Cardiac Anesthesia Services, PLLC v. Jon Jones
This case involves the application of the statute of limitations to a legal malpractice action. Appellee attorney drafted a contract for Appellant medical provider; the contract contained a fee-split clause in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63-6-225. When the other party to the contract, a hospital, allegedly breached the contract and sued the medical provider, the medical provider counterclaimed for breach of contract. The hospital answered the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the contract was illegal and unenforceable.The trial court ruled that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63-6225 did not apply to the contract at issue. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the medical provider for more than one million dollars. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63-6-225 invalidated the contract, and remanded the case for dismissal. Within one year of the Court of Appeals opinion, the medical provider filed this legal malpractice case against the drafting attorney. The trial court dismissed the case as beyond the one-year legal malpractice statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Sandy Green v. Virginia Evans
This is a grandparent visitation case. The child at issue was adjudicated dependent and neglected; the appellant paternal great-grandmother was awarded legal custody. Months later, the child’s mother died. The appellee maternal grandmother then filed a petition in juvenile court seeking both custody and alternatively grandparent visitation. The order denying the grandmother’s petition was appealed to the circuit court for a de novo hearing. The circuit court denied the grandmother’s petition for custody, but awarded grandparent visitation. The custodian great-grandmother now appeals. We reverse and dismiss the grandmother’s petition. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Ashley Renee Reed v. Michael Eugene Reed
Mother appeals from the trial court’s post-divorce determination that a substantial and material change of circumstances occurred that warranted a modification of the parenting plan and the designation of Father as the primary residential parent of their children. Mother also appeals the termination of her alimony payments and an award of attorney’s fees to Father. We affirm the finding that a substantialand material change of circumstance occurred and that it is in the best interests of the children that Father be the primary residential parent. We affirm the termination of alimony to Mother and the award of attorney’s fees to Father. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
John P. Konvalinka, Trustee v. American International Group, Inc.
This is an appeal of an order setting aside a default judgment. The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which was granted. The order setting aside the default judgment was certified as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff now appeals. We find that Rule 54.02 certification was improvidently granted, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Mohinder N. Sud v. Man Keng Ho, aka Simon Ho, et al
The Trial Court held Man Keng Ho liable for unpaid rents on commercial property that Ho had leased from his landlord. Ho claimed against Soon Lee Pang, appellant, on the grounds that Pang was the guarantor on the lease. At the subsequent trial between Ho and Pang, Ho acting as an interpreter for Pang, the Trial Court entered Judgment against Pang for the full amount of the Judgment against Ho as guarantor under the terms of the lease. Pang then filed a Rule 60 Motion seeking relief from the Judgment, principally on the grounds that he was entitled to an interpreter and the Trial Court erred in utilizing his co-defendant, who had an interest in the case, as Pang's interpreter. The Trial Court overruled the Rule 60 Motion and Pang appealed to this Court. We hold that the Trial Court abused its discretion in not complying with Rules 41 and 42 of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and remand for a retrial on the merits. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Fred H. Gillham v. City of Mt. Pleasant, et al.
A residential property owner challenged the procedures used by a planning commission and city commission in granting a rezoning application submitted by two industrial companies. The companies asked that the zoning for 95.2 acres of land be changed from agricultural to special impact industrial for the purpose of developing a landfill to dispose of salt cake produced as a byproduct of their smelting businesses. The property owner also asserted that two of the commissioners had a conflict of interest and that their participation granting the application invalidated the procedure. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions after concluding the planning commission and city commission complied with the procedural requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §§13-7-203(a) and 6-20-215 and that the two commissioners had no conflict of interest since they had no ownership interest in the rezoning applicants. We affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the property owner’s complaint. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
New Life Men's Clinic, Inc. v. Dr. Charles Beck
Appellee was granted a default judgment against Appellant in the general sessions court. More than five months after the entry of the default judgment, Appellant filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion for relief from the general sessions court’s judgment. The general sessions court dismissed the motion on grounds that it was not timely filed and that the general sessions court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to set aside its judgment. Appellant appealed to the circuit court. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was dismissed sua sponte by the circuit court. Appellant appeals. Because the writ of error coram nobis has long been abolished in the civil law, this filing had no legal effect; consequently, the trial court did not err in dismissing the writ. Affirmed and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Ann Burton v. Robert Mark Mooneyham
In this divorce appeal, husband challenges the trial court’s valuation of his business, the division of marital assets, and the allocation of the debt on the marital residence. Husband also argues that the trial court erred in the amount and length of the alimony award and in awarding attorneyfees to wife. We find that the trial court erred in changing its net valuation of the business, after a second hearing, from $200,000 to $280,000 based upon the updated status of Husband’s payments on the tax lien. As this change did not affect the trial court’s division of the marital estate or the alimony award, however, the error is harmless. In all other respects, we find no error in the trial court’s decision. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kristie Lynn (McClannahan) Jenkins v. William Charles McClannahan
In this post-divorce action, the father appeals the entry of a default judgment modifying the parties’ parenting plan for their minor child and the denial of his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to set aside the default judgment. The father was personally served with the petition to modify the parenting plan at work but did not file an answer. He had changed residences after the divorce but did not provide the mother or the court with his new address after the petition was served. Over two months later, the mother filed a motion for default judgment, serving the father by mail at his last known address. The trial court granted the motion and entered a default judgment. Father filed a Rule 60.02 motion for relief, which was denied. This appeal followed. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
Lauren Ephgrave Jarrell v. Emmett Blake Jarrell
The parties’ Parenting Plan required that major decisions regarding religious upbringing be made jointly, and if no consensus could be reached, that the dispute be submitted to a mediator. Mother had the parties’ children baptized without Father’s knowledge or consent, and Father filed a petition for civil and criminal contempt against Mother. The trial court found Mother in civil contempt, but it dismissed the criminal contempt petition, apparently for insufficient notice. We reverse the trial court’s finding that Mother was in civil contempt, and its award of attorney fees to Father based upon the civil contempt finding. We also reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Father’s criminal contempt petition, and we remand for further criminal contempt proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Oscar H. Vaughn v. James D. Morton
This is a personal injury action filed by Oscar H. Vaughn (“the Plaintiff”) against James D. Morton (“the Deceased”) that arose out of an automobile accident. The Deceased died within a year of the accident. The Deceased’s insurer, acting pursuant to its rights under the policy to “defend” an action against its insured, filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the only proper defendant was the personal representative of the Deceased and that the statute of limitations had expired prior to any attempt to make the representative a party to this litigation. The trial court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add the personal representative as a defendant, which motion was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kathryn M. Claiborne v. Larry W. Goldston
In this case, Kathryn M. Claiborne sought to set aside a quitclaim deed relating to property given to Larry W. Goldston. The trial court set aside the deed but awarded damages to Larry W. Goldston based upon his counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Kathryn M. Claiborne appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Adoption of Destiny R. D.
The mother and stepfather of a three year old girl filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s father on the ground of abandonment so that the stepfather could adopt her. After hearing the proof, the trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners had not met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the father’s failure to visit the child or his failure to provide child support in the four months preceding the filing of the petition were willful. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Laude v. State of Tennessee
The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed Appellant’s claims upon concluding that the State was not negligent, and that in the alternative, Appellant was more than fifty percent (50%) at fault. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the Claims Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Claims Commission and dismiss. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Erlanger Medical Center v. Angela Strong a/k/a Granger, Shoney's North Georgia, LLC, Garnishee
This appeal concerns a garnishment action. Erlanger Medical Center (“Erlanger”) obtained a judgment against Angela Strong (“Strong”), an employee, by the time of trial, of Shoney’s North Georgia, LLC (“the Garnishee”). Erlanger sought to garnish Strong’s wages. Erlanger argued that Strong’s tips should be included in the calculation of her disposable earnings for the purposes of garnishment. The Garnishee disagreed, arguing, among other things, that federal law and labor policy stood for the proposition that tips were not to be included as wages for garnishment purposes. The Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) held that tips were, in fact, to be treated as wages subject to the calculation for garnishment purposes. The Garnishee appeals. We hold that tips are not to be included in the calculation of disposable wages for the purposes of garnishment. We reverse the Trial Court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth A. Ritchie v. Elizabeth Widmaier Pew Ritchie
After twenty-five years of marriage, Kenneth A. Ritchie (“Husband”) sued Elizabeth Widmaier Pew Ritchie (“Wife”) for divorce. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Judgment for Divorce, which inter alia, awarded Wife a divorce, distributed the marital assets and debts, and awarded Wife alimony in solido. Husband appeals to this Court raising an issue about the alimony in solido. Wife raises an issue about the Trial Court’s refusal to award her attorney’s fees, and also requests an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm, and decline to award attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Andrew Carman v. Kristi Michelle Carman
This is a post-divorce parental relocation case. The mother seeks to relocate to Grand Prairie, Alberta, Canada, with the parties’ seven (7) minor children, in order to reside with her new husband, a Canadian citizen she met on the internet. The father opposes the relocation. The mother spends substantially more time with the children, thus Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6108(d) applies. Finding there was no reasonable purpose for moving to Canada, that the move would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the children, and that the move is not in the best interests of the children, the trial court denied the request to relocate. We affirm. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Maria Amezcua v. Samuel Amezcua
In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals a judgment for child support arrearages and award of attorney’s fees to Mother. Finding that the court erred in its determination of the amount of arrearages, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. The award of attorney’s fees is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Edward Bassham v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al.
Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, housed at Morgan County Correctional Complex in Wartburg, Tennessee, filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wayne County Chancery Court seeking review of the prison disciplinary proceedings for his conviction for the disciplinary offense of “violation of state law” while incarcerated at South Central Correctional Center in Clifton, Tennessee. Based upon the filing of an Inmate Affidavit filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-801 et seq., a certified copy of his Inmate Trust Fund Account and a Uniform Civil Affidavit of Indigency, the trial court filed an Order allowing filing on pauper’s oath. Upon motion of respondents, the court was advised that Petitioner falsely stated that he had no income from anysource. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-804, the trial court dismissed the petition upon the finding that the inmate’s affidavit of indigency was false. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al. v. BFI Waste Services, LLC, et al.
After Metro’s waste-to-energy facility was damaged/destroyed by fire, Metro and the facility’s insurer filed suit against Defendants. Prior to trial, Defendants’ expert was precluded from testifying regarding the facility’s value, its condition prior to the fire, and the alleged pre-fire plans to discontinue its operation. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, and Defendants appeal. On appeal, Defendants challenge the exclusion of certain evidence, the jurycharge regarding damages, and an adverse inference juryinstruction given as a sanction against Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiffs challenge the denial of prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Orlando Fields v. Corrections Corporation of America et al.
An inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee, filed this Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge the decision of the prison grievance board and that of the Commissioner. All of the respondents filed motions to dismiss the petition on several grounds including that Petitioner failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805, that decisions bya prison grievance boards are not reviewable under a common law writ of certiorari, and Petitioner failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-806(b). The trial court dismissed the petition as to all respondents. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Robes P. Jean Philippe a/k/a Johnny Ralone et al. v. Jhuliana Lopez et al.
The appellants have filed notices of appeal from a final judgment purportedly entered on February 25, 2011. Because the appellants did not file their notices of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Amber Brazilian Export Resources, Inc., DBA Amber International V. Crown Laboratories, Inc. et al.
Amber Brazilian Export Resources, Inc., doing business as Amber International (“the Plaintiff”), filed this action against Crown Laboratories, Inc. and Jeffrey A. Bedard (collectively “the Defendants”) to collect a debt owed on an “open account.” The liability of Mr. Bedard is based upon a personal guaranty of Crown’s obligation. The Defendants admit that something is owed on the account but deny the amount and further deny that Mr. Bedard signed the guaranty in a personal capacity. The Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment supported by the affidavit of its president, which the Defendants opposed with the affidavit of Mr. Bedard in which he states that he signed the guaranty in a representative capacity. He also disputes the amount due as stated in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s motion. The Defendants appeal. We affirm that part of the judgment holding Mr. Bedard liable on the guaranty and vacate that part of the judgment setting the amount owed because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Farmers Mutual of Tennessee v. Jennifer Atkins
This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment. Appellant insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that Appellee was precluded from recovering under her home owner’s insurance policy due to her failure to submit to an examination under oath. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the failure to submit to an examination under oath was the nonoccurrence of a condition precedent to recovery under the policy, as outlined in Spears v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 300 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). Appellee responded that she had not failed to submit to an examination and argued that, under Talley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 223 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2000), the insurance company must prove prejudice in order to preclude recovery. The trial court denied summary judgment, citing material factual disputes and noting, without deciding, the divergence of opinion regarding the condition precedent issue. Accordingly, the trial court granted an interlocutory appeal for this Court to determine the applicable law. This Court granted the interlocutory appeal; however, upon further review, we have determined that this issue is not properly before us. Accordingly, we vacate the grant of the interlocutory appeal, remand to the trial court for further proceedings and dismiss the appeal. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Fridrich E.T.W.
George R.W., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights with respect to his minor son, Fridrich E.T.W. (DOB: Aug. 27, 2008) (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) had filed a petition seeking to terminate both parents’ rights after the Child was taken into custody pursuant to an emergency protective order. He was subsequently adjudicated dependent and neglected as a result of being subjected to severe child abuse. As to Father, DCS pursued termination on the sole ground of severe child abuse. Father did not appear at trial. At the start of the trial, his counsel moved for a continuance based in part on counsel’s assertion that Father had advised her that he wished to effectuate a voluntary surrender of his parental rights. The trial court denied the motion and the hearing proceeded in Father’s absence. The court terminated Father’s rights based upon its finding that the sole ground for termination was established and that termination was in the best interest of the Child, both findings said by the court to be made by clear and convincing evidence. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals |
