COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Earl E. Rivers v. Kathleen J. Rivers
W2004-02149-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Dewey C. Whitenton

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce involving issues of alimony in futuro and an award of attorney fees. Husband appeals. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

Progeny Marketing v. Farmers & Merchants Bank
M2003-02011-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Donald P. Harris

This case involves a dispute regarding whether Tennessee courts have personal jurisdiction over a Georgia bank regarding a contract for business services provided by a Tennessee business. The trial court found no personal jurisdiction over the Georgia bank and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We find that the Tennessee Long Arm Statute does give Tennessee courts personal jurisdiction over the Georgia bank; therefore, we reverse this case and remand it for further proceedings.

Lisa R. Altman v. Alan Altman
M2003-02707-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol A. Catalano

This appeal involves the division of marital property. Following almost fifteen years of marriage, both the husband and the wife sought a divorce in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County. The trial court, disregarding the marital dissolution agreement and quitclaim deed that the husband induced the wife to sign following their separation, awarded 58.5% of the marital estate to the husband and the remainder to the wife. The husband asserts on this appeal that the trial court erred by declining to follow the marital dissolution agreement and by overvaluing the marital property. We find that the trial court properly ignored the marital dissolution agreement and the quitclaim deed and that its valuation of the marital property is supported by the evidence. We have also determined that the manner in which the trial court divided the marital property was equitable.

Andrew J. Matthews, v. E. E. (Eddie) Matthews, et al.
M2003-01159-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action. Crossroads Market, LLC, a grocery, was owned by two brothers whose differences escalated to a point that necessitated an action to dissolve the LLC. The trial court granted the petition to dissolve the LLC and ordered the LLC be sold at auction to the highest bidder. Appellant, one of the brothers, was the successful bidder; however, a dispute arose immediately following the auction concerning the liabilities of the LLC. The Appellant insisted that a certain $300,000 promissory note was not a liability of the LLC while his brother, the Appellee, the holder of the note, insisted it was. The court, finding that the LLC had identified the promissory note as a liability on its financial reports and tax returns from the inception of the LLC, ruled that the note was a liability of the LLC when it was purchased at auction by the Appellant. Appellant appealed. We affirm.

Judy Dodson v. St. Thomas Hospital, et al.
M2004-01102-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

Appellant, an at-will employee, was terminated from her position with St. Thomas Hospital because an investigation led Hospital employees to the conclusion that Appellant was involved in the harassing and stalking of another employee. Appellant sued Hospital and two employees for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from her termination. Appellees moved for summary judgment, which was granted. We affirm.

In the Matter of: The Estate of Frances E. Milam, Deceased
W2003-03061-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donn Southern

This appeal involves the construction of a holographic will. Following the decedent’s death, two documents in her own handwriting were found among her papers which the probate court admitted as her holographic will. The will contained devises of real and personal property to named
individuals and charities. At her death, however, the decedent owned property in excess of the devises made in her will. The executor filed three separate petitions to construe the decedent’s will.  The children of the decedent’s sister argued that the decedent died intestate as to the excess personal property and her personal residence, which the decedent did not specifically devise in her will. The probate court held that the decedent’s will contained a residuary clause, therefore, all of the decedent’s remaining assets passed through the residuary clause to the individuals and charities named in her will on a pro rata basis. In addition, the probate court held that the decedent died intestate as to her residence, which passed to her sister’s children by intestate succession. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the probate court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

William Edward Hargrove v. Merriellen Hargrove
W2004-00237-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

This case is about post-divorce modification of child support. At the time of the parties’ divorce,
they adopted a permanent parenting plan which designated the father as the primary residential
parent of the parties’ son and the mother as the primary residential parent of the parties’ daughter.
Each had a child support obligation to the other, which was offset with the father paying the
difference to the mother. The daughter graduated from high school. As a result, the father’s child
support obligation to the mother was terminated, and the mother was ordered to pay increased child support to the father for their son. The trial court also ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the son’s health insurance premiums and to pay the father’s attorney’s fees. The mother appeals, arguing that her child support obligation could not be modified because the evidence did not indicate a significant variance in the mother’s income as required by Tennessee law. We affirm the ruling of the trial court as modified.
 

State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v., JCG, In the matter of BJG
E2004-02103-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Hawkins

In this parental termination case, the father, JCG appeals the termination of his parental rights to BJG.

In Re Adoption of John A. Kleshinski and Kevin Kleshinski, Chirlena Kleshinski and John E. Kleshinski, v. Julia Elizabeth Kleshinski
M2004-00986-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. B. Cox

This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother and father were married, and two sons were born during the marriage. The father physically abused the mother during the marriage. In 1996, the parties divorced. Later in 1996, a consent order was entered giving the father custody of the children. The order did not require the mother to pay child support. Both parties remarried, and the mother moved to Alabama. The mother exercised visitation with the children until the early part of 1999. Around that time, the mother stopped visiting the children entirely. The father claimed that
he did not know why the mother stopped visiting, and the mother said that the father and his new wife threatened her with physical harm if she attempted to see her sons. About four and a half years after the mother’s last attempt to visit with the children, the father and his new wife filed this petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights and to permit the father’s new wife to adopt the children. The father and his new wife asserted that the mother had abandoned the children by willfully failing to support or visit them. The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights but declined to permit the adoption at that time. The mother now appeals. We reverse the finding of the willful failure to support and affirm the finding of willful failure to visit. However, we vacate the
termination of parental rights on the basis that the trial court failed to make specific written findings regarding the best interest of the children, and remand for further proceedings on this issue. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Vacated and
Remanded.

Southland Mall, L.L.C., v. Valor Security Services, Inc.
W2003-03066-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown

This is a breach of contract case. The service contract between the plaintiff shopping mall and the
defendant security company provided that the security companywould “defend, indemnify, and hold harmless” the mall for claims brought against the mall that related to or resulted from the services of the security company. An automobile accident on the mall parking lot resulted in the death of a child. The child’s mother sued the shopping mall and the security company for wrongful death. The complaint alleged that the driver of the car was under the observation of a security company agent who “was or should have been in contact with the driver” when the accident occurred. The security company refused to defend the mall, maintaining that the lawsuit did not result from the services it provided. The trial court granted summary judgment to the security company, holding that the security company had no duty to defend the suit. We reverse, finding that the language in the complaint was sufficient to trigger the duty to defend.
 

Patricia Lynn Finger v. James Gang Amusements
E2004-00593-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Dale Young

Plaintiff's action against defendant for the negligent hiring of the perpetrator of a crime against plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Judge on a directed verdict at the end of plaintiff's proof. We affirm.

Joyce Marie Brasher v. Donny Gene Brasher
W2004-01314-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

This is a child support case. Father/Appellant seeks reversal of the amount of child support arrearage set by the trial court and relief from the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Mother/Appellee. The trial court’s calculation of arrearage is based upon a trial exhibit that is not in keeping with the governing orders of support. Consequently, the calculation constitutes a retroactive modification of support, which is disallowed under T.C.A. § 36-5-101(a)(5). We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, in its own behalf and for the use and benefit of the State of Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers as Shown on the 1999 Real Property Tax Records et al.
M2004-00040-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

This appeal arises from an action brought by the metropolitan government to collect delinquent property taxes. The taxpayer owned 37.25 acres of property that were zoned commercial but were granted "greenbelt" status. In 1999, the taxpayer leased 1.21 acres of his property to a retail pharmacy, but he did not inform the assessor's office of the change in use of the 1.21 acre portion of his land. In 2000, after the assessor's office learned of the change in use through a review of a building permit summary, the assessor changed the classification on the entire 37.25 acre parcel from "greenbelt" to commercial. As a result, a "rollback" was issued causing taxes to be due on the entire 37.25 acre parcel at a commercial rate for the three previous years. The assessor mailed the taxpayer a 1999 tax bill showing the amount owed due to the rollback. Although the assessor informed the taxpayer that the matter could no longer be corrected through the assessor's office, the taxpayer did not file an administrative appeal or bring a lawsuit to dispute the error in classification and assessment. Following a hearing on the delinquent tax lawsuit, the trial court found that the assessor's office erred in removing the taxpayer's entire parcel from "greenbelt" classification and subjecting the entire parcel to a tax "rollback." The court found that only the 1.21 acre portion of the parcel used for construction of the pharmacy should have lost "greenbelt" status. Additionally, the court found that, because the parties stipulated that no change in use of the property had occurred since the underlying action was initiated, its findings were dispositive not only for tax years 1999 and 2000, but also through the date of the final order, November 26, 2003. The metropolitan government appealed arguing that the taxpayer was barred by statute from contesting the validity of the assessment once the delinquent tax lawsuit was filed. We reverse.

Tanya Hollimon v. Shelby County Government
W2004-01111-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

The Shelby County Circuit Court upheld the decision of the Civil Service Merit Board to terminate the employment of Tanya Hollimon. We affirm.

City of Morristown vs. Rebecca A. Long
E2004-01545-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Sharon G. Lee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ben K. Wexler

The appellant was discharged from her job by the City of Morristown based upon allegations that she participated in the use, possession, sale and distribution of marijuana in violation of the City's policy against illegal drugs in the workplace. She applied for unemployment benefits and her claim was denied. She appealed the denial of benefits and both the Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review of the Employment Security Division of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development ruled that she was eligible for unemployment benefits because the City failed to prove the alleged illegal drug activity. The trial court reversed the decision of the Board of Review. We hold that the trial court exceeded its authority under the applicable standard of review, and therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.

In Re: Conservatorship of Alvin A. Moore
W2004-01828-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donn Southern

Separate petitions for the appointment of conservator were filed, one by the two nieces of the disabled person and the other by a daughter. Notwithstanding the statutory preference given to the daughter, the probate court determined that it was in the best interest of the disabled person to grant the petition filed by the nieces. We affirm.

State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Taketa Puryear and Johnnie B. McNeal
W2004-02878-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Weber McGraw

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services began providing services to the biological parents of three minor children in December of 2000. Eventually, all three children were removed from the home after the juvenile court determined they were dependent and neglected due to the parents’ failure to provide for their medical and nutritional needs. The department created a permanency plan for each child calling for the parents to provide adequate housing, provide for the children’s medical and nutritional needs, undergo a psychological evaluation and follow through with treatment recommendations, and participate in counseling/parenting classes designed to teach the parents how to adequately provide for their children. The department subsequently filed a petition to terminate the biological parents’ parental rights, alleging the grounds of abandonment, substantial noncompliance with the responsibilities in the permanency plans, persistent conditions, and the mother’s alleged mental incompetency. Following a trial, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the biological parents’ parental rights to their minor children. The juvenile court found that the department proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents abandoned the children, substantially failed to comply with the responsibilities in the permanency plans, and allowed conditions to persist which made it unsafe to return the children to the parents. In addition, the juvenile court found that terminating the parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest.  Only the mother filed an appeal to contest the juvenile court’s judgment. We affirm.

Gwynne Barton, et al., v. Roy Gilleland, et al.
E2004-01369-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler

The limited partners ("the plaintiffs") of Henry Manor, Ltd., a Tennessee limited partnership ("the Partnership"), brought this declaratory judgment action against (1) Roy J. Gilleland and J. Cleve Smith, the Partnership's former administrative general partners, and (2) the trust created by the Partnership's former, and now-deceased, managing general partner, Glen R. Claiborne. The plaintiffs seek relief related to the Partnership's property, as well as an accounting and an order for distribution of proceeds. In 1992, Claiborne and his wife formed the G & P Claiborne Trust ("the Trust"), to which they transferred, among other assets, Claiborne's beneficial interest in the Partnership. Claiborne died in 1997. The apartment complex owned by the Partnership, which was its primary asset, was sold in 2000. Subsequently, Gilleland and Smith sought a percentage of the proceeds from the sale pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement. The plaintiffs aver, among other things, (1) that Gilleland and Smith are not entitled to any of the proceeds from the 2000 sale, as they resigned from the partnership in 1982, and (2) that the Partnership was dissolved in 1992 when Claiborne transferred his interest to the Trust. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court held that Gilleland and Smith are entitled to share in the proceeds of the 2000 sale; that the Partnership did not dissolve until the death of Claiborne in 1997; and that the plaintiffs are not required to pay capital contributions that came due in 1983 and 1984. We agree with the trial court that Gilleland and Smith are entitled to share in the sale proceeds under the terms of the original partnership agreement. We further agree with the trial court that the Trust's claim against the plaintiffs for unpaid capital contributions is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Although we disagree with the trial court's judgment that Claiborne did not violate the partnership agreement by transferring a part of his interest in the Partnership to the Trust in 1992, we hold that the transfer, while a violation of the agreement, does not constitute an event of dissolution. We affirm the trial court's judgment that the Partnership did not dissolve until 1997.

C. W. McMahan v. Barbara Jean Greene
E2004-01607-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.

This is a boundary line dispute. C. W. McMahan (“the plaintiff”) and Barbara Jean Greene (“the defendant”) owned adjacent tracts of land. Both parties received their respective tracts through a complicated chain of title. When a dispute arose as to the location of the boundary line, the plaintiff brought this action seeking to clear title. Following a bench trial, the trial court found for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

Apollo Hair Systems of Nashville v. First Lady International Corporation, d/b/a New Image
M2003-02322-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This case involves a contract dispute between a retail seller and manufacturer of hair replacement products. The parties entered into an exclusive dealing contract, whereby the manufacturer agreed to sell four models of hair replacement units exclusively to the retailer within a geographically defined area of Tennessee. In return, the retailer agreed to purchase all hair replacement units from themanufacturer and paya $10.00 premium for the units purchased. The manufacturer subsequently sold hair replacement units to a competitor of the retailer in Tennessee. The retailer filed a complaint against the manufacturer for inducement of breach of contract, pursuant to section 47-50-109 of the Tennessee Code, and breach of contract. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion as to both causes of action alleged in the complaint.  We affirm.

