In Re J.J.C., D.M.C., and S.J.K. a/k/a K State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. John Calabretta
This is a termination of parental rights case. This is the second appeal in this matter. In the first appeal, the trial court had terminated the father’s parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support his two children. On appeal, this Court reversed the termination on that ground, but remanded the case for further proceedings on the ground of persistent conditions. On remand, the trial court conducted further proceedings and determined that clear and convincing evidence established persistent conditions that prevented the children’s safe return to the father. The father now appeals. We affirm, finding that the ground of persistent conditions was established by clear and convincing evidence. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Anthony Fisher and Shelby Lynn Hatter Fisher v. Jonathan Young
This a termination of parental rights and adoption case. Before the minor child at issue was born, the biological father was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in a correctional facility. The biological mother and her husband filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father and permit the mother’s husband to adopt the minor child. The trial court granted the petition. We affirm, finding grounds for termination established by the father’s confinement to prison for a ten year sentence when the minor child was less than eight years old, and finding clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the best interest of the child. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State ex rel. Paula A. Flowers v. Tennessee Trucking Association Self Insurance Group Trust, et al.
Seven members of the Tennessee Trucking Association Self-Insurance Group Trust appeal the post-liquidation assessment against members of the self-insured group to fund a $2.8 million deficit. The self-insured group trust was declared insolvent in 2004 by the Chancery Court, following which the Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance was appointed Liquidator of the Trust. In the capacity of Liquidator, the Commissioner was responsible for administering the Trust, which included making assessments of the members of the Trust to satisfy its financial obligations. The appellants contend the assessment methodology employed by the Liquidator, which modified the proportionate financial obligations of the members, constituted an impermissible modification of the premium structure the members agreed upon. The trial court determined the only proscription upon making assessments was a requirement the methodology be equitable. Finding the methodology utilized by the Liquidator was equitable, the trial court approved the assessments. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Saturn Corporation v. Ruth Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
Saturn Corporation appeals the Chancery Court’s entry of summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor. Saturn filed its action in Chancery Court seeking a refund of a percentage of franchise and excise taxes paid in fiscal year 1999-2000. In this de novo review of the trial court’s judgment, we hold that the exemption claimed does not apply to the taxpayer, that the exemption as applied does not violate the equal protection provisions of state and federal constitutions, and affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Millen v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development
The Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits which was denied. Appellant petitioned for judicial review in the chancery court and that court affirmed the decision of the Board of Review. Appellant next appealed to this Court and we affirm the court below. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Ral Cross, Jr. v. Shelby County, Tennessee
Petitioner/Appellee Cross filed a complaint in federal court against Shelby County and Shelby County Deputy Sheriff Bishoff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal court awarded Shelby County partial summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. The action against Deputy Bishoff was heard by a jury, which awarded Mr. Cross damages and legal fees. Mr. Cross then filed a complaint in Shelby County Circuit Court alleging that, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-8-302, Shelby County was liable for the amount of damages awarded him in the federal court action. The trial court awarded Mr. Cross summary judgment, and Shelby County appeals. We reverse and award summary judgment to Shelby County on the grounds of res judicata. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
US LEC of Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority
This appeal involves a dispute between two telecommunications services providers in the Chattanooga market. A privately owned provider filed a complaint with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority asserting that a competing provider owned by a municipal electric utility was receiving an illegal cross-subsidy because the electric utility was permitting the provider to use its name without compensation. One of the Authority’s hearing officers conducted a hearing and then filed an initial order concluding that the provider owned by the electric utility was not receiving a crosssubsidy in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-402 (2005). After the initial order became final, the private provider filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 12 petition for review with this court. We have concluded that the provider’s uncompensated use of the electric utility’s name is not a cross-subsidy prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-402. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Fain Dalton, v. Linda Faye Dalton
In this divorce case, the appellant (wife) has appealed from the final divorce decree and division of marital assets by the Circuit Court for McMinn County.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Charles C. Wiley v. Clarence Williams, et al.
