Jesse Robert Anderson v. Chris (Anderson) Webster
The order that is the subject of this appeal purports to amend the division of marital property as stated in the final judgment. It was entered in response to a motion filed more than a year after the entry of the final judgment. We have determined the motion was untimely because it did not qualify as a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion; therefore, the order that purports to amend the division of marital property as stated in the final judgment is void. We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the order that purports to amend the final judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Conservatorship of Joyce D. Benny
This is an appeal in a conservatorship case. The notice of appeal was mailed via overnight delivery. Had the notice of appeal been delivered the next day, it would have been timely. Unfortunately, the notice of appeal was not delivered the next day and, therefore, was not timely filed. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty (30) days of entry of the final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this appeal must be dismissed. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Gayle Bernard and Edward Michael Shea v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee
This is the second appeal by two former police officers who sought retirement gifts provided for by Metro ordinance and police department policies. The officers requested the gifts and were denied based on lacking good standing at the time they retired, as required by the ordinance. The officers filed a declaratory judgment action as well as civil rights claims, which the trial court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim, respectively. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action and remanded. On remand, the trial court found that, because the officers were under investigation for misconduct at the time of their retirement, they were not in good standing as required by the ordinance and, thus, not entitled to the retirement gifts. The officers appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rennee N. Dhillon v. Gursheel S. Dhillon
Husband challenges various rulings of the trial court in this second appeal of the post-divorce proceedings. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Bee Deselm, et al vs. Knox County Commission, et al
Plaintiffs' action sought the removal of twelve Knox County office holders who had been appointed by the Knox County Commission in violation of the Open Meetings Act, according to plaintiffs' complaint. Another action, independent of plaintiffs' action, sought removal of the office holders on the grounds that the office holders had been appointed in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Plaintiffs were allowed to intervene in the independent case which, following trial, resulted in a finding that the Commission had violated the Open Meetings Act, and the office holders were removed from office. In this case, the trial court held that since plaintiffs had obtained the results that they sought in their action as a result of their intervention that the continuation of this action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs sought and were granted several amendments with their complaint seeking relief on other grounds, but the trial court denied any further relief to plaintiffs' bid. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Anderson v. Roy W. Hendrix, Jr.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff buyer of land, concluding that defendant seller was liable for rollback taxes pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 67-5-1008(f). We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ferrel C. Glover v. Celia Ann Clevenger Glover
After the parties' brief marriage, the trial court awarded Wife $25,000.00 for equity allegedly accrued in the marital residence during the marriage. Finding no contributions by Wife to support a transmutation from separate to marital property, we reverse. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Janis Oliver Cummins v. Roy B. Cummins
Husband appeals the trial court's decision that Wife's payment of taxes, insurance and association dues on houses titled jointly were contributions of separate property to the homes which, under a premarital agreement, entitled her to a credit before Husband could recover appreciation on those homes. The agreement provides for the treatment of a party's contributions of separate property to jointly held property, and we share the trial court's interpretation of those provisions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy L. Chapman et al vs. James V. Lewis, M.D., et al
On April 10, 2000, William D. Chapman, II ("the Deceased") was involved in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of his injuries, he was admitted to Holston Valley Hospital and Medical Center in Kingsport where he came under the care of trauma surgeons, the defendants, James V. Lewis, M.D., and George M. Testerman, Jr., M.D., as well as other physicians and medical personnel. The plaintiff, Cathy L. Chapman, brought this wrongful death action against the defendants based upon her allegation that they were guilty of medical malpractice in the treatment of her husband; she claims that their malpractice caused the death of the Deceased on April 15, 2000. Following eight days of a jury trial in July 2008, counsel for the parties made their closing arguments. During the defense's argument, counsel for the plaintiff objected when counsel for Dr. Testerman projected on a video screen what purported to be the Q. and A. trial testimony of the plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Philip Witorsch. The trial court overruled the objection and thereafter the jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. Later, the trial court, acting on the plaintiff's motion, reversed itself and held that the defendants failed to lay a proper foundation for the use of the projected testimony. The court also pointed out that the defendants failed to give the plaintiff prior notice of their intention to use portions of the trial transcript in closing argument. As a consequence, the court granted the plaintiff a new trial. The defendants appeal. We reverse the trial court's grant of a new trial and reinstate the court's judgment in favor of the defendants. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Robert A. McAlister v. Kelly D. McAlister
In June of 2008, Kelly D. McAlister ("Wife") filed a Petition to Enforce Final Decree against Robert A. McAlister ("Husband") seeking, among other things, to enforce the parties' final decree of divorce entered in June of 2000. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on November 2, 2009 finding and holding, inter alia, that the house at issue shall be sold and the net proceeds divided by the percentages stated in the divorce decree, and that Wife's share of Husband's pension shall be calculated upon Husband's salary at the time of divorce using a fraction with the denominator being the number of months worked by Husband when he retires and the numerator being the number of months of the seventeen year marriage with Wife to receive one- half of the calculated amount. Wife appeals to this Court. We affirm as to the division of the house, reverse as to the calculation of the pension based upon Husband's salary at the time of divorce, and order that Wife's share of Husband's pension shall be calculated upon the amount of the pension at the time Husband retires based upon the formula stated in the divorce decree. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Maddox v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation
Employee sued her employer under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, alleging that she was denied a promotion because of her race. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer. We reverse the summary dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tina Marie Jennings Elam (Engle) v. Larry Daniel Elam, Jr.
