Stephanie S. Jernigan v. Leonidas J. Jernigan
The trial court granted a divorce to the mother of two children, named her as their primary residential parent, and awarded the father temporary visitation with the children. The father subsequently entered into an agreed order that suspended his visitation, with a provision that visitation was to resume only upon the recommendation of the children’s counselor. The mother eventually filed a motion to terminate the father’s visitation, while the father filed a petition for contempt against the mother and also sought to have his visitation restored. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who recommended against resuming visitation between the father and his children. By that time, the father had not seen his children for over four years. The court dismissed the father’s petition without an evidentiary hearing. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case for a prompt evidentiary hearing on the father’s petition. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Outdoor Resorts at Gatlinburg, Inc. v. Utility Management Review Board et al.
Webb Creek Utility District (“WCUD”) is a public utility district that, for the most part, furnishes potable water to its customers and processes their sewage. One of its customers is the plaintiff, Outdoor Resorts at Gatlinburg, Inc., the operator of a large campground for ampers and recreational vehicles (“RVs”). Outdoor is somewhat unique in that it has its own water supply. It is a “sewer only” customer. From 1985 until 2008, the rate WCUD charged Outdoor was set by contract, which either party could terminate with sufficient notice. In 2008, WCUD terminated the contract and notified Outdoor that it would be charged based upon the number of campsites multiplied by a standard minimum rate per campsite. Outdoor objected to the rate. WCUD held a hearing and adopted the proposed rate over Outdoor’s objection. Outdoor asked for a hearing before the Utility Management Review Board (“the UMRB”). While the matter was pending before the UMRB, WCUD conducted a rate study, following which it proposed still another rate for Outdoor that was less than the objected-to rate, but more than the rate Outdoor had been paying under the terminated contract. The UMRB approved the new rate. Outdoor demanded a refund of overpayments made by it under the higher rate; the UMRB denied Outdoor’s request, stating that it lacked authority to order a refund. Outdoor also asked the UMRB to compel the individual who prepared the rate study to appear for a deposition. The UMRB denied the discovery request upon concluding that it did not have the authority to order such a deposition. Outdoor sought review in the trial court by way of a common law writ of certiorari on several grounds, including lack of material evidence to support the new rate, denial of due process in not compelling a deposition, and its characterization of UMRB’s action as illegal and arbitrary. The trial court allowed Outdoor to take the deposition of the author of the rate study; the court later admitted the deposition testimony into evidence. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the UMRB’s decision was supported by material evidence and dismissed Outdoor’s complaint. Outdoor appeals. We hold that Outdoor was not denied due process, but we vacate the trial court’s judgment because we hold that neither the first post-contract rate established by WCUD nor the newly adopted rate approved by the UMRB is supported by material evidence. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Aundrey Meals, as Natural Parent, Guardian, and Next Friend of William Meals v. Ford Motor Company
Following a seven week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff in this products liability action. The jury awarded compensatory damages in excess of $43 million, and assessed 15 percent fault against Defendant car manufacturer. Defendant appeals. We affirm the jury verdict with respect to liability but remand with a suggestion of remittitur. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Aundrey Meals, as Natural Parent, Guardian, and Next Friend of William Meals v. Ford Motor Company - Partial Dissent
I concur with most of the majority’s thorough opinion. I must dissent from the majority’s decision to suggest a remittitur of the jury verdict, from a total $43.8 million to $12.9 million. Respectfully, nothing in the majority opinion states a basis under the law for such a remittitur. In the absence of a basis under the law for remittitur, I believe that the majority’s decision amounts to a policy determination, limiting the size verdict a jury may award. It may be that our Legislature can appropriately make such a policy decision, but the courts are not authorized to do so. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Shannon Wayne Brown v. Lisa Denise Brown (Church)
This post-divorce appeal arises from an action to modify the parties’ marital dissolution agreement, permanent parenting plan, and to award child support. The permanent parenting plan provided that the father’s child support obligation would not become effective until certain real property was sold; however, because the property had not been sold, the father never started making child support payments. Several hearings were conducted; at the final one, the mother also sought permission to move out-of-state with the minor children. The trial court denied the relief sought by the mother. The father was named the primary residential parent, and the mother was ordered to pay child support. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Betty L. McCollom v. Graham N. McCollom
This appeal arises from the filing of a Petition in the Chancery Court requesting relief pursuant to the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-5, to increase the community spouse’s Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance and Community Spouse Resource Allowance.The trial court made the finding that the community spouse had not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress;” nevertheless, the court granted the community spouse the requested relief and awarded her the entirety of her husband’s income and the couple’s assets. The Tennessee Department of Human Services appealed contending the community spouse must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress” as a condition precedent to being entitled to the relief. We agree. Finding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in granting the relief, we reverse. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Michael L. Johnson, et al. v. Todd Ford
Michael L. Johnson and Tammy K. Johnson (“Plaintiffs”) purchased from Todd Ford (“Defendant”) real property located in Athens, Tennessee containing a house constructed by Defendant (“the House”). Shortly after purchasing the House, Plaintiffs began to experience problems with a leaking and flooding basement. Plaintiffs sued Defendant alleging, among other things, breach of contract, negligent construction, misrepresentation, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Prior to trial, the Trial Court partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment finding that Defendant had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Trial Court held, however, that whether the violation caused damages to Plaintiffs would be submitted to the jury for its determination. After a jury trial, the Trial Court entered judgment upon the jury’s verdict finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendant breached the parties’ contract, and that Plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages of $50,000 for the breach. The Trial Court also awarded Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court raising issues regarding the jury’s failure to find in Plaintiffs’ favor with regard to the claims of misrepresentation, damages for Defendant’s violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, punitive damages, and rescission, among other things. We affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, et al.
The plaintiff homeowner appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint, in which the court found the defendants’ farm activities were protected from the application of the local zoning laws by the Tennessee Right-to-Farm Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 43-26-101, et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Lee, III v. City of Memphis, et al.
The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to intervene as untimely. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Estate of John J. Goza
The trial court determined that Petitioner’s petition to turn over assets was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Stephen Michael West, et al. v. Derrick Schofield, in his official capacity, et al.
Plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, asserting the lethal injection protocol used to carry-out the death penalty in Tennessee violated constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. While the matter was pending in the Tennessee Supreme Court, the State revised the protocol. The supreme court remanded the matter for further proceedings. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the State. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Antywon B., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case in which the Tennessee Department of Children’s services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Natasha D. and Antywon M. B. to their four oldest children. The trial court terminated Antywon M. B.’s parental rights to all four children. The court terminated Natasha D.’s parental rights to all but the oldest child, Jaiwon B. Natasha D. appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Hefferlin + Kronenberg Architects, PLLC v. CLP Development, LLC, et al.
Plaintiff brought this action claiming, inter alia, that it was entitled to a mechanics' lien on the subject property. Defendant filed Motions to Dismiss, one ground being that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Trial Court subsequently ruled that the Complaint did not establish a cause of action to entitle plaintiff to a lien on the property. Plaintiff has appealed and we hold that upon review of the Complaint, and applying the rules governing the test of the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint, that the Complaint states a cause of action. We vacate the Trial Court's Judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Crystal Stoots v. Michael Stoots
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Bourland, Heflin, Alvarez, Minor & Matthews, PLC v. Rodney Heaton and Margaret Heaton and Loeb Properties
The parties entered into a Contract for the sale and purchase of commercial real estate, and the purchaser deposited $50,000.00 earnest money. The purchaser terminated the Contract, citing the economic downturn and the purchaser’s resulting inability to secure retail tenants for its planned development. The parties disputed whether such termination was appropriate under the Contract, and thus, whether the purchaser was entitled to a return of its earnest money. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the purchaser and further awarded the purchaser its attorney fees and expenses. We find the economic downturn did not provide an appropriate basis for termination of the Contract. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the purchaser, and we enter summary judgment in favor of the sellers. The sellers shall be awarded the $44,362.57 remaining in the escrow account, and the purchaser shall pay the sellers an additional $5,637.43, for a total of $50,000.00. Additionally, pursuant to the Contract, the sellers are awarded attorney fees and expenses incurred in both the trial court and in this Court, and we remand for a determination of such award. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Janessa R.K.B.E. and Kyle L.E.
Petitioners petitioned the Trial Court to adopt three children. The Trial Court, upon hearing the evidence, held that the adoptive parents had met all the legal requirements to adopt the children and that it was in the best interest of the children for the petitioners to adopt them. Following the adoption order, one of the children's grandmother filed a motion in the Trial Court seeking Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 relief. The Trial Court overruled the grandmother's motion and the grandmother appealed to this Court. We hold the grandmother was not a necessary party at the proceedings, did not seek to intervene in the adoption proceedings, and was not entitled to seek relief under the Rule 60 motion. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Mitzi Sue Garner v. Robert Allen Garner
This is a divorce case. The parties had two children, still minors at the time of the divorce trial. After the trial, motions to alter and amend were filed, one of which disputed the number of parenting days awarded each party. The divorce decree was amended in response to the motions to alter or amend, and the trial court ordered the parties to try to resolve the dispute on the number of parenting days and report back to the court on the issue. Without attempting such resolution, the father filed his notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Sarah Kee and Larry Kee v. City of Jackson, Tennessee
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby J. Spears v. Wendy Weatherall
This is a grandparent visitation case. Appellant is the former stepfather of the Appellee. After approximately twenty-five years of marriage, Appellant and Appellee’s mother divorced. During the marriage, Appellant maintained a close relationship to Appellee and Appellee’s child. Even after the divorce, Appellee allowed Appellant to regularly visit with her child. After Appellee began limiting Appellant’s contact with her child, Appellant filed a petition for grandparent visitation. The trial court concluded that Appellant did not fall within the definition of “grandparent” under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306(e), and dismissed the petition for lack of standing. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory Lee Cain v. Bonnie Jean (White) Cain
This appeal requires us to construe a provision of the parties’ 1987 divorce decree with respect to the amount of Bonnie Jean White Cain’s (“Wife”) share of Gregory Lee Cain’s (“Husband”) military retirement benefits. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in interpreting the 1987 divorce decree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Delta Development Corporation, et al. v. F. Fani Gulf International, et al. v. Fariborz Ferdowsi, et al.
Defendants made a series of loans to Plaintiffs and a dispute arose as to the interest and principal owed. A judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. However, Defendants appealed the award, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, which allegedly reduced the judgment amount, and in refusing to hold all shareholders of the Plaintiff companies liable for the judgment. Plaintiffs also claim, on appeal, that the Special Master and the trial court set an incorrect “starting point” for determining the judgment owed. We affirm the Special Master and the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Veronica Monde Barone v. Frank A. Barone
After obtaining a sizable judgment against her former husband in a Canadian court, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Tennessee in 1999 seeking to have property allegedly owned by the former husband sold in partial satisfaction of the judgment. After the former husband failed to appear or defend the Tennessee lawsuit, the circuit court also entered a default judgment against the former husband. However, other related issues involving other parties were tried and eventually appealed over the next several years. In 2011, the trial court finally ordered the sale of the former husband’s property in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Husband appealed from the entry of that order, and he argues on appeal that the wife’s attempt to execute on his property is time-barred under various statutes and Rules of Civil Procedure. Finding no merit in his arguments on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
U.S. Waste Atlanta, LLC and Clarence Emmer v. Mark Englund and William Englund
This appeal arises from an alleged agreement concerning a waste collection business. In 2007, U.S. Waste Atlanta, LLC (“U.S. Waste Atlanta”), filed suit against Mark Englund and William Englund Sr. (“the Defendants”) in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”), alleging that the Defendants improperly took possession of certain trucks. U.S. Waste Atlanta argued, among other things, that written documents demonstrated that William Englund Sr. had an agreement with Clarence Emmer, owner of U.S. Waste, LLC (“U.S. Waste”), to transfer trucks to U.S. Waste Atlanta in exchange for an interest in the company. Clarence Emmer, on behalf of U.S. Waste Atlanta, made finance payments on the trucks but the transfer never happened. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Trial Court partially granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, awarding Clarence Emmer a judgment against William Englund Sr. for $36,073.90. The Trial Court also made this a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. William Englund Sr. appeals, arguing that a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an agreement existed bars summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran
The Trial Court dismissed this case based upon its finding that although plaintiff’s Summons was issued the day she filed her Complaint, proof of service was not made to the clerk until 412 days later, and, because plaintiff had failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4, plaintiff was not entitled to rely on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 to toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran - Dissenting
I agree completely with the majority that return of “proof of service to the court” 412 days after process was issued by the trial court clerk is hardly a “prompt[]” return of proof of service. I also agree – as I must – that such a delay in the return of proof of service violates the clear mandate of the first sentence of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(1): “The person serving the summons shall promptly make proof of service to the court . . .” (Emphasis added.) |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
