State of Tennessee ex rel. Marsha Campbell v. Jeffrey D. Penuel, Sr.
Father filed a petition to terminate child support payments, due to the child for whom the support was payable reaching the age of majority. In disposing of the petition, the trial court, inter alia, assessed an arrearage and waived interest on the arrearage. The State appeals the action of trial court in waiving interest on the arrearage. We find that the court erred in waiving interest on the arrearage and remand the case for a determination of the amount of interest. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
William Lee Drumbarger v. State of Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, Charles Traughber et al.
Inmate appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari for failure to comply with the statutory requirement of verification. We find no error in the trial court’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Noah D. and Kevin D.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother of two children on the grounds of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse. Mother appeals, contending that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the grounds of termination. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights on the grounds found by the trial court. |
Pickett | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Viola B. Copas
This appeal concerns whether the son of a decedent breached his fiduciary duty under a power of attorney and as the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The siblings sued their brother, asserting that he used undue influence over their mother in order to unlawfully obtain her funds for his benefit to the exclusion of his mother and her estate. The brother argued that the money was properly used to take care of his mother and to run her farm. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the siblings for $2,040,276, plus attorney fees totaling $102,576.36, upon finding that the brother failed to meet his burden to rebut, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption of undue influence. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
City of Cookeville v. Mary Jackson
This is a condemnation case. Appellant, the City of Cookeville, appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was based upon its determination that the City of Cookeville failed to include Appellee’s real property in its application for certificates of public purpose and necessity as required under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 13-16-207(f). The trial court also awarded Appellee her reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. Affirmed and remanded. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Toymeka Quaites v. University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy
This is an appeal from an administrative decision dismissing a student from the University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the student had violated the Honor Code of the University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy by giving or receiving aid during an exam. The Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal, which was affirmed by the school’s Interim Chancellor. The student filed a petition for administrative review, which was not signed by her counsel. The chancellor concluded that, because the amended petition was filed outside the sixty day time limit set out inTennessee Code Annotated Section 4-5-322, the chancery court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The student appeals. Because the student’s brief does not comply with the requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we decline to address the merits of the case and dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Saundra Thompson v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education
This is a case involving a teacher who was dismissed without a hearing. Appellee teacher failed to return to work after a sick leave and her employment was terminated by the Appellant school board. When the school board refused to give the Appellee a tenure hearing, she filed a complaint for damages based on the Teachers’ Tenure Act and violations of her due process rights. Despite attempts to hold a tenure hearing, no hearing was ever held. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the chancellor reinstated Appellee and awarded her back pay. After a hearing on damages, the chancellor awarded compensatory damages and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1983. School board appeals. We affirm the denial of the school board’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, but vacate and remand the grant of Appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Clifford Leon Houston v. James B. Scott et al
The plaintiff filed this civil action in the shadow of a criminal case brought against him, which resulted in an acquittal. The defendants named in this civil action include two trial judges who presided over different aspects of the criminal case, the Circuit Court Clerk and two deputy court clerks of Roane County, Tennessee, and the State of Tennessee. All of the defendants filed motions to dismiss the civil action or motions for summary judgment on various grounds including judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, and that all of the alleged acts or omissions were performed under the color of law or in the performance of their official duties. The trial judge dismissed the civil action against the judges based upon judicial immunity, dismissed the action against the State upon sovereign immunity, and summarily dismissed the action against the clerks upon the unrefuted fact that the clerks properly fulfilled their official duties and because the complaint failed to explain how the plaintiff was damaged by the clerks’ actions. The trial court also dismissed Roane County, which was named as a defendant, because no specific allegations were made against the county independent of the claims against the clerks. We affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Christie Quinn-Glover v. The Regional Medical Center at Memphis
Plaintiff filed a retaliatory discharge claim against her employer pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304 and the Tennessee common law. The employer filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the employer’s motion without granting Plaintiff’s requests to amend her complaint. From the record, it is unclear whether the trial court considered Plaintiff’s requests, and if it did, the reasons for its denial of such are not apparent. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and we remand for consideration of her requests to amend and for express findings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfield
In this case, Patricia Carlene Mayfield (“Wife”) sought a divorce from Phillip Harold Mayfield (“Husband”). The parties had two minor children, a daughter (“Daughter”), born on September 10, 1998, and a son (“Son”), born on March 2, 2001. The trial court granted the divorce and designated Wife as the primary residential parent of the two minor children, divided the marital property, and awarded Wife discretionary costs. The court denied Husband’s request for alimony. Husband appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Keara J. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving siblings, Keara J. and Sierra J. (collectively “the Children”), the minor daughters of Christie J. (“Mother”) and Kenneth J. (“Father”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) received a referral from Keara’s pediatrician concerning her persistent lack of growth and development; at some 16 months old, she weighed only 19 lb., and was unable to walk, stand, or speak. DCS immediately removed Keara from her parents’ custody and filed a petition to terminate both parents’ rights, alleging that Keara was severely abused as a result of her parents’ neglect. Because of the severe abuse of Keara, she and her later-born sister, Sierra, were placed in separate foster homes. After a bench trial, the court granted the petition and terminated both parents’ rights to the Children. Mother and Father appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
George Sanders, Individually and d/b/a SMS Contractors, Inc. v. Breath of Life Christian Church, Inc., et al.
This is a contract case. The construction contract at issue provided for a specific contract amount plus a commission to the general contractor on any work done beyond the additional contract amount. After being dismissed from the job, the project manager for the general contractor sued both the general contractor and the owner of the property. The general contractor and the property owner then both sued the project manager and each other. After the property owner failed to satisfactorily respond to discovery requests, the trial court excluded all evidence of the property owner’s damages that had not already been provided in detail in discovery. The parties proceeded to trial, at which point the chancellor ordered that all issues of damages beyond the base contract damages would be referred to a special master. After trial, the chancellor found that the property owner materially breached the contract and awarded the remaining balance to be paid on the contract to the general contractor. The special master awarded the project manager damages for work performed as a direct subcontractor on the project and awarded the general contractor delay damages and the commission on all extra work done on the project. The trial court concurred in the findings of the special master and the property owner appealed, raising a number of issues. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Jeffrey Stancil v. Paul Edwin Stancil
Jennifer Jeffrey Stancil (“Wife”) filed for divorce against her husband, Paul Edwin Stancil (“Husband”), in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). In the course of the divorce, Wife filed a motion for temporary alimony. Husband, in his response to Wife’s motion, alleged that an antenuptial agreement precluded Wife from receiving any alimony. Wife asserted that the antenuptial agreement was invalid. After a trial, the Trial Court held that the antenuptial agreement was enforceable. Wife appeals. We hold that, as Wife was misled into signing the antenuptial agreement and adequate disclosure was not made, the antenuptial agreement is invalid. We reverse. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Jeffrey Stancil v. Paul Edwin Stancil - Concurring/Dissenting
I agree with the majority that Mr. Stancil, as the proponent of the validity of the antenuptial agreement, “has the burden of establishing the existence and terms of the agreement, . . .” and, going further, that he has the burden to ... |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Shavon Hurt v. John Doe, et al.
Plaintiff filed a personal injury action arising out of a pedestrian-vehicle collision, naming as defendant the owner of the car that allegedlystruck the plaintiff. After discovery, plaintiff amended the complaint to add “John Doe/Jane Doe” as a defendant and served process on her uninsured motorist carrier. Plaintiff subsequently settled with the named defendant and dismissed the action against that defendant; the uninsured motorist insurance carrier then filed a motion to dismiss the uninsured motorist claim. The trial court granted the motion, holding that, in light of the settlement, the uninsured motorist claim no longer existed and dismissed the case. We find that the court erred in dismissing the case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elaine Pijan v. Brett W. Pijan
The trial court awarded the wife a divorce after a marriage of over 30 years and divided the marital property between the parties. The financial assets of the parties were divided more or less equally, but the marital residence, valued at $130,000, was awarded to the wife. To equalize the division of property, the trial court awarded the husband a $65,000 security interest in the residence. The court also ordered the wife to redeem the husband’s security interest by amortizing it over a period of 30 years at an interest rate of 4% a year, which obligated her to pay the husband $310.32 monthly. The sixty-three year old husband argues on appeal that the property division was inequitable as to him because, in light of his age and life expectancy, the security interest in the home was an illusory award. We affirm the division of the property, but conclude that the method for payment of Husband’s share is inequitable under the circumstances. Therefore, we modify the property division so as to award the marital home to the wife and husband in joint tenancy. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Pleas Joseph Reed v. Cori Lavonne Reed
Pro se Husband filed a complaint for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences. The trial court dismissed Husband’s complaint because it did not conform to the Tennessee statutory requirements. Husband appealed the dismissal of his complaint, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Husband and Wife must comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-103 to be entitled to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Freddy Edwards v. Rodney Collins
The circuit court entered a judgment against Defendant following a bench trial. Defendant appealed, but he failed to provide this Court with a transcript or statement of the evidence. Due to our limited ability to review the proceedings below, we affirm the decision of the |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Russell Wilder v. Joseph Chamblee Wilder
In this contentious divorce action, after numerous hearings, the Trial Court entered a Final Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties' Marital Dissolution Agreement and the Permanent Parenting Plan. The Court suspended the PPP and reserved the child support issues. The mother appealed, arguing that the Trial Court refused to permit her to produce her argument, and erred in confirming the referee's recommendations. We hold that the record before us does not substantiate her contentions, and affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Dannye J.C.
