Blair Wood, et al v. Tony Wolfenbarger, et al.
Blair Wood and Gary Wood (“Plaintiffs”) sued Tony Wolfenbarger and Brenda Wolfenbarger (“Defendants”) alleging, in part, that Defendants had wrongfully cut down six trees on Plaintiffs’ real property. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendants were liable for negligently cutting the trees, that the current market value of the timber cut was $840, and that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in double the amount of the current market value of the timber pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court alleging that the Trial Court erred in awarding damages based upon the timber value. We find and hold that the evidence preponderates against the finding that timber value was the correct measure of damages in this case. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment to award Plaintiffs damages of $62,100 based upon the trunk formula method of valuation and affirm the judgment as so modified. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie Newpher Tachek v. David James Tachek
In this divorce action the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, gave custody of the children to the father, divided the marital property and ordered a monetary judgment against the mother to the father, as an equitable distribution of the marital property. The mother has appealed and questioned the Trial Judge's award of custody of the children to the father, and the Trial Judge ordering a monetary judgment against the mother to the father. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Layla C.S.
Petitioner filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside a parental termination and adoption decree. The motion asked relief from the Judgment on the ground set forth in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.02(1) and (2). The Trial Court held that petitioner did not establish a basis to set aside the Judgment on the grounds relied upon in the Rule 60.02 motion. On appeal we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Charles A. Harmon, et al. v. James J.J. Jones, et al.
Property of the appellants was seized following a traffic stop. Requests for return of the property were denied by the Knox County Sheriff’s Department. The appellants, who were not facing any criminal charges, filed an action in criminal court seeking the return of all the seized property. The Sheriff’s Department subsequently filed drug forfeiture warrants and property receipts. The appellants argued that the Sheriff’s Department was attempting to initiate Department of Safety jurisdiction in disregard of their earlier filing in criminal court. The criminal court dismissed the action, asserting lack of jurisdiction. The appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Department of Safety ex rel. Charles A. Harmon, et al. v. Carltone E. Bryant, IV, et al.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to have the appellees held in criminal contempt based upon their failure to comply with various subpoenas commanding them to appear at depositions and produce documents to be used by the appellants in the context of an administrative asset forfeiture proceeding on the docket of the Tennessee Department of Safety. The petition was filed in the Criminal Court for Knox County, Tennessee. It was denied on grounds that the court in which the petition was filed had no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Waste Services of Decatur, LLC v. County of Lawrence, et al.
Losing proposer for solid waste management services challenges Lawrence County’s decision to contract with another proposer. Because we find that the County acted arbitrarily and illegally in making its decision, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
E. Ron Pickard and Linda Pickard, as Trustees of the Sharon Charitable Trust and as Individuals v. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Water Quality Control Board and Tennessee Materials Corporation
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a permit allowing a proposed rock quarry to discharge storm water and wastewater into a nearby creek. Owners of property allegedly affected by the discharge filed an appeal challenging the issuance of the permit with the Water Quality Control Board, as well as a petition seeking a declaratory order construing the rules regarding the protection of existing uses of waters. The Water Quality Control Board refused to issue a declaratory order and the property owners appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested,we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for dismissal of this cause. Vacated and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Plants, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company et al.
This is the second of two similar but separate civil actions and appeals among the same |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Plants, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company et al.
At issue is the scope of a binding arbitration clause in a federally-reinsured multiple peril crop insurance policy and the scope of federal preemption of common law claims. The insured, a nursery in Warren County, Tennessee, suffered a catastrophic loss of stock, primarily trees and shrubs, due to a tornado on April 7, 2006. The insured submitted a claim in excess of a million dollars. The adjuster determined, due to “under-reporting of inventory”, that the insured was only entitled to recover $195,225. The insured demanded arbitration; the arbitrator ruled that the insured was due no additional payment. Thereafter, the insured filed this action asserting common law claims against the insurer, its adjustment firm, and the independent insurance agency that solicited the policy, for breach of contract, negligence, breach of the duty of care, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory bad faith. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims against the insurer and its adjustment firm finding the claims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata because the issues were decided at arbitration and that the insured’s only remedy was judicial review of the arbitration decision. On appeal, the insured contends that its state law claims were not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Appellees disagree and additionally assert that the insured’s common law claims are preempted by federal law. We have determined the claims for breach of contract, breach of duty of care, and statutory bad faith are preempted by federal law; however, the claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation are not preempted by federal law and are not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this action for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re $1,683.05 Deposited in Attorney's Trust Account
Attorney representing the husband in a divorce proceeding claimed a statutory lien on funds in his trust account to secure payment of his fee; the attorney filed a separate action seeking a determination of his rights to funds held in his trust account. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. Finding that the court dismissed the case employing an erroneous legal standard, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Jacob et al. v. Alexis Partee and Tom Bedell, Jr., v. Top Gun Body Shop
Appellants attempted to appeal the decision of the General Sessions Court to the Circuit Court without filing an appeal bond, but the Circuit Court dismissed the attempted appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants claim that an appeal bond need not be filed where an appeal filing fee is paid. We find that, to perfect an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court, an appeal bond must be filed; payment of the appeal filing fee does not satisfy this jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the matter. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy Rose Baker v. Jeffrey D. Baker
In this contentious post-divorce dispute, the father has appealed from the trial court’s order |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: S.J., C.J., and J.J.
This appeal arises out of dependency and neglect proceedings. The respondent mother has three children, one an infant. The infant suffered numerous unexplained injuries and was diagnosed with failure to thrive. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to have all three children declared dependent and neglected, and alleged severe child abuse as to the infant. The trial court declared all three children dependent and neglected, but declined to find severe abuse. The respondent mother now appeals the trial court’s finding of dependency and neglect, and the Department of Children’s Services appeals the trial court’s failure to find severe child abuse as to the infant. We affirm the trial court’s finding that all three children were dependent and neglected, but find clear and convincing evidence that the infant suffered severe abuse; therefore, we reverse the trial court’s finding on severe abuse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Almond Reid v. Nigel Reid, Sr.
This appeal involves a dispute between brothers. One brother owned an apartment complex and leased one of the apartments to his brother. The tenant brother allegedly failed to pay rent to the landlord brother. The landlord brother filed a forcible entry and detainer action in general sessions court seeking possession of the property and a judgment for the unpaid rent. The general sessions court entered a judgment in favor of the landlord brother. The tenant brother appealed to circuit court. The circuit court conducted a trial de novo. After the trial, the circuit court awarded the landlord brother possession of the property and a judgment for the unpaid rent. The tenant brother now appeals. We affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds) v. Aaron R. Edmonds
April Hunter Rigsby (Edmonds) (“Mother”) and Aaron R. Edmonds (“Father”) divorced in 2008. Mother and Father are the parents of the minor child, Elijah E. (“the Child”). In the permanent parenting plan entered with the divorce, Mother was designated as the Child’s primary residential parent. Mother and Father were to have equal time with the Child. Mother later petitioned the Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”) to relocate with the Child. The Trial Court granted Mother’s petition. In 2011, Father filed a petition to modify the final decree of divorce, attached to which was his new proposed permanent parenting plan wherein he requested to be designated the Child’s primary residential parent. Father argued, among other things, that because the Child was approaching school age, the child would be better served going to school in Father’s community. Mother filed an answer to Father’s petition, including her own proposed new permanent parenting plan. The Trial Court found in favor of Father, designated Father as the new primary residential parent of the Child, and set a new parenting schedule. The Trial Court also ordered Mother to pay child support. Mother appeals. We hold that no material change of circumstances occurred to justify a change in the Child’s primary residential parent. We affirm, in part, and, reverse, in part. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Jerome Fuller v. City of Memphis
The trial court found that Defendant City of Memphis was not liable for injuries to Plaintiff resulting from an automobile accident in which Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by a third party. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony D. Childs, et al. v. UT Medical Group, Inc., et al.
Plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of nonsuit in this medical malpractice action in July 2009. They refiled their claim in September 2010. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121 Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David R. Smith v. Tennessee National Guard
Plaintiff was a full-time employee of the Tennessee National Guard until 2002 when he commenced active duty service in the Active Guard and Reserve. Near the completion of his active duty service in the Active Guard and Reserve, Plaintiff asked the Tennessee National Guard to rehire him pursuant to the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). When the Tennessee National Guard refused, Plaintiff filed this action alleging it violated USERRA. The Tennessee National Guard responded to the complaint by filing a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon sovereign immunity from USERRA claims. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Because the Tennessee General Assembly has not passed legislation to expressly waive its sovereign immunity from claims based on USERRA, as other states have done, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Elaine Dobbs v. Brooke Anthony Dobbs
In appeal from final decree in divorce action, Husband contends that the trial court erred in designating Wife as primary residential parent, in valuing the marital residence which was awarded to Wife, and in failing to require Wife to refinance the marital residence in her name alone. We affirm the designation of Wife as primary residential parent and the court’s valuation of the marital residence and remand the case for the courtto determine a reasonable length of time for Wife to secure Husband’s release from the indebtedness on the marital residence and to amend the final decree accordingly. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Sandra M. and David M.
Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights. Finding that two grounds for parental termination have been established and that termination is in the best interests of the children, we affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Lee Poindexter v. John M. Poindexter, Sr.
This is a divorce action filed by the wife and counter-complaint by the husband both seeking the divorce. After the trial, the Trial Court divided the marital property, granted the wife a divorce, and granted the wife alimony. The husband has appealed. We affirm the award of alimony, but modify the marital property division. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Deanna Lynne Dodd v. Michael Thomas Dodd
In this post-divorce proceeding, the mother of the parties’ only minor child filed two motions to alter or amend the divorce decree in order to clarify the parties’ obligations under the marital dissolution agreement regarding their 2009 income tax returns, and two petitions for civil contempt. The contempt petitions alleged that the father failed to make timely child support payments and failed to reimburse the mother for mortgage payments, medical expenses, and school-related expenses for the parties’ child. The trial court denied the motions to alter or amend,finding that the amendment sought by the mother was unnecessary and that the father breached the tax provision of the MDA as written. The court also denied the petitions for civil contempt, finding that the father purged himself of the contempt prior to hearing on the petitions. The court ordered the father to pay the mother $10,302.36 plus post-judgment interest for the tax liability she incurred due to the father’s refusal to file a joint tax return and $3,500 for the attorney’s fees the mother incurred in filing the petitions for contempt. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Westgate Resorts v. James G. Neely, Commissioner, et al
This is an unemployment compensation case. Cynthia L. Vukich-Daw filed a claim for unemployment compensation following her termination from Westgate Resorts. The claim was originally granted by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and subsequently upheld by the Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review. Westgate Resorts filed a petition for judicial review, and the trial court reversed the Board of Review’s decision, finding that Cynthia L. Vukich-Daw was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits because she was a qualified real estate agent pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-7-207. Cynthia L. Vukich-Daw and the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
ARI, Inc. v. James G. Neeley, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development
This is an appeal of the Chancery Court’s order upholding the Tennessee Department of |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gossett Motor Cars, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. et al.
This appeal concerns a car dealership’s protest of Hyundai’s proposal to enter into a |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
