First Peoples Bank of Tennessee vs. James L. Hill
James L. Hill ("the defendant"), in order to accommodate his son, Shannon Hill, co-signed a note to First Peoples Bank of Tennessee ("the Bank") in the amount of $50,500 ("the small note"). Shannon later approached the Bank about a larger loan for his pizza business. As a consequence, the small note was combined with two other notes. The Bank made a loan in the amount of $294,764.65 under a new note ("the big note") but required a personal guaranty from the defendant as security. Unbeknownst to the Bank, the guaranty Shannon produced was a forgery. Shannon was later killed and, still later, his pizza business defaulted on the big note. The Bank initially filed this action against the defendant on the sole basis of the guaranty. The Bank later amended its complaint to allege that the big note was a renewal of the small note and that the defendant remained liable on the small note. The primary issue for trial was whether the small note was renewed or whether it was satisfied with the proceeds from the big note. On the morning of trial, when the Bank's witnesses appeared, the chancellor announced that he was acquainted with several of the Bank's witnesses. The defendant made an oral motion seeking recusal of the chancellor. The court denied the motion and the case proceeded to a bench trial. After trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of the Bank which included the attorney's fees of the Bank. The defendant appeals. The Bank asks for its attorney's fees incurred on appeal. We affirm that part of the judgment which awards principal and interest, but vacate the award of attorney's fees claimed in the amount of $25,125 and remand for a determination of a reasonable fee. Additionally, we hold that the Bank is entitled, under the note, to recover reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal and remand for a determination of a reasonable appellate fee. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
W. Curtis Jordan vs. Charles Clifford
W. Curtis Jordan sued his former attorney, Charles Clifford, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent conversion of property, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"). The case proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of Jordan's proof, the court dismissed the consumer protection claim based upon its holding that the TCPA did not apply to the providing of professional services by an attorney. As to the remaining claims, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jordan for breach of contract and awarded him $2,500 in damages. On appeal, Clifford contends that the trial court erred in entering a judgment on the breach of contract claim and in failing to award him the attorney's fees he incurred in defending the consumer protection claim. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Todd Highfill v. Heather (Highfill) Moody
This case arises from a petition to enroll and modify a foreign decree on child visitation and support. Appellant/Father petitioned the Circuit Court at Shelby County to enroll and modify an Arkansas decree. Mother/Appellee contested the petition, alleging that she was still a resident of Arkansas, so that Arkansas retained exclusive, continuing subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court found that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act was applicable, and also found that Mother was still residing in Arkansas so as to bar subject matter jurisdiction in favor of the Tennessee court. Because the case involves a petition to modify both child visitation and child support, we conclude: (1) that both the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act are applicable,(2) that the trial court erred in finding that the Mother was residing in Arkansas at the commencement of this action, and (3) the Tennessee Court has jurisdiction to modify the Arkansas decree on child support and custody, and (4) that the trial court erred in dismissing Father’s petition to enroll, and modify the Arkansas decree. Reversed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lakeland Commons, L.P. v. Town of Lakeland, Tennessee, et al.
Developer sought approval to construct a planned development containing retail and office uses on property zoned in an agricultural district. The municipal planning commission recommended that the town’s board of commissioners deny the application for several reasons. Following a public hearing, the board of commissioners voted to deny the application based upon the recommendation of the municipal planning commission. The developer then brought a common law certiorari action, alleging that the board acted arbitrarily and illegally in denying its application. The trial court found that the board’s decision was based upon substantial and material evidence and dismissed the developer’s petition. The developer appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ella G. Alexander Wade v. Felice A. Vabnick, M.D.
This is an appeal from the trial court's award of discretionary costs. Appellant/Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim without prejudice prior to trial, and Appellee/Defendant filed a motion for discretionary costs, which motion the trial court granted. Finding that Appellee/Defendant did not meet her burden of proof, and that the trial abused its discretion in awarding certain discretionary costs that are not contemplated by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04, we modify the award to reflect a total discretionary fee award of $3,851.15. Affirmed as modified herein. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Judy K. Flake v. Samuel Guy Flake
This is an appeal from the trial court's order on Appellant/Husband's Petition for Release of Funds. After the trial court entered a Final Decree in this divorce action, the Appellant filed a petition for the release of his portion of the funds received from the sale of the marital home, which are currently being held by the clerk of the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that only part of the money may be released. The trial court ordered that the remainder be held until the conclusion of a separate tort action filed by persons not parties to the divorce action, in which Appellant was named as a defendant. Finding that no final judgment exists in this action, this Court dismisses the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Co. v. Forrest Butler et al.
This is a dispute between two companies that supply parts in the automotive industry. Company A claims that Company B tortiously interfered with its contract and with its business relationships. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to causation and that Company B conclusively established the affirmative defense of justification. We affirm the decision of the trial court because Company B negated the element of causation. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lucy M. Ray v. Swanson Realty, LLC, et al.
