfounded and unwarranted accusations such as those cast by Appellee accomplish little but to reflect adversely on the one casting. This jurist enjoys a heated exchange of differing opinions and an aggressive analysis of legal theories and principles. Moreover, I find such exchanges often productive, enabling the tribunal to get to the intellectually honest assessment of the case; however, scurrilous and unfounded personal attacks serve no legitimate purpose and have no place in the dispute resolution arena. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
