Kennedy vs. Kennedy M1997-00219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a man's efforts to use his voluntary early retirement as a basis for ending his spousal support obligation. Three years after the divorce, the man filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to end his responsibility to pay child support. His former wife responded by filing a petition seeking to hold him in contempt for failure to pay spousal support. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the man's petition, held him in contempt, and entered a $3,106 judgment against him for back spousal support. On this appeal, the man asserts that the trial court erred by declining to relieve him of his alimony obligation because of his inability to pay and his former spouse's lack of need. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Hodges vs. TN Atty. General M2000-00550-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a prisoner's pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. The Chancery Court for Davidson County dismissed the complaint eleven months after it was filed because the prisoner had failed to provide summonses and copies of the complaint for service on the defendants. The prisoner has appealed to this court. Instead of arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute, the prisoner has simply renewed the assertions he made in the trial court that his sentence credits have been calculated incorrectly and that he should be released on parole. We determined that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
James W. Hunter vs. Shirley C. Hunter E2000-00662-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
In this divorce case, Shirley C. Hunter ("Wife") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in classifying and dividing the parties' property; (2) in refusing to find James W. Hunter ("Husband") in contempt for failing to pay Wife's medical bills; (3) in restricting Wife's spousal support award to one of alimony in solido of $7,200; (4) in awarding Husband a judgment against Wife for $5,068.53 in connection with Wife's use of his vehicle; and (5) in failing to award Wife her attorney's fees. We vacate the trial court's judgment ordering Wife to pay for her use of Husband's vehicle. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The trial court granted the parties a divorce, ordered joint custody of the parties' minor son, and divided the marital property. On appeal, Ms. Wagner contends that the trial court's award of joint custody on an alternating week basis was improper, that the division of marital property was inequitable, and that the trial court's order requiring her to bear one-half of the child's medical insurance was improper. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Tindell's Inc. vs. Mary Ava Partin E2000-01640-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a suit to recover the sales price of certain materials sold to the Defendant and to enforce a lien against certain property if the judgment rendered is not paid. The Trial Court found in favor of the Plaintiff, resulting in this appeal, wherein the Defendant questions the introduction of certain proof and insists the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the Trial Court's determination. We affirm.
Campbell
Court of Appeals
Department of Children's Services, vs. D. & G.M. E1999-01359-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
The Trial Judge terminated mother's parental rights to her three minor children. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
G.L. Omohundro, et al vs. Paul Harrison, et al E2000-00666-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
This is a suit by investors in The Great Smoky Mountain Opry Corporation against a number of defendants including Paul Harrison. The trial court found a violation of the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980 and awarded the plaintiffs a judgment for $56,932.50. Harrison appeals, contending that the judgment should be reversed. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Berman Kennedy vs. Darlene Lane-Detman, et al E2000-01315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
The defendant Herbert G. Adcox guaranteed, in part, payment of a $35,000 promissory note executed by Darlene Lane-Detman in favor of the plaintiff Berman D. Kennedy. Adcox's guaranty took the form of a post-dated check in the amount of $30,000. When Detman defaulted on the note and Adcox then stopped payment on the check, the plaintiff sued Adcox on the check. The trial court granted Adcox summary judgment, finding that the record before it established a number of affirmative defenses. We affirm the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Adcox, because we find that Kennedy modified the repayment terms of Detman's note without Adcox's consent.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Estate of Annie Hamilton et al. v. Walter Morris,et al. W1998-00191-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Proponents of 1992 will of testatrix offered the will for probate, and three beneficiaries of testatrix's 1987 will filed a complaint contesting the 1992 will. Proponents of the 1992 will filed a response to the complaint contesting the 1992 will which, inter alia, denies that the 1987 will is the last will and testament of the testatrix. The chancellor granted summary judgment against the proponents of the 1992 will, holding that the will was void by virtue of proponents' undue influence on testatrix. The chancellor also granted summary judgment for residuary beneficiary of the 1987 will and admitted the 1987 will to probate as the last will and testament of the testatrix. Appellants, the proponents of the 1992 will and contestants of the 1987 will, have appealed.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Jason Kim vs. Nancy Boucher W2000-00427-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
