CitiFinancial Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Augustus Beasley, et al.
Appellants Augustus and Sheila Beasley (the Beasleys) seek to challenge the denial of their request to appeal an adverse unlawful detainer judgment to circuit court and to set aside the foreclosure of their residence. Specifically, the Beasleys appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to CitiFinancial Mortgage, Inc. (Citi) and denial of their petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, filed after the deadline for appealing the judgment as of right. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it did not set forth sufficient merits for removal to circuit court for a trial de novo. In the petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, the Beasleys advanced as grounds for review the insufficiency of funds for filing a timely appeal and premature foreclosure on their residence in violation of the deed of trust. On appeal, they contend these allegations constituted sufficient merits as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-129. We reverse and remand. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Jackson v. Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board, et al.
Petitioner/Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his appeal under a writ of certiorari arising from the decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board to terminate his employment with the Criminal Court Clerk’s Office. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Adams
Appellant appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his appeal from the Juvenile Court of Shelby County. The Criminal Court found that Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under T.C.A. § 37-1-159. Finding that the Appellant’s appeal was timely, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Dawn Winton Haines v. Lee Alan Haines
In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the petition of Lee Alan Haines (“Father”) to change the custody of the parties’ two minor children from Lisa Dawn Winton Haines (“Mother”) to Father. The change in custody followed a bench trial at which the trial court heard, in chambers, the testimony of the children as elicited by the leading questions of the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”). The examination took place outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. Mother appeals, (1) challenging the change of custody; (2) questioning evidentiary rulings by the trial court; and (3) asserting that the trial court erred in allowing the children to be questioned in chambers by the GAL outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. We hold that the in-chambers proceeding, as designed and conducted by the trial court, constitutes error. Because we deem the error to be a violation of due process and prejudicial to the judicial process, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in toto and remand for a new trial before a different judge. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Neva Jane Marcrum v. Thomas T. Marcrum, Sr.
The sole issue in this appeal involves the division of property upon the divorce of the two parties. Having reviewed the record, we modify the division as to one specific finding of fact and affirm the judgment as modified. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Conley, as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Stinson, Deceased v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., et al. - Concurring
Although I concur in the result and reasoning of reached by the majority opinion, I think it important to emphasize one point. I agree with the trial court that none of the allegations regarding Ms. Stinson’s stay at the nursing home prior to January 1, 2000, state any cause of action warranting relief. They were properly dismissed because there was no causal connection between those alleged incidents or omissions and the injuries suffered by Ms. Stinson due to the assault by Mr. Johnson. That determination eliminates most of the allegations supporting the TAPA claims that Plaintiff wanted to add. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Conley, as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Stinson, Deceased v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., et al.
The estate of a former nursing home resident brought this wrongful death action, asserting sundry claims against the nursing home arising out of an attack on Mrs. Stinson by another resident. As a result of the attack, Mrs. Stinson was hospitalized and treated for injuries including a broken hip. She died four months later of pneumonia. Initially, the claims against the nursing home sounded principally in medical malpractice, with the plaintiff contending the attack, injuries, and death were the result of a variety and series of acts and omissions of the nursing home, including failing to properly screen and/or subsequently discharge the resident who attacked Mrs. Stinson. The plaintiff additionally asserted claims against Genesis of Jackson, Inc., a provider of psychiatric services, and the State of Tennessee, contending they, along with the nursing home, were responsible for determining whether the resident who assaulted Mrs. Stinson should have been admitted or retained as a resident at the nursing home. The plaintiff’s claim against Genesis was dismissed by the trial court, and the claim against the State was denied by the Claims Commission. The plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add a claim for attorney fees against the nursing home under the Tennessee Adult Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the TAPA claim finding the plaintiff’s claims sounded in medical malpractice and therefore, by statute, the exclusive remedy was under the Medical Malpractice Act. The plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against the nursing home went to the jury. Following a six-day jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded $130,000 in compensatory damages against the nursing home. The plaintiff and the nursing home appeal. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the surviving claims for a new trial. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Dawn Winton Haines v. Lee Alan Haines
In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the petition of Lee Alan Haines (“Father”) to change the custody of the parties’ two minor children from Lisa Dawn Winton Haines (“Mother”) to Father. The change in custody followed a bench trial at which the trial court heard, in chambers, the testimony of the children as elicited by the leading questions of the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”). The examination took place outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. Mother appeals, (1) challenging the change of custody; (2) questioning evidentiary rulings by the trial court; and (3) asserting that the trial court erred in allowing the children to be questioned in chambers by the GAL outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. We hold that the in-chambers proceeding, as designed and conducted by the trial court, constitutes error. Because we deem the error to be a violation of due process and prejudicial to the judicial process, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in toto and remand for a new trial before a different judge. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jean E. Hood v. J. Daniel Freemon, et al.
The owner of a tract of undeveloped commercial property in the city of Lawrenceburg asked the trial court to enjoin the lessees of that property from subletting it to the city for the purpose of building a retention pond. She claimed that such a use would constitute waste or create a permanent and private nuisance on the land. The trial court declined to issue the injunction and certified its decision as final for purposes of appeal. We reverse. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Anita Wadhwani v. Peter White
A former spouse challenges the extension and modification of an Order of Protection, contending the proof was insufficient to justify either the extension or modification. Finding the record contains sufficient evidence from which the trial court could determine an extension and modification of the Order was necessary, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William James Jekot v. Pennie Christine Jekot - Dissenting and Concurring
I respectfully both concur and dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I agree with the majority that the Trial Court’s judgment should be modified to award alimony in futuro to Wife because Wife is not capable of being totally rehabilitated and that the amount of alimony awarded should be altered. However, I cannot concur with the amount awarded by the majority. My difficulty with the amount of alimony awarded by the majority is two fold. First, the majority operates under the assumption that this fifty-five year old adult, well educated and in good health, must be assumed, not proved but assumed, to have absolutely zero earning capacity. This assumption, I believe, is contrary to both the evidence in this case and to the public policy of this state as established by the Tennessee Legislature by the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions related to alimony. Second, I believe the majority’s award of $9,000 per month in alimony in futuro exceeds Wife’s proven needs.
Despite the complete absence of any supporting evidence, the majority assumes that Wife, a healthy and well educated adult, has absolutely zero earning capacity and will always have zero earning capacity. It is equally clear from the evidence in the record and in the majority’s What is exceptionally telling is Wife’s statement in her brief, made with no citation to any supporting evidence, that “[a]t her age of 55, obtaining further education and training to improve her earning capacity to a reasonable level is not practical.” Apparently, the majority wholeheartedly accepts this conclusion despite all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, it appears to be Wife’s position, and apparently is a position accepted by the majority, that if she cannot improve her earning capacity to what she believes is a “reasonable level”, she has zero earning capacity and never has to work at a job for pay. Again, I believe there is a total absence of evidence in the record supporting this conclusion by Wife as accepted by the majority. I believe the conclusion that a healthy, intelligent, and well educated fifty-five year old adult has zero earning capacity is both patronizing and unsupported either by the evidence in the record or the law of this state. I am unaware of anything in Tennessee law that requires Husband to continue to cover 100% Taking all the above into consideration, I would, respectfully, vacate the Trial Court’s award of alimony and remand this matter to the Trial Court to receive additional proof to determine the appropriate amount of alimony in futuro to be awarded to Wife. On remand, I would instruct the |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Frances E. DeFord v. Harpeth Valley Utilities District
The plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her breach of contract action against her former employer, Harpeth Valley Utilities District. The plaintiff entered into a Deferred Compensation Agreement with Harpeth Valley at the beginning of her employment in 1998 that afforded her a retirement benefit if she remained employed until the year 2012. The plaintiff voluntarily left the employment of Harpeth Valley in 2003 after only five years of employment. One year later, she filed this action contending that a handwritten modification was made to the Agreement which provided that she was entitled to receive the retirement benefit and death benefit specified in the Agreement. The trial court dismissed her Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Risa Stock v. Morris Stock
This appeal involves a trial court’s distribution of marital property in a divorce proceeding. The parties owned their own business, and the husband generally ran its operations while the wife handled its financial aspects. After the business caught fire, the husband found $240,000 in the company safe. He took the money to a bank and placed it in a safety deposit box. The company’s head of security accompanied the husband to the bank and testified about these events at trial. The wife also had access to the box, and the bank records revealed that she accessed it over thirty times in the next five years. The husband and the security officer returned to the safety deposit box when he learned that the wife intended to file for divorce, but there was no cash remaining in the box. The trial court determined that the wife had dissipated the marital estate in the amount of $240,000 and subtracted half that amount, $120,000, from her award of the marital property. The wife appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Harvey Dalton v. Linda Jane Faasen Dalton
This case involves a trial court’s division of marital property following a divorce. The wife came into the marriage with substantial assets, but the husband had no assets and owed a large debt to the IRS. During the marriage, the wife was continuously employed, and the husband was often unemployed. After the wife found out that her husband had quit one of his jobs, he executed a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in their house to the wife. When they later divorced, the trial court appointed a special master to classify certain assets and debts as marital or separate property. The trial court affirmed the special master’s report with modifications. Both parties now challenge the classification of certain assets and the court’s division of the marital property. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Elizabeth Stillwell, Decedent by and through Husband, H. Chester Stillwell v. Kenneth Wayne Hackney, Sr., et al.
Invitee fell in gravel driveway of rental property, allegedly due to a partially hidden concrete divider. Invitee ultimately died as result of the fall and invitee, by and through her husband, filed an action against rental property owners. Property owners filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish an exception to the general rule of landlord non-liability. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hal Gerber v. Robert R. Holcomb
Attorney filed an action against client to collect unpaid installments due under a promissory note. The trial court entered a consent final decree awarding attorney the sum currently due under the note. Attorney filed a second action against client to collect the then unpaid installments due under the same promissory note. Client answered alleging affirmative defenses which attacked the validity of the note and which were not raised in the first proceeding. Attorney filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that client was precluded from asserting the defenses under the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court denied the motion and attorney filed an extraordinary appeal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent herewith. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marc Eskin, et al. v. Alice B. Bartee, et al. - Concurring
I agree with the result reached by the majority and the substance of the majority’s reasoning. I write separately only to note that I disagree with a portion of the majority’s reading of Ramsey v. Beavers, 931 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. 1996), and in particular its reliance on Thing v. La Chusa, 771 P.2d 814 (Cal. 1989). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marc Eskin, et al. v. Alice B. Bartee, et al.
Parents, individually and on behalf of their two minor children, sued various defendants for damages resulting from an automobile accident caused allegedly by the negligence of defendants. The complaint, in addition to seeking damages for the personal injuries sustained by one of the minor children, seeks damages on behalf of the mother and one minor child for negligent infliction of emotional distress. An uninsured motorist insurance carrier filed an answer in the cause and subsequentlymoved for summary judgment, which ostensibly involved only the claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion but failed to denote that the grant was only a partial summary judgment for that particular claim. We modify the trial court's order by granting only a partial summary judgment and further reverse and remand that grant. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby L. Holland and Wife, Rita Holland v. Amelia Jo Dinwiddie, DDS d/b/a Jo Dinwiddie, DDS
The plaintiff patient visited the defendant dentist periodically between 1998 and 2003. Between 2001 and 2003, the defendant performed dental work on the plaintiff including root canals, fillings, and crown work. Over this period, the plaintiff’s dental condition became significantly worse. The plaintiff developed abscesses and infection in his mouth and suffered from substantial dental pain. The plaintiff’s last visit to the defendant was in October of 2003. Over the 2003 holidays, the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to contact the defendant for relief from his increasingly painful condition. The plaintiff ultimately received treatment from another dentist throughout 2004. After receiving the plaintiff’s dental records from the defendant in October of 2004, the treating dentist informed the plaintiff that the defendant’s treatment had been negligent. The plaintiff filed a dental |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Robert W. Fink, et al. v. Fred M. Crean, et al.
The defendant, Mitchell Lee Blankenship, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years, with one year to serve in confinement. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing by improperly weighing enhancement factors, not applying mitigating factors, and not granting him full probation. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient. Although the trial court erred in applying the multiple victims enhancement factor, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Peterson, et al. v. Henry County General Hospital District, et al.
This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant allegedly suffered injuries after slipping in a pool of water that was allowed to stand on the Hospital/Appellee’s floor. The trial court ruled that Hospital/Appellee had no actual or constructive notice of the water and entered judgment in favor of Hospital/Appellee. Plaintiff/Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Steven A. Davis, Jr. v. April Dawn (Blackmon) Davis
Appellant appeals the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion for relief from a Final Decree of Divorce as it relates to child custody. Appellant asserts that the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA due to the entry of a previous order of protection in the Alabama family court. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
John Ruff v. James G. Neeley, Tennessee Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, and EPerformax, Inc.
This case involves a claim for unemployment benefits after an employee was terminated for failing to follow company policy and refusing to follow his supervisor’s instructions. A female co-worker had previously complained about the claimant’s repeated attempts to ask her out on dates and several occasions when he had followed her to her car, all of which had made her uncomfortable. The claimant was suspended for two days at that time. A few months later, another female co-worker complained to her supervisor about the claimant’s behavior after he continued asking her out on dates for over a month, waited for her at her car, and eventually hugged her at work after she rejected another invitation to go out with him. A meeting was held about the claimant’s conduct, and his female co-worker and his supervisors asked that he agree not to communicate with the co-worker in the future. The claimant would not agree to stop contacting his co-worker, and he was terminated from his employment the next day. He filed for unemployment benefits, which were initially approved by the Department of Labor. On appeal, the Appeals Tribunal found that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he had been terminated for work related misconduct. The finding was affirmed by the Board of Review, and later by the chancery court. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Opal Jean Woodruff, by and through the Guardian of Her Estate, National Bank of Commerce v. W.C. Sutton, Jr., et al.
In 1997, an Arkansas state court adjudged the plaintiff/ward to be incapacitated and appointed a bank to be the conservator of her estate. The conservator bank, acting on the behalf of the incapacitated plaintiff/ward, filed a complaint in 2002 against the defendants. The plaintiff sought to set aside a quit claim deed for property located in Shelby County, Tennessee. The plaintiff/ward had executed the deed in 1996 and transferred title for the property to the defendants. The co-defendant bank, which had obtained an interest in the property through the defendants in 2002 but was not named as a defendant in the complaint, answered the complaint in 2003 and moved for a dismissal. The plaintiff sought to amend the complaint and name the bank as a co-defendant. The co-defendant bank moved to strike the amended complaint. The originally named defendants filed an answer later in 2003, and in 2004 they moved for dismissal based upon the statute of limitations. In 2005, the defendants moved for a dismissal based upon their original defenses and for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the complaint. The plaintiff set a trial date in the chancery court, and the defendants moved to strike the trial date. The trial court held a hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss and granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the judgment, and the trial court denied the motion. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Marie Gillespie v. Andrew Mark Gillespie
The issue presented in this case is whether the Wife’s alimony award is modifiable due to her remarriage when the divorce decree does not classify the alimony award, stating only that “the [Husband] shall pay alimony to the [Wife] in the amount of five hundred dollars per month for a |
Sevier | Court of Appeals |