The plaintiff home builder filed a complaint for breach of contract against a woman who refused to close on the sale of a home she had contracted to purchase. When the defendant failed to timely respond, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and served the motion on the defendant by mailing a copy to her. She did not open the envelope, but wrote "return to sender" on it, and placed it back into the mail. The trial court granted the plaintiff a default judgment. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, which the trial court denied. The defendant argues on appeal that she did not receive actual notice of the motion for default judgment, and that the trial court should have granted her motion to set it aside amend because of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." We affirm the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Bank v. Trailer Source, et al.
A junior creditor sued the senior creditor claiming that the senior creditor's involvement in the sale of collateral, used trailers for tractor-trailer trucks, was commercially unreasonable. We agree with the trial court that the senior creditor, a bank, was subject to the commercially reasonable disposition of collateral rule. However, we hold that the bank's approval of the sale, arranged by the debtor, was not commercially unreasonable. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Marilee Ann Petrey Jones v. John Timothy Jones
After the parties' divorce, Mother was named primary residential parent and Father was ordered to pay $3,250.00 per month child support. Father filed two petitions seeking a reduction of his support obligation, which were denied. The parties then agreed that Father would pay $2,500.00 per month support through March 1, 2014. Thereafter, Father filed a third petition to reduce support claiming decreased income and increased parenting time. Subsequently, the parties signed an agreement allowing substantially equal parenting time, which was filed with the trial court, but never signed by the trial judge. The trial court denied Father's third petition for modification, finding both that he had failed to prove a significant variance and that he was contractually bound to his $2,500.00 agreement. The trial court also awarded Mother's attorney his $15,000.00 fee. We affirm the trial court's award of attorney fees to Mother's attorney as well as its refusal to reduce Father's child support obligation due to his allegedly decreased income. However, we remand to the trial court for consideration of whether Father's child support obligation should be reduced due to increased parenting time, and for entry of the parties' Agreed Parenting Plan Order. We decline to award Mother her attorney fees incurred on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Two Rivers Baptist Church, et al. v. Jerry Sutton, et al.
Officers of a church appeal the trial court holding that under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 48-66-102 the members of the church have a statutory right to church records. We find that the members have a right to the records described in subsection (a) of the statute since such access is unconditional and since enforcing this right does not entangle the court in religious affairs in violation of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. However, the members failed to articulate a "proper purpose" as required in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 48-66-102(c) to gain access to those records described in subsection (b) of the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment in part and reverse in part. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Byars v. Earl Young
This is an appeal from a juvenile court custody proceeding. The mother filed a petition for legitimation in the Juvenile Court. The Juvenile Court entered an order finding that the defendant father is the child’s natural father, designating the mother as the child’s primary residential parent and granting weekend parenting time to the father. After a protracted dispute over parenting time, the Juvenile Court entered an order designating the father to be the child’s primary residential parent, with no provision for parenting time for the mother. The mother then appealed to the Circuit Court. After several years of Circuit Court proceedings, the case was transferred to another Circuit Court judge who ultimately entered an order dismissing the appeal. The mother appealed the Circuit Court’s order. After remand, the Circuit Court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeals. We affirm the designation of the father as the primary residential parent but find that the Juvenile Court erred in not providing for parenting time for the mother, and remand the case to the Juvenile |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Discover Bank v. Joy A. Morgan
This lawsuit began as a collection claim filed by Discover Bank ("Discover") against Joy A. Morgan ("Morgan") for $16,341.52. Discover claimed Morgan owed this amount on a credit card originally issued to Morgan's husband, now deceased. Morgan filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting a claim for libel as well as claims pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. _ 1681, and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 47-18-101, et seq. Morgan's attorney gave Discover's original attorney an extension of time in which to file an answer to the counterclaim. After this extension of time had run, Morgan's attorney warned Discover's attorney that a motion for default judgment would be filed if an answer was not filed within fourteen days. When Discover failed to file an answer within the fourteen days, Morgan filed a motion for default judgment. Discover's attorney failed to show up for the hearing and a default judgment was awarded to Morgan. Discover filed a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment "pursuant to Rule 60.02. . . ." This motion was denied. Following a later hearing on damages, Morgan was awarded compensatory damages totaling $125,200, which the trial court then trebled under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After obtaining new counsel, Discover filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied. Discover now appeals. We affirm the trial court's Order denying Discover's motion to alter or amend the judgment and set aside the default judgment. We, however, vacate the award of damages and remand for a new hearing on the amount of damages and also to determine reasonable attorney fees incurred by Morgan on appeal. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Franke Elliott, et al. v. Icon in the Gulch, LLC
Purchasers of pre-construction condominium units sued the developer seeking rescission of their contracts to purchase the units. The developer filed a motion to compel mediation and/or arbitration pursuant to the contract. The trial court denied the motion and the developer appeals. Finding error, we reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Larry B. Brinton, Jr. v. Lisa A. Brinton
Father and Mother divorced in 1989 with the marital dissolution agreement obligating Father to pay all expenses for four years of college and graduate school for both son and daughter. Father refused to pay the entire cost of college for both but did pay $20,000 a year for each, deeming that reasonable. Mother sued. The trial court found that the children's choices of college were reasonable and that Father could afford the college costs. The trial court awarded Mother the costs she incurred in sending the children to college, interest and attorney's fees. Father appealed. We affirm and, based on the attorney fee provision of the MDA, remand for a determination of attorney's fees for Mother on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Paul Clayton v. Andrea Dawn Clayton
Husband appeals the trial court's award of transitional alimony, alimony in futuro, and alimony in solido to Wife. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Mattie M. Lindsey, et al. v. Mark Lambert, et al.
This appeal arises out of a lawsuit filed against the attorneys and insurance company involved in the settlement of a personal injury claim. The trial court dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs/appellants, Mattie and Edmond Lindsey, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Lindseys did not appeal the original dismissal of their claims but instead moved to set aside the court's judgment nearly one year later. The trial court declined to set aside its judgment and granted a motion for sanctions against the Lindseys. We affirm the trial court's denial of the Lindseys' motion to set aside, vacate its award of sanctions, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Shelby R. and Sydnee R.
This appeal involves a custody dispute between a father and maternal grandparents. The father and grandparents initially filed a joint petition to remove custody from the children’s mother. When the father later filed a separate amended petition for custody on his own, the grandparents argued that he should be precluded from seeking custody due to a previous mediation agreement. The father argued that he was entitled to assert his superior parental right to custody against the grandparents. The trial court found the mediation agreement enforceable and did not consider the father’s petition for custody. The father appeals. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Sherry Tanner v. Whiteco, L.P. and Orangeco, L.P.
This case involves the question of whether Appellee entities are partnerships under Tennessee law. Appellant appeals the trial court’s order, which found that Appellee entities were not partnerships. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert J. Miller vs. Stephanie L. Miller
Wife appeals the entry of an order of protection against her. Because the order of protection has expired, the appeal is moot, and therefore, is dismissed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Joy Lamberson McNaughten, et al. v. Larry Lunan, et al.
The owners of a piece of commercial property brought an unlawful detainer action against a lessee who had stopped paying rent. The trial court issued a judgment of $33,450 against the lessee for past-due rent, followed by a writ of ejectment. After the lessee moved from the property, the owners sued to collect the rent due on the five-year lease and for damages to the property. The lessee argued that irregularities in the execution of the lease rendered it unenforceable. The trial court determined that the lease was enforceable and that the lessee could be held personally liable for a judgment in the amount of $326,716.74. We find that the parties did not reach the meeting of the minds that is necessary to form an enforceable contract, and we accordingly reverse. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Wade Keyt v. Nanci Suzanne Keyt
This is the second appeal in a divorce action. Husband appeals the division of marital property and the award of alimony in solido to Wife. In the 2005 Final Decree of Divorce, the trial court determined that the husband's shares of stock in the family business, which his parents gifted to him, were his separate property; however, the appreciation of that stock during the marriage, $1.7 million, was held to be marital property. The court awarded the wife 37.5 percent of the marital estate and alimony in futuro of $1,500 per month for the first year and $2,500 per month thereafter. This court affirmed the division of marital property but modified the award of alimony, holding that she was entitled to eight years of rehabilitative alimony but not alimony in futuro. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of the husband's stock was his separate property, not marital property, and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the division of the marital estate and to reconsider the award of alimony due to the substantial reduction of the marital estate. On remand, the trial court awarded the wife 64 percent of the substantially reduced marital estate and granted her alimony in solido in the amount of $478,000. In this second appeal by the husband, we affirm the division of marital property, finding it is not inequitable under the circumstances, and we affirm the award of alimony in solido to Wife, finding that the award was based on the relevant factors in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-5-121(i). |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph W. Haskins Individually and as the Executor of The Estate of Drew E. Haskins, Jr., Deceased v. Drew E. Haskins, III
This case in on appeal for the second time after remand for determination of the defendant's request for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the trial court's award. After reviewing the record, we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court's judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Cleo Snapp
Anne Dowd and Ferrell Ervin filed a motion to intervene and to stay the distribution of the estate of Cleo M. Snapp, claiming they were heirs of the estate. Ms. Dowd asserted that she was the non-marital child of Thomas Ervin, a brother of Ms. Snapp, and Mr. Ervin asserted that his father, Ben Ervin, was the non-marital child of Thomas Ervin. The executrix of the estate responded by filing a motion to deny their claims. After a hearing, the trial court granted the executrix's motion to deny the claims because they were untimely. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Higdon vs. Regions Bank
This appeal concerns a primary lien holder's security interest in certain real property following a foreclosure sale and the obligation of a third-party purchaser of the foreclosed property to remit to the lien holder rents collected after notice of mortgage acceleration. The plaintiff contended that the defendant bank was not entitled to claim priority for any additional indebtedness above the original principal amount stipulated in the Deed of Trust, plus interest and attorney's fees. The plaintiff further alleged that the bank's payment in full of the first mortgage holder's loan constituted a release of this loan and not an assignment. The defendant bank claimed that the plaintiff was liable to it for rent collected by the plaintiff on the property after notice of the mortgage acceleration. The trial court ordered that the defendant bank was not required to release its lien on the property until all of the funds due were paid and that the plaintiff must pay the defendant bank $6,300 in rent payments. We affirm. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals |
