Johnny & Mary Jo Harper, et al vs. Melvin Sloan, et al M2000-01104-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William H. Inman
This appeal involves the determination of whether the trial court erred in determining that a pathway known as Jaybird Lane was a public road. Additionally, the trial court found that the road had not been abandoned and thus granted summary judgment to the Defendants. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the court below in all respects.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Janice Sadler, d/b/a Xanadu Video vs. State M2000-01103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
The owner of a business filed a claim in the Tennessee Claims Commission for the loss of the business caused by a construction project that temporarily hindered ingress and egress to the claimant's location. The Claims Commissioner awarded the claimant the value of her business after finding that the State had negligently prolonged the construction project and had created a temporary nuisance. We reverse.
This case involves the alleged breach of an oral contract and a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Defendant's agent contacted the plaintiffs, an Elvis impersonator, the members of his band, and members of the Jordanaires to book them for a performance nine months hence. Plaintiffs reserved the time, but no written agreement was ever executed. Weeks before the performance, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that their services would not be required. Plaintiffs sued alleging breach of an oral contract and negligent misrepresentation and now appeal the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Defendant on both issues. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In this divorce case, Husband appeals from the trial court's decisions classifying, valuing, and dividing the parties' property incident to their divorce and asserts that he is entitled to an award much greater than the $250,000 granted to him by the trial court. Wife also appeals the trial court's classification and distribution of property, asserting that Husband was not entitled to any portion of her separate property and that there was no marital property. An additional issue was raised by a post-judgment ruling by a successor trial judge setting aside the order of the prior judge declaring the parties divorced. We affirm the divorce and reverse the award to Husband.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Angela Collins v. Timothy Pharris M1999-00588-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Durwood Moore
The petitioner appeals the general sessions court's denial of an order of protection and questions the proper avenue to appeal a general sessions court's ruling on an order of protection. We hold that, because the general sessions court has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit and chancery courts to hear petitions for orders of protection, this court is the proper one to hear an appeal of the grant or denial of such an order. Because we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's denial of the order in this case, we affirm the trial court.
This case is before this Court on appeal from the Chancery Court for Perry County wherein cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. The trial court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact such that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on its counter-claim against Plaintiff finding that Daniel's Landing Road is a public road. The standard of review is clear, we review the decision of the trial court de novo with no presumption of correctness on appeal. The issue on appeal is whether Daniel's Landing Road is a public road and, if so, whether it remains a public road absent abandonment or closing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 54-10-201, et seq. We conclude that Daniel's Landing Road is a public road and affirm the trial court.
This appeal involves the dissolution of an eighteen-year marriage by the Chancery Court for Lewis County. The trial court awarded the wife the divorce after concluding that the husband's continuing extramarital affair amounted to inappropriate marital conduct. To protect the "moral integrity of the marital relationship," the trial court granted the wife sole custody of the parties' two minor children and declined to grant the husband any visitation rights. In addition, the trial court ordered the husband to pay more than the minimum child support required by the child support guidelines because he was willfully underemployed and because he would not be exercising standard visitation with the children. The husband asserts on this appeal that the trial court's decisions with regard to custody and visitation, child support, and the division of the marital estate lack evidentiary support. We have determined that the trial court's disapproval of the husband's extramarital affair inappropriately colored its decisions regarding visitation and child support. Accordingly, we affirm the manner in which the trial court divided the parties' marital estate and reverse the trial court's visitation and child support awards.
Patient with a history of papillary carcinoma underwent a fine needle aspiration which confirmed a diagnosis of cancer in her neck region. Patient underwent surgery to remove the cancerous tissue which resulted in hypoparathyroidism and injury to her recurrent laryngeal nerve, risks commonly associated with the procedure. Patient brought informed consent action against doctor, claiming that, had the inherent risks of the procedure been disclosed to her, she would have sought a second opinion and had the procedure performed at a different facility by a different surgeon. The doctor moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Finding there are no material, disputed facts remaining, we reverse and remand.
This case seeks declaratory judgment as to whether or not the defendant, Nicholas Reaves Ramsey, was a "covered person" within the omnibus clause of an automobile liability insurance policy. In a non-jury trial the trial judge held that Defendant was not covered under the omnibus clause. We affirm.
Freddie Dean Smith and Anita Ann Smith (“Plaintiffs”) filed a medical malpractice action against Tony O. Haley, M.D. (“Defendant”). Defendant moved for summary judgment with his affidavit filed in support thereof. The motion was granted after Plaintiffs failed to file timely any competent medical proof to defeat the motion. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reconsider along with the affidavit of Joseph Bussey, M.D. The Trial Court granted the motion and reinstated the case to the active docket. Dr. Bussey later refused to give his deposition because he was not comfortable giving a deposition after reviewing the medical records and because he did not believe the case was going to “go this far” when he provided the affidavit. Defendant moved to strike the affidavit of Dr. Bussey and requested the Trial Court to reinstate its previous dismissal. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion. Seeking additional time to locate another medical expert, Plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04, Tenn. R. Civ. P., and for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rules 60.02(1) and 60.02(5), Tenn. R. Civ. P. The Trial Court denied this motion, and Plaintiffs appeal this denial. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal As Of Right; Judgment of the Law Court Affirmed; and Case Remanded.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Elizabeth Doramus, et al vs. Rogers Group, Inc. and T.W. Comer M1998-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves an intrafamily dispute over the use of a 498 acre farm. The conflict's seeds were sown nearly fifty years ago when the now-deceased owners conveyed the farm to a corporation and entered into a long-term lease which created successive leasehold tenancies for life for them, followed by their son, T. W. Comer. T. W. Comer's heirs at law were given the option to choose to become tenants upon his death. Years later, after T. W. Comer had become the tenant, he and Rogers Group, Inc., a mining company which had purchased the remainder interest in the farm, entered into an agreement involving the removal of limestone from the property. Mr. Comer's daughters and his granddaughters responded by commencing this action, seeking to prevent any mining on the property. After the daughters voluntarily dropped their claims, the trial court dismissed the complaint, and the granddaughters appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling because we find that the granddaughters' interest is not sufficient to warrant an injunction against the lessor and the current lessee.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mary Jarmakowicz, et al vs. Billy Suddarth, et al M1998-00920-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal arises out of a dispute over the purchase of Nationwide Travel Services, LLC. The jury found that the Sellers were still the owners of the agency and found for Buyers on the Sellers' claim for breach of contract. The jury found for Buyers on their claims of fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process and awarded compensatory damages. At the close of the proof, the trial court granted Sellers' motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. Later, the court denied Buyers' Motion for discretionary costs, and this appeal resulted. Buyers take issue with whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict on punitive damages and whether the Court abused its discretion by denying discretionary costs. Sellers argue there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's award on fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process. They also argue that the jury should have found for Sellers on the breach of contract claim. For the reasons below, we affirm the jury's award of compensatory damages and hold there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of fraud and deceit, conversion, abuse of process and no breach of contract. Further, we affirm the trial Court's directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. However, we vacate the denial of Buyers' motion for discretionary costs and remand for consideration consistent with this opinion.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton, E2000-02549-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
John Fiser, et al vs. Town of Farragut E1999-00425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Farragut, which admittedly seeks to eliminate off-premises billboards, is invalid insofar as their property is concerned. The Trial Court found in favor of Farragut. We reverse.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Vickie Sherman vs. American Water Heater Co., Inc. E2000-01389-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The Trial Court held release given by plaintiff barred plaintiff's claim for statutory indemnification. On appeal we reverse.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Jim Vines vs. David Gibson E2000-02257-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this breach of contract case, the defendant appeals from the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial or set aside an order favorable to the plaintiff. Because we find that the defendant did not receive advance notice of the hearing that led to the entry of the order, we vacate the order of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
James Fraysier vs. Karen Fraysier E2000-02485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
James Thomas Fraysier ("Husband") filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Karen Kay Singleton Fraysier ("Wife") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wife filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties agreed upon the distribution of the marital assets, which was approved by the Trial Court. The two issues to be decided at trial were who should be granted the divorce and whether Wife was entitled to alimony. The Trial Court determined that Husband was entitled to a divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct and that Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $600.00 per month for a period of 48 months or until further order of the court. Both parties appeal the Trial Court's determination with regard to alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson E2000-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
In this post-divorce case, the trial court (1) denied the father's request to relocate to Georgia with the parties' minor child; (2) imposed sanctions for the father's perjury; and (3) changed the joint custody decreed at the time of the divorce to sole custody in the mother. On this appeal, the father argues (1) that the trial court erred in reversing its initial post-divorce decision pursuant to which the father had been permitted to relocate to Georgia; (2) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to make a custody determination; (3) that the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum; (4) that the trial court erred in basing its change of custody upon the father's admittedly false testimony; (5) that the trial court's reversal of its prior decision to permit the father to relocate is barred by the doctrine of laches; (6) that the trial court erred in finding that father's contemptuous behavior was a proper basis for denying him an award of child support; and (7) that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for criminal contempt without providing the necessary procedural safeguards. We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Father's petition for child support. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Appeals
John Justice vs. Holly Justice M1998-00916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a dispute between a physician and a pharmacist regarding the provisions in their divorce decree for spousal support and legal expenses. In its decree ending their fourteen-year marriage, the Circuit Court for Davidson County directed the physician, among other things, to pay the pharmacist $50 per month in alimony in futuro until her death or remarriage, as well as $4,500 to partially defray the legal expenses she had incurred in the divorce proceeding. The physician asserts on this appeal that the spousal support award was punitive and that the pharmacist received sufficient assets as a result of the division of the marital estate to pay her own legal expenses. We have determined that the record supports the trial court's decisions regarding both the spousal support and the legal expenses and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jerry LaQuiere, et al vs. Daniel W. McCollum M1999-00926-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute arising out of the sale of a tract of real property in Antioch. After a survey revealed that the size of the tract was significantly less than the size stated in the contract, the purchaser filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking both specific performance of a provision in the contract requiring an adjustment in the purchase price and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The purchaser also filed a lis pendens notice with the Davidson County Register of Deeds. The trial court granted the vendor's motion for summary judgment on the issue of specific performance and ordered the lis pendens notice removed. However, the trial court declined to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. We granted the purchaser's Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for an extraordinary appeal. We now affirm the trial court because we concur with its conclusion that the price adjustment provision in the contract is not clear, definite, and complete.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Susie Tackett, et al vs. Hulin Shepherd, et al M1999-02333-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
This case involves a two-vehicle accident between Defendant Jones Brothers Construction's truck and Plaintiff. The accident occurred on April 19, 1996, in Clarksville, Tennessee at the intersection of U.S. Highway 41-A North, also Fort Campbell Blvd, and Jack Miller Blvd. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Hulin D. Shepherd ("Shepherd"), an employee of Jones Brothers Construction, was negligent by failing to yield when he exited a "private" road and entered onto a "public" highway. The Defendants denied that it was a "private" road, denied liability, and asserted comparative fault on the part of Plaintiff John Roe ("Roe"). At the trial in November 1999, Plaintiffs requested special jury instructions concerning "private" roads. The trial court rejected the special instructions. The jury returned a verdict of equal fault and the case was dismissed. The Plaintiffs timely appealed after Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied. We affirm the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Richard Conroy vs. City of Dickson, et al M2000-01189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
The driver of an automobile sued the City of Dickson under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for the severe injuries he suffered when a city police cruiser collided with his car. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff and the officer driving the police car were equally responsible for the accident, resulting in no recovery for the plaintiff. We affirm.
Dickson
Court of Appeals
Gertrud Deneau vs. Donald Deneau M2000-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This divorce case involves property division and alimony after a short term marriage. The trial court awarded all of the real property to the husband and allowed each party to keep the personal property in his or her possession. The court ordered the husband to pay $50,000 to the court clerk's office, who shall in turn pay the wife's debt to the Department of Veterans Affairs and disburse the remainder to the wife. The court refused to award alimony. We affirm.
