Forrest Erectors, Inc. v. Holston Glass Company, Inc.
A Tennessee corporation located in Montgomery County filed a breach of contract action against a Tennessee corporation located in Sullivan Countyto collect moneyallegedlyowing for services rendered in North Carolina. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint because it concluded the proper venue was Sullivan County, where the defendant resides. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. The plaintiff’s action is transitory and therefore governed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-4-101. We conclude the cause of action arose in North Carolina and, pursuant to the statute, venue is proper in Tennessee where the defendant resides. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Danny Wayne Finchum v. Shanda Kay Finchum Cooper
This is an appeal from an order granting a partial summary judgment in an action to modify a final decree of divorce. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties but rather orders the remaining issues set for trial, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
B & C Construction Co., Inc. v. Bancorp South Bank, et al.
Appellant appealed a non-final judgment and therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John V. L. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services
Respondent father asserts the petition for dependency and neglect filed by the Department of Children’s Services in juvenile court should be dismissed for insufficient service of process, and that Tennessee Code Annotated 37-1-102(b)(23) is unconstitutional as applied to him. Upon de novo appeal, the circuit court affirmed the finding of dependency and neglect and dismissed the Constitutional challenge. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Barrom v. City of Memphis Civil Service Commission
The Memphis Police Department terminated the employment of Petitioner Police Officer for conduct unbecoming an officer following a physical altercation with a parking lot attendant. On appeal pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, the chancery court affirmed. On appeal to this Court, Petitioner asserts the trial court erred by refusing to admit additional evidence of disparate treatment in violation of his equal protection rights. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret A. Norfleet v. Pulte Homes Tennessee Limited Partnership
While touring a model home in a new residential home development, the plaintiff fell when she failed to see a four-inch step as she walked from the foyer into the sunken living room. This premises liabilityaction followed. The defendant constructed, owned, and managed the model home in which the plaintiff fell. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint upon two findings: that the defendant did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault. We affirm upon the finding that the plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was owed to her by the defendant. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Carolyn L. Denton-Preletz, et al. v. Susan L. Denton
This appeal concerns a note executed by Robert Denton (“Husband”) and Susan L. Denton (“Wife”) and payable to Husband’s sister, Carolyn L. Denton-Preletz (“Lender”). When Lender sought recovery of the note, Wife denied liability and filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the statute of limitations for recovery of the note had passed. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case as it related to Wife. Lender filed a motion to alter or amend the order and a motion to amend the complaint, which were denied. Lender appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Eric Kerney, et al. v. Gary Endres, et al.
This case is before us for the second time on appeal. In our first Opinion, Kerney v. Endres, No. E2008-01476-COA-R3-CV, 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 408 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2009), no appl. perm. appeal filed (“Kerney I”), we found and held that defendants’ beauty salon violated the restrictive covenants of residential use only, vacated the Trial Court’s order to the contrary, and remanded the case for a determination of whether the restrictive covenants had been waived. On remand, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the restrictive covenants of residential use only had been waived and were unenforceable. Plaintiffs appeal the finding of waiver to this Court. We find that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court’s finding that the restrictive covenants had been waived. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s May 3, 2010 order. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Avis Budget Group, Inc. v. James Hagood, d/b/a Hagood & Sons Wrecker Service
Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Avis”) sued James Hagood d/b/a Hagood & Sons Wrecker Service (“Hagood”) and, after a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment on October 15, 2010 awarding a judgment in favor of Avis in the amount of $7,284 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. Subsequently, Hagood filed a motion to alter or amend or for a new trial, which the Trial Court denied. Hagood appealed to this Court. Since the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees remains outstanding, we dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Ron Littlefield v. Hamilton County Election Commission, et al .
Chattanooga’s mayor, the subject of a recall petition, filed suit against the county election commission, seeking a declaratory judgment that the petition process was flawed and to enjoin the election commission from placing the recall issue on the November 2010 election ballot. The trial court found the election commission could not lawfully certify the recall petition due to noncompliance with applicable statutory provisions and enjoined the placement of the recall issue on the ballot. The leader of the recall effort appeals. We find that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in entering an injunction against the election commission. The judgment of the trial court is vacated and the complaint dismissed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Breanna A.L.
