Franki Ann Rolen, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Jewell V. Ingram et al. v. Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc.
This action involves claims brought regarding the decedent Jewell Ingram against Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., alleging that Ingram was injured while in defendant's care, and also that her treatment by defendant ultimately contributed to her death. Plaintiff proposed a jury form which asks that the jury determine whether defendant was guilty of negligence which caused Ingram's death, but also asked the jury to find whether defendant was guilty of negligence which caused injury to Ingram. The jury form submitted by the Trial Judge, however, asked whether defendant was at fault for the death of Ingram, and directed that if the answer to that question was no, the jury should return a verdict for defendant. The jury answered the question in the negative, and announced a defendant's verdict. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment for defendant as to the wrongful death claim, but remand for a new trial on the issue of damages for injuries sustained prior to decedent's death. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Rhonda Leigh Jones Robinson v. Russell Raynor Robinson
This is a divorce case about dissipation of marital assets and custody. Throughout the marriage, the wife took care of the children while the husband provided financial support. The husband was the owner and operator of several automobile businesses. After the wife filed for divorce, the husband’s automobile businesses failed, resulting in the husband’s father purchasing the businesses. After a lengthy trial, the trial court found that the husband intentionally dissipated marital assets, including the automobile businesses. The wife was designated the children’s primary residential parent. The husband appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the husband dissipated the businesses by failing to preserve them, and the designation of the wife as primary residential parent. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Niccole A. Naifeh, et al., v. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, et al.
This appeal arises out of the interpretation of a life insurance contract. The trial court determined that the Decedent’s life insurance policy was in effect and had not lapsed due to Decedent’s failure to pay the premium due in January 2000. It ordered Valley Forge Life Insurance Company to pay the sum of $1,000,000.00 to Cathy Naifeh plus prejudgment interest of 8% per annum beginning on June 1, 2000. The lower court dismissed Valley Forge Life Insurance Company’s counterclaim against William McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company. Further, it dismissed the claim of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Bill McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company for negligent misrepresentation and their claims against Union Planters Bank. Finally, it dismissed the claims of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Union Planters Bank, William McGowan, and Valley Forge Life Insurance Company for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company now seeks review by this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Adoption of John A. Kleshinski and Kevin na KleKleshinski, Chirleshinski and John E. Kleshinski v. Julia Elizabeth Kleshinski - Concurring
While I concur with the decisions reached by the majority in this case, I write separately to voice my concerns regarding the manner in which the majority approaches the best interest analysis mandated by section 36-1-113(c)(2) of the Tennessee Code. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Martha Hallowell v. Vestco, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's, et al.
Appellant was asked to leave her job after she failed to comply with an order from her supervisor to comply with the dress code. Appellant was denied unemployment benefits because of work-related misconduct which was affirmed by the Board of Review. Appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the Board of Review and Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, v. Vanderbilt University
This appeal involves a dispute stemming from a private university’s decision to change the name of one of its dormitories. An organization that donated part of the funds used to construct the dormitory filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the university’s decision to rename the dormitory breached its seventy-year-old agreement with the university and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Both the university and the donor filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court, granting the university’s motion, determined that the university should be permitted to modify the parties’ agreement regarding the dormitory’s name because it would be “impractical and unduly burdensome” to require the university to continue to honor the agreement. The donor organization appealed. We have determined that the summary judgment must be reversed because the university has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, based on the essentially undisputed facts, we have determined that the donor is entitled to a partial summary judgment because the university has breached the conditions placed on the donor’s gift and, therefore, that the university should be required to return the present value of the gift to the donor if it insists on renaming the dormitory. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Vanessa Sircy v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This is a breach of contract action involving employment with a government municipality. In this case, the defendant municipality offered the plaintiff a job as a dispatcher at an annual salary of approximately $30,000, and the plaintiff accepted the position. Meanwhile, the defendant underwent job reclassifications and salary restructuring. On the second day of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant, she was informed that she would be paid an annual salary of approximately $24,000. After working for approximately five and one-half months for the defendant, the plaintiff resigned, citing the uncertainty regarding whether the defendant would adjust her salary, as they had suggested. Following her resignation, the plaintiff brought this action. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the defendant had made promises of employment at a certain salary that induced the plaintiff to resign her position at her former employment, and the defendant had breached those promises. As a result, the trial court found that the plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $16,500. The defendant has appealed the judgment of the trial court. Because we conclude that the trial court erroneously calculated damages, we modify the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Patsy Hill Oakley v. James Spencer Oakley
This is a divorce case about division of marital assets, on appeal for the second time. Initially, |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Moore v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
Following a hearing in October of 2000, three out of seven members of the Board of Paroles voted to parole a prisoner who was serving a life sentence for murder. Because of a 1997 statute that requires four members of the Board to concur on the parole of prisoners convicted of certain grave offenses, parole was denied. The prisoner did not seek review of that decision. Parole was again denied after a March 2003 hearing, with only two Board members voting for parole. The prisoner filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, contending that the Board's refusal to release him after the 2000 Board vote violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto enactments. He argued that he was entitled to the benefit of an earlier statute which allowed prisoners to be paroled, regardless of offense, if they could obtain the positive votes of three members of the Board. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that it was untimely, and that in any case, the application of the 1997 statute did not implicate any ex post facto concerns. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dorothy Tucker v. Sierra Builders, et al. - Dissenting
The majority’s analysis of the Consumer Protection Act is just excellent, however, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion that All American did not violate the Act in its representations made to this plaintiff. I agree with the majority’s detailed history of the TCPA and that it is much broader in scope than common-law fraud, that it must be construed liberally to protect consumers, and that the plaintiff must prove an “unfair” or “deceptive” act by the defendant. I also agree that “the essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant’s statements, silence, or actions.” I disagree with the majority’s conclusion, however, that All American did not act deceptively in its dealings with Ms. Tucker, and I believe that the majority opinion overlooks certain key facts in this regard. The majority neither accords the Trial Court the presumption of correctness in its fact finding as required by Rule 13(d), nor does it defer to the Trial Court on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses.1 |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Dorothy Tucker v. Sierra Builders, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute stemming from the shoddy construction of a modular house. The property owner filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County against the contractor who constructed the house and the manufacturer of the house modules. The trial court granted a default judgment against the contractor and, following a bench trial, awarded the homeowner a $49,506.94 judgment against the manufacturer. The manufacturer has appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred when it held that the manufacturer engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and that the manufacturer was vicariously liable for the negligence of the contractor. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
William T. Terrell and Martha M. Terrell v. United Van Lines, Inc., Kwick-Way Transportation Company, and Vanliner Insurance Co.
The Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiffs for damages, but refused to permit plaintiffs to amend the complaint to claim defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act, and disallowed plaintiffs’ Rule 11, Tenn. R. Civ. P. Motion for Sanctions. On appeal, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
William T. Terrell and Martha M. Terrell vs. United Van Lines, Inc., Kwick-Way Transportation Company, and Vanliner Insurance Co. - Concurring
I agree with the result reached by the majority. With respect to the motion to amend, I believe the trial court should have entered an order allowing the amendment; after which it could have entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim. I believe this is the better practice under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15. However, since the trial court addressed the merits of the complaint, as if it had been amended, any error in refusing to formally allow the amendment is harmless in nature. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36 (b). |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: W.B. IV
In a single proceeding, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of a mother to her three children and the parental rights of the father of one of those children, ruling that they had abandoned the children. The mother and the father filed separate appeals, which we have consolidated for decision. We reverse because the proof at trial did not rise to the level required to establish abandonment as defined by applicable statutes. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Wylie Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ruth E. Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee
This appeal involves a sales and use tax assessment issued by the Tennessee Department of Revenue against a taxpayer engaged in the business of fabricating steel products for use in various structures. The taxpayer obtained purchase orders from three churches for raw materials to be used in the fabrication of steel products which were to be incorporated into the churches then under construction. The taxpayer secured the raw materials, fabricated the steel products, and installed them in the churches. The taxpayer did not pay sales or use tax on any of the raw materials used in the fabrication process. The department subsequently audited the taxpayer and assessed a tax liability for taxes owed on the materials. The taxpayer paid the amount assessed and filed suit in the chancery court to contest the assessment. Specifically, the taxpayer asserted that it was entitled to an exemption under section 67-6-209(b) of the Tennessee Code. After both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the chancery court granted the department's motion and denied the taxpayer's motion. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Edward Dunn v. Knox County Sheriff's Department Merit System Council, et al.
Following a hearing, the Knox County Sheriff's Department Merit System Council ("the Council") voted to uphold Sheriff Tim Hutchison's termination of the plaintiff, James Edward Dunn. Dunn filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. He also filed a separate complaint in the same court alleging that the Council had violated the Open Meetings Act. Each side filed a motion for summary judgment on this latter issue. The trial court denied both motions. The trial court then held that the Council's decision to uphold Dunn's termination was supported by material evidence; but the court remanded the case to the Council, because the court held that the Council had failed to follow one of its procedural rules. Both parties have raised issues on appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Darrell Massingale v. Yung Gil Lee, P.C., et al.
During surgery to repair a bilateral hernia, Yung Gil Lee, M.D. ("Defendant") also performed an orchiectomy and removed Darrell Massingale's ("Plaintiff") left testicle. Plaintiff sued Defendant claiming, in part, that Defendant had committed both medical malpractice and medical battery. The Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the claim of medical battery. The claim of medical malpractice went to the jury and resulted in a mistrial. The Trial Court then reconsidered Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the claim of medical malpractice and entered an order granting a directed verdict on that claim as well and dismissing the case. Plaintiff appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in directing a verdict as to both the medical battery claim and the medical malpractice claim. We affirm the directed verdict on the medical malpractice claim, reverse the directed verdict on the medical battery claim, and remand for a new trial on Plaintiff's medical battery claim. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Walker Gray Haun v. Louis Eugene Haun, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute between two brothers over the use of a roadway that lies on their adjacent tracts of property. The issue presented is whether Walker Gray Haun has an easement across the property of his brother, Louis Eugene Haun, Jr. The trial court granted Walker Gray Haun an easement either by prescription or by implication which allowed him to use the roadway that had existed for at least fifty years and provided the only vehicular access to a rental house on his property. We hold that Walker Gray Haun did not establish a prescriptive easement, but that his proof satisfied the elements of an easement by implication, and therefore we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Lee Ketchersid v. Rhea County Board of Education
Lee Ketchersid, a tenured teacher in the Rhea County School System, appealed her dismissal to the Rhea County Board of Education (“the School Board”). Following a hearing, the School Board determined that the evidence supported the charges against Mrs. Ketchersid of insubordination, incompetence, and inefficiency under the Teachers’ Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-501, et seq., and voted to terminate Mrs. Ketchersid as a tenured teacher. Mrs. Ketchersid appealed the School Board’s decision to the trial court, which, following a de novo review, held that her dismissal was supported by sufficient evidence. Mrs. Ketchersid appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in this determination. We affirm. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Ann Troglen vs. Vincent Lamar Troglen
The issues presented in this divorce case are whether the trial court erred in calculating Mr. Troglen's child support obligation; and whether the trial court erred in awarding Ms. Troglen transitional alimony. The trial court established Mr. Troglen's monthly child support obligation at $755. Additionally, the trial court ordered Mr. Troglen to pay to Ms. Troglen transitional alimony in the amount of $400 per month for a period of five years. We hold that the child support was properly calculated at $755 per month and that the trial court properly awarded Ms. Troglen alimony. However, we modify the alimony award from $400 per month transitional alimony for five years to $400 per month rehabilitative alimony for five years. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
J. Stephen Amison, et al. v. Jack D. McCarty, et al.
J. Stephen Amison and wife, Pamela G. Amison ("the plaintiffs"), purchased a house from Jack D. McCarty and wife, Bertha B. McCarty ("the defendants"). Thereafter, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages and, in the alternative, for rescission of the contract of purchase. The plaintiffs alleged that, unbeknownst to them when the contract was signed and when the sale subsequently was closed, the house was infested with termites; that the defendants had prior knowledge of the termite infestation; and that the defendants intentionally or negligently misrepresented the true condition of the house. Following a bench trial, the court decreed rescission, awarded the plaintiffs discretionary costs, and denied the plaintiffs' request for their attorney's fees. Both sides raise issue on appeal. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Luvell L. Glanton v. Bob Parks Realty, et al.
The plaintiff purchased a house that was marketed by the defendant realtors. The house had been described as including over 5,800 square feet of living space. After the purchase, the plaintiff discovered that the actual square footage of the house was considerably less, depending on what was included. He sued for unfair or deceptive practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and for intentional misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed his complaint on summary judgment, and ordered the plaintiff to pay all the defendants' attorney fees. We affirm the dismissal, but modify the award of attorney fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry D. Carmack, et al. v. Tina M. Earp, et al.
Property owners filed suit against neighbors for trespass. Trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $13,740, applying the "mild rule" for calculation of damages for trespass. Trial court also made rulings establishing the boundary lines between property of plaintiffs and defendants, and confirmed the plaintiffs' continuing right of ingress and egress through defendant's property to their own property. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that trial court erred in failing to award damages based on "harsh rule" rather than mild rule; in failing to find that the boundary lines were in keeping with plaintiffs' expert's survey; and in granting summary judgment to defendant water utility district. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the water utility district. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Becky Elliott v. Donna Akey, Individually and d/b/a Owner of Plaza Restaurant
This appeal involves a dispute between a former employee and her employer. Becky Elliott filed suit in Blount County Circuit Court alleging that Donna Akey failed to properly train and supervise employees at her restaurant in Loudon County, Tennessee resulting in an unsafe workplace. Because the workplace was unsafe, Ms. Elliott claims she had to quit her job and was damaged. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff resided in Blount County, the Defendant resided and operated the business in Loudon County, and the cause of action arose in Loudon County. The trial court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue and awarded sanctions to the Defendant. After careful review, we hold that 1) the trial court properly granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue, 2) the trial court properly denied the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, and 3) the trial court erred in awarding sanctions to the Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court in part and reverse in part. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Gladys Boles, et al. v. National Development Company, Inc., et al.
This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of 3,876 lots at Hidden Valley Lakes Development, a residential development in Hickman County. Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages resulting from a breach of contract by the developer, National Development Company, Inc., and its alleged alter ego, Clyde W. Engle. Plaintiffs allege that National breached its contract by failing to provide the centerpiece of the development, a thirty-acre lake. The lake failed to hold water and thus became a thirty-acre hole in the ground. It was stipulated that the failure of National to provide the thirty-acre lake was a breach of contract. The trial was bifurcated into two phases. The first was limited to the plaintiffs' claim for damages against National, following which the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $2,540,867 against National. The second phase of the trial was limited to the plaintiffs' claim that Clyde Engle was the alter ego of National and thus liable for the damages assessed against National. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court pierced the corporate veil and held Engle personally liable for the judgment against National. The defendants appeal contending that the plaintiffs' proof of damages was neither competent nor sufficient, that the wrong legal standard was applied to pierce the corporate veil and that the proof was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil. Engle also appeals contending that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and thus the judgment against him is void. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals |
