Randall C. Hagy v. Commisssioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Tennessee Distribution, Inc.
Employee was discharged from employment for refusing to follow orders. The Commissioner denied employee unemployment benefits, and employee appealed to the Court which affirmed the ruling of the Commissioner. On appeal to this Court, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Dr. Kenneth F. Freels, v. Joseph C. Taylor & Associates, Inc. and Howard G. Hogan, Successor Receiver for Joseph C. Taylor & Associates, Inc.
Plaintiffs sought recovery of cashier's check on theory of bailment or resulting or constructive trust. From an adverse Judgment by the Chancellor, plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Rogers v. David Stanley Davis and Vanetta Davis
The trial court awarded plaintiff judgment for rents on property occupied by defendants, but refused judgment for defendants for improvements made by them to plaintiff's property. On appeal, we reverse and award defendants judgment for improvements made to the property and modify plaintiff's judgment for the rental value of land. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda Moody v. Timothy Hutchison, Sheriff of Knox County
Knox County Commissioner Wanda Moody ("Plaintiff") made a Public Records Act request for numerous documents in the possession of Timothy Hutchison, the Sheriff of Knox County ("Defendant"). Defendant responded and provided some, but not all of the requested documents. Plaintiff eventually sought to have Defendant held in criminal contempt claiming at least fifty of his responses to the various document requests were false. After a trial on the criminal contempt charges, the Trial Court concluded Defendant made "at least six" false representations which amounted to criminal contempt, and imposed the maximum fine of $50 for each offense, for a total of $300. Defendant appeals claiming, among other things, that the proof failed to establish that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal contempt. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Anna Faye Floyd, et al., v. Johnny Tesar, et al.
Anna Faye Floyd, Michael Everette Floyd, and David Earl Floyd, minor children, by and through their mother and natural guardian Linda Floyd ("Plaintiffs"), sued Johnny Tesar, Marsell Tesar, Jobey Green, Wilburn Green, and Martha Lee ("Defendants") to quiet title to land in Sevier County, Tennessee. After a bench trial, the Trial Court held, inter alia, that the minor Plaintiffs are the true owners of the land, and that Defendants Johnny Tesar and Marsell Tesar had committed fraud upon the Plaintiffs, knowingly clouded Plaintiffs' title, and trespassed upon Plaintiffs' land. The Trial Court also awarded Plaintiffs damages and attorney's fees against Defendants Johnny Tesar and Marsell Tesar. Defendants appeal but raise no specific issues on appeal and point to no error in the record. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. John Belder
This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals from the order of the Juvenile Court of Carroll County, terminating his parental rights. Specifically, Father asserts that the grounds cited for termination are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, that termination is not in the best interest of the children, and that the Department of Children’s Services did not provide reasonable services. Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings, we affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Ruffin Buildling Systems, Inc., v. Larry Gene Varner, an individual, et al.
Larry Gene Varner and Todd Duncan (“Defendants”) contracted with Joel Frazier d/b/a Timberline Construction Company (“Timberline”) for construction of a building on Defendants’ property. Timberline then contracted with Ruffin Building Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) for Plaintiff to provide certain materials for the construction. Defendants paid Timberline, but Timberline never paid Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Defendants on its materialman’s lien. The Trial Court granted Defendants summary judgment holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-11-115. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Leroy Mosby, et al., v. Memphis Area Transit Authority, et al.