The Juvenile Court for Hamilton County (“the Juvenile Court”), upon a petition by the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and following a trial, terminated the parental rights of Troy L. (“Father”) to the minor child Breanna A. L. (“the Child”) pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(3) (2010). Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. We find and hold that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 13 (g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(3), and that clear and convincing evidence existed such that the termination was in the Child’s best interest. We, therefore, affirm the Juvenile Court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Braun v. Nita Lynn Braun
In this divorce case involving a minor child of the parties and the appellant Charles Braun’s stepson, the record before us does not contain a permanent parenting plan certified by the trial court clerk as being entered by that court. Furthermore, the record affirmatively shows that the trial court has not yet made a final decision as to an amount of child support to be paid by Charles Braun. Therefore, we are persuaded that there is no final judgment in this case. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Cynthia Rhea Helton v. Gregory Herbert Helton
This is a divorce case. Gregory Herbert Helton appeals from the “final” judgment of divorce entered April 29, 2011. That judgment is not a final judgment. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Gloria G. Neuenschwander v. Roy P. Neuenschwander
This appeal is being pursued from the trial court’s order of August 9, 2011. That order is not a final order. Accordingly, the appellant Gloria G. Neuenschwander’s appeal is hereby dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Matter of the Conservatorship of Mittie T. Alexander v. JB Partners, A Tennessee General Partnership
Plaintiff Conservator filed an action seeking rescission of a warranty deed executed by her Ward prior to the establishment of the conservatorship. The deed conveyed real property in Nashville to Defendant without consideration, but retained a life-estate. Plaintiff alleged incapacity to contract as grounds for recision. Prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s action, Defendant and Appellee Intervener executed a contractfor sale of the property, subject to the life-estate. The trial court determined that the Intervener held superior title to the real property under the doctrine of equitable conversion. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of Intervener pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Randstad North America, L.P. v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development
This appeal involves the constitutionality of a statute on temporary disability benefits,T.C.A. § 50-6-238. The plaintiff employment agency refused to pay temporary disability benefits to an employee who claimed that she was disabled from an on-the-job injury. The employee filed a request for assistance with the defendant Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development pursuant to T.C.A.§ 50-6-238. A workers’compensation specialist entered an order requiring the employer to pay temporary disability benefits to the employee. The employer filed an unsuccessful administrative appeal. The employer then filed the instant petition for common law writ of certiorari alleging, inter alia, that the procedures in T.C.A. § 50-6-238 violate the employer’s right to procedural due process. The trial court agreed and held the statute to be unconstitutional on its face. The State appeals. In light of this Court’s recent decision in Tyson Foods v. TDOL, No. M2010-0227-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 4790980 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2011), we reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Dayton, et al. v. James Ackerman d/b/a Home Design, Inc., et al.
Sellers of a house provided the purchasers with a Limited Warranty in which different aspects of the house were warranted to be without defects for a term not to exceed one year. The purchasers testified theycomplained two months following the closing that the windows did not operate properly, and the sellers testified the purchasers did not complain about the windows until after more than two years. The trial court found the purchasers’ testimony more credible, and based on the purchasers’ expert and other evidence, concluded the installation of the windows was defective. The court awarded the purchasers damages, consisting of the replacement cost for all the windows, even though not all the windows were defective. The sellers alleged the trial court erred by excluding its expert from testifying, by determining the window installation was defective, and in the way it calculated the purchasers’ damages. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified to correct a computational error in the calculation of damages. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
ICG Link, Inc. v. Philip Steen, et al. v. TN Sports, LLC v. ICG Link, Inc.
