COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

William C. Killian v. Rebecca McManus Killian
M2010-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Andy D. Bennett, J.
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
Husband petitioned to reduce or terminate his alimony obligation, and the trial court denied his petition and awarded wife attorney fees. Husband argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his petition and in awarding wife attorney fees. We affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects.

Kathy Gordon vs. By-Lo Markets, Inc., d/b/a By-Lo- #10 - Concurring
E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.

Kathy Gordon vs. By-Lo Markets, Inc., d/b/a By-Lo - #10
E2009-02436-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

Plaintiff, while delivering pizza to customers in the By-Lo grocery store, slipped and fell. She filed suit against By-Lo, claiming negligence. By-Lo moved for summary judgment and after a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of By-Lo and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Larry H. Coleman v. Matthew Kisber, et al.
M2010-00642-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell T. Perkins

This case involves a petition for access to certain documents pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 10-7-101 et seq. The appellees asserted in the trial court, and on appeal, that the documents are confidential and privileged pursuant to the tax information and tax administration information exceptions found in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 67-1- 1702; pursuant to the "ECD exception" provided in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 4-3-730(c); and also pursuant to the Deliberative Process Privilege. The trial court denied the appellant's petition finding that the ECD exception applied and therefore, held that the documents at issue should remain confidential for five years. The trial court, however, found that the tax information and tax administration information exceptions did not apply and declined to apply a Deliberative Process Privilege. Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of his petition. On appeal, the appellees assert that the trial court erred in not finding the tax information and tax administration information exceptions applicable and in not applying the Deliberative Process Privilege. After reviewing the record, including the withheld documents, we find that the trial court erred in not finding that the tax information and tax administration information exceptions, as provided in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 67-1-1702, applied. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's denial of the appellant's petition but for different reasoning.

Larry H. Coleman v. Matthew Kisber, et al. - Concurring
M2010-00642-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell T. Perkins

I concur with nearly all of the majority opinion, but disagree with one aspect of it.  However, I would reach the same result with different reasoning, and so file this separate concurrence.

Rhonda L. (Hall) Greer v. John Bradley Greer
W2009-01587-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James F. Butler

This is a divorce appeal involving parenting issues. The parties are the parents of three minor children. Prior to trial, the parties went through mediation and arrived at an agreement on many of their issues. The trial court then conducted a trial, taking testimony from the parties on a range of issues, including some that were the subject of the mediated agreement. The divorce decree and the parenting plan entered by the trial court adopted some of the parenting provisions in the mediated agreement, but not others. The father filed a motion to alter or amend this final decree, and a subsequent motion to enforce the parenting plan. The trial court modified the parenting plan in part and issued a final order. The father now appeals. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the number of parenting days allocated to the parties or the decision-making authority on the children's medical decisions.

Brenda Johnson Head v. Michael Allen Head
M2009-01351-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

This is a divorce action in which Husband appeals the valuation and division of marital property, and the trial court's awards of alimony, discretionary costs, and attorneys' fees to Wife. The trial court awarded 54 percent of the marital property to Wife and 46 percent to Husband, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro of $6,400 per month until July 2013, at which time the alimony payments will be reduced to $4,400 per month until either party's death or Wife's remarriage. The trial court also awarded Wife discretionary costs and attorneys' fees. We have modified the trial court's valuation of certain items of marital property, which caused a modest decrease in the value of marital property awarded to Husband; however, we affirm the trial court's division of the marital property because our modification of the value of certain property is relatively modest. We affirm the trial court's award of alimony to Wife and the award of attorneys' fees; however, we reverse the award of discretionary costs and remand for a new determination of the costs that may be awarded under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(2). We deny both parties' requests for the costs of their attorneys' fees incurred on this appeal.

Kerry Jordan v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee, et al.
M2009-02369-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda J. McClendon

A young woman was thrown from a horse at a camp operated by the YMCA of Middle Tennessee, breaking her arm. Unbeknownst to the woman, the same horse had thrown two experienced riders ten days earlier. She filed a suit for negligence against the YMCA and the camp, alleging that their employees and volunteers knew the horse to be dangerous, but that they nonetheless failed to ascertain whether she was sufficiently experienced to handle such an animal. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that they were immune from liability under the provisions of the Equine Activities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 44-20-101 et seq. The trial court granted the motion. We reverse.

Edna N. Zulueta v. Winfred Lassiter, M.D., of The Lassiter Clinic
M2010-00944-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda J. McClendon

Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her medical malpractice complaint against Winifred Lassiter, M.D. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Lassiter breached her duty of care by negligently performing a physical Fitness for Duty Examination. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding that plaintiff failed to establish the elements of her claim or show a genuine issue of material fact. We affirm.

Rita Gayle Lewis vs. Matthew Wayne Rader
E2010-00724-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Herschel Pickens Franks, P.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Rex Henry Ogle, Judge
Petitioner filed for an Order of Protection which was ultimately dismissed because petitioner was unable to appear on the date the hearing was set. The Legal Aid Society filed an appeal and raised the issue of taxing costs to petitioner. We reverse the Order taxing costs to petitioner, and remand.

Tennessee Rand, Inc. vs. Automation Industrial Group, LLC
E2009-00116-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Frank Brown, III

In the apt words of the trial court, this case is a "complex business divorce case." The "divorced" and now adverse entities are Tennessee Rand, Inc. ("Rand"), and Automation Industrial Group, LLC ("Automation"), formerly Tennessee Rand Automation, LLC. Rand builds automated robotic equipment such as that used in the automobile industry. Automation was formed by the principals of Rand and some skilled collaborators for the purpose of doing the electrical and computer aspects of Rand's work. The entities fell out of favor with each other when the principals in Rand _ Randy Nunley and Richard Roach_ each a 50% shareholder in Rand, began to have conflicts. Nunley ended up as the sole owner of Rand and Roach acquired Nunley's interest in Automation. Rand initiated this litigation (1) to enjoin Automation from using the name, Tennessee Rand Automation, LLC," (2) to recover the value of assets that Rand had transferred to Automation, and (3) to recover payments of rent and taxes that Rand had made on buildings occupied by Automation. Rand also named as defendants numerous principals and officers of Automation, including Roach. Automation filed a counterclaim seeking an award against Rand for some $6,000,000 in unpaid labor and expenses. In the bench trial that followed, the counterclaim accounted for 20-plus days of the 25-day trial. By the time the trial court announced its decision in a written memorandum opinion, the only parties remaining in the case were Rand and Automation, Roach having previously been dismissed by Rand with prejudice. The trial court found that the names of the entities were confusingly similar and ordered Automation to change its name. This was accomplished and is not an issue on this appeal. The trial court found that Automation was unjustly enriched by Rand's contribution of assets to Automation in the amount of $500,000. Also, the trial court found that Automation had been unjustly enriched in the amount of $162,818.80 by Rand's payment of rent and taxes on buildings used by Automation. Despite the prior dismissal of Roach as a defendant, the trial court held Roach liable to Rand for the rent and tax payments made out of Rand's account. On Automation's counterclaim, the trial court initially awarded it $2,270,759.22 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties filed a motion to alter or amend. The trial court determined that Automation was guilty of fraud in the pursuit of its counterclaim and set aside that part of the judgment with the result that Automation recovered nothing on its counterclaim. Automation and Roach have appealed raising issues as to the counterclaim, the unjust enrichment award against Automation based upon the assets it received from Rand, and the unjust enrichment award against Automation and Roach based on the rent and tax payments. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

State vs. John Cote and Sarah Cote, In Re: Dr. Sandra Elkins
E2008-02483-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Camille R. Mcmullen, J.
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle, Judge
John and Sarah Cote, the Defendant-Appellees in this case, stand accused of offenses involving the death of a minor child. Dr. Sandra Elkins, the former 1 Knox County Medical Examiner, performed the autopsy of the victim in the Cotes' case. In a pre-trial motion for discovery, the Cotes requested disclosure of Dr. Elkins's personal medical records; namely, prescription records, drug treatment records, mental health records, University of Tennessee personnel records, an audit report of the East Tennessee Regional Forensic Center, and any records from the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The trial court granted an in camera review of the requested information. Dr. Elkins originally sought an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order granting the motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Interpreting the Rule 9 appeal as a common law writ of certiorari, this court granted review. Following this court's order accepting the Rule 9 appeal as a writ of certiorari, the Cotes filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which was denied. In this appeal, Dr. Elkins and the State raise largely the same issues: (1) whether this appeal should be construed as a petition for a common law writ of certiorari pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-101 or as a petition for a statutory writ of certiorari pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-102, or both; and (2) whether the trial court erred by ordering Dr. Elkins's personal records to be disclosed for an in camera inspection. Because the Cotes failed to make a plausible showing that the requested information contained material evidence that was favorable to their defense, we reverse the trial court's order permitting an in camera review of the records and remand the case.

