Coffee County Bank v. Robert Eugene Hulan and Sherry Renee Hulan
A bank filed a complaint against husband and wife to recoup money owed on a credit agreement after a foreclosure sale failed to produce sufficient funds to repay the loan in full. The trial court entered a judgment against the couple, and the couple appealed. We reverse the trial court’s judgment because the bank relied on two different versions of a credit agreement, thereby failing to prove the existence of an enforceable contract with definite terms. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Columbia National Insurance Company et al.
This is a declaratory judgment action wherein one insurance company, which provided general liability insurance coverage to the insured, asserts that another insurance company, which provided the same insured with automobile insurance coverage, had the primary duty to pay the cost of defending and to indemnify the insured in a third-party tort action filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-112. The plaintiff insurer asserts that the defendant insurer had the primary duty to provide and pay the cost of the defense in that action and to indemnify the insured pursuant to its automobile insurance policy because an additional insured was operating a “boom truck” owned by the insured that was listed under the defendant’s auto policy when the injury to the third-party plaintiff occurred.Both insurers filed motions for summary judgment.The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant insurer holding that the plaintiff, not the defendant, is liable for providing and paying the cost of the defense and for indemnifying the insured in the third-party tort action. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Ruth M. Maxwell v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc. et al.
Plaintiff filed this action against the instructor of a motorcycle safety course and his employer for injuries she sustained when she drove off of the designated course site and collided with a parked pickup truck.The trial court found that the plaintiff’s negligence claims were barred because she signed a valid written waiver/release from liability document prior to starting the course. The trial court also dismissed the plaintiff’s gross negligence claims, finding there was nothing in the record which would allow a reasonable juror to conclude the defendant exercised a conscious neglect of duty or a callous indifference to consequences. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jordan T. J.
The father in this termination of parental rights case, who was incarcerated at all times material to this case at Riverbend Maximum Security Prison and is indigent, appeals the termination of his rights contending he was denied due process because he was not informed of his rights as required under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f), he did not sign a waiver of his rights, and he was not provided a court-appointed attorney. The father, who did not file a responsive pleading to the petition, contends, inter alia, that the trial court failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f), which mandates that he be informed that he has the right to participate and contest the allegations and, if he wished to contest the petition, that a court-appointed attorney would be provided to assist in contesting the petition. The record does not contain a signed waiver by the father nor does it reflect that the juvenile court made the requisite determination that he was informed of his rights and, after being informed, voluntarily waived his right to a court-appointed attorney to assist in contesting the petition, or that, if he did not participate after being informed of his rights, the court may proceed with such action without the parent’s participation as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f)(5). We, therefore, vacate the judgment of the juvenile court as it pertains to the father’s parental rights and remand with instructions for the juvenile court to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f) and, if the father wishes to contest the petition, that a court-appointed attorney be provided and the case set for a new trial once his attorney has had a reasonable opportunity to prepare. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Kathy Lynn Averitte v. William Ronny Averitte
This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute over whether the parties’ MDA required the payment of alimony in futuro or alimony in solido. The Wife remarried shortly after the parties’ divorce, and the Husband filed a motion to terminate his alimony obligation, claiming that the obligation was for alimony in futuro, which automatically terminates upon remarriage. The trial court concluded that the obligation was for alimony in futuro, and therefore, the court granted the Husband’s motion to terminate his alimony obligation. Wife appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Ann M. Taylor, Deceased
Former administrator of decedent’s estate appeals order denying his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, which sought relief from an order requiring him to reimburse the estate for fees incurred by the successor administrator. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert W. Porter v. Brandi Porter (Kimbrell)
Upon the parties’ divorce, Mother was named the children’s primary residential parent. Years later, Mother petitioned to increase Father’s child support, and Father filed a countercomplaint seeking to be named the primary residential parent. The trial court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the entryof the parties’ parenting plan. The trial court further found that certain best interest factors weighed in favor of,and against, both parties; however, it determined that the children’s best interests would be served by Mother remaining the primary residential parent. Father appeals and, discerning no error, we affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Robert W. Porter v. Brandi Porter (Kimbrell) - Concur
While I agree with the majority opinion in this case, I write separately to say that I view the question of whether to affirm the trial court’s decision to be a much closer question than is indicated by the majority opinion. I concur only because of the high standard of appellate review of the trial court’s decision. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Matthew Beck Ramsey v. Michelle Min Ramsey
This appeal arises from a divorce action in which the trial court named Mother the primary residential parent and entered a permanent parenting plan limiting Father’s parenting time to one hundred and eight (108) days a year. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Lyon, II
The appellant, a juvenile, appealed the juvenile court’s revocation of his probation and commitment to the custody of the Department of Children’s Services. The trial court, upon the juvenile’s timely appeal, affirmed the ruling of the juvenile court. We affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Baby
This case involves the status of the parties with respect to a baby conceived pursuant to a surrogacy agreement. The juvenile court determined that there was a valid surrogacy agreement and denied the surrogate’s requests for relief from a final order ratifying the surrogacy agreement. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Joseph H. Johnston
The Metropolitan Government issued a parking citation to the driver of a vehicle parked at an expired meter; upon his failure to pay the $11.00 fine within the requisite 45-day period, the fine was increased to $50.00 and costs were assessed. Driver challenged the fine as a violation of the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause of Article VI, Section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Metropolitan Government’s authority to increase the fine, and asserted that the parking citation was unconstitutional for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-3-501. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of James Edgar Miller
Many years prior to the decedent’s death, he was ordered to pay child support. Upon his death, the decedent’s ex-wife filed a claim against his estate seeking recovery of child support arrearages. The personal representative filed an exception, and the trial court denied the claim. The ex-wife appeals. We reverse. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Mary C. Smith, as Surviving Widow of James B. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., et al.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee mental health facility, effectively dismissing the case. Having determined that the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which it was granting summary judgment, we vacate the orders at issue and remand for entry of orders that comply with Rule 56.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rev. J. M. Shaffer v. Memphis Airport Authority, Service Management Systems, Inc., and John Doe B. through D.
This interlocutory appeal involves comparative fault and amending to add a defendant. The plaintiff suffered slip-and-fall injuries at the defendant airport. The day before the statute of limitations ran, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the airport, alleging negligence. The airport’s answer asserted comparative fault but did not identify an additional tortfeasor. In later discovery, the airport identified its janitorial service. The plaintiff amended her complaint to add the janitorial service as a defendant, citing T.C.A. 20-1-119. The defendant janitorial service filed a motion to dismiss, citing the statute of limitations. The trial court declined to dismiss the claims against the janitorial service, holding that the disclosure of the identity of the janitorial service in discovery triggered the 90-day statutory period under Section 20-1-119 in which the plaintiff is permitted to amend the complaint to add a defendant. We reverse, holding that, by the express terms of Section 20-1-119, the statutory 90-day period is not triggered by a defendant’s response to a discovery request. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rolando Toyos v. Amanda G. Hammock
After primary residential parent Mother notified Father of her intent to relocate, Father opposed relocation and he petitioned to be named the child’s primary residential parent. The trial court determined the Father had demonstrated a material change in circumstances, but it found the child’s best interests would be promoted by Mother remaining the primary residential parent, and it allowed Mother’s relocation with the child. We affirm in part and we reverse in part. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jeremiah P.A.
This appeal is from an order of the trial court entered on August 14, 2012, which order terminated the parental rights of Jeremy A. to his son, Jeremiah P.A., based upon Jeremy A.’s joining in the petition for adoption filed by Donna J. P., the child’s biological maternal grandmother, on September 20, 2011. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-1-117(f). The order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the petition for adoption, or the petition to intervene and adopt filed by Charles R., the child’s biological maternal grandfather. As such, the order is not a final order and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Alberto DeLeon v. State of Tennessee
Alberto DeLeon (“the Claimant”) filed a claim pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act for permanent impairment benefits and moving expense benefits allegedly arising out of an incident that occurred on April 5, 2011, in which the Claimant apparently was shot by his landlord. The claim was assigned to the small claims docket of the Claims Commission. Because we have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a claim appearing on the small claims docket of the Claims Commission, this appeal is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Charles Wilson, et al. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ appeal. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Martin D. "Red" Patterson, as a Citizen of the State of Tennessee, and as Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369, et al. v. The Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co.
Respondent Convention Center Authority appeals the trial court’s determination that the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors contained in payroll records submitted by the contractors to the Convention Center Authority aren ot exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Petitioners cross-appeal the trial court’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Torrie Schneider Longanacre v. Matthew Robert Longanacre - Dissent
I dissent from the majority because I believe that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the husband did not prove a ground for divorce. My review of the record leads me to conclude that the husband did, in fact, produce unrebutted evidence that established the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Torrie Schneider Longanacre v. Matthew Robert Longanacre - Concur
I fully concur with the decision to affirm the trial court in all respects; I write separately to address the emphasis on reconciliation as a predicate to granting Wife a legal separation for two years even though Husband failed to prove any ground upon which he would be entitled to a divorce. I fully recognize that the trial court had the discretion to grant or deny Wife’s request for a legal separation; however, based upon the facts of this case, I submit the only party who would have a basis to appeal the grant or denial of a legal separation would be Wife, not Husband. This is because Husband failed to prove any ground upon which he would be entitled to a divorce at the time of the hearing. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Jacob A. C. H.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother to her child, finding that she wilfully failed to visit or support the child. Mother appeals, contending that she lacked the capacity to visit or pay support. Upon our de novo review we determine that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact and its conclusion that Mother abandoned the child and that termination of her rights is in the child’s best interest. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Aegis Sciences Corporation v. Lou Ann Zelenik, et al.
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendants in this action for defamation, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff appeals the award of summary judgment on its claims for defamation and civil conspiracy. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Aegis Sciences Corporation v. Lou Ann Zelenik, et al. - Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The majority affirms summary judgment on the basis that Aegis is unable to show that a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence could find that the advertisement was capable of a defamatory meaning. Instead, I would hold that summary judgment is inappropriate in this case, reverse the trial court, and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
