Alfred Akin v. Kylan Thompson M2001-00851-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers
The plaintiff Alfred Akin was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by the defendant Kylan Thompson, who was uninsured. The Allstate Insurance policy on the Akin vehicle provided uninsured motorist coverage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. Though in his personal vehicle, Mr. Akin was in the course and scope of his employment with the Metropolitan Nashville Water Works when injured. Metro government does not have a workers' compensation program, but has a benefit program for on-the-job injuries, under which it paid more than $100,000 for medical bills and disability benefits. The trial court held that Allstate's limits were reduced by amounts paid "under any workers' compensation law, disability law, or similar law . . . ." and also found that the loss of consortium claim of Mrs. Akin was derivative in nature and subject to the same $100,000 "each person" limit and reduction. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Mary Kelley v. Mahlon Johns M1998-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
This appeal involves an intra-family dispute over the validity of an 88-year-old decedent's will leaving his farm to one of his nine children. After the will was admitted to probate in the Maury County Probate Court, six of the decedent's children filed suit in the Circuit Court for Maury County asserting that their father lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the will and that the will had been procured by undue influence by the child who received the farm. A jury determined that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and his son when the disputed will was executed and that the will was procured by undue influence. Accordingly, the trial court entered an order invalidating the will and setting aside the pending probate proceeding. On this appeal, the child who received the farm from his father insists that the evidence does not support the jury's findings that he had a confidential relationship with his father and that he exerted undue influence over his father with regard to the substance of the will. We have determined that the record contains material evidence to support the jury's verdict and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Maury
Court of Appeals
Robert Marengo & Francine Marengo v. Terry Bowen M2000-02379-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Don R. Ash
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chancellor regarding the judicial dissolution of a continuing partnership. The trial court determined the withdrawing partner's debt should not be offset against his capital account in assessing his dissolution date value until the valuation of the business was made by the court, it was proper to add an additional $20,000 as a going concern adjustment to the valuation of the partnership, certain salary adjustments were proper, and a marketability and/or minority discount does not apply to the partnership. This Court concluded the trial court's determination offsetting the withdrawing partner's debt to the partnership as of the trial date was proper, the trial court erred in adding an additional $20,000 as a going concern value to the valuation of the partnership, the trial court's salary adjustment was proper, the trial court's refusal to apply a minority and/or marketability discount was proper, and the trial court's adjustment for a portion of the partnership's legal and professional expenses was proper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of the value of the withdrawing partner's interest as consistent with this order. Costs of this appeal shall be split between the appellant and the appellee.
Putnam
Court of Appeals
Joseph Meadors v. Sonya Danielle Shrum M2001-02691-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
This case involves a petition to modify visitation. The mother and father were divorced in January 1999. By agreement, the mother was granted custody of the parties' minor child, and the father was given visitation. The divorce decree provided that the father's visitation schedule would change from week to week depending on father's fluctuating work schedule in his job as an emergency medical technician. This schedule necessitated repeated negotiating between the mother and the father to agree on the father's visitation schedule. In April 2001, the father petitioned the court for "standard" every-other-weekend visitation, without regard to his work schedule, in order to end the parties' pattern of negotiating and bickering. The trial court determined that the parties were unable to work together amicably, and ordered "standard" every-other-weekend visitation in order to minimize the interaction between the parties. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding that the parties' inability to implement amicably the ordered visitation arrangement constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the slight modification in visitation.
Patricia Grice v. Larry Grice M2001-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding initiated by the wife. The trial court, holding that both parties contributed to the demise of the marriage, granted the parties a divorce. The trial court then granted the wife rehabilitative alimony for a period of eighteen months, as well as alimony in solido, but denied the wife's request for alimony in futuro. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the wife rehabilitative alimony as opposed to alimony in futuro. For the following reasons, we affirm, as modified.
Humphreys
Court of Appeals
Marchella Richardson v. Terry Stacey M2001-02167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
Plaintiff, landowner, sued defendant, adjoining landowner, to enjoin him from trespassing on her land, committing a nuisance, and for damages. Plaintiff secured a temporary restraining order, and after a nonjury trial, plaintiff was granted injunctive relief in several particulars and was awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant appeals. We modify in part and affirm as modified.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
P.E.K. v. J.M. and C.Y.M. M2001-02190-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
This case, before this Court for the second time, involves an interstate battle between never-married parents over custody of a minor daughter. The trial court found that under the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the trial court had jurisdiction of the custody dispute and entered judgment awarding custody of the minor daughter to the Petitioner-Father. Mother has appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Wayne
Court of Appeals
Brenda Lehman v. Sylvia Vines M2001-01811-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Plaintiff-attorney sued former client for balance of amount due under fee agreement. In a nonjury trial, the trial court found that the client owed a balance of $4,209.00, and entered judgment for plaintiff in that amount. The client appeals, and we reverse and remand.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Sumner Co. Bd of Ed. v. Mansker Farms M2001-01888-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This is a dispute over an option contract. Mansker Farms, a land developer, offered the Sumner County School Board an option on land in its development to build a school. A dispute arose over whether a condition precedent existed in the contract and whether the nonfulfillment of this condition prevented the School Board from exercising the option. The trial court found that no valid contract existed because there was no meeting of the minds between Mansker Farms, who gave the option, and the Sumner County Board of Education, who attempted to exercise the option. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Alison Rinner v. Robert Rinner M2001-02307-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This is a divorce case. The father and mother were both forty-one years old and had a six-year-old daughter. The trial court ordered the father to pay rehabilitative alimony, child support, and a portion of the mother's attorney's fees. On appeal, the father argues that the trial court improperly considered bonus money the father had received, that it erred in not ordering that child support on income in excess of $10,000 be placed in trust, that it erred in ordering him to pay rehabilitative alimony and a portion of the mother's attorney's fees, and also erred in failing to assign tax liability regarding certain stock options. We affirm the trial court's calculation of child support, the decision not to pay a portion of the child support into a trust, the order to pay rehabilitative alimony and a portion of the mother's attorney's fees, and find that the trial court was not required to assign tax liability as to the stock options.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
M2001-01320-COA-R9-CV M2001-01320-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
Sumner
Court of Appeals
10-00-095-P 10-00-095-P
Trial Court Judge: A. Andrew Jackson
Dickson
Court of Appeals
CH-00-1654-1 CH-00-1654-1
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant surgeon and hospital in this medical malpractice action. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error at several stages of the trial, including jury selection, witness testimony and jury instructions. We affirm the trial court.
Strategic Capital Resources, Inc. and FPE Funding, LLC sued the buyer and seller of the Pirelli tire plant in Nashville and other parties involved in structuring and financing the transaction. The complaint alleged that the buyer and seller breached an agreement with Strategic, and that other parties were guilty of fraud, inducement of breach of contract, conspiracy, and had been unjustly enriched at the expense of Strategic.. The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted the defendants' Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.06 motion to dismiss because Strategic's contract with the buyers did not bind the buyer to deal exclusively with Strategic. We affirm.
