Cason D. McInturff v. Battle Ground Academy of Franklin TN
The plaintiff ballplayer was hit by a baseball while sitting outside the dugout during a school baseball game. He sued the schools and the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (“TSSAA”) for failing to enforce the rules against his conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment to the TSSAA because the umpires were not agents of the TSSAA. The plaintiff appealed and we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Steele, et al. v. Michael Ritz
The plaintiffs/appellants in this lawsuit, an adult cabaret and three female employees of adult entertainment businesses and cabarets, filed a defamation suit against a county commissioner for a statement allegedly quoted in The Commercial Appeal and repeated at other venues.1 The county commissioner raised several defenses to the plaintiffs’ claim in a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On consideration of the motion to dismiss, the trial court found as a matter of law that the plaintiffs could not prove their claim and dismissed their complaint. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State Automobile Insurance Company v. Jones Stone Company, Inc.
Insurer filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not required to provide coverage to insured in lawsuit filed against insured; insured filed a counter-complaint against insurer. At the close of all proof, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of insured on insurer’s declaratory judgment action and directed a verdict in favor of insurer on insured’s counterclaims of misrepresentation, bad faith, estoppel, and punitive damages. Insured’s two remaining counterclaims were submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of insured for Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and breach of contract claims. Trial court subsequently awarded insured double damages and attorney’s fees under the TCPA. On appeal, both parties raise numerous issues with the judgment of the trial court, some of which are without merit or as to which no relief can be granted; such issues are dismissed. We reverse the award of double damages, vacate the award of counsel fees to the insured and remand for further consideration. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Julianna Walker and Mary S. White v. Calvin & Jimmy Beasley, Jack & Mary Hall, John Chorley, Taylor-Made Construction, Inc., Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, William R. Paschall, and June Rasmussen
This appeal involves insurance coverage. The plaintiffs purchased an undeveloped parcel of real property and hired a contractor to build a house on it. After the house was constructed, the plaintiffs discovered that cleared timber was buried underneath the land on which the house stood. Thereafter, the house developed structural problems, such as foundation cracks and non-alignment of doors and windows. The plaintiffs made a claim for coverage under their homeowners insurance policy; however, the insurer denied the claim, citing an exclusion of coverage for damages resulting from settling. The plaintiffs filed suit against inter alia the insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith, and the plaintiffs and the insurer filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After conducting a hearing on the matter and considering expert testimony that the damage was caused by settling, the trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the settlement in this case is so excessive as to remove it from the ordinary meaning of the term “settling.” We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Romona D. Gore, et al v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water, Division of the City of Memphis
This is a claim for unemployment benefits. The claimant was denied unemployment benefits based on a finding that she falsified company records and therefore was discharged for misconduct connected with her employment. The claimant appealed the administrative decision to the Chancery Court. The Chancery Court reversed the administrative decision, finding that there was not substantial and material evidence to support the decision. Upon reviewing the record, we find that the administrative record contains substantial and material evidence to support the finding that the claimant falsified company records. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Chancery Court and remand for further action consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Don L. Wright v. Comfort Systems, U.S.A., and Walker-J-Walker, Inc.
This is a breach of contract case. When the plaintiff employee was hired as a department manager for the defendant employer, his employment contract provided that he would receive a bonus based on the net profit of the department. During the plaintiff’s term of employment, he received bonus payments; however, the parties had disagreements about how the department’s profit was calculated and thus about the amount of the bonus. After the plaintiff’s employment was terminated, the employee filed this lawsuit against the employer, alleging that the employer breached the contract by failing to pay the proper bonus amounts. The employer denied the allegation and asserted a counterclaim for excess amounts allegedly paid to the employee. The trial court referred issues on the plaintiff’s claim and the employer’s counterclaim to a special master. After conducting a hearing, the special master found that neither party carried its burden of proof and recommended that both the complaint and the counterclaim be dismissed. After considering the employee’s objection to the special master’s report, the trial court adopted the special master’s recommendations and dismissed the claims. The employee now appeals. We affirm, finding that there is material evidence to support the trial court’s concurrence. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
LaFrancine Gibson, as Surviving Relative and Next Friend of Georgia Jones, Deceased v. Metro Community Care Home, Inc., et al.
