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.
Dyer
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.
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
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.
CH-00-0659-1 CH-00-0659-1
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
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.
Davidson
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.
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.
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
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.
Willa Huskey vs. Jerry Martin E2001-02312-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
This is a property line dispute. The defendant Jerry Martin appeals the trial court's finding that the parties' shared boundary line is as alleged in the original complaint. Martin argues that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's factual findings regarding the location of the boundary line. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
In Re: Adoption of A.B.K. E2001-02199-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Presented with competing petitions for adoption, the trial court terminated the parental rights of W.T.D., Jr. ("the biological father") to his natural daughter, A.B.K. ("the subject child"). The trial court based termination on the failure of the biological father to visit the subject child; it made the order of termination a final judgment pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. The biological father appeals, contending, among other things, that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights. The trial court has reserved a ruling on the competing petitions to adopt pending a resolution of this appeal. Under the unique circumstances of this multiple-petition case, we find that the trial court should resolve all matters, including the issue of adoption, before this case is ripe for appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's Rule 54.02 designation and remand for further proceedings.
Hawkins
Court of Appeals
City of Sevierville vs. Bill Green E2001-02467-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
This appeal from the Sevier County Circuit Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding landowners compensation for incidental damages to their property because the City of Sevierville changed the frontage access to their property from unlimited access to restricted access. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
The Polk County Board of Education vs. The Polk County Education Association E2001-02390-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
A declaratory judgment action was filed by the Polk County Board of Education ("The Board") seeking a declaration that it did not have to arbitrate two grievances filed by the Polk County Education Association ("Association") after the Board unilaterally implemented two new policies. The policies at issue involve increasing the workday of the teachers by 30 minutes by requiring teachers to perform "bus duty", and implementation of a dress code. The trial court held that lengthening the workday was a matter suitable for arbitration, but concluded the dress code was not. We affirm the trial court's conclusion as it pertains to lengthening the workday, but vacate and remand for further proceedings its decision on the arbitrability of the dress code.
Polk
Court of Appeals
Carol Soloman v. Klebber Murrey M2001-00806-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
Before their marriage, the parties signed a pre-nuptial agreement, which among other things, declared their intention to "equally divide any and all living expenses." When they divorced, the trial court enforced the agreement, and ordered the husband to reimburse the wife for her far greater contribution to such expenses during the course of the marriage. The husband argues on appeal that the living expenses provision should not have been enforced, because it is contrary to public policy. We affirm the trial court.