A minor pedestrian and his father sued automobile driver for personal injury damages sustained by minor when struck by driver's vehicle. The trial court directed a verdict for the automobile driver at the close of plaintiff's proof. Plaintiff has appealed.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Mary Slack vs. Bryan Antwine W2000-00961-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Plaintiffs sued to quiet title to property and to establish boundary line. The trial court found that the deed description of plaintiffs' property established their title to the disputed property. Defendant has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Henderson
Court of Appeals
Harry Tusant vs. City of Memphis W2000-01431-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Petitioners, Memphis police officers, filed a petition in chancery court for writ of mandamus to require the city to promote them to certain civil service ranks after they successfully completed the promotional process and are otherwise eligible and qualified for promotion. The trial court denied the petition, and petitioners have appealed.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Terry Lynn vs. City of Jackson W1999-01695-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Roy Morgan
Plaintiffs, personal representative of decedent, an adult child of decedent, and a minor child of decedent, filed a wrongful death suit more than one year after decedent's date of death against the City of Jackson pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA). Plaintiffs had filed suit within one year of the date of death in federal court, and after federal court dismissed the case, they filed the instant case two days later in circuit court. The circuit court dismissed plaintiffs' case because it was not filed within one year of the accrual of the cause of action as mandated by TGTLA. Plaintiffs have appealed.
HMC Technologies Corp.vs. Siebe, Inc. E2000-01093-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
In this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff, HMC Technologies Corp. a/k/a HMC Technologies, Inc. ("HMC"), sued to enforce an indemnification provision contained in a proposal submitted to, and accepted by, the defendant, Siebe, Inc.
Tinkham vs. Beasley M1999-02809-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Tinkham vs. Beasley M1999-02809-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Martino vs. Dyer M1999-02397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: William M. Dender
The trial court granted the motion of an attorney seeking collection of a pro rata share of his fee from a hospital lien against his client's settlement. The effect of the trial court's order is to require the hospital to pay fees to an attorney it did not hire. We reverse the judgment.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Dana Scott vs. Edward Sellers W2000-00422-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is a personal injury and wrongful death case arising from a collision between a pickup truck and a tractor trailer truck. The five-year-old son of plaintiffs Dana Scott and Shane Thurmon died as a result of the accident. The driver of the car was an "on call" employee of his father's business at the time. The plaintiffs sued the driver of the car and his father, alleging vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior and under the family purpose doctrine. Plaintiff Dana Scott also sued for consortium-type damages for the loss of her son. Although referring to it as a directed verdict, the trial court, pursuant to Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, entered an involuntary dismissal in favor of the defendants on the vicarious liability issue, under both respondeat superior and the family purpose doctrine, and on the loss of filial consortium claim. The trial court awarded damages, inter alia, to Dana Scott for the wrongful death of her son and to Carl Fuhs for personal injuries based upon his negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. We hold the following: (1) employer is not vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for acts or omissions of "on call" employee when employee is not acting within the course and scope of his employment; (2) the requirements of the family purpose doctrine were met and defendant Donald Sellers, Sr. is vicariously liable under this theory; (3) parents may recover filial consortium damages in wrongful death actions for the death of their child; (4) the trial court's wrongful death award to Dana Scott was supported by the evidence; (5) Carl Fuhs sufficiently established a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) the personal injury award to Carl Fuhs is affirmed.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Richard Stoner vs. Mary Stoner W2000-01230-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This appeal arises from a divorce between a couple with a long standing pre-marital relationship. Citing this relationship, the trial court classified two stock accounts as marital property and awarded Wife a portion of their funds. These accounts were pre-marital accounts of Husband. No marital funds were deposited in the accounts by either party and Wife had no interaction with the accounts. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court's classification of this property as marital property amounts to recognition of a common-law marriage, and Tennessee does not recognize common-law marriages. As such, the trial court was incorrect in awarding funds from the accounts to Wife. The trial court correctly assigned pre-marital debt, divided the remainder of marital property, and awarded alimony in futuro and attorney's fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