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant common carrier, finding that Defendant had no notice that Decedent was mentally incapacitated and holding that Defendant had no duty to assess or probe Decedent in order to discover a latent or non-apparent psychological condition. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph R. Griffin v. Crompton Corporation, Uniroyal Co., Inc., Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Polymers LLC, Rhein Chemie Corporation, Dow Chemical Co., and BASF Corporation
This appeal involves competing class action lawsuits. The plaintiff/appellant filed a lawsuit in Tennessee on behalf of similarly situated consumers in Tennessee, asserting antitrust claims against various urethane manufacturers. Meanwhile, a separate class action was filed in Florida against some of the same manufacturers, asserting similar misconduct throughout the United States. The class in the Florida lawsuit included consumers in twenty-five states, including Tennessee. The Florida litigation settled, and the Florida court approved a plan to provide notice of the pending settlement to all class members. The notice plan did not include individual notice to the Tennessee plaintiff. The Florida notice plan was implemented. The Florida court then entered an order approving the settlement, finding that the notice plan satisfied the requirements of due process and gave class members the best notice practicable under the circumstances. Subsequently, in the instant Tennessee proceedings, the manufacturers filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the doctrine of res judicata prohibited relitigation of the matters settled in the Florida case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturers. The plaintiff/appellant appeals, arguing that the Florida notice was insufficient because he did not receive individual actual notice. We affirm, finding that the Tennessee lawsuit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy White v. Warden Tommy Mills, Disciplinary Chairperson Sgt. Joe Spicer, and Sgt. Joel Smith
This appeal involves a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a prisoner seeking review of his disciplinary conviction for possession of contraband. The respondents did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and the certified record was filed with the trial court. Upon review of the administrative record and the parties’ briefs, the trial court denied the petition, finding that the decision of the administrative disciplinary board was not illegal or arbitrary, and that it was supported by substantial and material evidence and had a rational basis. The petitioner prisoner now appeals. We affirm. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Adoption of Gracie M. M.
This is an appeal from a termination of parental rights. Finding that the termination was contested and that the trial court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph H. Johnston, Win Myint, William H. May, and Edward Hall v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville Davidson County and Paul G. Summers, Attorney General for the State of Tennessee
This zoning appeal involves Tennessee’s Open Meetings Act. A municipal legislative body began considering legislation to implement a conservation zoning overlay in a neighborhood within the municipality. The ordinance adopting the zoning change passed on the first and second reading. Prior to the final meeting on the subject, members of the legislative body sent numerous emails to each other discussing the proposed zoning change. In addition, prior to the final meeting, some members viewed information on the zoning issue in a non-public conference room in the legislative body’s office. The legislative body then adopted the zoning change at a public meeting. Thereafter, residents of the neighborhood who opposed the zoning change filed the instant lawsuit seeking a writ of certiorari to review the adoption of the ordinance. The petitioner residents argued, inter alia, that the email correspondence and the non-public meeting violated the Open Meetings Act, that the enabling statute violated the separation of powers doctrine, and that the enactment of the ordinance violated due process and was arbitrary and capricious. The trial court determined that the legislative body’s actions did not violate the Open Meetings Act, and rejected the other challenges to the zoning overlay ordinance. The neighborhood residents appeal. We reverse in part and affirm in part, finding among other things that while the email correspondence constitutes a violation of the Open Meetings Act, the legislative body engaged in a “new and substantial reconsideration” of the issues in the final meeting so as to cure the violation. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Damon A. Tatum v. Mercedeas A. Tatum
Wife filed a divorce complaint in Judge Robilio’s court, which she later voluntarily dismissed. Wife then filed a complaint in the Court of the Judiciary against Judge Robilio. Subsequently, Husband filed a complaint for divorce, and the matter was set in Judge Robilio’s court. Wife filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process of Husband’s divorce complaint, which was denied after the process server identified Wife as the person he had served. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Forrest Construction Company, LLC v. James L. Laughlin, II, et al. v. Thomas V. Naive
This action involves a variety of claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County. A homeowner, James Laughlin, entered into a cost plus contract with Forrest Construction Company, LLC to construct a home for he and his wife. Prior to the home being completed, Forrest Construction stopped work, filed a lien on the residence, and thereafter filed a breach of contract action against Mr. Laughlin and an action to recover damages based on the doctrine of quantum meruit against Mrs. Laughlin. Forrest Construction claimed that Mr. Laughlin was in breach of the contract for failure to pay according to the contract. Mr. and Mrs. Laughlin filed a counter-claim for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found that Mr. Laughlin had materially breached the contract by failing to pay according to the terms of the contract, and awarded damages to Forrest Construction. Conversely, the trial court found for the Laughlins on their claim of negligent construction and awarded damages against Forrest Construction. Both parties appeal. Forrest Construction contends that the trial court erred in holding it liable for alleged defects because Mr. Laughlin committed the first material breach and failed to give Forrest Construction notice and the opportunity to cure the alleged defects. Mr. Laughlin contends the trial court erred in finding that he committed the first material breach. The Laughlins also contend the trial court erred in reducing the cost of the repairs to their residence and in failing to pierce the corporate veil. We find that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by submitting requests for draws that were not properly supported by records of its costs and expenses as required by the contract, including submitting draws which erroneously included charges for work done on its other projects, and by failing to complete construction of the home. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s determination that Mr. Laughlin committed the first material breach and hold that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the Laughlins were excused from the duty to give notice of the alleged defects and an opportunity to cure; thus, the Laughlins are entitled to recover damages due to the negligent construction by Forrest. As for the trial court’s substantial reduction of the damages requested by the Laughlins for the cost to repair the yet unrepaired defects to their home, we are unable to determine whether the trial court considered or overlooked $55,000 of the estimated cost to repair the defects; therefore, we remand this issue to afford the trial court the opportunity to either restate its previous ruling or to increase the award of damages, if it so determines, based on the evidence presently in the record. As for the issue of piercing the corporate veil, we remand that issue for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby Steve Simmons And Jeannie L. Simmons v. City of Murfreesboro, et al.
