Marks, Shell, and Maness, et al. v. Cynthia T. Mann, et al.
This cause is a civil suit for damages against Gary and Cynthia Mann resulting from Cynthia Mann's embezzlement of funds totaling $550,000.00 from the law firm of Marks, Shell, and Maness. The trial court found Mr. and Mrs. Mann jointly and severably liable for the loss. Mr. Mann appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Hargrove, et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the procedures for returning a formerly disabled police officer to work. After the Employee Benefit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County determined that the former officer was no longer disabled, the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department directed him to report to a 13-week training class. Fearing that he could lose both his disability pension and his job if he failed the training class, the officer filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department lacked the authority to require him to complete the training class before returning him to work. The trial court determined that requiring the officer to complete the training class before returning him to active duty was not inconsistent with Nashville's charter or ordinances. The officer perfected this appeal. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the Department has the authority to require the officer to complete the training before returning him to active duty. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: C.K.G., C.A.G., C.L.G.
Unmarried couple in their forties decide to have children. Due to the woman's concern that she may be too old to produce viable eggs, the couple engaged the services of an in vitro fertilization clinic and signed contracts required by the clinic, following which the clinic obtained eggs from an anonymous female donor, which were fertilized with the man's sperm and then implanted in the woman who carried them full term resulting in the birth of triplets. Thereafter, the couple separated and the woman filed for custody. The man answered and asserted that the woman is not the mother or a legal parent of the children because she was merely a gestational surrogate who has no genetic tie to the children. The man further asserted that the children have no mother because the egg donor waived her parental rights. The trial court held that the woman is the mother of the children, awarded joint custody to the couple and primary custody to the woman. The man appealed. We affirm, finding that the woman is a legal parent and the mother of the children based on the intent of the parties. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re The Estate of Clarice Lee Miller
This case involves the rights of a survivor in a joint bank account. During her lifetime, the decedent sold certain real property, put the proceeds in a separate bank account, and executed a will leaving half of the proceeds to her niece. The bank account in which the proceeds were deposited was a joint account between the decedent and her brother. The brother had power of attorney over the decedent's affairs and was the named executor in the her will. After the decedent died, the decedent's will was admitted to probate. The brother, as executor, filed a petition asking for instructions as to the proper disposition of the money in the joint bank account. The trial court held that, when the funds were placed in the joint bank account, the bequest to the niece was adeemed and the funds were no longer a part of the decedent's estate. Therefore, the trial court determined that the brother, as the joint account holder with a right of survivorship, was entitled to all of the proceeds. The named beneficiary now appeals. We reverse, concluding that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the bank account was a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Marjorie Delapp vs. Arthur Pratt, In Re: Estate of Mary Armstrong Pratt
Marjorie Delapp, Mary Sherrod, and Elsie Caton ("Plaintiffs") sued their brother, Arthur David Pratt ("Defendant") claiming, in part, that Defendant exercised undue influence over their mother, Mary Armstrong Pratt ("the Deceased") to induce the Deceased to make a will in Defendant's favor. After a jury trial, judgment was entered holding the Deceased was competent to make the will, that a confidential relationship existed between Defendant and the Deceased, and that the will was not the last will and testament of the Deceased. Defendant appeals claiming, in part, that the Trial Court erred in allowing testimony regarding his alleged racial prejudice to be introduced and in failing to grant a mistrial after reference was made to his alleged sexual misconduct. Defendant also argues there is no material evidence to support the jury's verdicts of confidential relationship and undue influence and that the Trial Court erred in denying his objection to the entry of judgment. We affirm |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis Allen, et al., v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, et al.
This appeal raises the validity of an ordinance passed by the City of Memphis annexing a portion of Shelby County. Appellants contend that Appellees violated the Open Meetings Act when such ordinance was passed. All parties filed motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted Appellees’ motion. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jim Pratt v. J.W. Gibson D/B/A J.W. Gibson Co.
This appeal involves competing claims for breach of contract. J.W. Gibson d/b/a J.W. Gibson Company ("Defendant"), entered into an oral contract with Pratt Masonry Company ("Pratt Masonry") for Pratt Masonry to furnish masonry work on a house. When the work was completed, Defendant refused to pay, claiming the masonry work was so defective that all the bricks had to be removed and replaced. Pratt Masonry filed suit seeking payment for the work performed under the oral contract. Defendant counterclaimed for damages incurred in having to remove and replace the bricks. The Trial Court concluded Pratt Masonry breached the contract by performing substandard masonry work, but Defendant failed to prove it was necessary to remove and replace all the bricks. Both parties appeal. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court and remand. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
James Ray Bartlett v. Gail Corder, et al.
