Washshukru Al-Jabbar A'La vs. State E2001-03133-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: D. Michael Swiney
Court of Appeals
Pauline Cato v. Montgomery County Bd of Commissioners M2001-01846-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Michael R. Jones
This appeal arises from a property owner's efforts to rezone a 94-acre tract of property in the Sango community of Montgomery County from an agricultural to a residential classification. Despite the planning commission's approval of the proposal, the Montgomery County Commission declined to change the property's zoning classification. The property owner thereafter filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County asserting that the county commission had succumbed to community pressure and lacked any other appropriate basis for declining to rezone the property. The trial court, sitting without a jury, upheld the county commission's decision after concluding that it was fairly debatable whether the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding community. The property owner has appealed. We have determined that the courts have no basis to second-guess the county commission's decision and, therefore, we affirm the judgment.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Leo Davis Jr. vs. Angela Davis W2001-01748-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding initiated by the husband. The trial court, holding that husband had engaged in inappropriate marital conduct, granted the divorce to the wife. The trial court valued and classified much of the parties' property with limited proof. The court further awarded wife attorney's fees and costs. Husband now raises several issues for our review. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Donald King vs. Betty King W2001-01766-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This is an alimony case. The parties were married for twenty-nine years. The wife is disabled and unable to work. Upon divorce, the husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro until the wife reaches sixty-two years of age. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court improperly assessed the wife's living expenses, and that the husband will not be able to afford the necessities of life if he is required to fulfill his alimony obligation. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Henderson
Court of Appeals
Lillard Watts vs. Kroger W2001-01834-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Rita L. Stotts
This is a personal injury case dismissed by the trial court as barred by the statute of limitation because it was filed more than one year after the first voluntary nonsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the order of dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 and also filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to set aside the orders of nonsuit as invalid. The trial court denied both motions, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Ronnie Carroll vs. Nancy Braden vs. James Palmer W2001-01901-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This appeal involves a disputed tract of land that the third-party plaintiff allegedly purchased in 1983 and received a deed for in 1987. The trial court held that plaintiff's statutes of limitation had expired and granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendant who executed the deed. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Frankie Davis vs. Jason Davis W2001-01842-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
In this post-divorce proceeding, the State of Tennessee filed a petition against Mr. Jason Davis (hereinafter "Father") for contempt and seeking child support arrears ordered to be paid to the custodial parent, Ms. Frankie Davis (Gant) (hereinafter "Mother"). The trial court granted the State a judgment in the amount of $1,660.00, representing the amount of State assistance paid to the Mother and children, to be liquidated by the Father at the rate of $10.50 per week. The State has appealed. We affirm as modified in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Larry Butler vs. Gwendolyn Butler W2001-01137-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a contempt of court case. The father and mother were divorced in August 1999. The father was ordered to make child support payments to the mother. The mother later filed a motion to require the father to pay his child support obligation through income assignment. The mother then sought the assistance of a state-authorized child support enforcement contractor to assist her in obtaining an increase in child support. This act triggered statutory provisions associated with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The trial court denied the mother's motion to require income assignment, and ordered that the child support payments continue to be paid directly to the mother. The child support contractor then caused a child support payment coupon to be sent to the father, and also issued, on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, an administrative order to redirect the child support payments to the State's child support collection and disbursement unit. In response, the father filed a motion to hold the mother in civil contempt for taking actions to have the child support payments made by income assignment, and also sought an order enjoining the mother from utilizing the child support contractor. The trial court ordered that the administrative order be set aside. The mother then filed another motion, inter alia, to have the father pay child support by income assignment through the State's central child support collection and disbursement unit. The father filed another motion to have the mother and the child support contractor cited for contempt of court. The trial court held the mother and the child support contractor in contempt, fined each of them, ordered that they reimburse the father for the administrative fees and his attorney's fees, and pay court costs. We reverse, holding that the finding of contempt by the trial judge was an abuse of discretion because the original order was contrary to Tennessee law; Tennessee statutes require the father's child support payments to be redirected through the State child support collection and disbursement unit, and the record does not include evidence supporting an exemption from the statutory requirement that the payments be made by income assignment.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
CH-00-0659-1 CH-00-0659-1
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nashville Lodging M2001-00648-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This is an action for damages for the fraudulent conveyance of a Nashville hotel to defeat the rights of a creditor of the original owner. After a trial and two prior appeals, the Chancery Court of Davidson County tried the case on the merits again in August of 2000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $797,615. The defendants assert on appeal that the statute of limitations barred the claim, that the trial court erred in miscalculating the defendants' claim for restitution, and that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the transfer was fraudulent. We reverse the lower court's ruling that as a matter of law the statute of limitations had not run. In all other respects we affirm the lower court's judgment.
Thomas Nelson vs. Robin Nelson W2001-01515-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
In this divorce case, Husband appeals the type and amount of alimony awarded Wife, the award to Wife of his military Survivor Benefit Plan, the calculation of his retirement pay and the award to Wife of her attorney's fees. We have determined, based on this record, that the judgment be modified to reduce the amount of alimony in futuro, but otherwise affirm.
Gibson
Court of Appeals
Huntington Eldridge vs. Deborah Eldridge W2000-00730-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams
Husband filed for divorce alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. Wife countersued on the same grounds. After a lengthy trial, the court awarded Husband the divorce. Wife appeals several aspects of the court's decision, including the distribution and classification of the parties' property, child support, and alimony. Wife also contends that the court was biased against her and created an appearance of impropriety. Husband also raises issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Decatur County vs. Vulcan Materials W2001-00858-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This case involves the constitutionality of a mineral severance tax increase. In 1984, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a public act of statewide application authorizing counties to collect a mineral severance tax, directing that the proceeds of the tax be deposited in the county road fund. In 1987, the General Assembly passed a private act allowing Decatur County to impose a mineral severance tax, but allocating the revenue from the tax to the county's general fund. Decatur County adopted the tax and the proceeds went to the county's general fund. In 1994, the General Assembly amended the private act to provide for an increase in the mineral severance tax. Decatur County adopted the increased rate, and then filed suit against a company that severed minerals from the earth in that county, to collect the mineral severance tax at the increased rate. The mineral company, and three other mineral companies, resisted payment of the tax, arguing inter alia that the tax was unconstitutional under Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, the equal protection clause, because the proceeds were allocated to the county's general fund, rather than to the county road fund, as directed in the public act authorizing the tax. After a trial, the trial court held that the mineral companies were estopped from arguing that the tax was unconstitutional, and, in the alternative, that the tax was constitutional because the mineral companies failed to show that there was not a rational basis for the allocation of the funds to the county's general fund rather than to the road fund. Both parties appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part, finding that the mineral companies were not required to pay the tax in protest, that the mineral companies have standing to sue and are not estopped from contesting the constitutionality of the tax, and finally that the tax is constitutional because there is a rational basis for allocating the revenue to the county's general fund rather than to its road fund.
Decatur
Court of Appeals
CH-01-0200-2; CH-01-0200-2;
Trial Court Judge: Kenny W. Armstrong
Klosterman Development v. Outlaw Aircraft Sales M2001-02586-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
This case involves a contract for the sale of an aircraft. By amended complaint, plaintiff-purchaser sued seller and seller's agent for rescission of the contract and defendant-seller, by counter-claim, sought the amount due for repairs made on the aircraft pursuant to the contract. The trial court ordered the contract rescinded but failed to make provisions to put the parties in status quo. The purchaser, seller's agent, and seller appeal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court as it pertains to seller's agent, modify the judgment for rescission to include provisions of restoring the status quo of the parties. The judgment is affirmed as modified.
