Roy Gray vs. Nancy Gray E2001-02470-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
In this divorce case from the Circuit Court for Knox County the Appellant, Roy William Gray, contends that the Trial Court erred in failing to disqualify counsel for the Appellee, Nancy Jane Gray. Mr. Gray further contends that the Court erred in dividing the marital assets, in granting both parties a divorce, and in awarding Ms. Gray post trial attorney's fees. Ms. Gray asserts that she should be reimbursed for attorney's fees incurred by her in responding to this appeal upon the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and devoid of merit. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Elaine Wynn vs. Joseph Hames W2001-00269-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
This a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff's decedent saw Defendant, an emergency room physician, who diagnosed decedent with pneumonia and sent decedent home with antibiotics. Plaintiff's decedent died the next day from congestive heart failure. Plaintiff, wife of decedent, sued Defendant for malpractice. The jury's verdict found decedent 90% at fault and Defendant 10% at fault, and the trial court entered judgment for Defendant on the jury verdict. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Benton
Court of Appeals
Durnelco, Inc. vs. Double James E2001-02010-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
This case involves the interpretation of a commercial lease agreement. The tenant, Durnelco, Inc. ("Durnelco"), filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that it properly terminated the lease agreement on July 31, 2000. Durnelco also asked that it be permitted to remove, at its expense, certain improvements made by it to the leasehold premises, including some flooring, walls, doors, windows, bathroom fixtures, and exterior decking. The present landlord, Double James, LLC ("Double James"), answered and filed a counterclaim asserting that Durnelco had breached the lease and had refused to surrender possession of the premises. It sought damages as a result of Durnelco's alleged holdover tenancy. The trial court allowed Durnelco to remove only two signs and certain light fixtures. The court awarded Double James $7,000 in rent for the period of July through December, 2000. Durnelco appeals. We affirm.
April Grant Ingle vs. Robert Wayne Ingle E2001-02802-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
This is a post-divorce case. The parties were divorced in 1998. On September 21, 2000, April Grant Ingle ("Mother") filed a petition to modify the parties' divorce judgment. She alleged that Robert Wayne Ingle ("Father") had been unemployed at the time of the divorce, and, consequently, was not ordered to pay child support. She further alleged that he had subsequently become employed and that he should now be ordered to pay child support computed pursuant to the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines"). Mother also sought to modify Father's visitation as set forth in the divorce judgment. After comparing the parties' respective incomes, the trial court ordered Father to pay child support of $177 per month. Mother appeals. We vacate the trial court's child support award and the effective date of that award. The remainder of the trial court's order is affirmed. This case is remanded to the trial court for such additional proceedings as may be necessary and for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
E2001-02926-COA-R3-CV E2001-02926-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Blount
Court of Appeals
John Sicard vs. Leon Williams, Inc. E2001-02928-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
The Trial Court awarded plaintiff commission under Agreement between the parties. On appeal, we reverse on grounds that plaintiff's misrepresentation in procuring a contract with a third party, denied his contractual right to the commission.
Brendi Kaplan v. John A. Bugalla M2003-01012-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This case involves a petition to modify child support. By court approved Marital Dissolution Agreement executed May 10, 2002, child support payable by the father was set at $4,000 per month. At the time of the agreement and divorce decree father was earning in excess of $20,000 per month. The parties did not appeal the May 10, 2002 judgment, but on September 4, 2002 the mother filed a petition to increase child support in order to accommodate attendance of the two children to private school. The trial judge denied the petition. We affirm the action of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Alberta Dodson v. James Dodson M2000-01682-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
The trial court awarded a divorce to the parties, and ordered the husband to pay $1,000 per month as alimony in futuro. In light of the needs of the wife, and of the husband's ability to pay, we increase the alimony award to $1,500 per month.
The Circuit Court of Davidson County affirmed an arbitrator's award despite the opponent's claim of the arbitrator's bias and of erroneous calculations. We affirm.
In a non-jury trial, the Circuit Court of Davidson County awarded $10,920 to a plaintiff injured in a rear-end collision. The defendants assert on appeal that the court erred in allowing the plaintiff to supplement her trial proof with her doctor's statement that his charges were reasonable and necessary. In addition, the defendants assert that most of the medical expenses included in the plaintiff's award were not caused by the accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This is an automobile collision personal injury case. Plaintiff-motorist was stopped in a thru-traffic lane over the crest of a hill behind a vehicle attempting to make a left turn off of the highway. The defendant-motorist came over the crest of the hill and struck the plaintiff-motorist in the rear, causing injuries to the plaintiff. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict for the defendant that the defendant was not at fault in the accident. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Nancy E. Cotter v. Ted A. Burkhalter, et al. M2000-03183-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal arises from an action by a Trustee against: (1) Ted A. Burkhalter (Burkhalter), an accountant/attorney, and the accounting firm, Burkhalter, Ryan & Co., P.C., for professional malpractice; (2) Burkhalter, a former co-trustee, for alleged breach of fiduciary duties; (3) Burkhalter and his partner, Linda Resha, in a general partnership, for alleged conspiracy to defraud and convert funds from the trust; and (4) Prudential Securities, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty by allegedly permitting the diversion of funds by Burkhalter. The Chancery Court granted summary judgment in favor of Burkhalter and Burkhalter-Ryan finding that the malpractice claims were time-barred. The Chancery Court also granted summary judgment in favor of Prudential Securities finding that Prudential had not breached a fiduciary duty to the trust. Following a bench trial on the remaining issues, the Chancery Court found that the plaintiff/appellant was judicially estopped from pursuing the claims against Burkhalter for alleged breach of fiduciary duties as a trustee, and found in favor of Burkhalter and Resha on the claim of conspiracy to divert funds, finding there was insufficient evidence to establish that a conspiracy existed. We affirm.
Michael John Durant v. Lorrie Diane Durant M2001-00691-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This appeal concerns the dissolution of a twelve-year marriage. The trial court granted the husband a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The court distributed the parties' property and awarded custody of the couple's two minor children to the husband. The court also enforced a contract the parties entered into prior to the divorce wherein the husband agreed to purchase the wife's share of the marital residence. The wife appeals. We affirm the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Crouch, et al v. Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc. M2001-00789-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a trial court's refusal to grant class action status to plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and promissory fraud. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant alleging that identical contracts between proposed class members and defendant were breached and that defendant's conduct amounted to promissory fraud. The trial court held that plaintiffs failed to show that issues of law and fact common to the class predominated over individual questions and refused to certify the class. Plaintiffs were granted this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court's decision on class certification. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
James D. Leckrone v. James D. Walker, et al. M1998-00974-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal arises from a dispute over the proceeds from the sale of a Florida condominium unit once owned by a Tennessee partnership but titled in the name of two of its partners. When the successor to the partnership's interest in the unit undertook to sell it, one of the owners of record agreed to sign the deed only if the proceeds were placed in escrow while the parties attempted to resolve his claim to one-half of the funds. When the parties failed to agree on a distribution of the proceeds, the escrow holder filed an interpleader action in the Chancery Court for Davidson County. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the escrowed proceeds to the partnership's successor after determining that the owner of record was estopped to invoke the statute of frauds to defeat the successor's claim. We have determined that the trial court reached the correct result because the owner of record no longer possessed a beneficial interest in the unit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Dudley G. Boyd, et al. v. Comdata Network, Inc., et al. M2000-00949-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal involves a discovery dispute implicating the common interest privilege and the work product doctrine. After filing suit in the Chancery Court for Williamson County to rescind their guaranties, the individual guarantors of a corporate debt served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the creditor seeking copies of all written communications between the creditor and the corporation from which the creditor had purchased the corporate debt. The creditor objected to the production of documents involving its negotiation of a joint defense agreement with the original creditor and the drafts of an agreement to repurchase the corporate debt. The trial court directed the creditor to produce both categories of documents but permitted the creditor to pursue an interlocutory appeal. We granted the interlocutory appeal to address the application of the common interest privilege and the work product doctrine. We have determined that the common interest privilege shields the documents relating to the joint defense agreement from discovery and that the work product doctrine likewise protects the drafts of the repurchase agreement. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order compelling the production of these documents.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Lidell Russell vs. City of Memphis W2001-01307-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is an appeal from a wrongful death action brought against the City of Memphis pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Memphis, finding that at the time of the accident giving rise to this action its employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. We affirm.