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer seeking to void a property insurance policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application for the policy. The insured filed a counter claim seeking recovery under the policy. The trial court granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment and declared the policy void ab initio. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff was discharged from her employment for making a false statement concerning her health in her application for employment to defendant-employer. The false statement was discovered some years after her employment commenced when she sustained an injury at work which had no relation to the false answers in the application. Plaintiff was denied unemployment benefits because of work-related misconduct which was affirmed by the Board of Review. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the Board of Review, and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston M2001-02697-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
This is a divorce case. The trial court granted Joe Phillip Livingston ("Father") a divorce from Jennifer Elaine Livingston ("Mother") on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct and awarded primary physical custody of the parties' two minor children to Father. Mother was granted visitation rights; however, the court ordered that she "refrain from allowing the parties' children to be at the residence of [Mother's] maternal grandmother" during visitation. Mother appeals the award of custody and the granting of the divorce to Father. In addition, Mother also raises a procedural issue and questions the admission of certain evidence. We affirm.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Tracey L. (Yanusz) Taylor v. John J. Yanusz M2001-02760-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
This appeal involves a dispute over the custody of a five-year-old boy. His parents were divorced following his mother's extramarital affair. Their marital dissolution agreement established a joint custody arrangement with the father having primary physical custody. Following an unsuccessful two-year reconciliation effort, the child's mother petitioned the Sumner County General Sessions Court for sole custody. The father insisted that the child's circumstances had not changed and that he continued to be more fit than the mother to be the child's primary custodian. The trial court, sitting without a jury, determined that the child's circumstances had changed and that the child's interests would be best served by placing him in his mother's custody. The father asserts on this appeal that the child's circumstances have not changed materially and that the evidence does not support giving sole custody to the mother. While we have determined that the child's circumstances changed following his parents' divorce, we have determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's conclusion that the changes are so escalating and dangerous that they required a change in the original custody arrangement. Accordingly, we vacate the order awarding the mother sole custody of the child and remand the case for further proceedings.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
K. Mahendra Chowbay v. Brian Davis, et al. M2001-01838-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
In this premises liability case, K. Mahendra Chowbay ("Plaintiff") sued the owners of a club, Silverado's Saloon and Dance Hall ("Silverado's"), for injuries Plaintiff received during an assault by one of Silverado's patrons, Brian Davis. Plaintiff also sued Davis. Silverado's owners, Pat Patton and Eight Track Management Company, LLC, d/b/a Silverado's Saloon and Dance Hall ("Defendants"), filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss which must be treated as a motion for summary judgment because matters outside the pleadings were submitted to the trial court. Defendants contended in their motion that since Davis' assault of Plaintiff occurred on property neither owned nor operated by Defendants, Defendants owed no duty of care to Plaintiff to protect him from such an assault. The trial court granted Defendants' motion. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In Re: Estate of Vivian McSwain M2001-02309-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Robert L. Poe, in his capacity as the executor of the Estate of Vivian K. McSwain, filed a motion to set his fee and expenses. Following a bench trial on the executor's motion, the trial court awarded the executor $20,000. The executor appeals, arguing that the award is inadequate. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Tonya Ray v. William Ray M2002-01553-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
This extraordinary appeal involves a dispute over the custody of four-year-old twins. On October 5, 2001, this court vacated an order of the Circuit Court for Davidson County granting custody of the twins to the former husband of their biological mother and remanded the case for the purpose of determining whether the twins' biological father is currently fit to have custody and whether placing the twins in his custody will expose them to substantial harm. On June 27, 2002, the trial court declined to permit the biological father to continue visitation with the twins pending court-ordered psychological evaluations of the biological father and the twins. We have determined that the June 27, 2002 order must be vacated because it lacks evidentiary support and is based on a significant misinterpretation of our October 5, 2001 opinion.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Lawrence County v. Jerry Brewer, et al . M2001-00078-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This matter involves a dispute over payment of solid waste disposal fees, which the Lawrence County Commission attempted to charge the citizens of Lawrence County, and application of late payment penalties to these fees. Lawrence County filed complaints in order to collect overdue solid waste fees that the Commission allegedly enacted on May 25, 1999 by Resolution #11052599. The trial court determined that Resolution #11051599 did not impose any solid waste fees on the residents of Lawrence County and dismissed Plaintiff's complaints. We affirm the trial court.
Lawrence
Court of Appeals
Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Preston, Skahan & Smith International, Inc. M1998-00983-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
This appeal involves a contract dispute between a customs broker and an importer of Russian vodka. The customs broker sued the importer in the Davidson County General Sessions Court seeking to recover $4,781.16, and the importer counterclaimed alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and usury. After the general sessions court dismissed both cases, the parties appealed to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. On the day of trial, the trial court denied the importer's motion to exclude nine invoices that the customs broker had failed to produce during discovery. Thereafter, the trial court, sitting without a jury, awarded the customs broker a $4,623.16 judgment and dismissed the importer's countersuit. On this appeal, the importer asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to exclude the nine invoices and that the evidence preponderates against the judgment. We have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the importer's motion in limine and that the evidence supports the judgment for the customs broker. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