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in the death of Deceased, a farepaying passenger of a bus. Plaintiffs, Deceased’s heirs, brought a wrongful death action against the driver of the Cadillac in the bus/car collision and Defendants, the driver of the bus and the Memphis Area Transit Authority. At the close of Plaintiffs’ proof, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
First National of North America v. Michael Marks
Plaintiff First National of North America, LLC (FNNA) brought a claim for unjust enrichment against Michael Marks. Marks had refinanced his home mortgage through Morgan International, which was owned by Jerry Levine. The purpose of the refinancing was to pay off an existing mortgage owing to a third party and to obtain net proceeds of approximately $44,000 for Marks’ other needs. Unknown to Marks, the funds for Marks’ loan were provided to Levine by FNNA pursuant to a Commercial Loan and Servicing Agreement between FNNA and Levine. The refinancing transaction closed and Marks received net proceeds of $44,394 at the closing; however, National Bank. For almost a year Marks was unaware that the pre-existing mortgage was not paid making the payments, First American initiated foreclosure proceedings against Marks. Marks paid the arrearage and maintained the mortgage with First American. Marks sued Levine and Morgan International. FNNA intervened as a party plaintiff against Levine and Marks. FNNA obtained a judgment based on contract against Levine but Levine was discharged in bankruptcy without any recovery to FNNA. Thereafter, FNNA obtained a judgment against Marks for $38,000, on the theory of unjust enrichment, plus pre-judgment interest. Marks appealed claiming he had a contractual relationship with FNNA that precluded a recovery under unjust enrichment. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
First National of North America v. Michael Marks - Dissenting
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., P.J., M.S., dissenting. Both First National of North America, LLC and Michael Marks were victimized by Jerry Levine’s shady mortgage brokering. When the dust settled, Mr. Levine did not effectively assign Mr. Marks’s note and deed of trust to First National, thereby leaving First National with no security. At the same time, Mr. Levine did not pay off Mr. Marks’s existing mortgage, leaving him even deeper in debt than he was before. The majority has decided that Mr. Marks should bear the brunt of Mr. Levine’s defalcations by requiring him to partially indemnify First National. I disagree. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tonya Patrice Ray v. William Martin Ray v. Stephen Eric Staggs
Natural father of minor twin children appeals trial court's final order of custody and visitation on multiple grounds, alleging primarily that (1) the trial court erred in awarding visitation to stepfather; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to change children's surname to that of their natural father; and (3) the trial court improperly based its opinion on a sealed psychological report. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nick Alfredo Santiago, et. al, v. Joy Cooper, et al.
Plaintiff, a minor student, brought suit for damages arising from an eye injury he sustained during recess at school. The Defendants, which are both governmental entities, moved for summary judgment, arguing that they are immune from suit and that Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish the elements of his negligence claim. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the Defendants summary judgment on both grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the lower court. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Dana Bryan Ellis v. Susan Lynn Ellis (Johnson)
Several years after Dana Bryan Ellis ("Father") and Susan Lynn Ellis (Johnson) ("Mother") were divorced, Mother filed a petition seeking to increase Father's child support payments. Father filed a counterclaim seeking a downward deviation in his child support payments claiming he was exercising visitation in excess of that contemplated by the Child Support Guidelines. After a trial, the Trial Court found Father's annual gross wages were $80,000 and set current child support payments based on that amount. The Trial Court also awarded retroactive child support to the date the petition for modification was filed and concluded the retroactive support also should be based on Father's current salary of $80,000. The Trial Court denied Father's request for a downward deviation after concluding it was in the best interests of the children not to reduce Father's child support payment. Father appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Beverly Miller, et al., v. United Automax
Appellants sued Appellee on theories of common law misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, arising from the sale of a used vehicle. A jury returned a verdict for Appellants on both theories and Appellants elected to take their remedy under the common law claim, which included an award of punitive damages. The trial court denied Appellants’ prayer for attorney fees, which were not available under the common law remedy but only under the Consumer Protection Act claim. Having been denied attorney fees, Appellants requested that they be allowed to amend their election of remedies. This request was denied. Appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Troy Sterling Fuller v. Janie Marie Nicholson
This is primarily a child custody dispute. The father and mother lived together with their infant son and the mother's two older sons in the mother's house trailer before moving into a house purchased by the mother with a down payment provided by the father. When their son was approximately eight months old, the parties separated and thereafter began a contentious legal battle over his custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the mother primary custody, granted the father broad visitation rights, and denied the father's request for the return of his down payment and closing costs, finding there was no equity in the house. The father appeals the trial court's award of primary custody to the mother and its denial of his request for the return of his down payment and closing costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of T.A.M.
This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of an incarcerated biological father of a five-year-old child. The child’s mother and her new husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Lincoln County seeking to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and to approve the new husband’s adoption of the child. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order on August 29, 2003 granting the petition to terminate the biological father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment. The biological father appealed. We concur with the trial court’s conclusion that the father abandoned his child by willfully failing to support and visit the child and that terminating the biological father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of T.A.M. - Concurring
I disagree with the standard of review employed by the court in this case for the reasons discussed at more length in In Re Z.J.S., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, 2003 WL 21266854, at *18-22 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 3, 2003) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed); Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527, 533-37 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001). I agree, however, that a review of the evidence in the case discloses that the truth of the factual conclusions made by the trial are “highly probable” and thus the clear and convincing evidence standard is met. Therefore, I concur with the court’s decision to affirm the order terminating R.G.L.’s parental rights. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Edwin Earl Sanborn v. Carlotta Joan Sanborn
After twenty-five years of marriage, Father filed for divorce asserting irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct due to Mother's alleged prescription drug abuse. Father requested that he be the primary residential parent of the parties' two minor children. Mother filed an answer and counterclaim also requesting to be the primary residential parent. The trial court granted Father the divorce but designated Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in designating Mother as the primary residential parent and in setting the residential schedule. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Allie Jane Collins, and husband, Cle Collins, v. Dana Edwards, M.D. and Robert Hunt, M.D.
The trial judge dismissed this medical malpractice action on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. On appeal, we vacate and remand. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: K.G., et al.
Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating parental rights and decree of guardianship. We affirm and vacate, in part. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Donna S. Young v. Fred C. Hartley, M.D., et al
Donna S. Young ("Plaintiff") sued Fred C. Hartley, M.D. ("Defendant") claiming that during a tubal ligation, defendant negligently performed additional surgeries upon plaintiff's vaginal area without her consent and that those extra surgeries caused plaintiff to suffer physical and emotional damage. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in defendant's favor. Plaintiff appeals raising, among other things, several questions regarding the admission of evidence at trial. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Arthur McRae et al., v. Knox County, et al.
This is a zoning dispute involving billboards. Its posture is not traditional because the Board of Zoning Appeals and the owner of the billboards are in agreement. The Board granted the owner two variance from a zoning ordinance; this action was challenged by the Appellees who claimed that the erection of the billboards adversely affected the value, use, and enjoyment of their property, which vested them with a special interest and entitlement to file a petition for certiorari for a judicial review of the Board's action. The Writ was granted, and a hearing resulted in a finding that the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals was unlawful and capricious. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kellie Cox v. Randy Cox
After twenty-one years of marriage and raising two children, now adults, Wife filed for divorce. The trial court granted the divorce and ordered Husband to pay rehabilitative alimony for three years, awarded Wife sole possession of the marital residence and ordered Husband to pay the mortgage as alimony in futuro until Wife remarries, lives with a person of the opposite sex or dies. Husband was also required to pay Wife's attorney fees. Husband appealed. We modify the trial court's order requiring Husband to pay alimony in futuro and reconstitute it as rehabilitative alimony with a three year limit. In all other aspects, we affirm the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Ruskin A. Vest, Jr., et al. v. Duncan-Williams, Inc.
Plaintiffs sued defendant alleging that defendant was negligent, breached its fiduciary duty, and committed fraud and state securities act violations in brokering the sale of municipal bonds to plaintiffs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue based upon an arbitration agreement plaintiffs entered into with a third party. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant appealed. After reviewing the record, we hold that defendant has failed to prove that it is an intended third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Waynell C. Burnette v. Teddy Sundeen, et al.
In this litigation arising out of an automobile accident, Waynell C. Burnette ("the plaintiff") filed a motion asking the trial court to sanction Teddy Sundeen and Elhame Dauti ("the defendants") for a discovery abuse. Acting under the authority of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37.02, the court entered a judgment by default against both defendants and, in the same order, awarded the plaintiff damages of $100,000. The defendants appeal, contending that they were not afforded proper notice of the plaintiff's intention to raise the issue of damages at the hearing on the motion for sanctions. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as awards the plaintiff unliquidated damages of $100,000. |
Blount | Court of Appeals |
