Effie Louise Hayes vs. Roger Strutton, et al E2001-01765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jackie Schulten
Plaintiff/Appellant, Effie Louise Hayes, appeals the Hamilton County Circuit Court's judgment on the pleadings dismissing her complaint wherein she asserted that the Defendants/Appellees, Roger Strutton, Betty Strutton, Gary Lester and Mark Rothberger, defrauded her of real property. We affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Dept of Children's Services vs. C.H.H. In Re: A.N.R. E2001-02107-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett
The State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services ("DCS") filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of C.H.H. ("Father"), the biological father of the minor child, A.N.R. ("Child"). The Trial Court granted DCS' petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Father appeals. We affirm as modified and remand.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Susan Jones vs. Steven Dorrough E2001-02397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
The origin of this appeal was a divorce proceeding between Steven Travis Dorrough and Susan Diane Jones. The question presented is the rights and responsibilities of the parties to a marital dissolution agreement incorporated in the final divorce decree as it relates to a piece of property located at 3003 Keller Bend Road in Knoxville, which had been the parties' marital residence. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.
Pelilia San Juan-Torregosa, et al vs. Engracia Torregosa Garcia, et al. E2001-02906-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Patient in "chronic vegetative state" is on life support, i.e., nutrition by "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy". The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that patient would not want to be subjected to artificial nutrition. However, the court ruled since she had not executed a living will, the court had no authority to authorize discontinuance of the artificial nutrition. On appeal, we reverse.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Eddie Fritz vs. Wanda Fritz E2001-00145-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III
Eddie LaMartin Fritz ("Husband") filed for divorce alleging inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wanda Lorraine Williams Fritz ("Wife") counter-claimed seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties eventually agreed how to divide most of their personal property and stipulated to grounds for the divorce. Wife had opened two savings accounts into which she claims she placed funds for the college education of her two daughters from a previous marriage. The Trial Court concluded the funds in these accounts were not marital property, and Husband challenges this conclusion on appeal. Husband also challenges the Trial Court's holding that he be responsible for all of the credit card debt accumulated during the marriage. We modify the division of property, and affirm the judgment as modified.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Cory Staples vs. William Clifton E2001-01385-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiff on malicious prosecution claim. On appeal, plaintiff seeks an additur. Defendant also appeals, arguing there is no evidence to establish the cause of action and damages were not established. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Deborah Keller vs. Donald Keller E2001-01399-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Appellant held in contempt by Trial Judge was ordered not to have any guns whatsoever around the parties' minor child. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Donna Bunker vs. Roger Finks E2001-01496-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
Donna J. (Finks) Bunker ("Mother") and Roger Finks ("Father") were divorced in Ohio in 1993. The parties had two minor children. Mother and the children relocated to Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Father stayed in Ohio. The Ohio Divorce Decree was brought properly before the Tennessee Trial Court. Father filed a petition seeking a change of custody and visitation, while Mother filed a cross-petition seeking an increase in child support. The Trial Court found that while Father proved a material change in circumstances, he failed to carry his burden of showing that a change of custody was warranted. The Trial Court also restricted Father's visitation with the children to take place only in Chattanooga. The Trial Court did not increase Father's child support obligation. Both Father and Mother raise issues on appeal. Father's issues on appeal concern custody and visitation, primarily of the parties' younger child ("Younger Child"). We affirm, as modified, and remand.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
William Lindgren & Melanie Lindgren vs. City of Johnson City E2001-01676-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
Plaintiff was injured by falling on defendant's sewer covering. The Trial Court found for plaintiff and awarded damages against City. On appeal, we affirm finding of liability, but vacate award of damages and remand with instructions to determine the total amount of damages, find percentage of fault, and then enter judgment in accordance with the Governmental Tort Liability Act. We Affirm in Part, Vacate in Part and Remand.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Hutter vs. Bray, Cohen, Kressin, Hash, Norton, Luhn E2001-02408-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In plaintiff's action for conspiracy, fraud and malicious harassment, the Trial Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm.
