In Re Estate of Thomas Grady Chastain - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s Opinion. I believe that the answer to the issue of “Whether the Will was signed in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-104” is a simple no. The majority, however, strives mightily to arrive at a conclusion that the Testator’s signature on a document other than the purported Will somehow satisfies the statutory requirement that the Testator signed the purported Will. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Michelle Brown v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on her claims for statutory procurement of breach of contract, common law inducement of breach of contract, and tortious interference with business relationship. Finding that plaintiff failed to establish one or more essential element of each claim, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Bivins, as next of kin and natural parent of Brandon Bivins, deceased v. City of Murfreesboro
Plaintiff filed an action against the City of Murfreesboro pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, claiming a dangerous and unsafe roadway caused an automobile accident in which her son was killed. The trial court determined the City had no notice of an unsafe or dangerous condition, and entered judgment in favor of the City. Upon appeal, we reversed on the issue of notice, holding that previous accidents on adjacent areas of the roadway provided sufficient notice to the City of a potentially dangerous condition. Upon remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and assessed 60% fault to the City. We vacate and remand for further findings consistent with Rule 52 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
James Watry v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation
Insured was injured by an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. Insured filed a claim with Insurer seeking uninsured motorist coverage benefits and settled for an amount that was less than his actual damages. Insured then sued Insurer seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Act. Insurer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which the trial court granted. We affirm the trial court’s judgment because Insured failed to allege sufficient facts to support any of his causes of action. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tish Walker, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Lisa Jo Abbott v. Dr. Shant Garabedian
This appeal concerns the application of the locality rule in a medical malpractice case. The trial court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s medical expert, based on the locality rule. On this basis, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant physician. The plaintiff appeals. We vacate the order excluding the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert and the grant of summary judgment, and remand for reconsideration in light of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s recent decision Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011). |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
G. Kenneth Campbell, et al v. James E. Huddleston et al.
James E. Huddleston and his wife, Patricia M. Huddleston (“the Sellers”), sold their house to G. Kenneth Campbell and his wife, Teresa J. Campbell (“the Buyers’). The Buyers inquired of the Sellers as to whether there had been flooding in the house. The Sellers disclosed that there had been one flood in the basement to a depth of six inches. During the course of some later renovations, the Buyers became aware the Sellers had indicated, on a wall stud, that there had been a 1998 flood in the basement to a depth of 38 inches. They |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
FILMtech, Inc. v. Charlie McAnally, d/b/a Grainger Paving
Plaintiff brought this action against this contractor alleging breach of contract to construct an asphalt parking lot for plaintiff. The Trial Court determined that defendant breached the contract and awarded damages. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
Donald W. Owen and Jennifer Owen v. Long Tire, LLC; Leon Long; and Nancy Long v. Owen Alignment, Inc.
This is a breach of contract and conversion case. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and conducted a bench trial on the defendants’ counterclaim for breach of contract and conversion. The trial court held in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs now appeal. We find the plaintiffs’ appellate brief to be in substantial violation of Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure; in light of this, we decline to address the merits of the case and dismiss the appeal. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Cassandra Lynn Rudd v. Howard Thomas Rudd
This appeal concerns post-divorce parenting time. In the first appeal in this case, this Court reviewed the trial court’s denial of any parenting time for the appellant father with his daughter. This Court remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether parenting time |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Carolyn Wells v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
This appeal involves the exclusion of expert testimony. The plaintiff employee filed a lawsuit against the defendant railroad employer pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, seeking compensation arising out of alleged work-related injuries. The parties took the depositions of two experts for the plaintiff, an ergonomist and her treating orthopedic surgeon. The railroad subsequently filed motions in limine to exclude the testimony of the two experts, as well as a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motions in limine, excluding the testimony of both experts. It then granted summary judgment in favor of the railroad. The employee appeals the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony of her experts. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Sides v. Robert E. Cooper, Attorney General for the State of Tennessee, et al.
This appeal arises from the removal of Plaintiff’s political signs from public property by employees of the Defendant City of Memphis pursuant to a sign ordinance. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the sign ordinance was unconstitutional, and further alleged that he was entitled to damages for the removal and disposal of his signs under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City, upholding the constitutionality of the sign ordinance. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to include additional claims challenging the constitutionality of the sign ordinance. In response, the City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff’s remaining claims under the GTLA were time barred by the one-year statute of limitations. After conducting a hearing on the motions, the trial court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, and granted the City's motion for summary judgment, resulting in dismissal of the action. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City was proper. Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Frances Seward Bennett and Don Seward v. City of Memphis
Plaintiffs sued the City of Memphis, claiming that they were fraudulently induced to sign a |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cameron General Contractors, Inc. v. Kingston Pike, LLC
Cameron General Contractors, Inc., a Nebraska corporation (“Cameron”), sued Kingston Pike, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (“Kingston Pike”), for breach of a contract concerning the sale of real property located in Knoxville, Tennessee. Prior to trial, Cameron elected to exercise its contractual right to terminate the contract, and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the contract did not limit Cameron to the return of its earnest money, and granting Cameron a judgment against Kingston Pike for damages in the amount of $872,418.22, plus attorney’s fees of $137,656.56. Kingston Pike appeals to this Court. We find and hold that the contract at issue clearly and unambiguously provides that once Cameron chose to terminate the contract, Cameron’s sole remedy for Kingston Pike’s breach was a return of Cameron’s earnest money deposit. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s October 28, 2010 order. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Mack T. Transou v. State of Tennessee, Warden Ricky Bell
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a Petition for Writ of Common Law Certiorari or in the Alternative Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by a former inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction.The petition alleges that several agencies or individuals who were not named defendants in the petition imposed two allegedly “illegal” sentences upon him, thus, violating his civil rights. The sentences expired in 1999 and 2000, respectively. The petition was filed in 2009. The pertinent statute of limitations is a one-year statute. Thus, the petition is time barred and the dismissal of the petition on that ground is affirmed. We have also determined the issues are moot. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lawrence F. Goodine v. City of Chattanooga
This case concerns the termination of Lawrence F. Goodine (“Goodine”) from his job as a police officer for the City of Chattanooga (“Chattanooga”). Goodine was terminated from his job based on certain incidents that resulted in police internal affairs investigations and charges. Goodine appealed his termination to the Chattanooga City Council (“the City Council”), which upheld his termination. Goodine then filed an application for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). Goodine sought reversal of the City Council’s decision and his reinstatement as a police officer. The Trial Court affirmed the City Council’s decision. Goodine appeals, raising a number of issues. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Hendricks Faulkner, by and through next friend, Arlene Baker v. Robert Graves and wife, Barbara Graves
The order appealed in this matter is not a final judgment. Appellant failed to respond to this Court's Order permitting Appellant to obtain entry of a final judgment or else show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Joshua N. Lee, v. Lyons Construction Company, Inc
Plaintiff and others sustained injuries in a single car accident and sued defendant construction company and the Tennessee Department of Transportation, alleging that defendant construction company had recently completed work on that section of the highway where the accident occurred, and that a low point in the pavement caused plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle and wreck. Defendant answered, stating that they had completed the required construction on that section of the highway, and the State had accepted its work pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §12-4-501 et seq. which provides upon proper completion of the work the contractor "is discharged from all liability to any party". Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court granted and plaintiff appealed. We hold that summary judgment for the defendant in this case was proper, and affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Smith c/o Rodterrius M. Tinnel (Deceased), et al. v. HFH, Inc. d/b/a DHL And Pacific Employers Insurance Company, et al.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a default judgment. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Dylan H., et al.
This is a parental rights termination case in which Karen C. and Raymond C. (collectively the “Grandparents”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Valerie H. (“Mother”) and Ronnie H. (“Father”) to minor children, Dylan H. and Jade H. (collectively the “Children”). Temporary custody of the Children was awarded to the Grandparents in July 2007. The Grandparents, alleging abandonment, persistence of conditions, and failure to adhere to a permanency plan, filed a petition to terminate parental rights in February 2010. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed the petition as to Father but found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment and that it was in the best interest of the Children to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals. We do not believe the Grandparents proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother abandoned the Children. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as may be necessary. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Reynoldo Collazo, et al. v. Joe Haas, d/b/a Haas Construction, et al.
This is an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits following a motor vehicle collision involving the plaintiff and another vehicle. The driver of the defendant vehicle left the scene and has not been identified.The owner of the vehicle was subsequently identified, but denied knowing the identity of the driver and claimed no one had permission to operate the vehicle at the time of the accident. The named defendants in this action are the owner of the vehicle and John Doe, the unknown driver. Plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance Co., is an unnamed defendant. The defendant owner has liability insurance coverage through State Farm Insurance Co. The plaintiffs settled all claims against the defendant-owner and State Farm for $90,000, $10,000 less than the uninsured motorist limits with Nationwide. Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued to pursue their claims against Nationwide for uninsured motorist benefits, insisting the settlement with the owner of the vehicle did not bar their claims against the uninsured John Doe driver. Upon motion for summary judgment by Nationwide, the trial court found that because the owner of the vehicle had $100,000 of liability insurance, there was not an “uninsured motor vehicle.” Based on this finding, the trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist claim against Nationwide. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Carol Phillips v. Todd Shrader
This is a dispute between two neighbors over the use of land. The plaintiff, Carol Phillips, charged the defendant, Todd Shrader, with trespass. She sought an injunction and damages, along with removal of encroaching structures. The trial court dismissed Ms. Phillips’s action, finding it barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-103. Ms. Phillips appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey L. Dillon v. NICA, Inc., et al.
After his claim for insurance benefits for an injury sustained while making a delivery was denied,plaintiff filed suitagainstthe delivery company,the companyproviding the insurance coverage and its president, and the third party administrator of the insurance plan, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and conspiracy to evade the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The jury found the company providing the insurance and its president liable for violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the insurance company and president contend that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was an employee of delivery company rather than an independent contractor, in excluding various exhibits and testimony, in denying the president’s motion for a directed verdict, and in awarding punitive damages. Because the punitive damage awarded was predicated on the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, which does not authorize an award of punitive damages, the award of punitive damages is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether an award of treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act should be awarded. In all other respects, the judgment and rulings are affirmed. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
David White v. Empire Express, Inc. and Empire Transportation, Inc.
The case involves a lease-purchase agreement. The plaintiff truck driver worked for the defendant hauling company. He entered into a lease-purchase agreement with the codefendant leasing company, affiliated with the employer hauling company, to purchase the truck he drove in his employment. At the end of the lease, the leasing company refused to transfer title to the truck to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against both defendant companies, alleging breach of contract, conversion, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The defendants asserted the affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment based on the plaintiff’s employment agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff on all of his claims. However, based on an arbitration provision in the employment agreement, it granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of the defendants’ affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment. The defendants now appeal. In light of the trial court’s order compelling arbitration, we dismiss the appeal and remand for entry of an order staying the proceedings pending the arbitration. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas H. Gilreath, et al. v. Donald G. Peters, II
Thomas H. Gilreath and Carol L. Gilreath (“Plaintiffs”) sued Donald G. Peters, II (“Defendant”) with regard to a right-of-way. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order on February 17, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendant had interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of the right-of-way, and that the right-of-way “should remain open and unobstructed ….” Defendant did not appeal this judgment. Plaintiffs later filed a motion for contempt. During a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendant made an oral motion seeking to set aside the February 17, 2010 order pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(5). After the hearing, the Trial Court entered its order denying Defendant’s Rule 60.02(5) motion, and finding Defendant in contempt of the Trial Court’s February 17, 2010 order. Defendant appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the denial of his Rule 60.02(5) motion, and the finding of contempt. We affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Bank v. Bric Constructors, LLC, f/k/a Bric Contractors, LLC, and Patricia McIntosh
This is an action to collect a debt and to recover collateral. The defendant LLC obtained a line of credit from the plaintiff bank. The LLC borrowed against the line of credit to purchase certain property, and the property was pledged as collateral. Several months later, the line of credit was converted into a fixed amount loan over a longer term, and a new security agreement was executed pledging the same collateral. On the same day, the LLC obtained another line of credit secured by the LLC’s accounts receivable. The next day, the LLC took an advance on the new line of credit. The LLC made monthly payments on both obligations for almost a year, and then it defaulted. The plaintiff bank filed this lawsuit against the LLC and its principal to collect on the loans and to recover the collateral. The LLC contended that the principal of the LLC did not sign key documents, did not authorize advances, and did not authorize the pledge of the collateral. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the bank based on, among other things, its finding that the principal of the LLC had ratified any allegedly unauthorized advances made under the lines of credit. The defendants now appeal. We reverse the finding of ratification as to one advance and remand for further findings; in all other respects, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
