Jean Hensley v. Robert Cerza, et al.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in this medical malpractice action. On appeal, the plaintiff assigns error to various decisions made by the trial court concerning the admission of evidence and arguments and to the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of negligent retention. While the trial court erred in several respects, we consider the errors to be harmless and affirm the judgment based on the jury verdict. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Shari Harp v. Darryelle E. Mills
Petitioner, Shari Harp, filed this action to recover personal property and for an injunction related to her deceased mother's estate. Respondent, Darryelle E. Mills, is surviving spouse of the decedent. The trial court entered a partial default judgment in Ms. Harp's favor after Mr. Mills failed to answer the complaint or otherwise plead _ despite ample notice of the consequences of failing to answer. Upon appeal, this court entered a show cause order directing Mr. Mills, acting pro se, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, among other things. Mr. Mills has failed to respond to the show cause order within the time allotted. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal because it is premature and because Mr. Mills has neglected to file a cost bond and has not paid the litigation tax associated with the appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani vs. Masoud Bajestani
After seven years of marriage, Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani ("Wife") sued Masoud Bajestani ("Husband") for divorce. After a trial, the trial court entered its order, inter alia, awarding wife a divorce, dividing the marital property, setting husband's child support obligation, awarding wife transitional alimony for nine years, awarding wife alimony in futuro to begin after the termination of the transitional alimony, and awarding wife attorney's fees. Husband appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the classification and distribution of marital property and the awards of alimony, among others. Wife raises issues regarding child support, and also requests that this Court take notice of a post-judicial fact, and award her attorney's fees on appeal. We modify as to the award of transitional alimony, vacate the award of alimony in futuro, affirm as to the child support and division of property, decline to award attorney's fees on appeal, and decline to take notice of the post-judicial fact. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Roy G. Butler v. David A. Still
This is a dispute to quiet title to 5 acres between the owners of adjacent tracts. Both parties claim ownership of the disputed property along their common boundary by color of title. At issue is whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated _ 28-2- 105 for quieting title to lands under color of title by establishing the deed had been recorded for at least 30 years and the property at issue had been adversely possessed by the plaintiff or his predecessors in title for at least 7 years. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff finding that the plaintiff and his predecessors had adversely possessed the disputed property for more than 7 years and that the plaintiff's claim derived from a metes and bounds description in a 1961 deed, which was of record for more than 30 years. Finding the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court's ruling, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of Zmaria C., et al.
The parents of the two children at issue appeal the termination of their parental rights. The issues on appeal pertain to the trial court's findings that both parents were in substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans and that termination was in the children's best interests. Also at issue is whether the requirements of the Permanency Plans were not reasonable, related and relevant to the stated goals. We find the requirements of the Permanency Plans were appropriate and that the efforts of the Department of Children's Services constituted reasonable attempts to reunify the family. We also find the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings that the parents failed to substantially comply with the permanency plans and that termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children. We, therefore, affirm the termination of the parental rights of both parents. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Lyle Douglas Vaughn, et al vs. Darrell Brewer, et al
This action was brought to determine whether a roadway that serves the plaintiff and certain of the defendants is a public or private road. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, declared the road to be a private road. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Wellmont Health System vs. John Quinton Qualls, et al
Plaintiff hospital filed a lawsuit against defendant patient for unpaid medical expenses. Defendant patient filed a third party complaint against defendant insurance company alleging that the insurance company was responsible for the unpaid medical expenses pursuant to a health insurance policy. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the insurance contract was ambiguous and construed it against the defendant insurance company. Defendant insurance company appeals. After reviewing the record and the health insurance policy, we conclude that the policy was not ambiguous and the insurance contract specifically excluded coverage of patient's pre-existing condition. Accordingly, we reverse. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie "Max" Watson, et al vs. Larry Waters, et al
A group of Sevier County residents identifying themselves as "Public Spirited Citizens" ("Plaintiffs") filed a set of quo warranto lawsuits against Sevier County, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and Larry Waters, the County Mayor of Sevier County ("Mayor") (collectively "Defendants"). The trial court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie "Max" Watson, et al vs. Larry Waters, et al
A group of Sevier County residents identifying themselves as "Public Spirited Citizens" ("Plaintiffs") filed a set of quo warranto lawsuits against Sevier County, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and Larry Waters, the County Mayor of Sevier County ("Mayor") (collectively "Defendants"). The trial court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
William C. Brothers v. Office of the Governor, Phil Bredesen, et al.
