Dennis Plemons, et al vs. Larry Moses, et al E2000-02781-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Dennis Plemons ("Plaintiff") leased the Crossroads Market to Larry Moses ("Defendant") pursuant to a five-year lease. Prior to the expiration of the lease, Plaintiff found new tenants willing to pay significantly more to lease the property. Plaintiff informed Defendant about the new potential tenants and gave Defendant the opportunity to continue leasing the property if he would pay this higher rent. Defendant declined to lease the property for this increased amount. Plaintiff allowed Defendant to continue leasing the property until the new tenants were ready to assume possession of the property. When the new tenants were ready to assume possession, Defendant refused to vacate the premises claiming that he was a holdover tenant and entitled to possession of the property under a year-to-year tenancy after the expiration of the lease. The Circuit Court held that a new month-to- month tenancy had been created and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to possession. We affirm.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
William P. Livingston, Jr. vs. Mike Hayes, et al E2000-01619-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamblen County, the Plaintiff/Appellant, William P. Livingston, Jr., questions whether the Trial Court erred in entering a summary judgment dismissing his action for libel against the Defendants/Appellees, Mike Hayes, et al. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for collection of costs below. We adjudge costs of the appeal against Mr. Livingston and his surety.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
E2000-01823-COA-R3-CV E2000-01823-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John L. Kiener
Washington
Court of Appeals
Karen Garrett Humphries vs. David Alison Humphries E2000-02912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
In this divorce case, the trial court classified the parties' property, following which it divided the marital property, but declined to order spousal support. The husband appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in classifying the increase in value of his separate property as marital property; (2) that the division of the marital property was not equitable; and (3) that the trial court erred in assigning, without classifying, the wife's credit card debt to the husband. By way of a separate issue, the wife argues that she is entitled to an award of alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
David Melvin York, et ux vs. Vulcan Materials CO. vs. Transcontinental Insurance Company E2000-02528-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
Contractor sought recovery from subcontractor's insurance carrier for moneys paid to a third party who had sued contractor and subcontractor in tort. The Trial Court ordered recovery under the policy. Insurance Company appealed. We affirm.
Rhonda Lowrimore vs. Certified Industries, Inc. M1998-00938-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves an award of front pay damages in a retaliatory discharge case. An employee who had been injured on the job five times in less than two years filed a retaliatory discharge suit in the Circuit Court for Lewis County alleging that her employer had discharged her in retaliation for her workers' compensation claims. A jury awarded the employee $10,390 in back pay and $20,000 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the trial court determined that reinstatement was not feasible and awarded the employee an additional $36,327 in front pay. On this appeal, the employer challenges the front pay award on two grounds. First, it asserts that the employee was not entitled to front pay. Second, it asserts that if the employee is entitled to front pay, the amount of front pay awarded by the trial court is too high. We have determined that the trial court correctly determined that the employee is entitled to front pay. However, we have also determined that front pay award must be reduced to $25,429 because of an error in the trial court's computations.
Lewis
Court of Appeals
Rachel Rice vs. Lee Rice M1998-00973-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves the dissolution of a four-year marriage. Both parties requested the Circuit Court for Davidson County to grant them a divorce. On the day of trial, the parties stipulated that they should be declared divorced and agreed upon the division of their modest marital estate. Accordingly, the trial court heard proof regarding child custody and child support as well as the wife's request for rehabilitative spousal support. The trial court gave sole custody of the parties' child to the wife and directed the husband to pay $570 per month in child support, as well as all the child's healthcare expenses not covered by insurance. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay the wife $250 per month in rehabilitative support for twenty-four months. On this appeal, the husband takes issue with the trial court's decisions to grant the wife sole custody of the parties' child, to require him to pay the child's medical expenses not covered by insurance, and to pay the wife $250 per month in spousal support for twenty-four months. We have determined that the trial court's decisions are amply supported by the record, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
The captioned executors filed this suit to recover damages for the wrongful death of 88 year old Leslie H. Little, deceased, who lost his life in a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of North Main Street and Colloredo Boulevard in Shelbyville, Bedford County, Tennessee. Movement of traffic through the intersection was controlled by the multicolored lights of an ordinary traffic control signal. Several
Plaintiff, Sheila Faye Hagen McCall Barnett (Wife), and defendant, Ronald Edward Barnett, Sr. (Husband), were divorced by decree entered January 9, 1997. Husband appeals and presents issues concerning property division, alimony, and attorney’s fees.
Brian Bottoms, Sr., and Amy Bottoms have appealed from the judgment of the Juvenile Court, terminating their parental rights in respect to Brian Scott Bottoms, aged 7, Israel Vaughn Bottoms, aged 5, and Elijah Keane Bottoms, aged 2, and placing them in the legal guardianship of AGAPE with the right to place them for adoption.
I concur in the conclusion that paragraph 17 of the lease was not triggered by the sale from the lessors to MDHA. I am also of the opinion that the critical sentence beginning with “All damages awarded for such taking . . .” refers to a partial taking, because the damages are described later in the sentence as “compensation for diminution in value to the leasehold or to the fee of the property herein leased.” A taking of the whole would not diminish the value of the leasehold or the fee; it would extinguish the leasehold and the fee and replace them with a monetary award.
Court of Appeals
Barbara Korthoff vs. Herbert Korthoff W2001-01712-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
In this pending divorce action, the trial court ordered Husband to transfer $300,000.00 to Wife as a partial distribution of the marital estate. Husband filed an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 Tenn. R. App. P. which this Court granted. Husband contends that the trial court is without authority to make a partial distribution of marital funds during the pendency of the divorce action. Furthermore, if the court had such authority, it could not do so absent an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the property was marital or separate. The application was granted and the order of the trial court reversed.
This is a post-divorce custody proceeding. Jean Kelly Fisher Wallace (“mother”) was granted a divorce in the Chancery Court of Shelby County from Richard Edward Wallace (“father”) in May, 1992. Mother was awarded custody of the parties’ minor child, Caroline. In April, 1995, father filed a petition to change legal custody from mother to father. Following a bench trial, the court denied the relief sought by father and permitted custody to remain with mother. The court delayed its decision for six months, principally to allow mother the opportunity to make changes in two aspects of her life: (1) the neighborhood in which she and the minor child had been living for slightly over a year and (2) her ongoing association and relationship with her boyfriend. The trial court felt both aspects were detrimental to the welfare of the parties’ child.
Defendant First Capital Home Improvements appeals the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees Sara J. Malone and Jerry H. Malone in this breach of contract action. We affirm.
We concur with the results of the presiding judge’s opinion because we believe that the holding of Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575, 292 S.W.2d 777 (1956) controls the outcome of this case. The Harpeth Valley Utility District has been operating since 1959 under the aegis of the Utilities Law of 1937 [Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-82-101, -804 (1992 & Supp. 1997)] providing water and sewerage disposal services to areas of Davidson, Williamson, and Cheatham Counties. As such, it is a governmental entity. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-82-301(a)(1) (Supp. 1997); First Suburban Util. Dist. v. McCanless, 177 Tenn. 128, 132-34, 146 S.W.2d 948, 950 (1941). Unless specifically provided otherwise, a city’s zoning power does not extend to state government instrumentalities located within its borders. See Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. at 583-84, 292 S.W.2d at 780-81.
This appeal involves the forfeiture under the Tennessee Drug Control Act of $4,710.75 in cash, twenty-two pistols, rifles and shotguns, a video camera, silver bars, and assorted gold and silver coins during a search of a residence in Waynesboro. The Commissioner of Safety ordered the currency and personal property forfeited despite the family’s contention that an initial search of their home and property without a warrant was illegal. The family filed a petition for judicial review in the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The trial court found the personal property was lawfully seized after the officers obtained a search warrant and affirmed the forfeiture order. The family perfected this appeal. We have determined that there is substantial and material evidence to support the commissioner’s decision.
Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Pamela Cox, et al M1999-01598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This case presents two issues. The first is whether proper notice was given to the mother of a dependent and neglected child to meet due process requirements and allow adjudication of her right to visitation and of the goal of the permanency plan for the child. The second issue is whether the evidence preponderated against the trial court's decision to change the goal of the permanency plan to termination of parental rights and terminate the mother's visitation. We affirm the circuit court on both issues finding no due process violation and more than adequate evidence to support the trial court's decision.
Lawrence
Court of Appeals
James Dortch, Sr. vs. Evonne Dortch M1999-02053-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a dispute over the division of a marital estate following a seventeen-year marriage. Both parties sought a divorce in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. During a short bench trial, they stipulated that each of them had grounds for divorce but contested the classification, valuation, and division of their separate and marital property. The trial court declared the parties divorced and undertook to divide their marital estate equally. Both parties are dissatisfied with the division of the marital estate. The husband asserts that the trial court made a significant mathematical error in calculating the amount required to equalize the division. For her part, the wife asserts that the trial court misclassified items of separate property as marital property. We have determined that the trial court properly determined that the parties should receive equal shares of the net marital estate. However, we also find that the trial court misclassified a number of items of the wife's separate property and erroneously calculated the amount to be awarded to the wife to equalize the division of the marital estate. Accordingly, we have corrected the errors and affirm the judgment as modified herein.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
James Ray vs. Thomas Richards M2000-01808-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for personal injuries resulting from an alleged assault which occurred on October 20, 1998. The jury found for Defendant. Plaintiff appeals raising two issues: (1) Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of Plaintiff's character, reputation, conduct, and criminal records, and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the neighbor's petition describing Plaintiff as a public nuisance into evidence. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Connie McGahey vs. James Wilson M2000-01931-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Upon divorce, the parties entered into an agreement that provided the parties would retain ownership as the marital residence as tenants in common, but could not sell the property without mutual consent. Mrs. McGahey now desires to partition the property over her former husband's objection. The special master found that the contract provision barring partition was unenforceable. The chancellor found the provision enforceable but only for a reasonable period of time (sixteen years). Mr. Wilson now appeals the trial court's judgment ordering partition by sale. Resolution of this appeal requires us to examine the effect of a contract barring partition between tenants in common when no time limitation or purpose for the restriction against sale was stated in the agreement. We hold the contract provision to be unenforceable.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Investors Group I, LTD. vs. Knoxville's Community Dev. Corp. E1999-00395-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
The complaint seeking damages for breach of contract was signed and filed by a general partner of Investors Group I, Ltd., a limited partnership. The Chancellor dismissed the case, holding the complaint was void because a limited partnership is a legal entity, and can neither appear pro se nor by a general partner who is not a licensed attorney. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Tex Helton, et al vs. Colonial Loan Assoc., Inc. et al E2001-00060-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
Tex Helton and his wife sue Colonial Loan Association, Inc., and Lakeview Motors, Inc., seeking damages in connection with Colonial Loan's repossession of an automobile sold to them by Lakeview Motors. The Trial Court granted a summary judgment as to Colonial Loan. The claim as to Lakeview Motors has been concluded and this appeal only concerns the granting of a summary judgment in favor of Colonial Loan. We vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand.
Hawkins
Court of Appeals
Peggy Lane, et al vs. Luella Spriggs, et al E2001-00163-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
This case involves the validity of an unsigned warranty deed in the plaintiffs' chain of title. Following a bench trial, the court below reformed the deed to add the missing signature. The defendants appeal, arguing, among other things, that the unsigned deed is inoperative and cannot be reformed. We affirm.