Alley-Cassetty Coal Co., Inc. v. Ruth Johnson, Commission of the Tennessee Department of Revenue
M2003-02327-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

This appeal involves a trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Tennessee Department of Revenue. The taxpayer operates a brick and block business on a ten-acre tract of land in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on which is located a block manufacturing facility and retail sales office. Upon undertaking an audit of the taxpayer, the department inspected the property in Murfreesboro. The department subsequently assessed a sales and use tax liability against the taxpayer for the Murfreesboro property. The department determined that the Murfreesboro property constituted one location, and sales of concrete blocks manufactured at the facility constituted less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross sales at this location. The taxpayer filed an action in the trial court alleging it was entitled to a sales tax exemption under section 67-6-206 of the Tennessee Code because it operated two "locations" at the Murfreesboro property under the fifty-one percent (51%) test used by the department. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the department's motion and denied the taxpayer's motion. The taxpayer filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm.

Tresa Dorianne Barkley Young n/k/a Tresa B. Floyd v. Steven Glen Young
M2003-02562-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. S. Daniel

This appeal involves a wife's petition for civil contempt filed against her ex-husband. The wife sought an order holding the ex-husband in civil contempt for failing to pay alimony in solido pursuant to the divorce decree and commanding him to pay the amount of the arrearage. Following a hearing on Wife's petition, the chancery court entered an order reclassifying the husband's alimony obligation from alimony in solido to rehabilitative alimony due to the parties' cohabitation after their divorce. In addition, the chancery court found that the wife was not entitled to alimony during the periods the parties lived together following their divorce, and the court awarded the wife a reduced sum of rehabilitative alimony. The wife filed an appeal to this Court. We reverse and remand this case to the chancery court.

State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. Dale Baruchman In the Matter of: B.B. (d/o/b 11/16/90) and H.B. (d/o/b 3/2/89)
W2004-02071-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This is a parental termination case involving a mother with a documented history of severe mental illness. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her minor son in February 2002, alleging the grounds of persistent conditions and failure to substantially comply with the permanency plans. The department filed an amended petition in August 2002, seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her minor daughter based upon the same grounds. In September 2002, the department filed another amended petition alleging as an additional ground for termination the mother’s mental incompetence. Following a hearing over two non-consecutive days, the chancery court entered an order finding the department had proven all the grounds it alleged for terminating the mother’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, and terminating the mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interest. While we disagree with the trial court’s finding that DCS proved each ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the chancery court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

Judith D. Pickern v. Robert M. Pickern
E-2004-02038-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Sharon G. Lee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jeffrey F. Stewart

This is an appeal from a finding of contempt following the enrollment of a foreign decree. The issue presented is whether Mr. Pickern could be held in civil contempt of court for his failure to pay alimony upon the enrollment of the foreign decree when a petition for contempt had not been filed.  Following a hearing, the trial court enrolled the foreign decree, found Mr. Pickern in willful contempt of court, awarded Ms. Pickern judgment for the alimony arrearage and her attorney’s fees, and ordered the sale of Mr. Pickern’s real property to satisfy the alimony arrearage unless he paid the judgment within ninety days. We hold that the trial court properly enrolled the foreign decree, but its actions were premature regarding the civil contempt because no petition had been filed seeking this relief. Therefore, we affirm the enrollment of the foreign decree and the judgment for the alimony arrearage, but vacate the finding of civil contempt and the award of attorney’s fees.

Don Smith Ford, Lincoln-Mercury v. Doug Bolinger, et al
E2003-02764-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben K. Wexler

Don Smith Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. sued Doug Bolinger based upon theories of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"). The plaintiff averred that the defendant failed to disclose substantial body damage to his vehicle, which vehicle the defendant traded to the plaintiff in connection with his purchase from the plaintiff of a new Ford Explorer. The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegations and filed a third-party complaint against previous owners of the vehicle, Gary Hoese, dba Gary's Used Cars ("Hoese") and East Gate Motors, Inc. ("East Gate"). The defendant's third-party complaint is based upon alleged common law violations and upon the theory that Hoese and East Gate violated the TCPA in failing to disclose the condition of the vehicle's title. The trial court found that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for negligently misrepresenting the condition of the vehicle and awarded it damages in the amount of $17,085. In addition, the trial court dismissed the defendant's third-party claims against Hoese and East Gate and, without stating the basis of its action, awarded attorney's fees to them, as well as to the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in finding him liable for negligent misrepresentation; that the trial court erred in failing to hold Hoese and East Gate liable to the defendant; and that the trial court's awards of attorney's fees was improper. We vacate the trial court's fee awards to the plaintiff, Hoese, and East Gate pending further proceedings in the trial court. The balance of the trial court's judgment is affirmed.