In Re J.M.N. Jerry Clyde Nix ex rel. v. Amy Nix Cantrell
This case involves a non-custodial parent’s attempt to give consent for her fourteen-year-old daughter to get married. After the parties divorced, the father was designated the primary residential parent for the parties’ daughter, and the mother had regular visitation. When the daughter was fourteen years old, the father took her to the mother’s home for visitation. Without telling the father, the mother took the daughter and her eighteen-year-old boyfriend to the juvenile court below to seek permission to get married. At the juvenile court, the mother signed an affidavit consenting to the marriage. Based on the mother’s affidavit, the juvenile court judge signed an order granting the daughter and her boyfriend permission to marry. They immediately obtained a marriage license and got married. After learning of the marriage, the father filed a motion in the juvenile court asking it to set aside its order giving the daughter permission to marry. After a hearing, the juvenile court granted the motion to set aside. It also held that setting aside the prior order rendered the daughter’s marriage void. The mother now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside its order giving the daughter permission to marry. Additionally, we note that the marriage is merely voidable, not void. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Harriett Turner v. Napoleon Bryant
This appeal arises out of a petition for civil contempt based on the failure to pay child support. The state, on behalf of the obligee mother, filed this petition for contempt against the obligor father for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the juvenile court determined that the father was willfully underemployed and in contempt of court. The father filed a petition for a rehearing under the local rules of the juvenile court, seeking to introduce additional evidence on the issue of willful underemployment. The juvenile court treated the father’s petition as a motion to alter or amend under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the father was not entitled to such relief. The father appeals, arguing that he should have been permitted to introduce additional evidence under the applicable juvenile court local rules, and that the juvenile court erred in finding him in contempt. We conclude that the trial court appropriately considered the father’s petition as a motion to alter or amend under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of the father’s petition, and therefore affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Mark Atkins, surviving spouse and next of kin of Victoria H. Atkins, Deceased, and as parent of Lauren Atkins, et al. v. Robert Clive Marks
This is an appeal from a post-judgment collection proceeding in which the judgment creditor sought to subject the assets of three trusts, of which the judgment debtor was a beneficiary and trustee, to satisfy a default judgment. The trial court found that the trusts were passive or dry and that the legal and equitable estates had merged, resulting in the judgment debtor’s holding fee simple title to the trust property. Debtor asserted that he had dissipated the assets of two trusts, but one trust still held income-generating farm land. The trial court ordered the farm land sold and also ordered further discovery to locate the assets of the other two trusts. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Raymond Proctor, et al. v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C., et al.
Jesse Raymond Proctor and Janie Kay Proctor (“Plaintiffs”), husband and wife, sued Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C. and Center for Sports Medicine & Orthopaedics, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq., concerning certain business practices of Defendants related to surgery performed on Mr. Proctor. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claim sounded in alleged deceptive business practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977; that the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; that defendants’ affirmative defenses contending that Plaintiffs’ claims sound in medical malpractice should be denied; and that Plaintiffs were barred from amending their pleadings to raise medical malpractice claims. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We reverse and hold that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 can apply to the entrepreneurial, commercial, or business aspects of a medical practice, and since Plaintiffs’ complaint sounds in alleged deceptive business practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Captain Louis J. Gillespie, Jr., et al. v. City of Memphis
The charter and code of ordinances of the City of Memphis set out certain specific provisions, including civil service protections, concerning the organization and operation of the City’s police department. This appeal arises from a suit brought by several high ranking members of the police force who allege that the City created a de facto rank in conflict with the City’s charter and ordinances. The trial court held that the City had impermissibly created a new rank and granted relief in the form of an injunction and a declaratory judgment. It, however, denied claims for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an implied right of action under the City’s civil service rules. We find that the question regarding the appropriateness of the trial court’s awarding injunctive and declaratory relief is now moot and accordingly vacate that part of its decision. We affirm the trial court’s decision that monetary damages are not available. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Mary A. Grass
Probate Court did not have jurisdiction to extend the statute of limitations to elect against the will and that the Agreed Order extending the statute of limitations was not effective. The appellant also claims that the surviving spouse cannot elect against the will because he waived his right to elect by signing a waiver and accepting the benefits of the bequests to him under the will. Finally, the appellant claims that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, homestead exemption, and elective share. Finding that the Probate Court did not err in extending the statute of limitations, that the surviving spouse did not waive his right to elect against the will and that the Probate Court correctly awarded the homestead exemption, but finding that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, and the surviving spouse’s elective share, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the Probate Court to make recalculations. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charlie Robertson v. Tracy Mayes
This appeal involves a petition for custody of two minor children. The juvenile court named the father primary residential parent and the mother alternate residential parent. The mother appeals; we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Parsons v. Jeff Huffman, et al.
This appeal involves an election contest filed by a losing candidate for county executive. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the county election commission provided the minimum number of voting machines required by state law. However, the plaintiff alleged that the commission should have provided more voting machines because long lines at some voting locations caused many people to leave without voting. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, among other things. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
James B. Thomas, Jr., ex rel., Karen G. Thomas v. Elizabeth Oldfield, M.D., et al.
The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the hospital is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an emergency room physician. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the hospital finding that it was not vicariously liable for the conduct of the emergency room physician because he was neither its actual or apparent agent. We find the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the hospital on the issue of actual agency because there are no material facts in dispute and the hospital is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of actual agency as a matter of law. We, however, find that material facts are in dispute concerning whether the hospital held itself out to the public as providing medical services; whether the plaintiff looked to the hospital rather than to the individual physician to perform those services; whether the patient accepted those services in the reasonable belief that the services were provided by the hospital or a hospital employee; and, if so, whether the hospital provided meaningful notice to the plaintiff at the time of admission that the emergency room physician was not its agent. Accordingly, we have determined the hospital was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of apparent agency. Therefore, we remand to the trial court the issue of apparent agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy Cagle Davis v. Robert F. Davis
After more than eighteen years of marriage, Stacy Cagle Davis (“Wife”) sued Robert F. Davis (“Husband”) for divorce. The case was tried and the Trial Court entered a Final Decree declaring the parties divorced, approving the parenting plan submitted with regard to the parties’ minor child, ordering Husband to pay child support, dividing the marital property and marital debts, and denying Husband’s request for alimony. Husband appeals the denial of his request for alimony to this Court. We reverse the denial of alimony to Husband, award Husband rehabilitative alimony of $800 per month for 36 months, award Husband attorneys’ fees at trial and on appeal, and remand to the Trial Court for a determination of the proper amount of attorneys’ fees. The remainder of the Trial Court’s Final Decree is affirmed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Phillips v. Tenneseee Board of Probation and Parole
This appeal involves the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The appellant prisoner was denied a hearing in front of the appellee board of probation and parole. The prisoner thereafter filed a petition with the chancery court, seeking review of the board’s decision. The chancery court entered an order stating that, in order to avoid dismissal of his petition, the prisoner was required to file, among other documents, a summons for each defendant, with a copy of the petition for each summons to be issued. The prisoner failed to file the summonses, and the chancery court dismissed the petition without prejudice. The prisoner appeals the dismissal, alleging numerous federal constitutional violations. We affirm, finding that the chancery court properly dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to file a summons. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Ann Harley v. Geary Falk
A former husband appeals issuance of a restraining order in a proceeding on a petition for a protective order arguing that the trial court awarded unrequested relief. The appellant failed to provide a record of the hearing before the trial court. Absent a record, since we must assume the record would support the trial court, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph P. Rusnak, et al. v. Gail Phebus
The daughter of a nursing home resident used a power of attorney granted by her mother to sell the mother a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in a condominium the daughter owned, with the intention of spending down the mother’s liquid assets so she could qualify for Medicaid. A conservator was subsequently appointed to protect the mother’s interests, and he filed suit for the partition and sale of the condominium property. The mother died shortly thereafter. The court granted the request for partition, but stayed the sale of the property pending this interlocutory appeal. The daughter argues on appeal that Tennessee should follow the general rule which provides that the death of a joint tenant with right of survivorship extinguishes a pending suit for partition. We agree, and we reverse the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Joey Conner v. Carmen Conner
This appeal arises from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the minor child’s mother, contending that there had been a material change in circumstances, sought a change of custody. After several days of hearings, the trial court transferred custody from the father to the mother. We find that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and also find that the final hearing below was prematurely terminated. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Sherrie Engler, et al. v. Karnes Legal Services
This appeal involves the Tennessee saving statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute when their attorney failed to appear at a hearing. Three months after the dismissal, the plaintiffs’ attorney filed a motion seeking relief from the order of dismissal, citing the saving statute, along with an amended complaint. The trial court considered the motion under Rule 60 but did not address the applicability of the saving statute. The court refused to set aside the order of dismissal upon finding that the attorney’s failure to attend the hearing did not constitute excusable neglect. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Brim Holding Company, Inc. v. Province Healthcare Company
The issue on appeal in this contract dispute is whether the defendant breached its indemnification obligations under the terms of a stock purchase agreement. The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed for payment of a claim specifically identified under the indemnification provisions of a stock purchase agreement. Significantly, the trial court found that the indemnity provisions in the stock purchase agreement anticipate the specific loss and assure that it will be paid by the defendant. The defendant contends that the plaintiff has already received reimbursement for that payment through the post-closing working capital adjustment and the plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to reimbursement under the indemnification provisions. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Settle v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
Appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, challenges the trial court's order dismissing his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The record reveals that the court reached its decision in a lawful manner. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Valley View Mobile Home Parks, LLC. v. Layman Lessons, Inc.
Tenant appeals the Circuit Court’s dismissal of its appeal of the Judgment and Order of the General Sessions Court granting Landlord possession of leased premises. The basis of the Circuit Court’s dismissal was Tenant’s failure to comply with the Court’s second Order requiring Tenant to post a bond. Finding error in the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-130, we reverse the decision of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
City of Jackson, Tennessee, ex rel. v. State of Tennessee, ex rel.
The City of Jackson appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its action against the Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance seeking reimbursement for building demolition expenses under Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-102-122. Finding that sovereign immunity prohibits monetary claims against the state when brought seeking a declaratory order under either the Declaratory Judgment Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-101 et seq., or the Administrative Procedures Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §4-5-225, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Madison County, Tennessee v. Tennessee State Board Of Equalization
Several taxpayers appealed Madison County’s valuation of the taxpayers’ limited partnership property to the Tennessee State Board of Equalization. The administrative law judge scheduled a pre-hearing conference, with notice being sent to the taxpayers and Madison County. Some confusion arose, and no representative for Madison County attended the conference. The administrative law judge entered a default judgment against Madison County, and Madison County timely filed a petition to reconsider with the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge took no action on the petition, and after twenty days, the petition was deemed denied by operation of law. Madison County then failed to appeal the administrative law judge’s denial of the petition to reconsider within thirty days to the Assessment Appeals Commission. The Assessment Appeals Commission thereafter issued the Official Certificates of Assessment. Madison County filed a motion to reconsider the Official Certificates with both the administrative law judge and the Board of Equalization, seeking relief under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The administrative law judge denied the motion, but the Board of Equalization granted relief and remanded the matter to the administrative law judge. The taxpayer defendants then filed a petition with the Board of Equalization, challenging the Board’s order setting aside the default judgment. The taxpayers filed a petition for review in chancery court in Madison County. Thereafter, the Board held a hearing, reversed its prior order, and reinstated the default judgment against Madison County. Madison County filed a petition for review in chancery court in Madison County pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322, seeking review of the Board’s reinstatement of the default judgment. The chancery court granted the taxpayers’ motion for summary judgment. Madison County appeals, and we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Xerox Corporation v. Digital Express Graphic, LLC
This is an appeal from summary judgment granted in favor of the lessor in an action to collect the accelerated unpaid balance of $191,945.47 allegedly due under a lease agreement for digital printing equipment. After careful review of the record, we find that the lessee failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of a dispute of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cory O. Johnson v. Ross Bates, Warden, WTSP Disciplinary Board
This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate. Following the investigation of a homicide at the prison, disciplinary charges were filed against the petitioner. The prison disciplinary board held a hearing and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner was indicted by a grand jury and charged with second degree murder, but the case was later dismissed via nolle prosequi. The petitioner then filed his petition for writ of certiorari challenging the prison disciplinary board’s actions at the hearing, and the trial court dismissed it as untimely. The petitioner appeals. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. David Stone, et al.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” with respect to the claim of David Stone seeking damages arising out of the death of his wife, Rhonda Stone,1 who was killed by the alleged negligent driving of an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, the Stones had a personal liability “umbrella” insurance policy with State Farm, which provided $1 million in personal liability coverage above and beyond the Stones’ underlying insurance policies, including their automobile liability insurance policy. Their umbrella policy does not, by its language, include uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage. However, Mr. Stone argues that UM coverage should be read into their umbrella policy because the Stones did not reject such coverage in writing, which Mr. Stone says is required by the applicable statute. State Farm argues that the statute in question, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201(a) (2000), applies only to automobile insurance policies and does not impose the rejection-in-writing requirement on umbrella policies. Based upon the parties’ “Agreed Stipulations,” the lower court, at a bench trial, agreed with Mr. Stone’s interpretation of the statute. We disagree with the interpretation placed upon the statute by Mr. Stone and the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
David Luke Harvey v. Dickson County, Tennessee, et al.
An inmate at the Dickson County Jail who was attacked by another inmate filed this action against co-defendants, Dickson County and the Sheriff of Dickson County to recover damages for his personal injuries. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint against both defendants without stating the legal grounds for its conclusion. The plaintiff contends the defendants breached their duty to prevent foreseeable harm because the defendants left a mop in the jail, which was not secured or locked away, and the defendants knew or should have known that a mop could be used by an inmate as a weapon. Penal institutions have a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to prevent foreseeable attacks on inmates by other inmates. For a penal institution to be liable for injuries resulting from inmate-on-inmate assaults, the general rule is that the institution must have had prior notice of an attack. The defendants supported their motion for summary judgment with affidavits stating that they had no notice and no reason to believe that the plaintiff was likely to be assaulted. This shifted the burden to the plaintiff to establish that a dispute of fact exists concerning whether the defendants knew of or had reason to anticipate such an attack. The evidence presented by the plaintiff fails to create a dispute of this material fact. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Holly Thrasher v. Riverbend Stables, LLC, et al.
Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her complaint arising out of the death of her Tennessee Walking Horse while the horse was being trained at Riverbend Stables, LLC. Plaintiff filed suit claiming the horse died as a result of the defendants’ negligence and gross negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon a finding that the claims of negligence were barred by the exculpatory provisions in the parties’ written agreement and Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie claim of gross negligence. Finding the exculpatory agreement enforceable and the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning the claims for gross negligence or recklessness, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