An inmate who was convicted and sentenced for passing worthless checks filed suit against six officers of the court for conspiracy, violation of his constitutional rights, and various derelictions of duty. The plaintiff asked the trial court to sanction the defendants by impeachment and/or disbarment. He also asked for $33 million in monetary damages. The trial court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We affirm. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Lani Thomas Arnold and James Davis, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Reeves Davis v. W. Terry Davis
This case involves the interpretation of certain provisions of a Trust Instrument. The trial court found a latent ambiguity in the Instrument, allowed extrinsic evidence, and granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of T.S.R.
The juvenile court entered an order declaring Appellant the father of T.S.R. and ordered child support. Appellant failed to pay child support and incurred an arrearage of $27,051.68. Appellant petitioned the court for Rule 60.02 relief from the final order and requested a blood paternity test. The DNA test indicated that Appellant was not the father. The trial court relieved Appellant of his ongoing child support but required him to pay the child support arrearage. For the following reasons, we affirm |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In re: DMD & JLA
The trial court denied Appellants’ petition for termination of Mother’s parental rights and returned physical custody of children to Mother. We reverse and remand for determination of whether termination is in the best interests of the children. We vacate the order returning physical custody to Mother. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David Sharp v. State of Tennessee
An inmate filed a claim with the Claims Commission contending negligence on the part of the Tennessee Department of Correction in miscalculating his sentence credits. The Commission dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the inmate appealed, and we affirm. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
Judith Mae Harber as Trustee of Trust B for the Estate of Edwin Erwin v. Leader Federal Bank For Savings
This case involves the wrongful payment of funds by Defendant over Plaintiff’s forged signature. The lower court found that the majority of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by former Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-4-406, which places a one-year limit on certain claims by bank customers seeking to recover losses occasioned by unauthorized signatures. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Petition for Change of Name, Charles Grannis
The trial court denied a Petition for Name Change. Among the allegations the Petitioner raises on appeal are that the master or special judge who denied his Petition was biased against him and that she was not authorized to act as a judge. We do not find sufficient evidence of bias in the record to justify reversal on that ground. We do find that the record is devoid of proper documentation of the basis of the master's authority to sit as a substitute judge. However, we need not determine whether reversal is required because of that deficiency, because we find that the trial court failed to articulate and the record fails to demonstrate any legally sufficient reason for denying the Petition. Therefore, the denial and dismissal of the Petition must be vacated. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Hartman v. Daryl Hartman
The divorce judgment approved a MDA which provided that the minor children would reside with their father in Rhea County while mother was working in Atlanta. When not working, mother had custody. Two years after the divorce, father petitioned for custody, alleging that at the time of the divorce it was contemplated that mother would return to Tennessee and share equal parenting time. Mother counter-claimed for custody. Father was awarded primary custody. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for a hearing on the comparative fitness of each parent. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Whitley v. Richard Whitley
This is a divorce case involving the classification and division of property in a marriage of relatively short duration. Prior to marriage, the parties lived for a few months with the husband's parents before moving to a farm purchased by the husband with a down payment provided by his parents.The wife gave birth to the parties' child a few months after the move, and the parties subsequently married. Twenty-two months later, the wife filed for divorce. Both before and during the marriage, the wife assisted the husband with his cattle farming operation as well as with improvements to the property. The trial court found the farm to be marital property under the doctrine of transmutation, assigned it a value of $100,000, and awarded it to the husband. The trial court awarded most of the farm equipment and forty-eight head of cattle to the husband as his separate property and divided the marital property between the parties, with the husband awarded the remainder of the farm machinery and all but eleven head of cattle, and the wife awarded a 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier, the remaining cattle, and a cash judgment of $27,000 for her "substantial contributions to the farm and farming operation." The husband was assigned sole responsibility for the marital debt. The husband appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly classified, valued, and distributed the property. We conclude that the trial court correctly found that the farm was marital property, but erred in its valuation of the farm and in its distribution of the marital property. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's cash judgment to the wife to $11,886.50, which represents one-half of the equity in the farm at the time of the divorce and one-half of the unaccounted-for proceeds from the husband's sale of cattle in violation of an automatic injunction in the case. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy Kay Joiner v. James Alden Griffith
This appeal involves a child support and visitation dispute. Mother and Father, never married, have two minor children. The parties lived together from 1997 until March 2001, when Father was arrested for domestic assault. Father moved out of the residence. Mother filed a complaint seeking to be the primary residential parent, requested child support and arrearages and asked for temporary support and attorney fees. The juvenile court placed primary custody of the children with Mother, set visitation, and ordered Father to pay $4,000 a month in child support plus $31,586 in arrearages. Father appealed, taking issue with visitation, child support, arrearages, and the court's failure to make findings of fact regarding the alleged domestic assault. Mother appealed claiming the court erred by rejecting most of her claim for her attorney fees. We affirm the trial court's determinations concerning child support and visitation, modify the offset against the arrearage owed for child support, and reverse and remand Mother's request for attorney fees. Further, we find that the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact concerning the domestic abuse charge because the alleged domestic assault was not against a minor. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Anna Miller v. Eduardo Miller
This appeal arises from a divorce action. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; and Remanded. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Ronnie Gale Martin v. Deborah Elaine Kent Martin
Husband filed present divorce action against Wife alleging irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Wife answered denying the inappropriate marital conduct and subsequently counter-complained for divorce alleging adultery. Wife amended her countercomplaint to request a legal separation or in the alternative an absolute divorce. The trial court granted Wife an absolute divorce based upon its finding of Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court awarded Wife alimony by requiring Husband to pay for Wife’s health insurance for three years and, thereafter, pay Wife $50.00 a month. The trial court ordered a property division and required Husband to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees. We affirm the award of divorce, distribution of marital property and debt, and award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the award of alimony in the amount of $50.00 a month but vacate the award of health insurance and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Carol Knittig Hazen v. John Thurston Hazen
Wife filed the present divorce action seeking, inter alia, alimony. The trial court awarded Wife alimony in futuro based upon a perceived need rather than a demonstrative need. For the following reasons, we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Ann Rodgers (Riggs) v. Charles D. Rodgers, Jr.
Appellant filed a petition to reduce his child support obligation following his loss of employment as a mechanical engineer and his inability to find other employment. Relief was denied, notwithstanding that two children had attained their majority, and the petition was dismissed. Judgment reversed and case remanded. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Baker v. Roane State Community College, et al.
This case involves the timeliness of a grievance filed by Appellant, an employee of Roane State Community College. The hearing officer determined that such grievance was not filed within the limitations period. Appellant appealed this decision to the Chancery Court of Davidson County, which affirmed the decision of the hearing officer. Appellant now appeals to this Court and we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joann Mallinak Glassell v. Richard Lee Glassell
Joann Mallinak Glassell ("Plaintiff") was represented by attorney James M. Crain ("Crain") throughout divorce proceedings she filed against Richard Lee Glassell ("Defendant"). After a trial, the Trial Court ordered the equity from the sale of the marital residence to be divided equally between the parties. The Trial Court then applied various off-sets to the amount awarded Plaintiff, thereby reducing the net amount of Plaintiff's recovery to $0.00. The Trial Court concluded that Crain's attorney's fee lien was lower in priority to the various off-sets. Crain appeals, claiming the Trial Court improperly subordinated his attorney's fee lien to the off-sets and that his lien should be given priority. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court and affirm as modified. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Allen Blankenship, D/B/A Skullbone Music Park, Inc., v. Gibson County and county Commissioners, et al.
This is a zoning case. The property owner applied to re-zone the property from agricultural to business. The Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development and the county planning commission recommended that the County Commission deny the property owner’s application. The County Commission voted to deny the application. The plaintiff/appellant property owner filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in chancery court, seeking to overturn the decision. The defendant/appellee County Commission filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The property owner now appeals. We affirm, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the County Commission had a rational basis for its decision. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Albert Thompson v. Johnny W. Sanders, Melinda Thompson, Gayle Sanders, and Ez Cash I, II, III, IV, and V, L.L.C.
The issue in this case is whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. The plaintiff sued the defendants for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On July 15, 2002, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Thirty-two (32) days later, on August 16, 2002, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend, and the plaintiff now appeals. This Court, sua sponte, asked the parties for supplemental briefs regarding whether the appeal was timely. In light of the undisputed facts, we must hold that the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend was untimely and, consequently, that the plaintiff’s notice of appeal was untimely. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