Appellants granted a sewer line easement to the City. The City hired a sub-contractor to install the sewer line and to restore the property following construction. Appellants, who were dissatisfied with the sub-contractor’s restoration, filed suit against the City and the sub-contractor. The sub-contractor subsequently went out of business, and the trial court entered a judgment against the City for $13,070.00, representing the value of Appellants’ land plus the cost to repair a fence. Appellants appeal, claiming the proper measure of damages is the cost to restore their property–$137,779.62. On appeal, the City contends that Appellants may not sue the City, that Appellants breached the contract by refusing the sub-contractor access to their property, and that the trial court’s award should be reduced by $132.00. The proper measure of damages in this case is the lesser of the cost to restore Appellants’ property or the difference in reasonable market value of the premises immediately prior to and immediately after the injury. Although neither party presented evidence regarding the property’s diminished value, we find that the trial court considered the appropriate factors in setting the amount of damages. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Sean Lanier, Individually and as Mother and Next of Kin of Jane Doe, A Minor v. City of Dyersburg, et al.
This is a negligence case filed by a student’s mother against the city, as operator of the city school system, due to an alleged assault on the student by another student. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, finding the assault unforeseeable as a matter of law. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Cassandra Lynn Rudd v. Howard Thomas Rudd - Concurring
I concur in the Court’s decision but write separately to clarify my view of the evidence as it relates to S.R. I believe that the evidence would support a finding by the trial court, by clear and convincing evidence, that any visitation with Father would result in harm to S.R. However, because the trial court did not make the required finding of harm, I agree with the decision to remand the case on the issue of visitation. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Cassandra Lynn Rudd v. Howard Thomas Rudd
I concur in the Court’s decision but write separately to clarify my view of the evidence as it relates to S.R. I believe that the evidence would support a finding by the trial court, by clear and convincing evidence, that any visitation with Father would result in harm to S.R. However, because the trial court did not make the required finding of harm, I agree with the decision to remand the case on the issue of visitation. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
George Sanders and SMS Contracors,Inc. v. Dr. Sammy Holloway, et al. - Memorandum Opinion
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
The Estate of Maynie Bess Morris, Deceased v. Anita Morris
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant based on the statute of limitations in this will contest action. We affirm. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by and through The Office of The Assessor of Property v. Lamar Tennessee, LLC d/b/a Lamar Advertising of Nashville
This case involves a subpoena issued by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, on behalf of the Davidson County Assessor of Property, which required the appellant to provide information regarding its business operations. When the appellant did not comply with the subpoena, Metro filed a complaint seeking to enforce it. The trial court ruled that the appellant must provide the requested information. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jason Morris v. City of Memphis Civil Service Commission
This is an appeal from the decision of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis, upholding the decision to terminate Appellant, Jason Morris’ employment with the Memphis Police Department. We find that the Civil Service Commission failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions therefrom. Accordingly, it is impossible for this Court to review the case based on the record before it. Therefore, we vacate the order of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charlotte Branson v. Joyce Fitzgerald, D/B/A Realty Executives of Kingston
Charlotte Branson (“Plaintiff”) sued Joyce Fitzgerald, d/b/a Realty Executives of Kingston with |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In RE: M.M.M. (d/o/b 10/13/2007), A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the appellant, L.M. (“Mother”), on April 7, 2009. The court found multiple grounds for termination and concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Mary E. Dillard, Deceased v. Tennessee Bureau of Tenncare
Bureau of TennCare filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-1-301 seeking the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased TennCare recipient in order to recover the amount of medical assistance and services provided decedent. Trial court declined to appoint an administrator, finding that the statute of limitations at Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-310(b) barred the claim of TennCare. We reverse the trial court decision in light of In Re: Estate of Martha M. Tanner and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
K.A.G. v. B.L.I.
This appeal stems from a paternity action in which K.A.G (“Mother”) filed a petition against B.L.I. (“Father”) seeking legitimation of Z.R.G. (“the Child”), her then 14-year-old son, and an award of child support. The parties stipulated that Father was the biological father of the Child based on the results of DNA testing. An agreed order was entered setting Father’s current child support obligation under the Child Support Guidelines (“the Guidelines”). Following a hearing on the remaining issues, Father was ordered to pay child support retroactive to the filing of the petition plus 36 months. Father was also ordered to pay a portion of the Child’s orthodontic and dental expenses. Mother appeals, contending that the trial court erred in declining to award her child support back to the date of the child’s birth. We conclude that the court abused its discretion in deviating from the presumption that child support should be awarded retroactively to the date of the child’s birth. We vacate that portion of the trial court’s judgment pertaining to retroactive child support and remand for a hearing at which the trial court will calculate, in a manner consistent with the Guidelines, the child support due Mother from the date of the Child’s birth to the date of filing of the petition. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals |
