Nashville Ford Tractor v. Great American Insurance Company
This appeal involves a dispute over the payment for leased construction equipment used on two sewer projects for the City of Gallatin. The general contractor was required to take over and complete the work after a subcontractor and sub-subcontractor defaulted. Thereafter, the company that had leased three pieces of construction equipment to the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor submitted claims for payment to the general contractor and the contractor's bonding company. The general contractor declined to pay for the equipment and filed suit for breach of contract against the subcontractor in the Circuit Court for Sumner County. The contractor also sought a declaratory judgment regarding its rights, as well as those of its bonding company, the subcontractor, and the City, under the construction contract, the subcontracts, and the payment bond. Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court awarded the equipment leasing company a $38,399 judgment against the bonding company and the sub-subcontractor and a $29,232 judgment against the subcontractor. The court also denied the equipment leasing company's request for pre-judgment interest because it had intentionally falsified documents during the collection process. The bonding company appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss all of the equipment leasing company's claims against the payment bond after expressly finding that the leasing company had committed fraud during the claims process. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment against the contractor's surety. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Clyde M. Fuller v. Samuel Evans, et al.
The issue in this case is whether the Counter-Plaintiff may testify at trial regarding transactions and conversations with the deceased Counter-Defendant when the deceased Counter-Defendant's pre-trial discovery deposition had been taken, but was incomplete. We hold that the trial court, pursuant to the Dead Man's Statute, properly prohibited the Counter-Plaintiff from testifying about transactions and conversations with the deceased Counter-Defendant. Therefore, we affirm the ruling of the trial court and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
David L. Elmore v. Mary Rosanna Elmore v. Jerry Ralph Monday, et al.
This case involves a post-divorce custody dispute between the natural father and maternal grandparents and aunt of three children. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in awarding custody to the grandparents and aunt when it made no finding in its order that an award of custody to the father posed a risk of substantial harm to the children. We hold that the record does not support such a finding of substantial harm, reverse the trial court's award of custody, and, pursuant to the father's constitutional right of privacy to rear and have custody of his children, we award the natural father custody and remand to the trial court to set appropriate visitation and support for the mother. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Pamela K. Ginn v. American Heritage Life Insurance Company
Pamela K. Ginn ("Plaintiff") purchased a $50,000 life insurance policy on her husband through American Heritage Life Insurance Company ("American Heritage"). When applying for the insurance, Plaintiff told the insurance salesman, Daryle Gross ("Gross"), that her husband was in "basic good health." Plaintiff's husband died a few weeks after the life insurance went into effect. American Heritage denied Plaintiff's demand for the life insurance proceeds, claiming Plaintiff had materially misrepresented her husband's health. Plaintiff sued American Heritage and Gross ("Defendants"). The jury found Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff. The jury also found that the refusal to pay was done in bad faith, assessing a 25% bad faith penalty. The jury also concluded Defendants had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and assessed compensatory damages under the TCPA at $110,000, which was remitted by the Trial Court to $73,855.15. Pursuant to the TCPA, the Trial Court then trebled the damages and awarded attorney fees. When all was said and done, the amount of the judgment awarded to Plaintiff totaled $284,980.60. Both Plaintiff and Defendants appeal various aspect of the Trial Court's Judgment. The Judgment of the Trial Court is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff in the total amount of $73,415.15. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Berta Margarita De Los Rios Lee v. Daniel Lee
As part of a divorce, the trial court granted custody of the parties’ child to the mother, with visitation by the father. The father appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court. The father subsequently filed a petition to change custody. After lengthy proceedings brought on by various filings by the parties, the trial court ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction over the child’s custody. We affirm the jurisdictional ruling, making all other issues moot. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
City of Memphis, a Municipal Corporation v. The Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis and Tommy Moore
This case involves the demotion of an Air Crash Chief employed by the City of Memphis Fire Department following the revocation of his security clearance and driving privileges by the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority. Following his demotion, the Chief appealed the city’s decision to the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission. The civil service commission reversed the city’s ruling and held that the Chief must be reinstated. The city filed a common law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Shelby County to appeal the finding of the civil service commission. The chancery court reversed, finding that the civil service commission exceeded its authority in reversing the city’s decision and reinstating the Chief. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Stohl Halkiades v. David Allan Halkiades, et al.
This appeal arises from a divorce action. Defendant/Dr. Halkaides appeals the trial court’s order dividing the parties’ property and debt and awarding Wife/Ms. Stohl alimony. He also asserts the trial court erred in finding Dr. Halkaides had dissipated the parties’ marital assets. We affirm as modified. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Fred H. Wright, Ph.D. v. Tennessee Board of Examiners in Psychology
The Tennessee Board of Examiners in Psychology received a complaint from the patient of a psychologist alleging the psychologist breached the ethical duty of confidentiality by disclosing information to the patient's sister. During the course of the investigation, the psychologist revealed that he had disclosed confidential information about the same patient to another psychologist romantically involved with the patient. The board filed charges against the psychologist alleging violations of the ethical rules governing confidentiality and documentation of therapy. Following an administrative hearing, the board placed the psychologist's license on probation for two years subject to two conditions: (1) he complete twenty hours of continuing education training and (2) his practice be supervised during the two year probationary period by another psychologist. In addition, the board assessed a $1,000.00 civil penalty against the psychologist. The psychologist appealed the board's decision to the Chancery Court of Davidson County which affirmed the board's decision. The psychologist appealed to this Court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of S.L.R., et al. Children Under 18 Years of Age
This case involves a lengthy and protracted attempt by the Department of Children's Services and numerous other social services agencies to assist the biological parents of five children with creating an acceptable environment for the children. After five years and repeated efforts, the Department of Children's Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of mother and father alleging the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide support, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, failure to substantially comply with the permanency plans, and persistent conditions. The department also alleged that termination of the parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Following a hearing on the petition, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the parental rights of the natural parents. The mother of four of the children and the father of all five children filed an appeal to this Court. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Mulhern v. Pulte Homes
Appellant/Homeowner appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee/Homebuilder. Appellant/Homeowner sued Appellee/Homebuilder on theories of faulty installation and construction of Appellant/Homeowner’s roof and under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found that Appellant/Homeowner’s claims were time barred under both T.C.A. §28-3-202 and T.C.A. §47-18-110. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Roy L. Tidwell, et al., v. City of Memphis
The City of Memphis promulgated an On-the-Job Injury Program to handle claims filed by city employees seeking benefits for on-the-job injuries. Thirteen firefighters and one police officer filed applications for benefits with the city. When the city denied the applications, the employees filed appeals to the On-the-Job Injury Appeals Panel which affirmed the city’s denial of benefits. Each employee appealed the panel’s determination to the Chancery Court of Shelby County by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review under a statutory writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, a common law writ of certiorari. The chancellor reversed the panel’s decision and held that, pursuant to section 27-9-114 of the Tennessee Code, proceedings before the panel are subject to the contested case procedures set forth in the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, the chancellor held that, pursuant to section 27-9-114 of the Tennessee Code, judicial review of the panel’s decision is neither by common law or statutory writ, but review must be conducted in accordance with section 4-5-322 of the Tennessee Code. The city appealed the chancery court’s ruling to this Court arguing that the chancellor erred in applying section 27-9-114 of the Tennessee Code to the panel. We reverse the chancery court’s ruling. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
IN THE MATTER OF N.P., W.N., AND C.N., Children Under the Age of 18 Years
This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father to their children. After a hearing, the Lauderdale County Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights over W.N. and C.N. on the grounds of abandonment for failure to support and severe child abuse. Further, the trial court found that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children. Mother now seeks review by this Court, and we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
In the matter of B.A.L. and A.E.L.
This is a child custody case. Father/Appellant appeals from the trial court's Order, which denied Father/Appellant's Petition to change custody from the minor children’s Mother to Father. Finding that there is not a material change in circumstances to warrant a change of custody, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Custom Land Development, Inc. v. Town of Coopertown and Coopertown Board of Zoning Appeals
This is a zoning case. The appellant landowner owns a tract of land that it sought to resume using as a sanitary landfill. The appellees are the newly-incorporated town in which the landfill is located and the town’s zoning board. In 1996, the landowner and the county in which the town and landfill are located resolved a dispute in which the landfill was deemed a legally permitted nonconforming use under the county zoning ordinance. In 2002, the landowner sought a building permit from the town planning commission. The town planning commission refused to grant the permit until the landowner obtained a determination from the town zoning board that the landfill was a legally permitted non-conforming use under the town’s newly-enacted zoning ordinances. The town zoning board determined that the landfill was not a legally permitted nonconforming use under the town zoning ordinances because the landowner had discontinued its nonconforming use of the landfill for longer than one year. Consequently, no permit was issued. The landowner unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the town zoning appeals board. The landowner then appealed the decision of the zoning appeals board to the trial court. The trial court affirmed the ruling of the zoning appeals board. We affirm, finding that the use of the property as a landfill had been discontinued for more than one year and thus the landfill did not fall within the nonconforming use exception to the town’s zoning ordinance. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Murrey Louis Wakefield, Deceased; AMSouth Bank and Judith Wakefield Sandlin, Co-Executors, Linda Wakefield Melvin and Judith Sandlin Melvin and Judith Sandlin v. Estate of Nancy Wakefield Coleman, et al.
This case involves the construction of a will. The will established a trust for the benefit of the decedent's children that provided income for eleven years. At the end of the eleven year term, the trust was to be terminated and the trust assets distributed to the beneficiaries. During the eleven-year term, one of the decedent's children died, leaving no spouse, children or surviving parent. The beneficiary under the deceased child's will sued, seeking that child's share of the trust assets. At issue was whether the trust assets vested in the beneficiaries when the testator died or when the trust terminated. The probate court held that the decedent intended for the trust corpus not to vest in the beneficiaries until the trust terminated, and that the beneficiary under the child's will would not receive her share of the trust assets. We affirm, finding that the language of the will indicates that the testator intended for the corpus of the trust to vest when the trust terminated. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Conservatorship of Michael Thomas Jones and Timothy Alan Jones Beverly Anne Jones v. Kevin Thomas Jones
This appeal involves the court's authority to order a parent to pay support for an adult disabled child. The parties were married with two severely disabled adult sons. In 1995, while the parties were still married, the probate court established them as co-conservators for their sons. In June 2001, the mother filed a petition for divorce in circuit court. Neither party informed the divorce court of the conservatorships that had been established for their sons. The circuit court entered a final decree of divorce which incorporated a parenting plan, submitted by the father, which provided for joint custody of the sons. The divorce decree required the mother to pay child support to the father. The divorce decree was not appealed. The mother later filed a motion requesting that the decree requiring her to pay child support be vacated pursuant to Rule 60.02(3), asserting that the divorce court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to require her to pay support for the adult sons. Rather than rule on the mother's motion, the divorce court transferred the case to the probate court, which had before it the conservatorship actions. The father then filed a motion in the probate court asking it to confirm the divorce decree entered by the divorce court. The probate court, in the same order, denied the mother's motion to vacate and granted the father's motion to confirm the decree adopting the parenting plan, determining that the divorce decree entered by the divorce court was valid. The mother now appeals that order. We reverse, concluding that the divorce court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to order the parent to pay support for the adult disabled children, but finding that the probate court is permitted to consider requiring the parents to pay support in the context of the conservatorship proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Karen Stowers Smith vs. Mark Edward Smith
Lisa Karen Stowers Hoffer, formerly Smith ("Mother"), filed a petition against her former husband, Mark Edward Smith ("Father"), seeking to modify the provisions of the parties' judgment of divorce, which judgment required Father to pay $1,200 per month in child support. The trial court, finding that, in the most recent three years, Father had had an average annual income of $117,238, held that there had been a substantial and material change in circumstances justifying an order requiring Father to pay child support of $2,803 per month. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its calculation of his income. We affirm in part and vacate in part. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, et al. v. 1998 Deliquent Taxpayers
This appeal stems from an action filed by the State of Tennessee, in its own behalf and for the use and benefit of Hamilton County and certain municipalities ("the state"), against property owners (collectively "the defendants") who had not paid their 1998 real estate taxes. Following the entry of a default judgment as to certain property, a delinquent tax sale was conducted at which Carlton Ditto and Positive Impact, Inc. ("the purchasers") bought a parcel of land. The purchase, however, was subsequently voided because the Hamilton County Property Assessor ("the Property Assessor") inadvertently reflected someone other than the true owner on its property rolls. As a consequence of this mistake, the true owner of the property was never made a party to the delinquent tax suit. The purchasers sought compensation for interest on the bid amount and the cost of recording the decree of sale. The purchasers also sought damages for the state's negligence. The trial court awarded interest on the bid amount and the cost of recording the decree, but refused to award damages for negligence. The state appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Julia V. Lee and Robert Joe Lee v. State of Tennessee
This appeal stems from an action filed by the State of Tennessee, in its own behalf and for the use and benefit of Hamilton County and certain municipalities ("the state"), against property owners (collectively "the defendants") who had not paid their 1998 real estate taxes. Following the entry of a default judgment as to certain property, a delinquent tax sale was conducted at which Carlton Ditto and Positive Impact, Inc. ("the purchasers") bought a parcel of land. The purchase, however, was subsequently voided because the Hamilton County Property Assessor ("the Property Assessor") inadvertently reflected someone other than the true owner on its property rolls. As a consequence of this mistake, the true owner of the property was never made a party to the delinquent tax suit. The purchasers sought compensation for interest on the bid amount and the cost of recording the decree of sale. The purchasers also sought damages for the state's negligence. The trial court awarded interest on the bid amount and the cost of recording the decree, but refused to award damages for negligence. The state appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Biggs v. Reinsman Equestrian Products, Inc.
Plaintiff sued for breach of employment contract. The Trial Court found a breach and awarded damages. On appeal we hold the employer had just cause to terminate, and reverse Judgment. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Judy S. Parnell v. APCOM, Inc., et al.
Forty-six year old female employee who had worked for company for seventeen years filed this action against her employer after her position and employment were terminated. She claims her termination constituted a breach of contract and violated the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The trial court dismissed the THRA claim on summary judgment as time barred, holding that the savings statute did not apply to THRA claims. The remaining contract claims were tried and resulted in judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appeals. We find that the trial court erred by holding the savings statute inapplicable to THRA claims against private employers. We also find that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the THRA. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Hudson Roberts v. Mary Elizabeth Todd, et al.
This is an appeal from a trial court's denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment. We Affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah B. Hall Byrd v. Danny K. Byrd
This is an appeal from a decree of legal separation, involving issues of division of marital property and debt, alimony, and attorney fees. Wife appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
William (Bill) Graves, et ux. v. Jeremy S. Jeter, et al.
This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. Defendant/Appellee was traveling at an excessive rate of speed and attempted to pass Plaintiffs/Appellants’ vehicle in a no pass zone as Plaintiffs/Appellants were making a left-hand turn into their driveway. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Plaintiff/Appellant driver 40% at a fault for the accident and Defendant/Appellee 60% at fault. Plaintiffs/Appellants appeal on issues of fault and damages. We affirm as modified herein. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Tezozomoc "Ted" Alcantar, et al. v. Haulers Insurance Company
This is an action against an insurance company that is alleged to have breached its duties to an insured by failing to provide a defense in a prior personal injury action, wherein a substantial default judgment was entered against the insured. The former plaintiffs, now judgment creditors, and the purported insured, now judgment debtor, have joined forces as plaintiffs in this action to recover damages, including the amount of the default judgment, the purported insured suffered due to the insurer's refusal to provide a defense. The trial court dismissed the action on a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We affirm. The judgment on which this action is based is void, because the relief granted therein by default judgment exceeded the relief sought. In the alternative, if the previous judgment on which this action is based is valid, the purported insured is not afforded coverage; the policy excluded injury or damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured and it was held in the previous judgment that the purported insured intended the collision and the Alcantars' injuries. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