David O'Connell v. Metro Government of Nashville/Davidson County M2001-00491-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
The plaintiff in this inverse condemnation action alleged that the State took two parcels of land that belonged to him for a road-widening project, paying compensation to the wrong parties. The trial court referred the question of ownership of the disputed parcels to a special master, who determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for one of the parcels because title had passed to another party by adverse possession. The trial court affirmed the findings of the special master. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In The Matter of the Estate of Nellie Ellis, Charles W. Moore. v. Clyde Green M2000-01516-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
This case involves the interpretation of a remainder interest granted in a will. The decedent's husband bequeathed to the decedent a life estate in stock in a family-owned business, with the remainder to go 50% to his "living heirs" and 50% to "some deserving person in the music department at Belmont College." After her husband's death, the decedent purchased the remainder interest in the stock from all of the remaindermen. By virtue of this purchase, the decedent presumed that she owned the stock outright. At her death, her will included a bequest of the stock. Her heirs brought this declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the decedent did not own the stock at her death. They argued that the decedent's purchase of the remainder interest in the stock was invalid because the remaindermen did not own a vested interest in the stock at the time of the husband's death. The trial court found that the case was barred by the statute of limitations and that the decedent had, in fact, acquired 100% ownership in the stock. The heirs now appeal. We affirm, finding that the remaindermen in the husband's will acquired a vested, transmissible remainder interest in the stock at the husband's death.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Deborah R. Smith and Alan Smith vs. Taco Bell Corporation E2001-01796-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
The trial court awarded Deborah Smith ("Plaintiff") $250,000 for injuries received as a result of her fall at Taco Bell. Plaintiff's husband was awarded $10,000 for his loss of consortium claim. On appeal, Taco Bell Corporation ("Defendant") contends the trial court committed reversible error by failing to rule at trial on Defendant's objections made during the depositions of the two primary treating physicians. Defendant also claims the medical proof was insufficient to establish a causal connection between Plaintiff's fall at Taco Bell and her medical condition. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
E2001-02086-COA-R3-CV E2001-02086-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Ronald Meredith vs. James Stair E2001-02852-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this suit seeking damages for breach of contract, Ronald C. Meredith, Jr., and Clinton Broadcasters, Inc., were granted a judgment against James F. Stair in the amount of $84,326. Mr. Stair appeals. His single issue insists that the Trial Court was in error in finding a breach of contract. We disagree and affirm.
Estella Akins vs. Dwaine Peters E2001-02739-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
Estella Akins ("Plaintiff") sued Dwaine Peters and Carolyn Peters ("Defendants") for the wrongful death of her husband, Leon Akins ("Decedent"). At the time of his death, Decedent was feeding hay to Defendants' cattle using Defendants' tractor. One of the tractor's rear tires rolled onto the Decedent, killing him. The Trial Court granted Defendants' motion for directed verdict at the close of Plaintiff's proof. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
The plaintiff sued adjoining landowners asking the court to establish the boundary line between the two properties. The Chancery Court of Marion County held that the line originally ran where the plaintiff claimed but that the plaintiff's claim was barred by laches and adverse possession. We affirm.
Danny Alvis vs. Manfred Steinhagen W2001-00940-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
This appeal arises from a claim filed by the Appellee against the Appellant in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County. The claim alleged that the Appellee was entitled to rescission, reformation, and/or damages proximately caused by the Appellant's breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, misrepresentations, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and/or unjust enrichment. Following a trial, the general sessions court rendered a verdict in favor of the Appellee. The Appellant appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Following a trial in the circuit court, the circuit court rendered a verdict in favor of the Appellee and ordered the Appellant to pay discretionary costs.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Latasha Whittington-Barrett vs. Jerry Hayes E2001-01277-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
LaTasha Marie Whittington-Barrett ("Plaintiff"), who is currently incarcerated by the State of Tennessee, filed a petition seeking a copy of Plaintiff's medical and psychiatric records. As grounds for the petition, Plaintiff cited a Tennessee Department of Corrections rule which requires a court order before TDOC will release copies of the inmate's health records directly to the inmate. The defendants, prison Health Administrator Jerry Hayes and prison Mental Health Psychological Examiner David Dobbins ("Defendants"), filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. The Trial Court granted Defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the summary judgment and remand.
Johnson
Court of Appeals
Minnie Long v. HCA Health Svcs dba Southern Hills Medical Center M2001-00505-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This appeal involves a personal injury sustained by the plaintiff while a patient at defendant's nursing home facility. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for negligence and the case proceeded to trial before a jury. During the trial, the defendant filed several motions for a directed verdict, which were denied. The trial resulted in a hung jury and the court was forced to declare a mistrial. Before the second trial, the defendant renewed its motion for directed verdict. The court ruled that the plaintiff's cause of action should be considered a claim for medical malpractice, but that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit before the second trial took place and the defendant motioned the court for discretionary costs. The court awarded the defendant only some of the requested costs and this appeal followed. For the following reasons, we affirm the decisions of the trial court to deny defendant's last motion for a directed verdict and to award only partial discretionary costs.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Charles Kendall Duty, et al v. Farah Dabit, et al M2001-00586-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
This appeal involves a suit brought by the purchasers of a new home. The seller and purchaser entered into a contract of sale, wherein the seller agreed to construct a home on a parcel of real property. Having no construction experience, the seller hired a contractor to construct the home. Upon the completion of the home and closing on the property, the purchasers discovered numerous defects that were allegedly caused by a failure to construct the home in a workmanlike manner. The purchasers filed suit against the seller and the contractor. The seller and the contractor hired an attorney, but the attorney eventually withdrew from the case. Four months after the attorney's withdrawal, the case proceeded to trial. The seller, acting pro se, arrived at the trial several hours late. By the time the seller had arrived, the contractor and purchaser had completed voir dire and the contractor had been dismissed through a judgment on the pleadings. With the trial judge acting as finder of fact, the trial proceeded and a judgment was entered against the seller in the amount of $22,182.84. After the trial, in an attempt to amend his pleadings to assert a cross-claim against the contractor, the seller moved the court for a new trial or to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the seller's motion and for the following reasons, we affirm.
