Gary Willingham vs. Gallatin Group, Inc., et al M1998-00990-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves a dispute between a secured creditor and two local governments regarding the priority of their claims against the proceeds from the sale of the assets of a judicially dissolved corporation. Following a bench trial, the Chancery Court for Sumner County held that the local governments' claims for delinquent business taxes had priority over the claim of the secured creditor. We have determined that the secured creditor's claim should have been given priority over the local governments' claims and, therefore, reverse the judgment.
State ex rel Debbie Whitfield vs. Michael Honeycutt M1999-00914-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
Appellant, who was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, responded to a petition for contempt regarding past due child support with a request to determine paternity of the child. A paternity test is irrelevant in this case because even proof that he is not the child's father would not be a defense to contempt for failure to comply with a valid court order. We affirm the trial court's denial of the request.
Robertson
Court of Appeals
Cynthia Coppage vs. Grady Coppage E2000-01630-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
At issue in this divorce case is the trial court's valuation and division of two parcels of real property and the court's decree with respect to the parties' credit card debt. The husband appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in its valuation and division of the two properties; and (2) in denying his post-trial motion to sell the two parcels and divide the proceeds equally. The wife asserts as an additional issue that the husband should be required to place in his sole name the credit card debt assigned to him by the trial court. We find and hold that the wife's request is a reasonable one, and, accordingly, modify the trial court's judgment so as to require the husband to convert the debt over into his name by no later than December 31, 2001. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Ernest Frye vs. Blue Ridge Neuroscience Center, et al E2000-02155-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III
Plaintiff sued Defendants on November 25, 1998, alleging medical malpractice. Summonses were issued but never served on Defendants or returned to the court. Process was never reissued on the first Complaint. A voluntary nonsuit was entered by the Trial Court on June 8, 1999. On November 22, 1999, Plaintiff refiled a similar lawsuit, process issued, and Defendants were served the next day. Defendants filed summary judgment motions claiming that the statute of limitations had run because Plaintiff failed to have process reissued on the first Complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff claimed compliance with Rule 3, and, therefore, that the second lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations. The Trial Court denied the summary judgment motions after determining that Defendants had actual notice of the first lawsuit and thus the spirit of the rules had been complied with. The Trial Court granted Defendants' request for an interlocutory appeal. We granted this interlocutory appeal to decide whether Plaintiff can comply with Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. not by obtaining issuance of new process in his original lawsuit within the one year period provided for in Rule 3, but instead by voluntarily dismissing the first lawsuit and refiling a similar lawsuit with the issuance of process in the second lawsuit within the one year period. Our answer is "no." We reverse the decision of the Trial Court.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Debra Cissom, et al vs. Al Miller, et al E1999-02767-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants, alleging a nuisance created by chicken houses owned and operated by them in close proximity of the Defendants' property. The Trial Court found a temporary nuisance was created and that, although T.C.A. 44-18-102 was a complete bar to any claims the Plaintiffs might have insofar as three older chicken houses were concerned, is not a bar to their claim as to five new chicken houses. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Ernest F. Phillips vs. County of Anderson, et al E2000-01204-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
The defendants, Anderson County and the City of Clinton, entered into an agreement to jointly finance the development of an industrial park to be owned and operated by the City. The plaintiff, Ernest F. Phillips, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the County's financing of a portion of the industrial park is illegal and unconstitutional and that the defendants violated various statutory requirements for the development of industrial parks. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals, arguing: (1) that the County's use of bond proceeds to finance its portion of the industrial park's infrastructure costs constitutes a lending or giving of credit to or in aid of a corporation within the meaning of Article II, Section 29 of the Tennessee Constitution; (2) that the agreement between the County and the City is not legally sufficient under the Industrial Park Act; (3) that the County obtained a statutorily-required certificate of public purpose and necessity by fraud and misrepresentation; and (4) that the County's bond resolutions are fatally defective and call for prohibited expenditures. The City argues (a) that the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the City's actions and (b) that the plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendants but do not find the plaintiff's appeal to be frivolous.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Jonathan Wilson vs. Sandra Wilson E2000-01374-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: William H. Russell
This appeal from the Loudon County General Sessions Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding a change of residential custody from Appellant, Sandra Kay Wilson to Appellee, Jonathan David Wilson. Ms. Wilson appeals the decision of the General Sessions Court. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, Ms. Sandra Kay Wilson and her surety.
Loudon
Court of Appeals
Melanie Conger vs. Timothy Gowder, M.D. E2000-01584-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this medical malpractice case arising out of surgery, the trial court granted the defendant summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of surgical negligence and lack of informed consent. The plaintiff appeals, arguing (1) that disputed issues of material fact exist that make summary judgment inappropriate and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to take the depositions of the defendant and another physician pending a hearing on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Because we find that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to take the subject depositions, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Rick Richards vs. Traci Domalik E2000-01882-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
This is a tort action arising out of an accident involving a bicycle and an automobile. The plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the shoulder of the highway facing traffic. The driver of the automobile was to the plaintiff's left and was preparing to turn right out of the premises of a restaurant onto the highway. As the plaintiff moved to his left and started to pass in front of the automobile, the vehicles collided and the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover compensatory damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, finding the plaintiff 75% at fault. The plaintiff appeals, asserting, inter alia, that the jury charge was erroneous and that this error warrants a new trial. We vacate the judgment below and remand for a new trial.
Bobby Everett, et al vs. Gordon McCall, M.D. E2000-02012-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
The complaint in this medical malpractice case was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a Rule 56.07 Response to the motion, requesting additional time within which to take the defendant's deposition for the purpose, inter alia, of ascertaining his thought processes during the 27-day period he treated the plaintiff for a gastroenterological condition which ended in her death. The request for additional time was denied, and the motion for summary judgment was granted because the affidavit of the defendant was not countervailed. The judgment is reversed.
Blount
Court of Appeals
Donna Winstead, et al v.Claiborne County Hospital and Nursing Home E2000-02214-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Conrad E. Troutman, Jr.
In this wrongful death action, the Trial Court held that defendant's nurses met the standard of care required of them in the treatment and care of the deceased, and dismissed the case. On appeal, we reverse and enter Judgment for damages.
Claiborne
Court of Appeals
Terry Hahn vs. Thomas Hahn, et al E2000-00330-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
An intra-family business transaction which occurred nearly 30 years ago fomented this litigation involving an undisclosed interest in a hotel in Gatlinburg. The original parties are former spouses; the intervenors are their children. The complaint was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Town of Greeneville vs. John O. Hardin, et al E2000-00827-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
This is a suit by the Town of Greeneville to condemn a right-of-way for a sanitary sewer line over the property of John O. Hardin and Peggy Hardin, Defendants. The Hardins contested Greeneville's right to condemn in the Trial Court and, after an adverse ruling, appeal to this Court. We affirm.
Greene
Court of Appeals
City of Church Hill vs. Patrick Reynolds, III E2000-01376-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
Patrick H. Reynolds, III ("Defendant") was issued a Misdemeanor Citation alleging violations of multiple city ordinances of the City of Church Hill ("Plaintiff") over a one-month period. Defendant was found guilty in the Church Hill City Court of violating these ordinances. Defendant appealed to the Hawkins County Circuit Court which likewise found the Defendant guilty of violating the ordinances. The Circuit Court, however, found Defendant guilty of several violations on days for which the Defendant was tried by the City Court with no finding of guilt by the City Court. Because Defendant cannot be placed in double jeopardy for violations of these municipal ordinances, we reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court finding Defendant guilty for violations on days for which Defendant was tried by the City Court with no finding of guilt made by the City Court. We affirm the Circuit Court's determination with regard to the remaining violations.
Hawkins
Court of Appeals
Linda Parnham vs. Wayne Parnham M1998-00915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves the continuing obligation of a non-custodial parent to pay child support following a discharge in bankruptcy. The custodial spouse filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to enforce the modified child support provision in their marital dissolution agreement. The non-custodial parent responded that his discharge in bankruptcy relieved him of any further obligation to pay this support. Following a hearing, the trial court held that the non-custodial spouse's Chapter 7 bankruptcy did not discharge his child support obligation but denied the custodial spouse's requests for attorney's fees and for a wage assignment. Both parties have appealed. We have determined that the trial court properly concluded that the non-custodial spouse's child support obligation had not been discharged but that the trial court erred by declining to award the custodial spouse her attorney's fees and by refusing to grant her request for a wage assignment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
County of San Mateo, California vs. Murray Green, Sr. M1999-00112-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Appellant appeals the enforcement of a 1983 California judgment for reimbursement for public assistance provided to his children through 1982. Because the judgment expired under the applicable statutes of limitation in both California and Tennessee before this enforcement action was brought, we find that Appellant had a vested right in that defense and reverse the trial court's judgment.
Lawrence
Court of Appeals
J.W. Hargrove, et al vs. Larry Carlton, et al M2000-00250-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
After the defendant landowners placed gates across a roadway that ran through their land, some adjoining landowners filed suit to have the gates removed. The plaintiffs argued that the roadway was a public road, or in the alternative that they had acquired prescriptive rights to use it. The trial court ruled for the defendants. We affirm.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Servpro Industries, Inc. vs. Stephen Pizzillo M2000-00832-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Arthur E. Mcclellan
The trial court granted all of a franchisor's claims against its former franchisee, and dismissed all the franchisee's counterclaims. Among other things, the court found that after the expiration of his franchise, the franchisee had entered into a competing business, in violation of an enforceable non-compete clause in the franchise agreement, and enjoined the franchisee from any further violations. We affirm.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Deborah Harvey vs. Felipa Covington, d/b/a Choice Corporate Training Int'l. M2000-01184-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
This appeal arises from a business dispute between the parties. Businesswoman and Investor signed letter of intent to create limited liability company. Business then began operation. Thereafter, several operational disputes arose between the parties, as well as disputes over Businesswoman's use of Business funds. The trial court determined that Businesswoman had defrauded Investor of invested funds and awarded Investor those funds. Investor was also awarded back pay promised by Businesswoman through Business. We find that a partnership agreement existed between the parties and reverse the trial court's judgment. The case is remanded for rescission of the partnership on the basis that it was created under fraudulent circumstances. The trial court's decision to deny attorney's fees requested by Businesswoman is affirmed.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Ginger Vooys vs. Robert Turner, Jr. M1999-00504-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
The sole issue presented in this appeal is the propriety of the trial court's award to Wife of postjudgment interest on funds Husband deposited in the office of the clerk of the trial court prior to the appeal of the final order divorcing the parties. The funds represent the purchase price of the marital residence which had been awarded to Wife. Exercising an option to purchase the house, Husband deposited $185,000 with the court clerk and tendered it in open court. Then Husband appealed various portions of the final order, including the award of the house to Wife; he also moved to stay the execution and enforcement of that and other portions of the judgment without paying a bond on the ground that the funds he had already deposited should relieve him of the necessity of posting an additional bond. The motion also requested that the funds be placed in an interest bearing account. The stay of execution was granted, but the motion to deposit at interest was never ruled upon. After the trial court's judgment was affirmed on appeal, Wife filed a motion seeking interest on all money judgments rendered against Husband. The trial court found that Wife was entitled to postjudgment interest on the $185,000. Husband then commenced this appeal. We affirm.