Appellant filed petitions seeking increased library access as well as his release from incarceration. Because Appellant has been unconditionally released from prison, we find his appeal moot and affirm the trial court's dismissal of his claims. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
American Legion Post 212 vs. Hollis F. Summers, et al
The trial court in this matter granted a motion to dismiss and entered a default judgment for the plaintiff, American Legion Post 212 ("Post 212"). The defendant, Hollis F. Summers ("Mr. Summers"), who was not present at the hearing, had removed the action to federal court days earlier. Under 28 U.S.C. _ 1446(d), once a case is removed to federal court, a state court has no authority to take further action in the matter. Accordingly, because the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case, we must summarily reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
Trustmark National Bank, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
This case concerns the priority of lienholders' respective interests in real property. The plaintiffs/appellees, Trustmark National Bank and FirstBank, filed this joint action as amended for declaratory judgment against the defendants/appellants, Long Beach Mortgage Company, Sonya R. Thomas, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and for enforcement of their liens through judicial sale of the property. The plaintiffs' amended complaint asserted that Trustmark and FirstBank held judgment liens against the property that were valid, enforceable, and superior to the defendants' interests. The defendants responded in pertinent part that they were entitled to priority under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, even if the plaintiffs held prior-recorded judgment liens against the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the undisputed facts demonstrated that the plaintiffs' liens were enforceable and superior to the defendants' later-recorded deeds of trust and that the defendants were not entitled to equitable subrogation. The defendants appealed, challenging only whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on the question of equitable subrogation. Because the plaintiffs failed to negate an essential element of equitable subrogation or show that the defendants cannot establish an essential element of equitable subrogation at trial, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in part and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John A. Van Grouw v. Tracey P. Malone
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's award of summary judgment to defendant attorney in an action alleging professional malpractice, fraud, and violation of the consumer protection act. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dewayne Sharkey v. Molly O'Toole, M.D.
An inmate appeals a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice and 42 U.S.C._ 1983 claims against the correctional facility's psychiatrist. Since the defendant's doctor negated essential elements of both claims with her expert affidavit and plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Robertson, a/k/a Jere Robertson vs. Clara Robertson Hodges, et ux., et al
In this action plaintiff asked the Court to declare that he had an interest in property which he inherited by will, and for a partition and sale of the land. The trial court determined that plaintiff was judicially estopped to claim an interest in the land and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Greer v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
This case involves the award of attorney's fees and costs against the Appellant City of Memphis for its alleged failure to comply with the appellee's document request, made under the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _10-7-501 et seq. The trial court awarded fees and costs against the city under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 10-7-505(g), which requires a finding of knowledge and willful failure to comply with the public records act. Based upon the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion because: (1) the trial court made no specific finding concerning the city's alleged willful failure to comply, and (2) the record does not support a finding of willful failure to comply on the part of the city. Reversed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Raymond Konop, et al. v. James Henry, et al.
Purchasers of real estate brought suit against the sellers as well as against the appraiser, the sellers' real estate agent, the agent's managing broker and brokerage firm alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of duty to disclose adverse facts related to the property purchased. Upon their motions for summary judgment, the appraiser, real estate agent, the agent's managing broker and brokerage firm were dismissed as defendants; the purchasers appeal the dismissal of the real estate agent, the managing broker and the brokerage firm. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
In the matter of: April F. (d.o.b. 11/20/98), Dylan F. (d.o.b. 3/30/00), and Devin F. (d.o.b. 7/24/06 et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the father on the grounds of persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the terms of the permanency plans, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The father appeals, arguing that the Department of Children's Services did not clearly and convincingly show that it made reasonable efforts to help him address his addiction to methamphetamine, clearly and convincingly prove grounds for termination, or clearly and convincingly demonstrate that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Because DCS did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with his children, we reverse. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Tyrus V.
Mother appeals the trial court's change of custody of the parties' minor child to Father, challenging the court's best interest determination. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joy Henley McKee v. Jeffrey Elston McKee
This appeal concerns the return of seized property. In the course of a criminal investigation, the respondents seized personal property from the petitioner. After a year passed with no forfeiture proceeding, the petitioner filed a petition for the return of his seized property, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 39-11-709. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that they no longer had possession of the property. The trial court granted the motion. The petitioner now appeals. We reverse and remand, finding that the petition was correctly filed in the county in which the property was seized, that it correctly named as the respondents the parties who seized the property, and that the respondents were not entitled to dismissal of the petition on the basis that the respondents had transferred possession of the property. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Taylor v. Clarksville Montgomery County School System, et al.
