Rhonda Lynn G. (Pickle) Wheeler v. Jackie David Pickle
This appeal involves child support in the form of funds to be deposited into a savings account. The parties had two children and divorced. The mother was the primary residential parent. The father was ordered to pay some child support, below the guideline amount, directly to the mother. In addition, he was ordered to open and fund a savings account to be used to pay the children’s uninsured medical expenses. The order also stated that, once the children reached majority, any amounts left in the savings account were to be disbursed to the children. The father never opened or funded the savings account. The mother sought an award for the amounts that were supposed to have been deposited in the savings account. The trial court granted such an award in favor of the mother, and the father appeals. He argues that the amount that he was ordered to deposit into a savings account for uninsured medical expenses could not have been considered child support because the unused funds were to be disbursed to the children after they reached majority. He also argues that child support payments he made after the children reached majority should have been credited against any arrearage related to the savings account. We affirm, finding that the amounts ordered to have been placed in the savings account were part of the father’s child support obligation, and that the trial court did not err in declining to grant the father credit against the award based on child support paid after the children reached majority. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Regina F. Anderson v. Alfred Anderson
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in granting, and then failing to set aside, its Order of Judgment against Appellant. Appellant contends that he did not receive notice that his case was set for trial, as the court clerk failed to enter his address into the computer system, although it was provided in his Answer. In his Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, Appellant sought relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.01. However, in his brief, Appellant argues that the Judgment should be set aside pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 55.02, 60.01, and 60.02. Because Appellant did not raise Rule 55.02 before the trial court, and because a default judgment was not issued against Appellant, Rule 55.02 relief is inappropriate. Moreover, although Appellant raised Rule 60.01 before the trial court, the error alleged by Appellant is not a “clerical error” within the meaning of Rule 60.01. Finally, Appellant did not seek Rule 60.02 relief by motion, as required by the Rule, nor did he raise Rule 60.02 before the trial court . Thus, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. Additionally, we decline to find Appellant’s appeal frivolous or to require Appellee to pay the costs associated with this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Regina F. Anderson v. Alfred Anderson - Dissenting
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in granting, and then failing to set aside, its Order of Judgment against Appellant. Appellant contends that he did not receive notice that his case was set for trial, as the court clerk failed to enter his address into the computer system, although it was provided in his Answer. In his Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, Appellant sought relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.01. However, in his brief, Appellant argues that the Judgment should be set aside pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 55.02, 60.01, and 60.02. Because Appellant did not raise Rule 55.02 before the trial court, and because a default judgment was not issued against Appellant, Rule 55.02 relief is inappropriate. Moreover, although Appellant raised Rule 60.01 before the trial court, the error alleged by Appellant is not a “clerical error” within the meaning of Rule 60.01. Finally, Appellant did not seek Rule 60.02 relief by motion, as required by the Rule, nor did he raise Rule 60.02 before the trial court . Thus, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. Additionally, we decline to find Appellant’s appeal frivolous or to require Appellee to pay the costs associated with this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ivy Joe Clark and Vicky Clark, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Joyce Ann Shoaf, et al.
This dispute concerns the extent to which Appellant/Unnamed Defendant insurance carrier is liable for damages under Plaintiff/Claimant’s uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage where Defendant’s motor vehicle insurance carrier became insolvent during the pendency of the appeal of the matter. The trial court held Appellant insurance carrier was liable for the judgment rendered in Plaintiff’s favor up to the amount of Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sherrill Johnson, Individually and as next friend and mother of Victoria Johnson, a minor v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
A bystander in a parking lot was injured by a ricocheting bullet fired by a police officer. The officer and a fellow officer had been confronted in the parking lot by an armed assailant who fired his handgun at or towards the officers. The bystander, contending that one of the officers was negligent when he fired his weapon in self-defense, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment. We find that the police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances confronting him, and we therefore affirm the trial judge. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re C.C.S. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County
Mother appeals the Circuit Court’s finding her in criminal contempt for violation of a court order and the Circuit Court’s total suspension of contact between her and the child. Finding the criminal contempt to be proper, we affirm. Finding the total suspension of mother’s visitation was not the least drastic measure available, we reverse and remand for the court to determine whether the prior visitation schedule should be revised. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Huey Strader v. Charles Traughber, Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Probation & Parole
Huey Strader, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Davidson County Chancery Court, seeking review of the decision of the Board of Probation and Paroles revoking his parole, alleging that the Board acted arbitrarily and illegally by relying on hearsay evidence and on a confidential witness statement, in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and rules applicable to parole revocation proceedings. The trial court denied relief. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the Chancery Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Skinner v. Karen Thomas
This is a post-divorce case where Father petitioned for modification of the child custody order based on alleged material change in circumstances. The Williamson County Circuit Court partially granted the petition finding a material change in circumstances, but that a change in custody from Mother to Father was in the best interest of only one of the children, leaving custody of the other child with Mother. Both Father and Mother assert error by the trial court. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand this case for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra Kaye Kemp Parish, et al. v. Jerry Donald Kemp, et ux.
