COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Warren Restoration Co. vs. Northgate Shopping Center vs. State Auto Ins. Cos.
M2000-02402-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
This is a dispute regarding the valuation of a strip mall for purposes of determining the applicability of a co-insurance penalty clause in Northgate Shopping Center's casualty insurance policy. In a bench trial, the trial court found the witness for Northgate to be more credible than the witness for State Auto Insurance Companies, and found the replacement cost of the building to be $3,068,000. Since the building was insured for $3,100,000, the co-insurance penalty did not apply. The trial court awarded Northgate judgment of $73,637.56, less a $1,000 deductible. This judgment included prejudgment interest of $16,107.00 assessed against Northgate and awarded to Plaintiff Warren Restoration, which had repaired areas of the mall damaged by fire. On appeal, State Auto challenges the trial court's acceptance of the valuation as determined by witnesses for Northgate, contends that the co-insurance penalty clause is applicable, and challenges the award of prejudgment interest. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

James Hill, et ux vs. Charles Lamberth
M2000-02408-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
In this negligence action, plaintiff and his wife sued defendants, county school board and parents of several juveniles, for damages resulting from an eye injury he sustained when he was struck by a rock while attending a high school football game. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant school board. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Patricia Gore v. George Gore
M2000-02412-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal arises from a complaint for divorce filed by the Appellee in the Circuit Court of Williamson County. The trial court awarded the Appellee a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. The trial court divided the marital property and ordered the Appellant to pay the Appellee alimony in futuro and child support for the parties' two minor children. The trial court ordered the Appellant to maintain life insurance to secure the alimony and child support obligations. Additionally, the trial court entered a permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from taking the children in the presence of the Appellant's girlfriend.

Alexander Baxter v. Dept. of Correction
M2000-02447-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This case involves a petition for writ of certiorari based on a prison disciplinary proceeding. The inmate was found guilty of a disciplinary infraction by the prison disciplinary board. After his appeal to the prison warden was denied, the inmate filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, alleging numerous violations of his due process rights. The trial court dismissed the petition and Baxter now appeals. We affirm, finding that the sanctions imposed for the infraction did not rise to the level of interfering with the inmate's protected liberty interest and, therefore, did not trigger due process protections.

Pamela Wright (Quillen) vs. Dale M. Quillen
M2000-01852-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
This appeal arises from the trial court granting a Rule 60 motion to suspend the judgment in a divorce action and allow a new trial. Husband and Wife were divorced in 1994. At that time, Wife was awarded the entirety of Company upon the condition she pay Husband $500,000 for the portion of Company awarded to him in the property division. Shortly after Wife paid Husband the money, Company sold an asset previously believed to be worthless for $1.7 million. Husband filed a Rule 60 motion in 1998 to set aside the trial court's 1994 property division on the basis that Wife had fraudulently valued the asset at $0 during the divorce hearing. The trial court granted the Rule 60 motion, setting a new trial to redetermine the value of Company at the time of the divorce. We reverse.

John Floyd vs. Carolyn Floyd
M2000-02344-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Royce Taylor
When husband and wife divorced, they signed a marital dissolution agreement which was incorporated into the Final Decree of Divorce providing, inter alia, that husband would have visitation rights with wife's daughter by a previous marriage and husband would in turn pay college tuition and expenses for the child and would leave to the child by Will one-fourth of his estate. A dispute arose as to the extent of visitation, and husband filed a petition to establish visitation rights. Wife filed a petition to require husband to continue his obligations expressed in the marital dissolution agreement. The trial court felt that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties with regard to the visitation issue; therefore, there was no valid contract. Husband appeals. We reverse and remand.

Dee Woolman v. Earl Woolman
M2000-02346-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
The Appellant and the Appellee are the parents of three minor children. Following the Appellant and the Appellee's divorce, they shared joint legal and physical custody of the children. The Appellant filed a Petition for Modification of Custody in the Circuit Court of Williamson County seeking to relocate with the children to Illinois. Following the close of the Appellant's proof at the hearing on the Petition, the Appellee made a Motion to Dismiss. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss and awarded attorney's fees to the Appellee. The Appellant appeals the order entered by the Circuit Court of Williamson County granting the Motion to Dismiss and awarding attorney's fees to the Appellee. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

State ex rel Elizabeth Durrant vs. Brittain Howard
E2000-02072-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett
In this custody dispute, the Trial Court gave custody to the father. The mother appealed. We affirm.

Patricia Sadler vs. Lawrence Sadler
E2000-02110-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
This is a post-divorce child support dispute with a series of hearings and orders stretching over a 29-month period. Lawrence David Sadler ("Father"), the obligor parent, appeals the last order entered below, in which the trial court found him in arrears and awarded Patricia Jane Sadler ("Mother") her attorney's fees of $6,262.50. Because we find that the referee's action, as approved by the trial court in the subject order, retroactively modified Father's child support obligation and erroneously found Father to be in arrears in his child support obligation, we reverse.

Loue Manning vs. K-Trans Mgt , Inc.
E2000-02462-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Loue G. Manning appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of K-Trans Management, Inc., as to his suit seeking damages for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of his termination by K-Trans. We find there is no material evidence to support his insistence that he was terminated because of his race and affirm the judgment below.

Roger Ritchie, et al vs. Tommy Pitner, et al
E2000-02689-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This lawsuit arises out of a Letter of Intent entered into between two of the various parties to this action. The trial court entered judgment on the issue of which party was entitled to possession of the property, but did not rule on any of the remaining claims. Because the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment for purposes of Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. App. P., we dismiss the appeal.

Linda Green, M.D. and Steve Ferguson, M.D. vs. United Services Automobile Association and Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company
E2000-02713-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
Linda Green, M.D., and Steve Ferguson, M.D. ("Plaintiffs"), who are married, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment ("Complaint") against their automobile insurance carrier, United States Automobile Association, or USAA, regarding a dispute over the terms of their insurance policy ("Policy"). Plaintiff Green claimed coverage under their Policy's uninsured/underinsured motorist liability section for her physical injuries, medical expenses, and loss of income resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiff Ferguson claimed coverage for loss of consortium. Defendant contends that the Policy limits Plaintiff Ferguson's loss of consortium claim to the $300,000 each person coverage already extended to Plaintiff Green. After Plaintiffs filed suit disputing this interpretation of the Policy, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the trial court. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Dee Ann Gallaher vs. Curtis J. Elam
E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett

Dee Ann Gallaher vs. Curtis J. Elam
E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett

Lisa Hughes, et vir vs. Wilma Effler, et al
E2000-03147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant appraiser's negligence in making an appraisal resulted in their damage. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal the refusal of the Trial Judge to grant them additional time to defend the summary judgment motion. We affirm.

Dennis Armoneit vs. Elliott Crane Service, Inc., et al
M1998-00988-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This appeal arises from an accident involving a crane rented by the plaintiff's employer to aid in a construction project. The plaintiff was helping to attach trusses being lifted by the crane to the roof of a house when the crane's allegedly negligent operation caused him to fall from the roof. The plaintiff filed suit against the owner of the crane in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, alleging that the owner was vicariously liable for the crane operator's actions. The owner of the crane, relying on its standard rental agreement form, sought indemnity from the plaintiff's employer. On the plaintiff's employer's motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court held that the owner of the crane was vicariously liable for the crane operator's alleged negligence and that the indemnity agreement was void as contrary to public policy. The owner of the crane has appealed. We hold that the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment on the employer's respondeat superior claim but that the trial court properly determined that the indemnity provision in the crane owner's rental agreement is void.

Frances Luna, et al vs. Michael Breeding, et al
M2000-01932-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit for personal injuries and damages. Defendants then filed a motion for discretionary costs with accompanying affidavit as to reasonableness and necessity. The motion was denied and Defendants appeal, contending the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing their motion. We find it did not and affirm.

Douglas O'Connell v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee
M2000-02099-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff entered into an agreement to become a member of the defendant health club. The plaintiff became dissatisfied with the the health club and regularly voiced his complaints to the management. Despite the actions of the health club's managers, the plaintiff's complaints continued. Eventually, the plaintiff was told that his membership with the health club was being terminated. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that the parties' contract was terminable at will and granted the health club's motion. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion for the trial judge to recuse himself. The case was reassigned and the reassigned trial judge heard the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the prior order granting summary judgment. The plaintiff's motion to alter or amend was denied. We affirm, finding that the contract was terminable at will.

John Cappello vs. Hazel Albert
M2000-02104-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
A corrections officer with the Tennessee Department of Correction, after being discharged for allegedly purchasing a television from an inmate at the institution where he serves, was denied unemployment benefits. The officer's petition for certiorari to the chancery court was dismissed, and the officer has appealed. We affirm.

Yona Boyd, et al. v. Prime Focus, Inc., et al.
M2000-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This case began as a dispute between the plaintiffs and their employers. The defendant was awarded summary judgment, and plaintiffs were sanctioned by the court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs now appeal this sanction. We affirm sanctions but modify the order.

Laurence Kandel v. Urological Treatment and Research , Ralph Benson, Dean Knoll & Institute for Urological Research
M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff physician entered into an employment contract with the defendant physician's group. The contract provided that the physician would work for the group for one year, and that the parties would then "negotiate in good faith" to give the employee physician the opportunity to purchase stock in the group. At the end of the physician's first year of employment, the parties negotiated, but reached an impasse. Subsequently, negotiations ceased, and the physician's employment was terminated. He filed suit against the group, alleging that the defendants breached the contract to "negotiate in good faith," and that the defendants committed promissory fraud in inducing him into signing the employment agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both counts. The physician now appeals. We affirm. Even if Tennessee recognizes a cause of action for breach of an agreement to negotiate in good faith, the evidence does not demonstrate such a breach, and does not establish promissory fraud.

Dana Allanmore Smith vs. Angela Childress Smith
M2000-02186-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this post-divorce proceeding, wife filed petition to modify the prior decree as to child support, custody, and visitation. The trial court modified a previous consent order and set husband's child support with an upward deviation from the guidelines. Husband appeals, and both parties present issues for review. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Leta Hoalcraft vs. Walter Troy Smithson
M2000-01347-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman

E2001-00069-COA-R3-CV
E2001-00069-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell

Ruth Wilson v. Landon Snapp, Jr.
E2001-00172-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this suit the Trial Court held a purported deed from Ruth N. Wilson to Landon Haynes Snapp, Jr., and Gene L. Snapp was champertous and void. The Snapps appeal, contending this holding was in error. We affirm.