COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Georgia/Newman Cross vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9807-CV-00199
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

02A01-9807-CH-00203
02A01-9807-CH-00203
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Ward vs. Wilkinson
01A01-9803-CH-00151
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Brown vs. Karemore Int'l et al
01A01-9807-CH-00368
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

John Thedford Day v. Vici Martha Day Gaywood
02A01-9805-CV-00041
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Russell

This appeal involves a dispute between Plaintiff John Thedford Day and Defendant Vici Martha Day Gatewood regarding Mr. Day’s obligation to pay child support for the benefit of Sean, the parties’ adult son. Mr. Day and Mrs. Gatewood were divorced in November of 1976, when Sean was almost seven years of age. Consistent with the terms of the parties’ marital dissolution agreement, the trial court granted custody of Sean to Mrs. Gatewood and ordered Mr. Day to pay child support in the amount of $150.00 per month. In June of 1984, when Sean was fifteen years of age, Mrs. Gatewood filed a petition to increase the amount of Mr. Day’s child support obligation. By consent, the trial court entered an order providing that Mr. Day would pay $250.00 per month in child support until Sean reached the age of majority. On January 9, 1987, Sean reached the age of majority. Thereafter on April 25, 1987, Sean was involved in an automobile accident. Despite the injuries received as a result of this accident, Sean graduated from high school in May of 1987.

Dan Wilson v. Lawrence Rubin
M1998-00959-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves the termination of an employee by a music publishing company after one of its songwriters complained that the employee had stalked and harassed her. The employee filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County alleging gender and age discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The publishing company moved for a summary judgment asserting that it had a valid non-discriminatory ground for terminating the employee. The employee responded that the proffered non-discriminatory ground was pretextual. The trial court granted the summary judgment and dismissed the employee's complaint. On this appeal, the employee asserts that genuine material factual disputes regarding the publishing company's non-discriminatory reasons for terminating him should have prevented the trial court from granting the summary judgment. We agree and, therefore, vacate the order dismissing the employee's complaint.

Vanderbilt University vs. Pamela Henderson
M1998-00929-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers
This appeal involves a dispute between Vanderbilt University and one of its graduates arising out of two student loans. After the former student stopped repaying the loans, Vanderbilt University filed suit in the Davidson County General Sessions Court seeking to recover the principal and interest due, collection costs, and attorney's fees. The general sessions court awarded Vanderbilt University a $9,056.43 judgment. The former student perfected a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded Vanderbilt University a $5,051.56 judgment and established an installment payment plan for the judgment. The former student asserts on this appeal that Vanderbilt University was not entitled to a judgment against her because of its failure to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the requirements of the federal student loan program and because she has fully repaid her loans. We have concluded that the record supports the trial court's decision and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Stuart Bowden vs. Memphis Bd. Ed.
02A01-9807-CH-00217
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

B.C.I. vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9709-CH-00238
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

Morgan vs. Driskill
03A01-9802-CV-00079

City of Cleveland vs. Bradley County .
03A01-9804-CV-00140

Beason vs. Beason
03A01-9809-CV-00314

Nicely vs. John Doe
03A01-9810-CV-00322

Coleman vs. Coleman
03A01-9810-CV-00329

Cochran vs. Lowe
03A01-9809-CV-00292

State vs. Paul & Galvin
03A01-9807-CV-00233

Clark vs. Clark
03A01-9807-CH-00224

Burns vs. Burns
03A01-9806-CH-00190

Lee vs. Strickland
03A01-9806-CH-00195

O3A01-9810-CV-00355
O3A01-9810-CV-00355

Kennedy vs. Holder et al
01A01-9805-CV-00242
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

Bowman vs. Midstate Finance Co.
01A01-9808-CH-00424
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

Julia Leach Bryan vs. James Leach
M1998-00922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
This case involves post-divorce disputes over alimony and child support and issues of contempt of court. The father commenced this appeal after the trial court declined to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and awarded the mother more than $50,000 in child support arrearages and, later, found the father in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 per day until all judgments were paid to the mother. On appeal, the father argues that his alimony obligation should have terminated or decreased, that a portion of his child support payments should be placed in trust for the benefit of the children, and that the trial court erred by fining him for contempt. We affirm the trial court's orders but modify the fine imposed upon the father.

Julia Leach Bryan vs. James Leach
M1998-00922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
This case involves post-divorce disputes over alimony and child support and issues of contempt of court. The father commenced this appeal after the trial court declined to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and awarded the mother more than $50,000 in child support arrearages and, later, found the father in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 per day until all judgments were paid to the mother. On appeal, the father argues that his alimony obligation should have terminated or decreased, that a portion of his child support payments should be placed in trust for the benefit of the children, and that the trial court erred by fining him for contempt. We affirm the trial court's orders but modify the fine imposed upon the father.

Billy Steagall vs. Nancy Steagall
M1998-00948-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute regarding the custody a 15-year-old boy. In August 1997, the boy's father petitioned the Chancery Court for Marshall County to change the minor's custody because of his concern that the mother's attempt to home school the boy had undermined his education and development of social skills. The mother opposed the petition and requested an increase in child support. During the June 1998 trial, the father presented evidence raising serious questions about the progress of the child's education and development of social skills, as well as other aspects of the mother's approach to parenting. The mother presented no evidence of her own. Instead, after the close of the father's proof, she asserted that the trial court could remediate the acknowledged deficiencies without changing custody. Thereafter, the parties and the court discussed at length the provisions of a proposed remedial order, and the hearing was adjourned when the parties and the court believed they had agreed on the contents of the proposed order. Before the trial court entered the proposed order, the wife took issue with a provision requiring her to enroll the child in public school. The trial court informed the parties that it had understood that both parties had agreed to send their child to public school and that it would resume the trial if its understanding was incorrect. Rather than requesting the trial court to resume the hearing, the mother filed this appeal claiming that the trial court had infringed on her constitutionally protected right to raise her child. We have determined, in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a), that the mother is not entitled to appellate relief because she is, in part, responsible for the error and because she failed to pursue the reasonably available steps that would have nullified the harmful effect of the error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.