This case comes to us as an intra-family dispute over the validity of a nonagenarian’s inter vivos gifts and will devises. After this Court held that there was a presumption that Defendants had unduly influenced the decedent, the trial court found upon remand that the Defendants had overcome this presumption and, therefore, upheld the will conveyances and inter vivos gifts to the Defendants. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Defendants rebutted this presumption of undue influence, we affirm the trial court’s determinations. |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Shelby County Sheriff's Department v. Mark Lowe
The Shelby County Sheriff’s Department terminated the employment of Deputy Mark Lowe for violations of Department policies with respect to personal conduct, adherence to law, truthfulness, consorting with persons of bad or criminal reputation, and compliance with regulations regarding its code of ethics. The Civil Service Merit Board found Deputy Lowe guilty of the charges, but determined the punishment was excessive and modified it to a three-month suspension without pay followed by a one-year probationary period. Upon review, the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Merit Board. The Sheriff’s Department appeals. We vacate the order of the chancery court for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Electric Power Board a/k/a Nashville Electric Service ("NES") v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
A terminated Nashville Electric Service employee filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. NES filed a declaratory judgment action claiming the Metropolitan Charter prevented the Human Rights Commission from investigating the complaint. The chancery court agreed with NES. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy Lakeland Allen v. John Fox Allen, Jr.
This is a petition to modify alimony. In the parties’ divorce decree, the husband was ordered to pay the wife alimony in futuro based in part on the wife’s chronic, incurable health condition. About six years later, the husband filed this petition to reduce or terminate his alimony obligation, arguing that (1) the wife’s health condition had not declined as was originally anticipated, and (2) his income had decreased and the wife’s income had increased. The trial court denied the husband’s petition, concluding that a material change in circumstances had not occurred. The husband now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the trial court did not err in finding that the husband did not prove a material change in circumstances and in denying his petition to modify his alimony obligation. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Kyle, et al. v. J.A. Fulmer Trust
This appeal concerns a purchase option in a lease of a tract of land in Shelby County, Tennessee. Executed in 1950, the lease had an initial term of 50 years and six months. In 1953, the Lessee exercised its option to renew, allowing possession for an additional 50 years through 2050. In 2001, the Lessee attempted to exercise its option to purchase the leased property. Lessor then sought a declaratory judgment determining the validity of the purchase option, and if valid, the value to be paid for the Lessor’s interest in the property. The trial court found that the Lessee properly exercised the purchase option and that the value of the Lessor’s interest should be based upon the property as unencumbered by the remaining 50-year lease term. We affirm the trial court’s finding regarding the purchase option, but reverse its determination of the value of the Lessor's interest in the property. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Shane Johnson vs. State of Tennessee - Concurring
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Shane Johnson vs. State of Tennessee
Petitioner had entered a plea of delinquent to firing a weapon within the city limits and illegal possession of a firearm in Juvenile Court, and subsequently sought relief in a Post-Conviction Petition in the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the Petition on the grounds that petitioner was not in custody of the Department of Children’s Services at the time he filed the Petition for Relief. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Annette Cecilia Blakes v. Nicholas J. Sims
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred: (1) in modifying the Parties’ Final Decree of Divorce absent proof of a material change in circumstances affecting the best interest of the Parties’ child; (2) in making temporary modifications to the Final Decree of divorce absent clear and convincing proof that the child was being harmed or would be harmed in the situation that existed when the modifications were made; and (3) in finding that Father’s motives for relocating were vindictive, and in its concerns about Father’s willingness to comply with future court orders or to provide for the child. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of : The Estate of Allen Crawford Roberts, Deceased
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the probate court erred when it granted Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict. The probate court found that Appellants, in their proof in chief, did not satisfactorily make out a prima facie case of the Antenuptial Agreement’s validity under the statutes and appellate opinions of Tennessee as Appellants failed to establish that there was a satisfactory disclosure of Mr. Roberts’ assets. On appeal, Appellants contend that the motion for a directed verdict was improperly granted as reasonable minds could conclude that the Antenuptial Agreement was presented to, read, and understood by Appellee at execution and that the Antenuptial Agreement constituted a full and fair disclosure as required by Tennessee law. Although Appellants have urged an incorrect standard of review, we find, after a de novo review of the evidence, that Appellants made out a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. We reverse and remand to the probate court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Emily N. Williams v. Charles Cliburn
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her personal injury action as barred by the savings statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105. The trial court measured the period for refiling the action from the date of entry of an Order of Non-Suit which had been sent to the court by facsimile rather than from the date of entry of the hard copy of the order. We find that the trial court correctly held that the operative date for purposes of the Tennessee savings statute was the date of entry of the first order received and signed by the court, but that Plaintiff was not given notice of entry of the order, as his counsel had requested. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this action and remand for further proceedings. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Doris Jones And Billy Jones v. Lisa June Cox
This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 appeal from the trial court’s denial of Appellant/Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Appellees/Plaintiffs’ complaint for legal malpractice. Appellant, a licensed attorney, represented the Appellees in a lawsuit following an automobile accident. Appellant failed to effect service of process on the party-defendant to that suit. Appellees retained other counsel and filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Appellant. Appellees’ new counsel made a strategic decision to withhold service of process on Appellant pending the outcome of the underlying case. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.01(3) for intentional delay of service of process. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and this appeal followed. We reverse and remand. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Ice Stores, Inc. v. Gregory Reier Holmes
This appeal involves the enforcement of a foreign judgment. In 1997, the defendant pled nolo contendere to a criminal charge in a Texas court. As a part of his sentence, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution. The judgment of conviction listed the party to whom restitution should be paid. In 2005, the plaintiff corporation filed a lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking to enforce the Texas judgment. In his response, the defendant noted that the plaintiff corporation was not the party named in the Texas judgment to receive restitution from the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the entity listed in the Texas judgment to receive restitution was the plaintiff’s “doing business as” name, and that the plaintiff was in fact the proper party to enforce the Texas judgment. A hearing on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was held before expiration of the required thirty-day period after service of a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff corporation. The defendant now appeals. He argues that the trial court erred by holding the hearing on the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion before expiration of the T.R.C.P. 56.04 thirty-day period. He also argues that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff corporation to domesticate and enforce the foreign judgment. We affirm, finding that the defendant was not prejudiced by being deprived of the T.R.C.P. 56.04 thirty-day period between service of the motion for summary judgment and the hearing, and that summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff corporation was otherwise proper. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Cedric Renee Mims & Angela Brown
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights. The children were taken into protective custody soon after the birth of the youngest child, and were ultimately found to be dependent and neglected. The father was not appointed an attorney at this stage of the proceedings. Both the mother and father underwent psychological evaluations; both were found to be in the mild range of mental retardation and lacking the mental capacity to care for their children. DCS sought termination of their parental rights, alleging several grounds, including abandonment and mental incapacity. After a hearing, the lower court terminated the parental rights of both parents. The father appeals, arguing that DCS did not prove abandonment and mental incompetence by clear and convincing evidence. He also argues that the failure to appoint an attorney for him during the dependency and neglect proceedings was a denial of his right to due process. We affirm the trial court’s finding on the ground of mental incompetence. We also find that any violation of Father’s due process rights in relation to the dependency and neglect proceedings was remedied by procedural protections in place in the termination proceedings. Therefore, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Earnest Edwin Gilchrist v. Juan T. Aristorenas, M.D
This appeal arises from a medical malpractice claim. The defendant physician performed an operation on the plaintiff patient. Complications occurred during the surgery; as a result, the patient required several more procedures and spent approximately three weeks in the hospital. The patient hired an attorney, who obtained an opinion letter from a physician expert, in which the expert opined that the defendant physician breached the standard of care during the patient’s initial operation. After securing the expert opinion, the patient filed this lawsuit against the defendant physician for medical malpractice. After the case had been pending for several years, the attorney for the defendant physician took the deposition of the patient’s expert. At the deposition, the patient’s expert changed his opinion, and testified that he believed that the defendant physician’s care of the patient was not below the standard of care. The next day, the defendant physician filed a motion for summary judgment. Several months later, the patient filed a motion under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.07 requesting a continuance of the summary judgment motion because he had been unable to engage another expert. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant physician. The patient appeals. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to continue the motion for summary judgment. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the request for a continuance, and thus in the grant of summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Ex Rel., Margaret V. Hickman v. Ronald L. Dodd
This is a Title IV-D child support case. Appellee father executed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and a consent paternity order. After discovering that he was not the child’s biological father, Appellee sought relief from both his retroactive and future child support obligations. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion on the ground that he was not the biological father. The State of Tennessee seeks review of the trial court’s decision. We conclude that the trial court did not have authority to forgive Appellee’s child support arrears. Moreover, Appellee has neither alleged sufficiently specific facts to challenge the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity as required under Tenn. Code. Ann. § 24-7-113, nor has he satisfied the necessary requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P.60.02 to gain relief from either the consent paternity order, or the order on child support entered in the chancery court. We reverse and remand. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Debra J. Eaton v. Stephen G. Portera, M.D.
This is a medical malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee doctor on grounds of insufficient service of process, and failure of Appellant patient to come forward with the required expert proof to refute the motion for summary judgment. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald E. Crook v. Landon Despeaux
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, a diabetic, consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and then proceeded to drive south towards an intersection. At about the same time, the defendant was traveling east toward the same intersection. The plaintiff’s vehicle skidded, hit the curb, and then collided with a telephone pole. After the onecar accident, the plaintiff followed the defendant and his family to a nearby parking lot and accused the defendant of running the stop sign at the intersection and causing the plaintiff’s accident. After that, the police arrived and gave the plaintiff a breathalyzer test, which he failed. The plaintiff was later convicted of reckless driving and driving under the influence of an intoxicant in connection with the accident. At his criminal trial, the plaintiff admitted drinking alcohol and that his tires were in poor condition. The plaintiff nevertheless filed a negligence claim against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that, based on the plaintiff diabetic’s intoxication and faulty tires, he was, as a matter of law, at least fifty percent at fault for his own injuries. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