The father has appealed from the trial court's order naming the mother as the primary residential parent and allowing her to move to Indiana with the parties' minor child. Because the trial court's order does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Lena Michelle Silvey Rolen vs. Charles Martin Wilson
In 2008, Lena Michelle Silvey Rolen ("Mother") sued Charles Martin Wilson ("Father") alleging, in part, that Father had failed to pay child support as ordered. Father responded and filed a counter-claim seeking custody. After a trial, the trial court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Father was in contempt for willful failure to pay child support as ordered, and that no material change in circumstances had occurred to justify a change in custody. Mother was awarded a judgment against Father for the child support arrearage, among other things. Father appeals to this Court. Because the record on appeal contains no transcript and no Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c) statement of the evidence, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Donna J. Cottingham v. William B. Cottingham
This appeal involves a father's child support and alimony arrearages. The trial court found the father in contempt and sentenced him to ten days in jail, with three days suspended. The court also awarded interest on the alimony and child support arrearages. We affirm in part and reverse and vacate in part. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert A. Leedy v. The Realty Store, Inc., et al
After a bench trial, the court found that, in September 2005, the principals "settled up" their affairs and that thereafter Leedy wrongfully took an excess of $131,489.99, for which the court gave the Agency a judgment. The court declined to award the Agency approximately $70,000 that it claimed Leedy had taken before September 2005 in excess of what he had earned. Leedy appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of a continuance, among other things, including the award to the Agency. Jones and the Agency challenge the trial court's refusal to award judgment against Leedy for the monies taken before September 2005. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Lonnie H. Williams et al vs. Estate of James P. Hollingsworth, III, et al
At a bench trial, the court permitted the Williams to take a non-suit as to the estate of Mr. Hollingsworth.The trial court found Laurel Valley in violation of the court's orders and awarded the Williams damages of $194,915.60. Laurel Valley appeals. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Stoneybrook Golf Course, LLC v. City of Columbia
Stoneybrook Golf Course, LLC, purchased approximately 190 acres of land ("the Property")_ on part of which was located a golf course _ with plans to develop the vacant land surrounding the course. Before purchasing the property, Stoneybrook met with the mayor and other officials of the City of Columbia and received their verbal assurances of strong support for the annexation of the 190 acres into the City and the re-zoning of the area to permit the building of condominiums. After Stoneybrook purchased the property, the city council of Columbia refused to go forward with the annexation and re-zoning until a comprehensive land use plan could be completed against which to evaluate the proposed rezoning. Stoneybrook filed this action against the City, claiming, in essence, that the City's refusal to act promptly in accord with the verbal "commitment" constitutes an unconstitutional moratorium and, alternatively, that the City is estopped from refusing to rezone the property. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings. Stoneybrook appeals. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Michael D. Hershey, et al. v. Wallace Cathey, et al.
This is an action to enforce a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a subdivision. The trial court found the defendant homeowners erected a fence without having obtained proper approval from the Architectural Control Committee, that the fence was in violation of restrictive covenants, and that the fence must be removed. We have determined the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings that defendants failed to obtain the necessary approval to construct the fence and that the fence is in violation of restrictive covenants; thus, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Ann Wyatt vs. Delmer Colemen Wyatt
In this divorce case, the trial court granted the parties a divorce on stipulated grounds and, pursuant to their agreement, divided the bulk of their property. The parties litigated the issue of how the proceeds from the sale of a piece of improved real estate should be distributed. Following a hearing, at which each of the parties testified, the court awarded Delmer Coleman Wyatt ("Husband") $6,500, the stipulated pre-marital value of the unimproved lot, based upon Husband's ownership of the lot before the parties' marriage. It then divided the remaining net proceeds from the sale of the improved property, i.e., $111,376.37, equally between Husband and his wife, Barbara Ann Wyatt ("Wife"). Husband appeals. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
James Q. Holder, et al vs. Westgate Resorts Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnersyip d/b/a Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg - Concurring
I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment entered on the jury’s verdict. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Horner’s attempt to tell the jury what the “personal representatives of the International Code Council” told him is an effort to give the jury hearsay testimony. Finally, I agree that, assuming the trial court was incorrect in sustaining the plaintiff’s objection to the subject testimony, the error was nevertheless harmless. My departure from the majority opinion is with respect to the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred when it sustained the plaintiff’s objection. In my judgment, the proffered testimony was not only hearsay, it was hearsay that does not fit within any exception to the hearsay rule. I believe the trial court was correct in sustaining the objection |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
James Q. Holder, et al vs. Westgate Resorts Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnersyip d/b/a Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg
Plaintiff sustained personal injuries resulting from a fall on defendant's premises and brought this action for damages, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for damages against defendant. Defendant appealed, and asserted that the trial judge erred when he refused to allow defendant's expert to testify to his conversation with a third party. On appeal, we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the proffered testimony, but the error was harmless. We affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of David J.B. et al.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights with regard to a child, Nathan T., who came into protective custody of the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") on November 7, 2006. DCS initiated a proceeding to secure temporary custody of Nathan following receipt of a referral that he had been left by his mother, Megan T., ("Mother") with two elderly women in a house with no heat and where the women were using drugs; This Court has a policy of protecting the identity of children in parental termination cases by initializing their last name. could not be found.2 By order entered January 24, 2007, Nathan was adjudicated dependent and neglected and custody awarded to DCS; he was subsequently placed in a foster home, where he has remained throughout these proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Cooper vs. Clinton Utilities Board
Plaintiff brought this action, charging defendant utility breached its contract with plaintiff to construct a line and deliver electricity to his property. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the trial judge held that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties and defendant was not obligated to construct a line to deliver electricity to plaintiff's dwelling. On appeal, we affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Protection Agency, Inc. vs Jordon D. Mathies
Party A obtained a default judgment in general sessions court against Party B. The general sessions court subsequently granted Party B's motion to set aside the default judgment. Party A appealed to circuit court. The circuit court reversed the general sessions court's decision to set aside the default judgment. Party B appeals to this court. We affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Lynn Stanfield, et al. v. John Neblett, Jr., M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals |
