Anthony and Melinda K. Colston v. Citizens Tri-County Bank
Following Appellees’ default on promissory note secured by a deed of trust, Appellant Bank placed a hold on Appellees’ accounts and instigated foreclosure proceedings. Despite the fact that Appellees cured the default, Appellant Bank continued its hold on accounts and failed to stop publication of foreclosure notice. Although Appellees failed to prove damages, trial court found Bank negligent and awarded nominal damages to Appellees. We reverse. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Grey Cummings v. Pepper Lynne Werner Cummings
The trial court granted the husband a divorce on the ground of the wife’s adultery and made various rulings regarding the parenting arrangement for the parties’ one year old son, child support, property division, and award of attorney’s fees. The parties have appealed most of the those rulings. Although we affirm the equal sharing of residential placement, we find the six month alternating schedule is not in this child’s best interests. We also find other parts of the plan must be vacated in view of recent holdings by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Therefore, we vacate the parenting plan and remand for entry of a new permanent parenting plan addressing the residential schedule, the designation of primary residential parent, allocation of decision-making authority, and child support. In the interim, we reinstate the trial court’s pendente lite arrangement, as modified, and establish interim support. We affirm the division of property, modify the allocation of debt, and modify the award of attorney’s fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Linda C. Gorrell v. Tyree B. Harris, IV
This is a child support modification case. The child involved was born out of wedlock to the parties on June 13, 1996. Mother brought suit in the Juvenile court of Davidson County in July of 1996 seeking to establish paternity of the father and to establish child support. Both parties were represented by counsel, and on May 30, 1997, the juvenile court entered an Order of Compromise and Dismissal. The parties settled the case by Settlement Agreement under which Mr. Harris agreed to pay to Ms. Clark (now Gorrell) the sum of $20,000 cash for any and all claims against Mr. Harris through June 30 of 1998, including her child support claims as to the minor child. From June 13, 1998 forward, Mr. Harris agreed to pay $12,000 per year as child support together with medical insurance until the child reached age 18. On February 23, 2001, Mother filed a Petition to Modify the child support in order to bring it in compliance with Child Support Guidelines. The trial court held the Settlement Agreement to be void and set prospective child support but declined to either award retroactive child support or to order an upward deviation in child support because of failure of the father to visit the child. We affirm the ruling of the trial court that the Settlement Agreement is void, modify prospective child support, reverse the trial court on retroactive child support, deny an upward deviation as to retroactive support, but grant such deviation as to future support. The case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In re: D.N.G., S.D.P., et ux, J.A.S.P., v. R.L.G. and K.S.R.
The Trial Court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the four year old child. On appeal, we |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
First Tennessee Bank, N.A., Executor, Estate of Glenn P. Webb, Sr. v. Barbara Webb Stanfield, Paul W. Stanfield, Jr., Alicia M. Stanfield, et al.
The Chancellor construed a will and granted plaintiff summary judgment. Defendants insist the will is ambiguous. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
J. Howard Johnson, et al., v. Michael R. Allison, et al.
The parties entered into an option contract for the sale and purchase of a piece of land. The bargained-for option had a limited duration, with the buyer entitled to extend the option for additional consideration if it exercised that right within an agreed-upon time frame. The buyer paid for several extensions, but did not exercise the option before the final option deadline had passed. The sellers subsequently refused to sell, and the buyer sued for breach of contract and specific performance. The sellers filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Begley v.State of Tennessee and Tennessee Department of Transportation
In May of 2000, a car being driven eastbound on Interstate 40 (“I-40”) in Knox County by Jeremy Roark left the travel lane and crossed the rumble strips onto the inside shoulder of the road where it collided with a Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) truck parked during routine litter pick-up. Mr. Roark was killed in the accident and the TDOT employee operating the truck that day, Kenneth Siler, was injured. Susan Begley, Mr. Roark’s mother (“Plaintiff”), brought suit against the State of Tennessee. The case was transferred to the Claims Commission (“the Commission”) and was tried. The Commission held, inter alia, that a reasonable person standard applied and that it was not reasonable for the TDOT truck to be parked on the shoulder. The Commission assessed 45% of the fault for the accident to Mr. Roark and 55% to the State and awarded Plaintiff a judgment for $300,000. The State appeals claiming the Commission lacked jurisdiction, there was insufficient evidence that each element of the negligence cause of action had been met, and there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Mr. Roark was less than 50% at fault. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Begley v.State of Tennessee, and Tennessee Department of Transportation - Dissenting
Assuming arguendo that the State’s parked vehicle was a contributing proximate cause of the accident, the Commissioner’s and the majority’s approach by focusing almost exclusively on the defendant’s parked vehicle and its location, led them in my view to the wrong conclusion. The majority is unable to point to any specific regulatory or statutory violations by the defendant. In contrast, the deceased violated numerous statutes, as well as common law violations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-101 et seq., Operation of Vehicles - Rules of the Road. |
Court of Appeals | ||
C. Dwight Graham, et al., v. The General Sessions Court of Franklin County, et al.
Professional bondsmen sued the general sessions court, the general sessions judge, and the sheriff, seeking a declaratory judgment that an order of the general sessions court concerning bonds for some offenses is invalid as contrary to the statutes of the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals. We reverse. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Montgomery v. Sonja K. Schedin
Gary Robert Montgomery ("Plaintiff") and Sonja K. Schedin ("Defendant") were engaged to be married. After the engagement ended, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Possession in the General Sessions Court claiming Defendant refused to allow him to retrieve his personal property. At issue in the General Sessions Court was who was entitled to a boat and trailer, an ATV, an engagement ring, a trailer, and a 1998 Chevy pick-up truck. Plaintiff claimed Defendant bought the ATV for him as a gift, and that she also gave him $13,500 as a gift to buy the truck. After the General Sessions Court entered its judgment concluding, among other things, that the money was loaned to Plaintiff and was not a gift, Plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court likewise concluded the money was loaned to Plaintiff and was not a gift. Plaintiff appeals. We modify the judgment of the Circuit Court and affirm the judgment as modified. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Vickery Transportation, Inc. and Grammer Industries, Inc. v. Hepaco, Inc.
This case arises out of an action seeking declaratory relief concerning the validity of an arbitration clause in a contract between the parties. Appellee filed a complaint in the Chancery Court at Haywood County for a determination of whether a contract, and, therefore, the arbitration clause in the contract, were invalid because the contract was one of adhesion or executed under duress. The trial court, upon Appellees’ motion to stay arbitration, ordered that the arbitration proceedings should be stayed because there was no agreement to arbitrate. Appellant filed its appeal to this Court, and, for the following reasons, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
William Anthony Bacigalupo v. Mary Darlene Raines Blacknall Bacigalupo
This case arises from the divorce proceedings of Husband and Wife. Husband filed for a divorce from Wife, citing inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences as grounds for a divorce. Wife filed her answer and counterclaim, stating she was entitled to a divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. The trial court granted Wife a divorce, established Wife as the primary residential parent of Child, divided the parties’ marital property, set alimony payments Husband must pay to Wife, imposed a lien on Husband’s property to secure the property division and support payments, and awarded Wife a portion of her attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the proceedings. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Steven R. Ouzts v. Michael L. Womack, Victoria A. Raub, Frank Donato, Remax-Elite, Steven Boysen, Crye-Leike, Inc., and McAnally Inspection Svc., Inc.
This case involves alleged fraud in the sale of real estate. The sellers completed a residential disclosure statement indicating that the subject property had no flooding problems. The sellers then bargained to include language in the deed disavowing any previous representations concerning the property’s condition. The buyer accepted these terms. After the buyer took possession, the property flooded. The buyer filed suit against the sellers, alleging fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation. The sellers filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. We affirm, holding that the buyers are bound by the unambiguous terms of the contract for sale and the deed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Monte Panitz, et al., v. F. Perman & Company, Inc., et al.
Shareholders seek to inspect certain records of corporation of which they are shareholders, as well as records of two other corporations (“the subsidiaries”): a second corporation which is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporation in which Plaintiffs hold shares, and another that is the wholly owned-subsidiary of the second corporation. Defendants maintain that plaintiffs do not have any right to inspect the records of corporations in which they are not shareholders, but agreed to allow inspection of limited records of two subsidiaries as a courtesy, contingent upon plaintiffs signing a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiffs maintain that they have an unqualified right to inspect records of all three corporations under T.C.A. 48-26-102. The trial court found that the confidentiality agreement was reasonable and entered an order requiring defendants to produce certain records, dating back to 1991, for inspection and copying. It further held that, in light of defendants’ agreement to allow limited inspection of records of subsidiaries, it need not rule on issue of whether plaintiffs were entitled to inspect records of subsidiaries. We affirm as modified herein. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Morgan Johnson v. Dorothy Lynn Johnson (Holt)
Kenneth Morgan Johnson (“Father”) and Dorothy Lynn Johnson (“Mother”) were divorced in 1998. The parties have two minor children and initially agreed to equal co-parenting time and that neither party would seek child support from the other. A house owned by Father was severely damaged if not destroyed by fire, and the proceeds from a fire insurance policy were deposited with the Trial Court in a separate lawsuit. After Father was sentenced to be incarcerated for seven years for federal drug violations, Mother filed a petition claiming entitlement to the insurance funds being held by the Trial Court because the minor children were in need of support. The Trial Court concluded Mother should be paid $1,034 per month out of the fire insurance proceeds as child support for the parties’ two minor children. Father appeals claiming the Trial Court erred in determining the amount of child support he should be required to pay each month out of the fire insurance proceeds. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Morgan Johnson v. Dorothy Lynn Johnson (Holt) - Concurring
I agree completely with the majority opinion. I write separately to express my opinion that the statement in State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaatrude, 21 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) that “[s]etting child support is a discretionary matter,” id. at 248, should not be broadly read. For example, it is clear to me that a trial court has “limited discretion” to deviate from the amount of child support determined by applying the rules set forth in Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1240-2-4- .03. See Jones v. Jones, 930 S.W.2d 541, 544-45 (Tenn. 1996). However, I agree with the majority that the Kaatrude principle set forth above applies to the facts of this case. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s judgment, I concur. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
David L. Buck and Christopher L. Buck v. James W. Avent and Wife, Bernadine Avent, and Timmy Avent
This is an action to establish an easement. The plaintiffs’ property adjoins the northern boundary of the defendants’ property. The plaintiffs’ property is landlocked. To access the property, the plaintiffs historically used an old logging road on the northeastern corner of the defendants’ property. In 1998, the defendants made improvements that effectively blocked the plaintiffs’ passage over the old logging road. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to establish an easement over the old logging road and to enjoin the defendants from further impeding their use of the easement. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs had established prescriptive easement and an implied easement over the defendants’ property. The trial court directed the plaintiffs’ expert, a surveyor, to establish the exact property lines between the parties’ properties, and ordered the defendants to restore the plaintiffs’ property to its original state according to those boundaries. From that order, the defendants now appeal. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs established a prescriptive easement and an implied easement, and reverse in part and remand for the trial court to allow the parties an opportunity to submit further evidence on the exact boundary line between their properties. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Prime Company and Jerry Salemi v. Wilkinson & Snowden, Inc. and Eugene Woods
This case involves a claim for procurement of breach of contract. The plaintiff real estate firm sued the defendant real estate firm for procurement of breach of a real estate listing contract. A bench trial was conducted. At the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court noted that, in order to prove procurement of breach of contract, the plaintiffs were required to prove that the defendants acted with “malice.” In order to prove “malice,” the trial court held that the plaintiffs were required to prove that the defendants were “motivated by ill will, hatred or spite.” The trial court found that the plaintiffs had not submitted evidence that the defendants were motivated by ill will, hatred or spite, and therefore held that the plaintiffs could not prove that element of their claim. The plaintiffs’ claim for procurement of breach was dismissed. The plaintiffs now appeal. We reverse, finding that in order to prove malice in this context, the plaintiffs were not required to prove ill will, hatred or spite. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Barsha Ella Royston
Appellant has appealed before final judgment was entered. We dismiss the appeal. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Ron Searcy, D/B/A Restoration Contractors v. John Herold
This appeal involves a dispute between a homeowner and a contractor over the validity of an arbitration award. After the arbitrator awarded the contractor $52,725, the contractor filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Sumner County to confirm the award and to recover the costs of the arbitration. The homeowner challenged the award on the ground that he had not been afforded a hearing. The contractor filed a motion for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss the homeowner's counterclaim, and a motion for attorney's fees under the arbitration agreement. The trial court, granting the contractor's motions, confirmed the $52,725 arbitration decision and awarded the contractor $500 in arbitration expenses and $2,205 in attorney's fees. The homeowner has appealed. We have determined that the arbitration award must be vacated because of the arbitrator's failure to provide the parties a hearing before rendering his decision. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In RE: Zaylen R.
This appeal involves a dispute over the custody of a non-marital child. The child's father requested the Wilson County Juvenile Court to designate him as the child's primary residential parent because of the mother's history of substance abuse. Following a bench trial, the juvenile court designated the mother as the child's primary residential parent and established a visitation schedule for the father. The court also ordered the father to pay child support and to maintain insurance for the child. The father asserts on this appeal (1) that the juvenile court's findings of fact were insufficient, (2) that the evidence does not support designating the mother as the child's primary residential parent, and (3) that the court based its decision on the outmoded tender years doctrine. We affirm the juvenile court's order. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley Patricia Gilliam, Mother and next of kin of LaShun Hall, Decedent v. Michael G. Derrick, Administrator Ad Litem for the Estate of Santres A. Johnson, Decedent
This is a wrongful death action. The plaintiff’s decedent was riding as a passenger in a car driven by the defendant’s decedent. The car collided at a high rate of speed into the guard rail of a bridge. Both the driver and the passenger died in the accident. It was later determined that the driver was intoxicated, but that the passenger had not been drinking. The plaintiff, the mother of the passenger, filed this wrongful death action against the estate of the driver, alleging that the driver’s negligent conduct caused the death of her son. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The jury concluded that the passenger was 50% at fault for his demise, because the passenger knew or should have known that the driver was intoxicated when he got into the car. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse, finding no material evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the passenger knew or should have known that the driver was intoxicated. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John E. Allen v. Quenton T. White, et al.
This appeal concerns the dismissal of a common law writ of certiorari by the Circuit Court of Lake County. Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge the results of a prison disciplinary proceeding instituted against him. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely filed in violation of the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
Shari Parker Morrow, et al. v. Fay A. Jones
Plaintiff/Buyer brought a cause of action alleging breach of a real estate contract and seeking specific performance. The trial court entered judgment for Defendant/Seller. We affirm in part, modify in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charles W. Ayrhart v. Dewel B. Scruggs, et al.
This is an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's refusal to grant a summary judgment to the defendants in a negligence case. We find that the defendants have not affirmatively negated an element of this negligence claim and that reasonable minds could differ on the allocation of fault between the parties. Consequently, the defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We therefore agree with the trial court and affirm the denial of summary judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals |
