Promus Hotels vs. Martin, Cole, Dando, Robertson W2002-01028-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby County -This is an appeal from an Order denying Appellant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Appellant filed a third-party claim against its subcontractor, Appellee, for indemnity. The Subcontract between the parties contained an agreement to arbitrate. Appellant contends that the agreement binds Appellee to arbitrate the matter. Appellee contends that it is not bound to arbitrate due to an exception in the Subcontract. We affirm and remand.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Trumbo Inc. vs. Witco Corp. W2002-01186-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey
This case involves the loss of evidence. A metal fabrication company modified a fat melting tank for another company. Later, an employee of the melting tank company was severely injured by hot melted fat while working with the modified tank. Following the accident, as part of an investigation, the employer removed the two temperature gauges attached to the tank. The employer paid workers' compensation benefits to the employee. The employee then sued the fabrication company that modified the tank. The employer intervened to assert its statutory lien under the workers' compensation laws, so that it could recover any monies paid to the employee by the fabrication company. Five years after the accident, the fabrication company sought production of the temperature gauges from the employer, as part of its defense in the lawsuit filed against it by the employee. The employer was unable to locate the gauges. The fabrication company settled the lawsuit filed by the injured employee, and filed a claim against the employer for spoliation of evidence and negligence. The fabrication company argued that it was forced to settle the underlying lawsuit with the employee, in part because of the missing gauges. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the employer did not have a duty to preserve the evidence and that the fabrication company had not established causation. The fabrication company appeals. We affirm, finding that regardless of whether the employer had a duty to preserve the temperature gauges, the fabrication company had not proffered evidence that the gauge would have materially assisted it in defending the lawsuit filed by the employee, and thus was unable to establish causation.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
In matter of: S.Y., J.Y., and D.Y. W2002-00593-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George E. Blancett
Department of Children's Services filed petition to terminate parental rights of mother of dependent and neglected minor children. Department's termination petition was based on allegations of abandonment, mother's failure to substantially comply with a permanency plan, and the removal of the children for at least six months with little likelihood that the condition causing removal will be remedied. Juvenile Court granted petition terminating mother's parental rights. Mother appeals, asserting that juvenile court violated her due process rights by failing to appoint an attorney for the dependent and neglect proceeding, and erred in concluding that clear and convincing evidence exists to support findings that warrant termination of parental rights. We affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Larry Kerr vs. Anderson County E2002-00020-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The Trial Judge held plaintiff's employment Contract was valid and enforceable. On appeal, we reverse on the grounds the provisions in the Contract are against public policy.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Donald Disher Jr. vs. Karol Disher W2002-01421-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding. The chancery court granted the parties a divorce and awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per month for a period of two (2) years followed by three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) per month for a period of six (6) years. The court awarded Wife one hundred percent (100%) of the marital residence and ordered that the marital property be divided sixty/forty (60/40), with Wife receiving sixty percent (60%) and Husband receiving forty percent (40%). In addition, the court awarded Wife $150,000 on her interspousal tort claim. The court also awarded Wife the full amount of her attorney fees and other expenses. The parties raise multiple issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse in part, vacate in part and remand.
Henderson
Court of Appeals
Susan Whitehurst vs. Martin Medical W2001-03034-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This is a defamation case. The plaintiff is an obstetrician/gynecologist who practices in a largely rural area. The individual defendants are pharmacists who work at Wal-Mart stores in that area. In October 1997, one of the pharmacists received a phone call from her sister, another physician in the area. The sister told the pharmacist that the plaintiff obstetrician/gynecologist had contracted the HIV virus and was sending letters to her patients to inform them of that fact. The pharmacist, a former patient of the plaintiff, repeated the information to her co-workers. Several Wal-Mart employees, including the defendants, repeated the information about the plaintiff to others. The information was false. When the plaintiff learned of the spread of the false rumors, she sued the defendants for defamation. After a lengthy trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff now appeals, asserting, inter alia, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that was irrelevant or otherwise improper, and in approving the jury verdict. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not err in the admission of evidence, and that material evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Weakley
Court of Appeals
Dale/Mary Bruno vs. Harold/Michelle Rounds W2002-00130-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This appeal arises from a dispute regarding a restrictive covenant in a residential community. The trial court held that the building at issue was not a barn or a storage building and thus was not in violation of the restrictive covenant. The parties raise multiple issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Fayette
Court of Appeals
Pravin Patel vs. Douglas Bayliff W2002-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. The underlying case concerned the sale of a home to the Appellants that, subsequent to the closing, evidenced termite damage. Appellant buyers claim that the Appellee sellers are responsible for this damage under various theories of recovery, all of which were dismissed by the trial court. Appellants further assert that the Appellee termite company is responsible for the damages because they failed to disclose on the termite inspection report that the home had been repeatedly treated for termites by that same company. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Christopher Powell vs. Patsy Powell W2002-00421-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This case involves the proper valuation and division of marital property, the propriety of the award of sanctions and attorney's and expert witness' fees. We affirm the trial court's valuation and division of the marital property. We reverse the award of fees and the imposition of sanctions as the sanction imposed exceeded the authority of the trial court. We remand the case for further proceedings to include consideration of the imposition of a sanction within the court's authority.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
Byrd Earthman vs. Becky McRae W2002-00564-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This is a child support case involving the allocation of private school tuition. In the parties' divorce, the father was granted sole custody of their three minor children. At the time of the divorce, the mother worked part time and, upon agreement of the parties, did not pay child support. The mother began working full time and so began paying child support. The father earns substantially more income than the mother. The father decided to send the parties' oldest child to boarding school. The mother objected to assisting in paying for the child's tuition. The trial court determined that the mother should pay a portion of the tuition in addition to child support. The mother appeals. The mother argues that the trial court erroneously considered her new spouse's income, and erred in requiring her to pay a portion of the tuition in addition to child support. We affirm.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
W2002-03027-COA-R7-CV W2002-03027-COA-R7-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Arnold B. Goldin
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Dorothy Krueser v. Barry Smith M2001-03135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This is a child support case. The trial court increased Mr. Smith's child support from $3,500.00 per month to $10,000.00 per month based on his substantial increase in income. For the following reasons, we modify this decision of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Timothy Gaither v. Jessie Bush & Angela White v. Timothy Gaither M2001-01952-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. B. Cox
This is a case involving the division of wrongful death proceeds between the divorced parents of the deceased. The deceased was eighteen, healthy, and about to enter the military. The plaintiff mother asked for an equal division of the proceeds of a wrongful death settlement entered by the father. Also included in the settlement was the father's action, individually, for his emotional trauma suffered while witnessing his son's death. A jury was asked to divide the settlement proceeds between the parties. The jury found that all of the damages for the pecuniary value of the son's life were attributable to the mother and father, and none were attributable to the son. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Thomas Monroe v. Catherine Robinson M2001-02218-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal arises from the granting of a petition to object to removal of a minor child. The trial court granted the father's petition and prevented the mother from relocating out of state with the minor child, finding that the parties spent substantially equal time with the child and that the move was not in the child's best interest. The parties raise multiple issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Monica Goldberg v. Russell Goldberg M2001-01442-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This is a divorce case involving alimony and property division. The parties have five children; the oldest is severely handicapped and the three youngest are minors. The husband is a hospital consultant. The wife works part-time as a nurse and owns a small business. In addition to child support, the trial court ordered the husband to pay substantial alimony in futuro, and assume approximately ninety-eight percent of the marital debt. The husband was also ordered to maintain a considerable amount of life insurance to secure his spousal and child support obligations. On appeal, the husband argues that the award of alimony is excessive, that rehabilitative alimony instead of alimony in futuro should have been awarded, that the trial court improperly divided the marital debt, and that the amount of life insurance required was excessive. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court's holding with regard to the division of marital debt and the amount of life insurance, and modify the award of alimony, awarding rehabilitative alimony in a reduced amount.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
W2001-01637-COA-R3-CV W2001-01637-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
Michael Hayes v. Computer Sciences M2001-01611-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
Michael Hayes sued Aerospace Contractor Support (ACS) for retaliatory discharge. He alleged that he was fired because he had filed a workers' compensation claim against a previous employer. The trial court granted summary judgment to ACS stating that the current law in Tennessee did not allow such a cause of action. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court granted the father's petition to suspend the mother's impending visitation with the parties' 13-year-old daughter. The mother then moved the trial judge to recuse herself from any further involvement in proceedings relating to custody of the child or to visitation. She claimed that an ex parte communication between the father's attorney and the judge prior to the hearing on the father's petition created the appearance of partiality or bias. The judge denied the mother's motion to recuse. We affirm.
In this medical malpractice case, Plaintiff appeals summary judgment based upon the failure of Plaintiff's medical expert to establish the requisite familiarity with the standard of care in the community in which Defendant practices or in a similar community. We affirm the action of the trial court.
A high-profile high school football coach and athletic director filed a defamation and false light invasion of privacy claim against the athletic association his school belonged to and other defendants. The Circuit Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the defendants because it found no evidence from which a jury could infer malice. We affirm.
Patient filed medical malpractice action against physician alleging negligence in performance of operation procedure and negligence in physician's post-operative care. Jury returned verdict for physician on the issue of negligent post-operative care but deadlocked on the issue of negligence in performance of surgery. Trial court declared a mistrial and entered an order denying physician's motion for entry of final judgment on the issue of post-operative care and ordering a new trial on all of patient's claims. Physician was granted interlocutory appeal. The only issue for review is whether, under the circumstances of this case, a new trial should be confined only to the issues of the physician's negligence in performing the surgery. We affirm and remand.
Trial court held that doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Appellant's civil suit against Appellee for damages stemming from an alleged assault where Appellant had previously been convicted of assaulting Appellee during the incident in question. We reverse and remand.
This appeal arises from the denial of a petition to modify visitation with a minor child. The trial court denied the father's petition, finding that the father failed to show that as a result of a material change in circumstance, his daughter had been harmed or was at risk of substantial harm due to the existing visitation arrangement. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in dismissing the father's petition. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