This is a dispute concerning payment for website development services. The plaintiff, a website development company, filed suit against the defendants, an LLC and its managing member in his individual capacity, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The trial court found there was no express contract between the parties due to a lack of mutual assent. The court found there was a quasi-contract and that plaintiff was entitled to the reasonable value of its services, minus the costs incurred by defendants in attempting to repair the defects in the website. Last, the court held the individual defendant personally liable for the judgment. We affirm the finding of a quasi-contract and the personal liability of the individual defendant; however, we modify the trial court’s monetary award, finding the plaintiff is entitled to recover a judgment of $13,952.88. The court’s holding is affirmed in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mamakeh Mamadi Jawara v. Latoya Michelle Jawara
This is an appeal from a divorce decree entered on August 5, 2008. Because the appellant voluntarily dismissed her first appeal from the same divorce decree in 2008, and did not file her current notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert R. Smith, As Conservator for the Estate of H. Boyd Israel, Ward v. Mark Israel
Petitioner sought to domesticate four orders entered by a probate court in Georgia for the payment of money pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §26-6-101, et seq. The trial court granted the petitioner the relief he sought, and the debtor appealed, arguing Tennessee public policy should prevent the orders from being enforced based on the unusual circumstances surrounding the issuance of the orders and his attorney’s misconduct in the Georgia proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s judgment because the Georgia court had jurisdiction to enter the orders and Tennessee courts are not in a position to review the facts leading to a foreign court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Town of Smyrna, Tennessee v. Perry Bell
The Town of Smyrna annexed land in 1991 that included a retail furniture store. The owner of that business kept a number of tractor-trailers parked on his property to store some of his inventory. Several years after the annexation, the town cited the owner in an attempt to enforce a municipal ordinance regulating the parking of tractor-trailers on commercially zoned property. The municipal court ruled against the owner. He appealed to the Circuit Court,which held that the ordinance in question was a zoning regulation and that the owner’s use of the tractor- trailers was protected bythe grandfathering provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 13-7-208(b)(1). The town contends on appeal to this court that the ordinance is a property maintenance regulation rather than a zoning regulation and that the owner’s use of the tractor-trailers is therefore not entitled to the protection of the grandfather clause. We agree, and we reverse the Circuit Court because the proof does not indicate that compliance with the ordinance would substantially interfere with the store owner’s use of the property as a retail furniture business. Thus, it cannot be considered a zoning ordinance as applied to him under the standard established by our Supreme Court in Cherokee Country Club v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.2d 466 (Tenn. 2004). |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Taylor BW, and Ashley NW
The father and his wife petitioned the Court to terminate the parental rights of the two minor children's mother and allow the father's wife to adopt the two minor children. After a myriad of pleadings, the Trial Court held an evidentiary hearing and ruled that the father had proved statutory grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights, and that it was in the best interest of the two minor children that her parental rights be terminated. The mother petitioned to reconsider, and upon further consideration the Trial Court reversed its ruling and held that it was not in the children's best interest to terminate her rights as a parent of the two children. Petitioners appealed, and on appeal we hold that clear and convincing evidence established the statutory grounds for termination and clear and convincing evidence established that it was in the children's best interest to terminate the mother's parental rights. Further, that the Trial Judge in reversing her findings that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate the parental rights of the mother, focused on the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the children, as required by the statute and authorities. We reinstate the original Judgment of the Trial Court terminating the mother's parental rights. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Kendra D. Carter, et al. v. Retha Batts
Plaintiffs prevailed in personal injury action against Defendant in Shelby County General Sessions Court. On appeal in Shelby County Circuit Court, the matter was tried before a jury and a judgment was rendered in favor of Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The circuit court granted Plaintiff’s motion, but the parties settled the matter before retrial and signed a release memorializing the settlement. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(3) alleging that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus its judgment was void, because the Defendant failed to perfect the appeal from general sessions court. The circuit court denied the motion and Plaintiffs appealed. Finding that Defendant properly perfected the appeal from general sessions court, and that the release executed by the parties encompassed Plaintiffs’ claim, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Aubrey E. Givens, et al. v. Vanderbilt University, et al.
The question in this case is whether the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice action. Because the lawsuit before this court was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Roy L. Hamilton v. Elizabeth K. Hamilton
The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify custody, restore telephone privileges, and re-evaluate income assignment. It found Father to be in contempt, and denied Mother’s request for attorney’s fees under Rule 11. The trial court awarded Mother a portion of her attorney’s fees. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals |
