Julie Duff Petty vs. Randy Neal Petty
In this divorce case, Mother was declared to be the primary residential parent and Father's overnight co-parenting time was required to be exercised at his parents' home with them present. This restriction was prompted by presentation of evidence that Father haded computer internet sites exhibiting material of a sexual nature and had placed a personal advertisement on an internet site in an apparent effort to attract sexual partners. Father appeals. Absent proof that Father's actions presented any risk of harm to his children, we modify the judgment of the trial court and the parenting plan to delete the requirement that Father's overnight visitation be supervised by his parents at their home. We further modify the parenting plan to the extent that it does not require mutual decision-making. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Douglas McPherson v. Shea Ear Clinic, P.A.
The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having reviewed the complaint, we disagree and reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Citadel Investments, Inc., v. White Fox Inc., F/L/A The Jones Group, et al.
This is an action on a promissory note against two stockholders of a now insolvent closely-held corporation, who it is alleged, guaranteed payment of a note owed by the corporation. The alleged guarantee arises out of a stock purchase agreement. Liability hinges on the construction of the stock purchase agreement and whether parol evidence is admissible. The trial court found the agreement unambiguous and barred parol evidence. The defendants insist the agreement is ambiguous and that evidence of negotiations leading up to the execution of the agreement and the intent of the parties should have been admitted. We find the agreement is ambiguous and therefore parol evidence should have been considered. We also find that the defendants are entitled to a new trial on the merits because they have been deprived of the substantial right to introduce evidence of contract negotiations and the intent of the parties at the time the Agreement was executed. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Roger M. Ralph, et al. v. Robert Pipkin, et al.
Plaintiffs in this action, Roger Ralph and Kem Ralph, were sued in federal court for patent infringement and breach of contract. Their farmer’s liability insurance carrier, Grange Mutual, denied coverage and refused to defend. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Lauderdale County Chancery Court against Grange Mutual seeking a declaratory judgment, a judgment for breach of contract, and specific performance. They also filed a complaint for professional negligence and breach of contract against their insurance agent, Pipkin Insurance Agency/Mr. Robert Pipkin. The trial court granted Grange Mutual’s motion to dismiss and awarded the Pipkin Insurance Agency/Mr. Pipkin summary judgment. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Earl A. Crow, III v. Daniel R. LeDoux, et al.
Earl A. Crow, III, brought this action against his landlords, Daniel R. LeDoux and wife, Katherine Marie LeDoux (collectively "the defendants"), for injuries sustained by him in a fall caused by an allegedly defective heating grill in his apartment. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff's knowledge of the condition of the grill was at least co-extensive with that of the defendants, and that, as a consequence of this fact, no liability attached. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals. We vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Debra L. Ogelsby v. Mark D. Bridges
Debra L. Ogelsby ("Mother") and Mark D. Bridges ("Father") are the natural parents of Holly Bridges ("the child"). By an order entered in 1986, Mother was awarded custody of the child and Father was charged with a duty of support but with no amount being set. In 1998, the child started living with Father. At that time, Father, motivated by the fact the child was now living with him, filed a petition to terminate his support obligation. His petition was granted. In 1999, the child left Father and again took up residence with Mother. The child was emancipated by marriage in 2000. In 2002, the State of Tennessee ("the State"), on behalf of Mother, brought this action seeking retroactive child support for the period from 1999 through 2000. Father argues that the trial court was prohibited from awarding retroactive child support prior to June 11, 2002, the date upon which the State filed its petition. The trial court held that Mother was entitled to retroactive child support since there was no active order for child support in place at the time the petition was filed. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kathy McPeak v. Virginia Thomas
Defendant appealed from the Trial Court's Judgment in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, appellant argues the Trial Court erred in ruling for appellee and appellee should be estopped from gaining possession of the property in dispute. We affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara C. Watts, et al. v. Randall Lovett, et al.
In this appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in the amount of money it awarded the plaintiffs for damages incurred by the plaintiffs when a truck owned by the defendants and operated by the defendants’ employee struck the plaintiffs’ garage. The sole issue at trial was the proper amount of damages the plaintiffs should receive for injuries to their property. The plaintiffs introduced evidence showing that the market value of their property as a whole - their residence, garage and acreage - depreciated as a result of the fact that the color of brick necessary to restore the garage to its original condition is no longer available. Considering this evidence, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs a judgment in the amount of $8,000.00. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in its award and that the proper measure of damages should have been solely the cost of repairing the garage, which the defendants’ expert estimated to be approximately $2,000.00. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Alliance for Native American Indian Rights in Tennessee, Inc. et al. v. Gerald F. Nicely et al.