Fred H. Gillham, Sr. v. Scepter, Inc.
M2009-01728-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Patricia J. Cottrell, P.J., M.S.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch, Judge
The owner of a parcel which has public road access via an easement appeals the trial court's decision regarding its width. The trial court found that the easement narrows from 60 feet to 30 feet along its course. The deed unambiguously states the easement is 60 feet in width. Reference in the deed to another narrower easement relied on by the trial court has no effect on the access easement width being described. Accordingly, we reverse.

Anthony Murray v. Charlotte Murray
M2009-01576-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Charles K. Smith

The trial court transferred primary residential placement of an eight year old girl from her mother to her father, finding that the mother's post-divorce conduct, including evidence of drug use and sexual indiscretions, amounted to a material change of circumstances, and that it was in the child's best interest for the father to become her primary residential parent. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings, we affirm.

Natalie Hagan v. Michael Phipps, et al.
M2010-00002-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Andy D. Bennett, J.
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd, Judge
This appeal involves claims by a home purchaser against a licensed contractor and a business associate of the unlicensed builder who built the home in question and sold it to the plaintiff. The trial court granted the contractor defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims against him based upon its conclusions that the unlicensed builder was not the agent of the licensed contractor and that there was no predicate tort for civil conspiracy because the builder intended to use the house for his personal residence. Because we find that there are issues of material fact that must be resolved, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

William J. Reinhart v. Geico Insurance
M2009-01989-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Patricia J. Cottrell, P.J., M.S.
Trial Court Judge: Franklin L. Russell, Judge
The plaintiff owned a 1988 Porsche that was damaged by a collision with a deer. His insurer offered him $6,000 under his policy, after determining that the cost of repair was greater than the cash value of the car. The plaintiff, acting pro se, sued the insurer, and attempted to prove at trial that the auto was worth more than the insurer offered. After the plaintiff rested his case, the insurer moved for a directed verdict because the plaintiff had not introduced the insurance policy into evidence. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff argues on appeal that he did not intend to rest his case and that in any event the trial court should have allowed him to reopen his proof so he could introduce the insurance policy. Because there is neither a transcript of the proceedings nor a Rule 24 Statement of the Evidence in the appellate record, we must affirm the trial court.

David A. Lufkin, Sr. vs. Christopher W. Conner
E2009-01823-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

David A. Lufkin, Sr. ("Lufkin") sued attorney Christopher W. Conner ("Conner") for legal malpractice in January of 2009. Conner filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Lufkin knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the facts forming this cause of action by September of 2007, and that Lufkin's complaint filed in January of 2009 was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Lufkin appeals to this Court. We affirm.

Leslie Louise Miller vs. Jeffrey Todd Miller
E2009-02252-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson, Judge
Leslie Louise Miller ("Wife") filed this action for divorce. Jeffrey Todd Miller ("Husband") coupled a counterclaim for divorce with his answer. Wife admitted inappropriate marital conduct in her answer. The parties had been married for 15 years and had two minor children. They stipulated to a division of all of their property except the marital residence, about which there remained unresolved issues. After three days of trial, the court granted Husband a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The court awarded him the marital residence and ordered him to pay Wife one half of the equity, which the court determined to be $47,092.50, minus $4,500 representing that portion of Husband's attorney's fees assessed to Wife. The court awarded "primary parentage" of the children to Husband and gave Wife, a teacher at the children's school, parenting time limited to every other weekend and one weeknight every week. Wife appeals. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Angela Merriman vs. Brian Merriman
E2010-00013-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: D. Michael Swiney, J.
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone, Judge
Angela Merriman ("Petitioner") filed for and obtained an ex parte order of protection against her husband, Brian Merriman ("Respondent"). Pursuant to statute, a hearing was conducted on whether to dissolve or to extend the order of protection. In accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-3-605(b), a trial court has two options at such a hearing: (1) to dissolve the order of protection; or (2) to extend the order of protection for a definite period of time not to exceed one year. With respect to taxing costs, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-3-617(a) expressly prohibits taxing costs against a victim, even if the order of protection is dissolved. If the order of protection is extended, the costs must be taxed against the respondent. In the present case, following the hearing on whether to extend or dissolve the order of protection, the trial court instead entered a mutual restraining order and taxed costs equally to both parties. Because neither action was authorized by statute, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Darlene Manis Brown vs Allan Craig Vaughn
E2010-00373-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Marie Williams

Darlene Manis Brown, a Tennessee resident, filed a petition in the trial court seeking a protective order against her former boyfriend, Allan Craig Vaughn, a resident of the state of Georgia. Based upon her petition, the trial court issued an ex parte order of protection. Later, following an evidentiary hearing, the protective order was extended for one year. Vaughn appeals. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order of protection and claims the trial court lacked jurisdiction of this dispute. We affirm.

In Re Betty P., et al
E2010-00318-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Charles D. Susano., Jr., J.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon M. Green, Judge
This is a termination of parental rights case. Macaria L. ("Mother") appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her five minor children and awarding full guardianship to the State of Tennessee. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the court ordered Mother's parental rights terminated upon its finding that she had abandoned her children by willfully failing to pay child support. Mother appeals. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of Mother's rights. Accordingly, we affirm.

Mary Lawson v. Brad Lawson
M2009-00537-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Juidge C. L. Rogers

Uninsured motorist carrier voluntarily tendered the limits of its liability coverage into the probate proceeding administering the decedent's estate and not in the wrongful death tort action. The trial court dismissed the carrier from this wrongful death tort action since it had tendered its limits of liability. We find the dismissal was in error since any voluntary tender of insurance proceeds for wrongful death should be made into the wrongful death tort case, and tendering the limits elsewhere is not grounds for dismissal.

Rex Hubbard v. Helen Louise Hubbard
M2009-00780-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham

Wife argues on appeal that the trial court erred by awarding her a little more than half the parties' assets and alimony of $3,000 per month for 7 years while the physician Husband's earning capacity is considerably more than Wife's. During the parties' almost forty (40) year marriage, Wife reared 7 children and focused primarily on the family finances and not her individual finances. We agree with Wife and award her an additional $300,000 in marital assets. The matter is remanded to the trial court to determine reallocation of assets in accordance with this opinion.

Shannon Wright Clement v. Mark Clement
M2009-00466-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Royce Taylor

The divorcing parents of two minor children entered into a parenting plan that named the mother as the primary residential parent of the children, but divided parenting time equally between the parties. Less than a year after their divorce became final, the mother moved from Murfreesboro to Franklin, and the parents filed competing petitions to modify the parenting plan. The trial court conducted two hearings and ultimately adopted a new parenting plan which provided that the mother would remain the primary residential parent and that the father would exercise only standard visitation. The father appealed. We affirm the trial court.

Charles Bryson, et al vs. The City of Chattanooga
E2009-01101-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howell N. Peoples

Before November 4, 1986, members of the Chattanooga Police and Fire Departments were allowed to buy back retirement credit for time served while employed in other departments within the City of Chattanooga. On November 4, 1986, a city-wide referendum was passed which established a cut-off date of June 1, 1987, in which to buy back these retirement credits. Almost nineteen (19) years later, this lawsuit was brought by fifteen (15) police officers ("Plaintiffs") against the City of Chattanooga (the "City") and the Chattanooga Fire and Police Pension Board (the "Pension Board"). Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the 1986 referendum unconstitutionally deprived them of a property right. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that they be allowed to buy back retirement credits for time served in other City departments. The Trial Court concluded that the statutes of limitation had run on all of the claims, with the exception of some of the plaintiffs' equal protection claim. The Trial Court then concluded that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as to the one timely claim. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.