In this action the School Board brought an action to dismiss plaintiff, a tenured teacher. Following a hearing, the Board of Education voted to suspend plaintiff without pay from November 27, 2007 to May 23, 2008, and required other sensitivity training and a probationary period. Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Chancery Court, and the Chancellor affirmed the suspension on the grounds that plaintiff was guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. On appeal we affirm the trial court's Judgment and remand with direction that the plaintiff be reinstated as a teacher with back pay from the time the appeal to Chancery Court ended. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Randy Earls v. Joe D. Blankenship, M.D., d/b/a Mednorth Clinic, PLLC
This appeal involves a dispute between an employee and his employer regarding whether the employer agreed to pay off the employee's student loans as part of his employment compensation package. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that no valid contract existed, and it dismissed the employee's complaint. The employee appeals. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Lorraine Deuel, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Clyde Deuel, deceased v. The Surgical Clinic, PLLC and Richard J. Geer, M.D.
This is a medical malpractice case involving res ipsa loquitur. The defendant physician performed surgery on the plaintiff's husband. Sponges were used in the patient's abdomen during the procedure. Nurses in the operating room counted the sponges used in the surgery. The nurses erred in counting the sponges, and the defendant physician closed the surgical incision with a sponge remaining inside. The retained sponge was later discovered and removed in a second surgery. The plaintiff's husband subsequently died of causes unrelated to the retained sponge. The widow sued the physician and his employer for medical malpractice, asserting that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, as well as the common knowledge exception to the requirement of expert medical proof. The physician filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment as to liability. The defendant physician filed two medical expert affidavits, both of which stated that the defendant physician had complied with the applicable standard of care by relying on the nurses' sponge count. Initially, the plaintiff filed an expert affidavit stating that the defendant physician did not comply with the applicable standard of care, but later filed a notice stating that she intended to proceed to trial with no expert proof to support her medical malpractice claim. The trial court determined that neither res ipsa loquitur nor the common knowledge exception applied, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant physician. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant physician, and affirm the denial of the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. We find that, under both the common knowledge exception and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff was not required to submit expert proof to rebut the physician's expert testimony that he was not negligent by relying on the nurses' sponge count. However, application of neither res ipsa loquitur nor the common knowledge exception results in a conclusive presumption of negligence by the defendant physician. Therefore, a fact issue as to the physician's negligence remains for trial. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Claiborne Hauling, LLC vs. Wisteria Park, LLC
Claiborne Hauling, LLC, contracted with Wisteria Park, LLC, to perform the excavating and grading, including installation of storm sewers and sanitary sewers, for a residential subdivision Wisteria was developing. The contract calls for Claiborne Hauling to commence work on November 6, 2006, with a substantial completion date of April 5, 2007. The contract further provides that Claiborne Hauling will receive a bonus of $500 per day for early completion but will pay a $500 per day "penalty" if completion extends past May 31, 2007. Claiborne did not finish by May 31, 2007. Wisteria "fired" Claiborne Hauling during a heated exchange in August 2007, and confirmed termination of the contract in a letter from counsel. The ground stated for termination is failure to complete the project by May 31, 2007. However, Wisteria did not secure approval of its plans for construction of the sewer system until June 8, 2007. When Wisteria did not pay the invoices and change orders outstanding at the time of the termination, Claiborne Hauling first sent a "prompt pay notice" and then filed this action alleging breach of contract against Wisteria. Wisteria answered and filed a counterclaim asserting, among other things, that it was entitled to recover $500 per day from May 31, 2007, until substantial completion, as liquidated damages. After a bench trial, the court found that Wisteria was guilty of the first material breach and awarded Claiborne Hauling a judgment in the amount of $301,430.62, which included attorney fees under the Prompt Pay Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 66-34-602 (2004). Wisteria appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
William J. Reinhart v. Rising Star Ranch, LLC
This case arises from an alleged breach of an agreement to train horses belonging to the Appellant herein. The trial court found that the appellee training facility performed the agreed upon services, and that the appellant did not meet his burden to show either breach of contract or damages arising therefrom. Judgment was entered in favor of the appellee, and the appellant's case against appellee was dismissed with prejudice. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals |
