Dan W. Wilkins v. Dodson, Parker, Shipley, Behm and Seaborg et al.
This is a legal malpractice case. The malpractice action arose out of a lender liability lawsuit that was dismissed by the trial court because it had not been filed within the limitations period. Dismissal of the underlying lawsuit was affirmed on appeal by the Middle Section of this Court. Wilkins v. Third National Bank in Nashville, 884 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. App. 1994), cert. denied, (Sept. 26, 1994). While not in the record before us, the facts of the underlying lawsuit contained in the aforementioned decision of the Middle Section will be helpful in understanding the facts of this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Eddie Cook, et al., v. Archie Glen Edwards, and wife Martha Sue Edwards
The Hickman County Road Superintendent filed a declaratory judgment action to ascertain if an old cemetery road across the defendants’ property was a public road. The Chancery Court of Hickman County ruled that the road was not a public road but that the defendants’ property was subject to an easement created in a deed in their chain of title. Since the court granted relief that no one had sought, to individuals not parties to the action, we reverse. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Yong Mun Chong Meadows v. Tommy C. Meadows
The trial court granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife permanent alimony. On appeal, the husband contends that the court should have adjusted the property settlement to take the wife’s post-separation dissipation of marital assets into account, and that it should have placed some limitations on the alimony award. We agree, and we modify the decree to incorporate the necessary changes. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Otha Smith, v. Marjorie Smith
Following an in camera proceeding, the trial court declared the parties divorced, and awarded the real property at issue to the husband. The wife filed a Motion to Alter and Amend, which resulted in a new hearing, and a new decree whereby the real property was equally divided between the parties. The husband claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in re-opening the case after his initial decree. We affirm the trial court, but we amend its final order to make sure there is no doubt that the parties have been legally divorced. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Otha Smith, v. Marjorie Smith
Following an in camera proceeding, the trial court declared the parties divorced, and awarded the real property at issue to the husband. The wife filed a Motion to Alter and Amend, which resulted in a new hearing, and a new decree whereby the real property was equally divided between the parties. The husband claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in re-opening the case after his initial decree. We affirm the trial court, but we amend its final order to make sure there is no doubt that the parties have been legally divorced. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Guardsmark, Inc., v. Borg-Warner Protective Services, D/B/A Burns International Security Services
This case involves restrictive employment covenants. The plaintiff and the defendant are both private security companies. The trial court granted the plaintiff a restraining order enjoining the defendant from inducing former employees to breach the restrictive covenants in other states, from misrepresenting facts concerning the enforceability of the covenants, or from litigating or assisting others in litigating in other states regarding the enforceability of the restrictive covenants. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda S. (Cunningham) Campbell, v. Charles S. Campbell
Defendant Charles E. Campbell (Husband) appeals the final decree of divorce entered by the trial court which distributed the parties’ property and ordered Husband to pay child support and alimony to Plaintiff/Appellee Brenda S. Cunningham Campbell (Wife). On appeal from the final decree, Husband contends that the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in imputing income of $2,000 per month to Husband for purposes of calculating his child support obligation; (2) in allocating to Husband a $2,600 debt with the Hardin County Bank; (3) in awarding Wife the marital home valued at $44,000; and (4) in awarding Wife $150 per month and other amounts as alimony. We affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Regenia Ellison v. Cherri Ellison
This appeal involves a petition for grandparent visitation filed by plaintiff, Regina Ellison, paternal grandmother of Garrett Ellison and Ethan Wayne Ellison, minor children of defendant, Cherri Ellison, and Terry Ellison, deceased. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial 2 court granted visitation. Cherri Ellison (Mother) has appealed and presents the following issues for review as stated in her brief: |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Henry Campbell v. Ruth Caroline Campbell
This appeal involves a motion to modify an alimony award. Appellant, Thomas Henry Campbell (Husband), appeals from the Chancellor’s order denying his motion to modify alim |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Deborah D. Willis v. Cecil Willis, Jr.
This case involves the efforts of the State of Tennessee on relation of Deborah D. Willis, former wife of Cecil Willis, Jr., to obtain the revocation of a surrender executed by him surrendering his three children, Deborah May, Pamela R. and Andrew V. for adoption. The Juvenile Judge, who witnessed the surrenders, later entertained the petition to revoke and ordered the surrenders to be revoked. The respondent, Cecil Willis, Jr., has appealed to this Court, presenting the following issue: I. Whether a Trial Court has authority to revoke a “surrender of Child” by the natural father directly to the natural mother and stepfather almost four (4) years after its execution. Furthermore, whether a surrender simply becomes void after the passing of 120 days when an adoption has not yet occurred. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Charles Hill, v. Insurance Company of North America
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Frizzell Construction, Inc., v. Gatlinburg, LLC.
The facts of this case, as material to this appeal, are relatively simple. The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a hotel in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The contract was a standard 2 |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin R. Wagner and Peggy A. Wagner, v. Tabor Construction, Inc. and John Tabor, D/B/A Tabor Construction Company
The facts of this case are relative (sic) simple. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase a house from the defendant. When the house was complete, excepting some "punch list items" the parties entered into a second contract. By the terms of the second contract, the defendant was to place $5,000.00 in escrow with the monies to be used toward the completion of the "punch list items. Part of the work was compleed on the "punch list" items. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Virginia Lynn Woolsey, v. Douglas Harmon McPherson
Plaintiff Virginia Lynn Woolsey appeals the trial court’s order removing Jennifer McPherson from her custody and placing the child in the custody of Defendant Douglas Harmon McPherson. McPherson appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay the $15,000 fee of the Guardian ad Litem. We affirm in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Phyllis Renee Brown, v. Charles Chandler Brown, Sr. - Concurring
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I write separately to express my concern with the language on page 10 of that opinion which states that, “[i]n order to be compelling enough to warrant the dramatic remedy of changed custody, the change of circumstances must be such that ‘continuation of the adjudicated custody will substantially harm the child.’” I acknowledge that this language appears in Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 834 (Tenn. App. 1995), an opinion of the middle section of this court. However, I further note that Wall cited Contreras v. Ward, 831 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. App. 1991). Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290. The court also cited with approval from Sartoph v. Sartoph, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976), wherein the Maryland Court of Special Appeals stated that “[t]he custody of children should not be disturbed unless there is some strong reason affecting the welfare of the child. To justify a change in custody, the change in conditions must have occurred which affects the welfare of the child and not that of the parents.” |
Court of Appeals | ||
Phyllis Renee Brown, v. Charles Chandler Brown, Sr.
Charles Chandler Brown, Sr., (Father), appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to modify the custody arrangement previously agreed to by the parties and set forth i their final divorce decree. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the trial court's judgment with certain modifications. |
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9711-PB-00656
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kennedy vs. Robson
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Policeman's Benefit Assoc. of Nashvillevs. Nautilus Insurance Co.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9712-CH-00535
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Caruthers vs. Caruthers
|
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Fowler vs. Bowie
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Pleasant vs. Repass
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Sanjines vs. Sanjines
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Lescarbeau vs. Lescarbeau
|
Greene | Court of Appeals |