The issues presented in this appeal are whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint based on the doctrine of prior suit pending, and its determination that the Chancery Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a claim for unliquidated damages for personal injuries. We hold that the doctrine of prior suit pending is not applicable in this case, because Plaintiff’s claims in this case involve neither the same parties nor subject matter identical to that in the prior lawsuit filed in Probate Court, and because the Probate Court would not have had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims filed in Chancery Court, had they been raised there. We further hold that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Flowers v. Dyer County, 830 S.W.2d 51 (Tenn. 1992) and its progeny, the Chancery Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for unliquidated damages for personal injuries, and we instruct the Chancery Court to transfer this claim to Circuit Court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Trustmark National Bank v. Alvis Miller
Trustmark National Bank (“Trustmark”) obtained a judgment of replevin in Mississippi for a truck in the possession of Alvis Miller (“Appellant”). Prior to the Mississippi hearing, Trustmark properly served Appellant with notice, and Appellant filed a hand-written statement informing the court that he had a possessory lien on the truck for repairs made by Appellant. Despite this, the Mississippi court held that Trustmark’s lien had priority over Appellant’s possessory lien. When Trustmark sought to enroll the Mississippi judgment in Tennessee, Appellant argued that Tennessee courts should not extend full faith and credit to the Mississippi judgment because under Tennessee law, common law possessory liens have priority over prior recorded interests. The trial court enrolled the judgment and Appellant appealed. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Luther Kirkwood v. Shelby County Government, d/b/a Shelby County Sheriff's Department, Jail Division
Employee of Shelby County Sheriff’s Department sought review of Civil Service Commission’s order upholding employee’s termination. The Chancery Court, Shelby County remanded the issue to the Civil Service Merit Review Board, and held that the Board’s failure to require any live testimony of Shelby County employees who made accusations against the former employee was a violation of employee’s due process rights to cross-examine his accusers, and that the obligation to call the accusers is that of the employer and not that of the employee. The matter came before this Court on a Rule 9 application for Interlocutory Appeal to consider only (1) whether the Civil Service Merit Review Board’s failure to require any live testimony of Shelby County employees who made accusations against former employee was a violation of former employee’s due process rights to cross-examine his accusers, and (2) whether the obligation to call the accusers is that of the employer, Shelby County, or that of the employee. We hold that the Civil Service Merit Review Board’s failure to require any live testimony of Shelby County employees who made accusations against former employee was not a denial of the employee’s due process rights due to the fact that the employee waived the opportunity to confront or cross-examine his accusers. Further, we find that there exist no obligation on the part of Shelby County to call the employee’s accusers, only that Shelby County must meet its burden of going forward and establishing a prima facie case against the employee. The chancery court order is vacated, and the order of the Civil Service Merit Board is |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Steve Davis v. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, et al.
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the chancery court properly granted summary judgment to the appellees on the appellant’s claims of malicious harassment and malicious prosecution. When it granted summary judgment to the appellees, the chancery court found that the appellant did not have a cognizable claim for malicious harassment because his claim was not based on race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry and that the appellant’s claims for malicious prosecution failed because the appellees had not initiated the prosecution and probable cause existed to prosecute the appellant. On appeal, the appellant asserts that the statute granting a civil cause of action for malicious harassment is not limited to cases based on race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry and that no probable cause existed to prosecute the appellant. Further, the appellant argues that if he has stated a cognizable claim for malicious harassment, the appellees are not entitled to any absolute or qualified immunity for their actions. Additionally, although the appellees won on this issue at trial, the appellees have appealed whether section 39-17-309 of the Tennessee Code standing alone gives rise to a private cause of action. We affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Ivy Joe Clark, et al. v. Joyce Ann Shoaf, et al.
Husband sued for personal injury damages and Wife claimed damages for loss of consortium. The jury awarded Wife damages in an amount greater than damages awarded to Husband for the underlying personal injury claim. Appellant asserts the award to Wife is inconsistent and unsupportable as a matter of law. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ahmed Usso and Genet Ayele v. Bryan Winston - Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion “that the plaintiffs acted in good faith and diligence, and are entitled to a refund of their earnest money.” I agree fully with everything in the majority’s opinion except this final conclusion. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Ahmed Usso and Genet Ayele v. Bryan Winston
Plaintiffs sued to recover earnest money tendered with a contract to purchase realty. Defendant counter-sued for breach of contract and damages. The Trial Court Ordered the return of the earnest money to plaintiffs. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
John Jay Hooker v. Bettye L. Nixon, et al.
Plaintiff filed this action to challenge the constitutionality of the Charter provision of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville Davidson County, Tennessee that imposes term limits on certain elected offices. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending the plaintiff did not have standing to maintain the action because he had not sustained a private injury distinct from other voters. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lawrence Lee Brown v. Kelly Sue Brown
This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute regarding child support and related issues. The trial court awarded Wife/Appellee all of her attorney’s fees and expenses, and couched one-half of that award as additional child support pursuant to T.C.A. §36-5-103(c)(2005). Husband/Appellant appeals asserting that the trial court erred in categorizing the attorney’s fees as child support and on the ground that the attorney’s fees are excessive. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Michael Harris v. Susan Taylor
This appeal stems from a suit to partition real estate. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the chancery court erred when it granted summary judgment and a judgment on the merits based on stipulated facts, evenly splitting the proceeds of the sale of property between joint tenants with rights of survivorship where one joint tenant paid more than her equitable share of the purchase money. Specifically, the appellant contends that she was entitled to contribution from the appellee for the excess of the purchase price paid by her and that she did not make a gift of the excess. In addition, Appellant requests that she was entitled to a credit of $2,000 pursuant to an interim consent order disposing of numerous issues between the parties. The appellee has requested attorney’s fees incurred as a result of this appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. We decline to award attorney’s fees to the appellee. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marian L. Crull v. Donald R. Crull
This declaratory judgment action was filed by Donald R. Crull (“Husband”) on November 4, 2003. It seeks primarily a declaration as to the rights of Husband’s former spouse, Marian L. Crull (“Wife”), in and to Husband’s United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) retirement benefits, a subject addressed in the parties’ judgment of divorce entered in the trial court some 14 years and 3 months earlier, i.e., on July 11, 1989. In addition, Husband’s complaint seeks to terminate his alimony obligation effective when he retires at some unspecified time in the future. The trial court – interpreting the language of the judgment of divorce – held that the language mandates that Wife is entitled, without limitation, to one-half of Husband’s retirement benefits. The court, in its judgment, did not grant or deny Husband’s request for termination of his alimony obligation; but, in the incorporated memorandum opinion, the court did opine that Husband’s retirement, when it happens, would constitute a change in circumstances. Husband appeals, arguing that Wife’s entitlement with respect to the retirement benefits should be limited to a share of the benefits that accrued before the divorce. Wife, by way of a separate issue, contends that the trial court erred in stating that a retirement, which has not yet occurred, would constitute a change in circumstances when it takes place. We vacate this latter observation by the trial court but otherwise affirm the judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
John L. Medearis v. Bonnie Baumgardner (Stoloff)
The mother sued to enforce Agreement with the father to pay college expenses for adult child of the parties. The Trial Court refused to enforce the terms of the Agreement on the equitable grounds of unclean hands and the lack of cooperation and fair dealings by the mother. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
C. Noelle Chaffin v. Marcus Ellis
This is a divorce and child custody case. The husband and the wife were married in February 1998. Throughout the marriage, they lived together with the husband’s mother. The parties’ relationship began to deteriorate soon after the wedding. The wife felt that the husband and his mother were controlling and oppressive, while the husband felt that the wife was unfit. One child was born of the marriage. In October 2000, the wife filed the instant petition for divorce. After a nine-day trial, the trial court granted a divorce to the wife on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, and designated the wife as the primary residential parent of the parties’ child. The trial court also awarded the wife a portion of her attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. From that decision, the husband now appeals. We vacate a portion of the award of costs, and affirm as to the remaining issues, finding that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s opinion in all other respects. The cause is remanded for reconsideration of a portion of the award of costs for expert fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
C. Noelle Chaffin v. Marcus Ellis - Order Withdrawing Opinion
The Opinion filed by this Court on August 24, 2005, is hereby withdrawn, and a revised Opinion is being filed concurrently herewith. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Leslyn Elizabeth Miller Ballew v. John Michael Ballew
In this appeal, we are asked to determine the validity of a consent judgment entered by the chancery court granting a divorce to the parties. At trial, the parties voluntarily submitted their case to mediation. At the conclusion of the mediation, the mediator dictated the settlement terms onto a tape recorder, and the parties acknowledged onto the tape recorder that these terms were the understanding of the parties. The chancery court found that this acknowledgment was a modification of the mediation agreement and that the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On appeal, the husband asserts that the chancery court erred finding a settlement agreement because the mediation agreement specifically required that the parties would not be bound unless a written, executed settlement agreement was entered into by the parties. Second, the husband contends that, even if an oral settlement agreement was effective against the parties in this case, he had properly repudiated the agreement to his wife and the chancery court before the chancery court entered its judgment. In addition, both parties have requested attorney’s fees on appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings and decline to award attorney’s fees to either party. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joan Oates v. Chattanooga Publishing Company d/b/a Chattanooga Times Free Press
Joan Oates (“Plaintiff”) was employed by the Chattanooga Publishing Company (“Defendant”) for approximately twenty-three years. In January of 2004, Plaintiff was observed on Defendant’s security camera making obscene gestures with her middle finger toward the camera and then covering the security camera with a cup for a period of time. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that she was terminated because of a disability. Plaintiff also claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and malicious harassment while employed by Defendant. Plaintiff also sued for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. David H., et al.
After a hearing, the Circuit Court declared seven children to be dependent and neglected and determined that their parents had committed severe child abuse. The parents claim on appeal that the court erred by refusing their request that counsel be appointed to represent them at the hearing. After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether or not the parents were financially able to retain their own counsel, and we accordingly vacate the order concluding that the children were dependent and neglected. |
Perry | Court of Appeals |