At a proceeding in Juvenile Court, appellant was found guilty of severe child abuse, which she appealed to the Circuit Court. On motion of the Department of Human Services, the Trial Court dismissed the appeal without a trial. On appeal, we reverse the Trial Court on the grounds that Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-159 requires the Trial Judge to conduct a de novo trial on the appeal from Juvenile Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Rand, Inc. v. Automation Industrial Group, LLC et al
The first time this case was before us, see Tennessee Rand, Inc. v. Automation Industrial Group, LLC, No. E2009-00116-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 3852317 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed Sept. 29, 2010) (“Rand I”), we reversed that portion of the trial court’s judgment decreeing that Automation Industrial Group, LLC (“Automation”) was not entitled to recover on its counterclaim due to its fraud and we reinstated the trial court’s earlier judgment awarding Automation $2,270,759.22 plus prejudgment interest of $256,705.19. The trial court had entered its earlier judgment against Tennessee Rand, Inc. (“Rand”) on Automation’s counterclaim, and then set it aside on Rand’s motion to alter or amend. Although the parties had not addressed in the first appeal the prejudgment interest portion of the trial court’s earlier judgment, we, without extended discussion, reinstated the prejudgment interest as originally calculated by the trial court. What the parties did not put at issue or otherwise stress in the first appeal was the fact that Rand had challenged, in its motion to alter or amend, the accuracy of the trial court’s calculation of prejudgment interest. In that motion, Rand had argued that the trial court had obviously miscalculated prejudgment interest. In Rand I, we also reversed an award of discretionary costs to Rand because we concluded that Automation was the new prevailing party. Upon remand following our decision in Rand I, Rand asked the trial court to correct the miscalculation of prejudgment interest. Rand also asked the court to start the accrual of post-judgment interest from the date of entry of the trial court’s judgment on remand. Automation filed a motion for discretionary costs as the new prevailing party. The trial court on remand determined that it had miscalculated prejudgment interest but held that our opinion in Rand I prevented it from granting Rand any relief with respect to the miscalculation as well as with respect to the other relief requested by Rand. The trial court also denied Automation’s motion for discretionary costs, based, at least in part, on Automation’s substantial windfall award of prejudgment interest due to the miscalculation. Rand now appeals the denial of its motions, and Automation challenges the denial of its request for discretionary costs. Automation also asks us to determine an issue pertaining to interest on the unpaid portion of the judgment entered on remand. We conclude that, in the interest of justice, we must take corrective action pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 36 by granting Rand relief from the miscalculation of prejudgment interest. Since the erroneous and inflated award of prejudgment interest was one of the reasons given by the trial court for denying discretionary costs, we vacate that denial and remand for further consideration of Automation’s request. We affirm that part of the judgment, as modified by us, holding that Automation is entitled to post-judgment interest from the date of entry of the original judgment in its favor. Rand obtained a stay of collection of Automation’s judgment pending appeal upon posting a bond to cover interest accrued between the original judgment date and the date of the judgment on remand. The amount set by the trial court to obtain a stay did not include interest accrued on the unpaid portion of the judgment. We hold that Automation is entitled to recover post-judgment interest accrued on the judgment. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is vacated in part and modified in part. As vacated and modified, the judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Douglas Cofer v. Donnie Harris and Marcia Harris
This case arises from a dispute over an alleged partnership. Douglas Cofer (“Cofer”) filed suit in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”) against Donnie Harris and Marcia Harris (“the Harrises”, collectively). Cofer alleged that the Harrises were successors in a partnership established between Cofer and the Harrises’ father, Homer Harris, regarding the development of a trailer park on Homer Harris’s land. After a trial, the Trial Court found that, rather than a partnership, a lease relationship existed between the parties. The Trial Court awarded the Harrises damages for unpaid rent. Cofer appeals, raising various issues. The Harrises raise one issue on appeal concerning the calculation of damages. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in all respects. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Redland Insurance Company v. Don Willis
The appellant has appealed from an August 30, 2011 final judgment awarding him $1733.00 in damages. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Estate of Bessie Louise Thornton
In this will contest, the jury found that a confidential relationship existed between the principal beneficiary of the will and the testatrix; however, the jury also found that the will was not the result of undue influence and, therefore, the will was valid. The contestant filed post-trial motions pursuant to Rules 50.02 and 59 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, and alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court set aside the judgment of the jury, and entered judgment declaring the will invalid on the grounds that it was the result of undue influence. The trial court did not expresslyrule on the alternative motion for a new trial.The proponent of the will appeals, contending the trial court erred in setting aside the jury’s verdict and entering judgment in favor of the contestant. We agree that the trial court erred by entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; however, we have also concluded that the trial court, acting in its role as thirteenth juror, implicitly and conditionally granted the contestant’s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we remand the case for a new trial. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Minor Miracle Productions, LLC, et al. v. Randy Starkey
A pro se defendant appeals the decision of the trial court denying his motion to set aside a domesticated foreign judgment on the grounds that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case and that the judgment of the foreign court was obtained fraudulently. We affirm the trial court because the foreign court had jurisdiction, the judgment was not the product of fraudulent acts that were pled with specificity, and the judgment does not violate Tennessee public policy. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals |
