Michael Warden v. Thomas Wortham/Jerry Tidwelll v. Michael Warden M2002-00364-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This case involves specific performance of a real estate contract. The first buyer and the seller entered into a contract for the sale of certain land. The contract did not state a time of performance. After the first buyer failed to perform within the time period understood by the seller, the seller sold the property to the second buyer. The first buyer did not discover the sale to the second buyer until approximately ten months after the second contract was signed and seven months after the transfer. The first buyer filed a lawsuit against both the seller and the second buyer, seeking specific performance of the original contract. The trial court found that the first buyer failed to tender performance within a reasonable time, and granted the second buyer's motion for directed verdict. The first buyer appeals. We affirm, in agreement with the reasoning of the trial court.
Hickman
Court of Appeals
In Re: M.L.J. and R.R.J., et al M2002-02213-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
The Juvenile Court for Sequatchie County terminated respondents' parental rights. We affirm.
Sequatchie
Court of Appeals
Jamie Robinson v. Donald Sundquist M2001-01491-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
The trial court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Sandra Hensley v. Daniel Scokin, M.D. M2002-00922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a medical battery case. The patient was scheduled to undergo a hysterectomy. Because of prior medical problems, she told the anesthesiologist that she needed him to use nasal intubation instead of oral intubation to anesthetize her for the surgery. The anesthesiologist told her that he would use the type of intubation that he thought was best for her. Ultimately, when the hysterectomy was performed, the patient was intubated through an oral pathway. The patient sued the anesthesiologist for medical battery. The anesthesiologist filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that the patient knew that the anesthesiologist might use oral intubation, and that she authorized the procedure both by signing a consent form prior to the surgery and by not stopping the procedure when she became aware that the anesthesiologist might use oral intubation. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the anesthesiologist. We reverse, finding that a question of material fact exists as to whether the patient authorized the use of oral intubation.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Ferguson Harbour v. Flash Market M2002-00750-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
This case involves a dispute over the validity of a contract. Appellant claims that its signature on the contract was obtained through economic duress and that the contract is, therefore, void. The trial court found for Appellee, awarding compensatory damages and attorney's fees. Appellee contends that the award of attorney's fees was unreasonably low. We affirm the trial court's award of compensatory damages. On the issue of attorney's fees, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this case for a determination of reasonable attorney's fees consistent with this opinion.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Russell Lipsey vs. Protech Sys. W2001-01785-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams
This is a negligence case. The owner of a three-story historic building was remodeling it. He called a fire sprinkler company to move a sprinkler pipe. The repairman cut one of the sprinkler pipes and, thinking it was a "dead pipe," pushed it behind some sheetrock without capping it. The sprinkler system was regulated by an air compressor that filled the pipes with pressurized air until the system was triggered to allow water to flow through the pipes. The repairman left before the compressor completely charged the system, that is, before the air pressure reached the required level to hold the water back. Two days later, water began rushing out of a sprinkler pipe, causing extensive damage to the building. The owner sued the fire sprinkler company for damage to the building and its contents as well as for interruption of his business. At the trial, there was conflicting testimony about whether the water came out of the pipe that the repairman cut or whether it came out of another pipe. The jury found that both parties were zero percent responsible; thus, the owner recovered no damages. The owner moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Both motions were denied. The owner appeals, and we affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
21st Mortgage ,formerly 21st Century Mortgage Corp. vs. Capitol Homes, LLC E2002-02670-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
Ms. Stella Ford ("Ford") purchased a manufactured home from Capitol Homes, LLC ("Capitol Homes") and contractually agreed to make monthly payments. At the same time, Capitol Homes assigned its rights under the contract with Ford to 21st Mortgage Corp. ("Plaintiff") through an Assignment by Seller ("Assignment"). Capitol Homes made twelve express warranties in the Assignment. The Assignment further provided it would be with limited recourse for two months. After the two months expired, Plaintiff sued Capitol Homes and James Hurst ("Hurst")(collectively referred to as "Defendants"). Hurst had personally guaranteed the debt of Capitol Homes. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that Capitol Homes had breached several of the express warranties. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss claiming the two month limited recourse provision also applied to any claim for breach of express warranty. The trial court agreed, and dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse.
Wylie B. Dowlen v. Gary Matthews M2001-03160-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
This appeal arises from a police officer's lawsuit against a Clarksville resident for assault, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the officer responded to a noise complaint at the resident's home. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant. We affirm the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Carolyn Mitchell Brown vs. John Hilyee Watson, Jr. E2004-01229-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
The Trial Court annulled Brown's marriage at the insistence of her conservator. On appeal, we affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Emmerick vs. Mountain Valley Chapel Business Trust E2002-01453-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone
The trial court dismissed the complaint of Marc D. Emmerick ("the plaintiff") and awarded one of the defendants, Mountain Valley Chapel Business Trust, a judgment on its counterclaim against the plaintiff for $1,416. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Rick Williams vs. Angela Williams E2002-01995-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: James W. Mckenzie
The Trial Court in this divorce action, granted the parties a divorce and divided marital property. The husband appeals, seeking additional marital property. We affirm.
Rhea
Court of Appeals
James Kyzer vs. Patty Blackburn E2002-02254-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: C. Van Deacon
This is a custody dispute between James Christopher Kyzer, the father of Haleigh Sharee Kyzer, d.o.b. 10/6/93, and the child's maternal grandmother, Patti Blackburn, which arose after Haleigh's mother, the ex-wife of Mr. Kyzer, was killed in an automobile accident. The Trial Judge awarded custody to the father upon his finding that "there has been no showing of substantial risk of harm to the child." We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Charles Head v. James Gibson M1999-00656-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
This is an appeal from a judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. that the uninsured motorist coverage offered to the plaintiffs was not implicated under the circumstances of this litigation. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Carlos Castillion vs. Sarah Castillion E2002-01310-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
In this divorce case, the husband questions on appeal the valuation of marital property and distribution made by the Trial Court. We affirm the Trial Court.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Mill Creek Associates v. Jackson Foundation M2001-02811-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This is an unjust enrichment case. The plaintiff design firm was contacted by the defendant foundation to develop designs and a budget for the construction of a science theater. The chief designer of the firm worked on the project and presented a proposal to the foundation. The foundation neither accepted nor rejected the design firm's proposal. Instead, the foundation hired the design firm's chief designer. Part of the designer's duties with the foundation was to work on the science theater project "in house." The foundation refused to pay the design firm a fee for its work on the project. The design firm then sued the foundation on a theory of unjust enrichment for the work performed on the project while the chief designer was still at the firm. The trial court found that since the project was never completed, the preliminary designs did not confer a value on the foundation and, consequently, the foundation had not been unjustly enriched. The design firm now appeals. We reverse, finding that the work performed by the design firm constituted a benefit to the foundation, and that it would be unjust for the foundation to retain that benefit without paying the design firm for the value of the benefit.
Dickson
Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Camporal v. Richard Ford M2002-01409-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
This case involves a dispute arising from a Promissory Note executed by and between the Appellant/Maker and Appellee/Payee. Specifically, Appellant asserts that he signed the Note in a representative capacity and, therefore, he is not personally liable on the Note. The Circuit Court of Franklin County granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, entering a Judgment against Appellant for principal, interest, and costs. Appellant appeals from this Judgment. We affirm.
Franklin
Court of Appeals
Hoover, Inc. v. Metro Nashville Board of Zoning Appeals M2001-00924-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This is the fourth appeal from a zoning board's denial of a conditional use permit. In April 1992, the petitioner stone processing company filed an application with the respondent zoning board for a conditional use permit to operate a rock quarry. After years of litigation, the board issued findings of fact and denied the petitioner's application. The application was denied in part because the reclamation plan in the petitioner's proposal used water as fill material, contrary to the specification in the applicable ordinance that solids be used as fill material. The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious because reclamation plans using water as fill material had been approved in the past. The trial court denied the writ and upheld the board's decision. The stone processing company appealed. We affirm, finding that the board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and that material evidence supported the board's decision.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
David Norman v. Melissa Norman M2002-01084-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal arises from the trial court's denial of Husband's petition to reduce child support and alimony. The trial court found there was no significant variance of fifteen percent (15%) to modify child support. The trial court also determined that there was no justification for a decrease in alimony payments. The trial court reserved the issues relating to unclean hands and attorney fees. The parties raise multiple issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we vacate in part, reverse in part and remand.
This case involves an insurance company's appeal of the trial court's decision that the company has a duty to defend its insured under a commercial general liability policy. Applying Texas law, we find that no such duty exists and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the trial court.
In this appeal from the trial court's award of attorneys fees, Appellant seeks review of the trial court's refusal to award the full amount of fees sought. We modify the trial court's findings and affirm as to the amount of the award.
This case involves the termination of parental rights. The mother of the two young children at issue had a history of cocaine and marijuana abuse. In September 1999, the state department of children's services obtained custody of the children and placed them in a foster home. While the children were in foster care, the mother participated in drug rehabilitation programs and attempted to obtain permanent employment. The mother made some progress, but repeatedly relapsed back into drug and alcohol use, and failed to procure a permanent job or a permanent residence. In August 2001, the State filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. The trial court granted the State's petition. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother had failed to comply with the permanency plan, that conditions that prevented the children's safe return still persisted, and that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the children's best interest.