This appeal involves the effect of a highway improvement project on ancient Native American graves. After discovering the graves during construction, the Tennessee Department of Transportation filed petitions in the Chancery Courts for Williamson and Davidson Counties seeking permission to disinter the remains and reinter them in another location. Despite prevailing in protracted litigation with Native American organizations and individuals, the Department voluntarily dismissed both petitions after deciding to bury the remains in place, to encapsulate them in reinforced concrete, and to continue construction on top of the encapsulated graves. A Native American organization and several Native American individuals filed this suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Department's actions violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the Native American parties appealed. Construction continued while the appeal was pending because the Native American parties failed to request the trial court or this court to stay the construction during the appeal. Before oral argument in this appeal, the Department completed the construction project, including the reinterment of the remains and encapsulation of the graves in concrete. In light of these later developments, we have determined that this appeal is now moot and should be dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Hudson Roberts v. Mary Elizabeth Todd Roberts
This is an appeal by the former wife from the denial of her Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 Motion to Strike or Modify a Marital Dissolution Agreement relative to marital property. We modify and affirm the action of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Raymond P. White, et al. v. Hickman County, Tennessee
In these consolidated cases, certain property owners in Hickman County, Tennessee, challenged the way Hickman County imposed and administered solid waste disposal fees, asserting the improper use of disposal fees to retire debt incurred in closing a previous landfill and further asserting collection of fees beyond what was necessary for the operation of the solid waste department. Judge R.E. Lee Davies granted a partial summary judgment to the County, and following trial on the merits on the remaining issue, Judge Timothy Easter rendered judgment for Defendant, Hickman County. We affirm the actions of both of the trial judges. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Rhonda Leigh Jones Robinson v. Russell Raynor Robinson
This is a divorce case about dissipation of marital assets and custody. Throughout the marriage, the wife took care of the children while the husband provided financial support. The husband was the owner and operator of several automobile businesses. After the wife filed for divorce, the husband’s automobile businesses failed, resulting in the husband’s father purchasing the businesses. After a lengthy trial, the trial court found that the husband intentionally dissipated marital assets, including the automobile businesses. The wife was designated the children’s primary residential parent. The husband appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the husband dissipated the businesses by failing to preserve them, and the designation of the wife as primary residential parent. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Franki Ann Rolen, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Jewell V. Ingram et al. v. Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc.
This action involves claims brought regarding the decedent Jewell Ingram against Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., alleging that Ingram was injured while in defendant's care, and also that her treatment by defendant ultimately contributed to her death. Plaintiff proposed a jury form which asks that the jury determine whether defendant was guilty of negligence which caused Ingram's death, but also asked the jury to find whether defendant was guilty of negligence which caused injury to Ingram. The jury form submitted by the Trial Judge, however, asked whether defendant was at fault for the death of Ingram, and directed that if the answer to that question was no, the jury should return a verdict for defendant. The jury answered the question in the negative, and announced a defendant's verdict. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment for defendant as to the wrongful death claim, but remand for a new trial on the issue of damages for injuries sustained prior to decedent's death. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Jeanette Jenkins, et al. v. Billy Gene Robertson
Billy Gene Robertson (“Defendant”) listed property for lease with Jeanette Jenkins, the listing agent, and Eilene1 McInturff, the broker, (“Plaintiffs”) of Realty World-Barnes Real Estate. Defendant signed a contract agreeing to pay a 10% commission to the broker. Plaintiffs located a party who leased Defendant’s property. Defendant made some commission payments to Plaintiffs, but then stopped making payments claiming, in part, that the time period for making commission payments under the contract was unclear. Ms. McInturff, as the broker, attempted to assign her rights under the contract to Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Jenkins sued Defendant for the commissions. Defendant objected that Ms. Jenkins did not have standing because she was not the broker. The Trial Court allowed joinder of Ms. McInturff, and the case proceeded to trial. After trial, the Trial Court entered an order holding, inter alia, that Defendant owed Plaintiffs commissions over the life of the lease and also that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $37,688.35, which included the award made on Plaintiffs’ claim for commissions owed to the date of the judgment, an award of attorney’s fees, and an award of discretionary costs. Defendant appeals. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Lendel L. Conley v. Jo Ann Conley
In this divorce case, the wife raises the issues of whether the trial court erred in ruling it had jurisdiction based on the husband’s domicile in Bledsoe County, Tennessee; whether the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse himself from the trial of the case; and whether the court erred by failing to equitably divide the marital estate. The husband argues on appeal that the trial court should have classified certain assets that it held to be marital property as his separate property. We modify the division of marital property to increase the amount awarded to the wife, and affirm the court’s judgment in all other respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed as Modified; Case Remanded |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
Lendel L. Conley v. Jo Ann Conley - Concurring
I write separately to further address the trial court’s judgment with respect to the |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
Niccole A. Naifeh, et al., v. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, et al.
This appeal arises out of the interpretation of a life insurance contract. The trial court determined that the Decedent’s life insurance policy was in effect and had not lapsed due to Decedent’s failure to pay the premium due in January 2000. It ordered Valley Forge Life Insurance Company to pay the sum of $1,000,000.00 to Cathy Naifeh plus prejudgment interest of 8% per annum beginning on June 1, 2000. The lower court dismissed Valley Forge Life Insurance Company’s counterclaim against William McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company. Further, it dismissed the claim of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Bill McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company for negligent misrepresentation and their claims against Union Planters Bank. Finally, it dismissed the claims of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Union Planters Bank, William McGowan, and Valley Forge Life Insurance Company for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company now seeks review by this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Adoption of John A. Kleshinski and Kevin na KleKleshinski, Chirleshinski and John E. Kleshinski v. Julia Elizabeth Kleshinski - Concurring
While I concur with the decisions reached by the majority in this case, I write separately to voice my concerns regarding the manner in which the majority approaches the best interest analysis mandated by section 36-1-113(c)(2) of the Tennessee Code. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Martha Hallowell v. Vestco, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's, et al.
Appellant was asked to leave her job after she failed to comply with an order from her supervisor to comply with the dress code. Appellant was denied unemployment benefits because of work-related misconduct which was affirmed by the Board of Review. Appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the Board of Review and Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Vanessa Sircy v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This is a breach of contract action involving employment with a government municipality. In this case, the defendant municipality offered the plaintiff a job as a dispatcher at an annual salary of approximately $30,000, and the plaintiff accepted the position. Meanwhile, the defendant underwent job reclassifications and salary restructuring. On the second day of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant, she was informed that she would be paid an annual salary of approximately $24,000. After working for approximately five and one-half months for the defendant, the plaintiff resigned, citing the uncertainty regarding whether the defendant would adjust her salary, as they had suggested. Following her resignation, the plaintiff brought this action. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the defendant had made promises of employment at a certain salary that induced the plaintiff to resign her position at her former employment, and the defendant had breached those promises. As a result, the trial court found that the plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $16,500. The defendant has appealed the judgment of the trial court. Because we conclude that the trial court erroneously calculated damages, we modify the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, v. Vanderbilt University
This appeal involves a dispute stemming from a private university’s decision to change the name of one of its dormitories. An organization that donated part of the funds used to construct the dormitory filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the university’s decision to rename the dormitory breached its seventy-year-old agreement with the university and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Both the university and the donor filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court, granting the university’s motion, determined that the university should be permitted to modify the parties’ agreement regarding the dormitory’s name because it would be “impractical and unduly burdensome” to require the university to continue to honor the agreement. The donor organization appealed. We have determined that the summary judgment must be reversed because the university has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, based on the essentially undisputed facts, we have determined that the donor is entitled to a partial summary judgment because the university has breached the conditions placed on the donor’s gift and, therefore, that the university should be required to return the present value of the gift to the donor if it insists on renaming the dormitory. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Patsy Hill Oakley v. James Spencer Oakley
This is a divorce case about division of marital assets, on appeal for the second time. Initially, |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Moore v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
Following a hearing in October of 2000, three out of seven members of the Board of Paroles voted to parole a prisoner who was serving a life sentence for murder. Because of a 1997 statute that requires four members of the Board to concur on the parole of prisoners convicted of certain grave offenses, parole was denied. The prisoner did not seek review of that decision. Parole was again denied after a March 2003 hearing, with only two Board members voting for parole. The prisoner filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, contending that the Board's refusal to release him after the 2000 Board vote violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto enactments. He argued that he was entitled to the benefit of an earlier statute which allowed prisoners to be paroled, regardless of offense, if they could obtain the positive votes of three members of the Board. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that it was untimely, and that in any case, the application of the 1997 statute did not implicate any ex post facto concerns. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dorothy Tucker v. Sierra Builders, et al. - Dissenting
The majority’s analysis of the Consumer Protection Act is just excellent, however, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion that All American did not violate the Act in its representations made to this plaintiff. I agree with the majority’s detailed history of the TCPA and that it is much broader in scope than common-law fraud, that it must be construed liberally to protect consumers, and that the plaintiff must prove an “unfair” or “deceptive” act by the defendant. I also agree that “the essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant’s statements, silence, or actions.” I disagree with the majority’s conclusion, however, that All American did not act deceptively in its dealings with Ms. Tucker, and I believe that the majority opinion overlooks certain key facts in this regard. The majority neither accords the Trial Court the presumption of correctness in its fact finding as required by Rule 13(d), nor does it defer to the Trial Court on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses.1 |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Dorothy Tucker v. Sierra Builders, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute stemming from the shoddy construction of a modular house. The property owner filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County against the contractor who constructed the house and the manufacturer of the house modules. The trial court granted a default judgment against the contractor and, following a bench trial, awarded the homeowner a $49,506.94 judgment against the manufacturer. The manufacturer has appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred when it held that the manufacturer engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and that the manufacturer was vicariously liable for the negligence of the contractor. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals |
