COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Clara Frazier,vs. East Tennessee Baptist Hosp., Inc. et al.
E2000-00686-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this medical malpractice case brought by Clara Frazier, as Administratrix of the Estate of Josie Mae Blalock Pickens against East Tennessee Baptist Hospital, Inc., and Mark W. Jackson, M.D., the Trial Court sustained the motion of Baptist Hospital for summary judgment because the order granting an amendment to add Baptist Hospital as a party defendant after a non-suit had earlier been taken, was not timely and exceeded the one year mandated in T.C.A. 28-1-105(a). Ms. Frazier appeals, insisting that Rule 15.03 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. is applicable and that the amendment related back to the date of the initial filing. We find the Trial Court acted properly and affirm.

Writesman vs. Writesman
M1999-00726-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal is from the trial court's order denying Husband's Petition for Modification and sentencing him to thirty days in jail for criminal contempt. Husband attempted to show that there had been a substantial and material change in the relative financial positions of the parties and that his court ordered alimony obligation should be terminated or modified. Wife counter-petitioned for contempt of court, and Husband was, thereafter, charged with criminal contempt and found guilty for his failure to pay alimony. We agree with the trial court that Husband failed to show a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify terminating or modifying his alimony obligation. We also agree with the trial court's finding of criminal contempt and uphold its sentence of thirty days in prison for such contempt. Therefore, the ruling of the trial court on all issues presented on appeal is affirmed.

Taylor vs. Heldman
M1999-00729-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Daniel Benson Taylor V Russell Heldman
Daniel Benson Taylor ("Plaintiff"), a prison inmate, filed suit for damages and other relief against two judges of the 21st Judicial District and, by amended complaint, the assistant attorneys general representing the two judges because of the alleged failure of the judges to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial judge granted a Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The specially appointed trial judge sustained the motion and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Prentice vs. Prentice
M1999-01507-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Ronald Prentice appeals from a decision of the Davidson County Circuit Court. The appeal involves a dispute over property division arising out of a divorce.

Chambers vs. Amonette
M1999-01254-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
At the time of the parties' divorce in 1992, their minor child was placed in the primary residential custody of the mother, and the father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $300.00 per month. The mother instituted a petition to modify. The father is in the military and, at the time of trial, had a base pay of $2,888.46 per month, which included allowances for BAS, BAH, and BAQ-DIFF. The parties anticipated at the time of trial that the father would be transferred to Korea for one year of service, and then would be transferred to England. According to the father, he would continue to receive his BAQ-DIFF allowance, but, while in Korea, he would no longer receive BAS or BAH allowances. The mother sought an increase in the monthly support payments based upon a significant variation with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines and based upon reduced visitation by the father. According to the parties' final divorce decree, the father's visitation schedule provided for an average of sixty-nine days of visitation throughout the year, as compared to the anticipated eighty days in the Guidelines. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the petition and ordered the mother to pay the father's costs and attorney's fees. We reverse and remand.

R & D Marina, Inc., et al vs. Roane County, et al
E1999-02687-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
Plaintiffs, a marina and its owners, were holders of a 1996 lease from Roane County to build and manage a marina. Plaintiffs received a permit from TVA to operate the marina in 1997. Plaintiffs filed suit against Roane County and four boathouse owners, seeking a declaratory judgment that the marina was entitled to monthly rent from the individual Defendants from the date of the Roane County lease until their boathouses were removed from the leased premises. The boathouse owners were holders of prior TVA permits to moor boathouses within the same area which became the marina pursuant to the 1996 lease and 1997 permit. The Trial Court ordered the boathouse owners to pay rent to the marina and to remove their boathouses. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court insofar as it ordered the individual Defendants to remove their boathouses. We hold the Trial Court erred in ordering the individual Defendants to pay rent starting from the date of the lease rather than the date of Plaintiffs' TVA permit. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the Trial Court to reflect that Defendants owe rent to Plaintiffs from the date of Plaintiffs' TVA permit until the boathouses were removed. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, as modified, and the case is remanded.

Mary Schremp vs. David Schremp
W1999-01734-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
Mother, the custodial parent of minor children, desired to relocate out of state to live with her new husband. Father protested the move and filed a petition in opposition. Finding that Mother's new husband could easily move to Memphis to live with his new family and that dislocating the children was not in their best interest, the trial court granted the petition. We affirm.

International Deli/Caterers vs. Raymond/Kimberly Shields
W2000-00269-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
This is a contract case. The defendants entered into a franchise agreement with the plaintiff to own and operate a franchise. After the defendants failed to make royalty payments for two months and then failed to make a note payment, the plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract. The defendants counter-claimed, alleging that the plaintiff breached the contract first by not operating a marketing fund mentioned in the franchise agreement and by not furnishing a sign provided for in the purchase agreement. At trial, the trial court allowed testimony by the plaintiff as to discussions, prior and subsequent to the signing of the agreements, in which he claimed that the parties had agreed upon different terms regarding the marketing fund and sign. The trial court found that the plaintiff had not breached the agreements by not maintaining the marketing fund or furnishing the sign, and that even if it were a breach, it was not a material breach. The defendants now appeal. We affirm.

Eric Petty, a child
W2000-00907-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This case involves an appeal regarding the lower court's determination that Eric Dylan Petty was a delinquent child. In February 2000, a petition was filed with the Juvenile Court of Obion County alleging that Eric Dylan Petty committed the delinquent acts of aggravated assault and vandalism. The juvenile court determined that Petty was delinquent and ordered him committed to the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. After a de novo hearing, the circuit court also declared Petty delinquent based on the acts of aggravated assault and vandalism and affirmed Petty's commitment to the Department of Children's Services. This appeal followed.

Jerry Wayne Killion vs. Sandra Faye Sweat
E1999-02634-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert M. Summitt
In this post-divorce proceeding, the father of Dustin Lynn Killion filed a petition seeking the child's custody. The trial court denied the father's petition. The father appeals the trial court's determination that the proof fails to demonstrate a material change of circumstances warranting a change of custody. We reverse.

Brenda D. Estes, et al vs. Sandra H. Peels, et al
E1999-00582-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when a vehicle exited a manufacturing plant's parking lot and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle on a public highway. Brenda D. Estes and her husband sued the owner of the plant for negligence. The trial court granted the plant owner summary judgment. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the plant owner did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment.

Wilson Pharmacy, Inc., vs. General Computer Corp.
E2000-00733-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The origin of this appeal is a complaint filed by Plaintiff Wilson Pharmacy, Inc., against Defendant General Computer Corporation, seeking damages for allegedly furnishing defective computer hardware and software programs pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties. The Trial Court found that the provision providing suit must be brought within one year after accrual of the action barred Wilson Pharmacy's claim. Wilson Pharmacy appeals, contending the contract they entered into was one of adhesion, rendering the contract limitation period ineffective. We affirm.

Betty L. Fox vs. Food Lion, Inc., Store #539
E1911-00015-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
Betty L. Fox sued Food Lion, Inc., Store #539, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell in an aisle of the defendant's store. The trial court approved the jury's verdict for the plaintiff and entered judgment in her favor for $112,000. The defendant appeals, raising three issues, which we restate as follows: (1) whether there is material evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's fall; (2) whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; and (3) whether there is material evidence to support the jury's allocation of fault. We affirm.

Cunningham vs. Cunningham
W1999-02054-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal involves a divorce after seven years of marriage. The trial court granted the wife a divorce, divided the property, awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in solido, awarded child support for the parties' minor child, established an educational trust fund, and ordered the husband to maintain life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay child support. On appeal, husband takes issue with all of the above and also raises the constitutionality of the child support guidelines. In addition, wife takes issue with the failure of the trial court to award her litigation expenses. We have determined that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

American Indemnity vs. Foy Trailer
W2000-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
American Indemnity Company sought a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability (CGL) policy did not cover claims made by Ms. Johnson against the Appellants in her federal court complaint and that it did not have a duty to defend Appellants in the federal action. The Chancery Court for Shelby County held that there was no coverage and no duty to defend. Appellants appealed. We affirm.

Matter of Fannie Barnhill
W2000-00289-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield
Will contestant voluntarily dismissed chancery court proceeding to contest will. Subsequently, contestant filed another notice to contest the will. The trial court, on motion, dismissed the proceeding as barred, because it had previously been dismissed, and such an action is within an exception to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 41.01 (1). Contestant has appealed.

Denley Rentals vs. Howard Etheridge
W2000-00189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This case involves the assignability of a chose in action. The plaintiffs are two related limited liability companies and the person who was the owner/manager of both. The owner/manager contracted to purchase real property from the defendants, and later assigned his interest under the contract to one of the limited liability companies. The first limited liability company closed the transaction with the defendants. After the transaction was closed, the first company discovered a landfill located on the property that had not been disclosed by the defendants. The first company then transferred the property to the second limited liability company for de minimis consideration. The owner/manager of both companies made a "mental assignment" of the chose in action from the first company to the second company, and the second company incurred the cost of clearing the landfill debris. The plaintiffs jointly sued the defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that there was not a valid assignment of the chose in action, that the first company was precluded from recovery because it suffered no damages, and that the second company was precluded from recovery because it took the property with full knowledge of the defect. On appeal, we reverse and remand, finding that the chose in action was validly assigned.

The Pointe vs. Lake Mgmt.
W2000-00211-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action to determine rights in a privately-owned lake. Plaintiffs purchased land adjacent to the artificially-created lake for the purpose of developing residential lots. Subsequent to the sale of the property, Plaintiffs' grantor conveyed title to the lake to Defendant. Defendant claims it has the right to control use of the lake and that Plaintiffs have no right to lake access without Defendant's permission. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the lake is unnavigable, and no riparian rights can therefore flow to adjoining landowners; (2) the Defendant, as owner of the land subjacent to the lake, has a right to the unimpeded use and control of the property; and (3) any use of the lake by the adjoining property owners without Defendant's consent would constitute a trespass. Plaintiffs appeal.

Scott Yother vs. Laine Yother
E2000-01046-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
In this post-divorce case, Elaine Hines Yother ("Mother") appeals from an order awarding primary residential custody of the parties' minor child, Avery Raechelle Yother (DOB: April 2, 1995), to the child's father, Scott Christopher Yother ("Father"). Mother argues (1) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the custodial arrangement decreed in the parties' divorce judgment; and, alternatively, (2) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment changing custody. Because we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issue of custody, we reverse the judgment below.

Edward F. Curtis vs. Stephen T. Nash, et al
E1999-01135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This appeal arises in the Knox County Circuit Court from a grant of a motion for summary judgment. Edward F. Curtis appeals the grant of summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Curtis and his surety.

E1999-01909-R3-CV
E1999-01909-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Jerry Wayne Terry vs. Donna Brazier Terry
E2000-00825-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Steven C. Douglas
This appeal from the Cumberland County Probate and Family Court concerns whether the Trial Court erred in making an equitable division of the marital estate of Jerry Wayne Terry, the Appellant, and Donna Brazier Terry, the Appellee. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Terry and his surety.

Whittington-Barrett vs. Johnson
E2000-00700-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
This is a suit between two inmates of the State of Tennessee. The Plaintiff, a transsexual, seeks a declaratory judgment "to establish the rights of the Plaintiff," and damages, attorney fees and costs against the Defendant because of sexual harassment. The cause of action alleges violation of various sections of the Constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States of America and of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Trial Judge dismissed the complaint because there was "no claim of state action in Plaintiff's complaint, nor is this an employer/employee situation." We affirm.

Kenneth L. Storey vs. David J. Poss
E1999-00192-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Plaintiff/Appellant is an inmate at West Tennessee High Security Prison in Hennig, Tennessee, pursuant to a conviction for aggravated rape. Defendant, a Tennessee attorney, was appointed by the General Sessions Court to represent Plaintiff at a preliminary hearing on that charge. After that hearing, Plaintiff was bound over to the grand jury for trial. Plaintiff asked the Criminal Court to dismiss Defendant as his counsel and to appoint another attorney. The Criminal Court granted Plaintiff's request and appointed new counsel on April 18, 1996. On August 29, 1997, Plaintiff filed this legal malpractice action against Defendant in Chancery Court asking for damages of $730,000. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the one-year statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claims bars Plaintiff's claim. The Chancellor granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. We affirm.

Taylor Mehrhoff Co.
W1999-00413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
Plaintiffs, Landowners, sued adjoining landowners, seeking a judgment determining the location of a disputed boundary line. The trial court found that Defendants had: (1) established record title to the disputed property; (2) established the boundary line in recorded deeds and trust deeds, and by the conduct, implied agreement, acquiescence and recognition of adjoining property owners; and (3) proven title by adverse possession of the disputed property. Plaintiffs-Landowners have appealed.