James Moody vs. William Lea W2000-02916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute over an oral contract to lease farming equipment. The agreement provided that the defendant could use the plaintiff's farming equipment for an amount to be determined by a formula. The defendant began farming his land, intending to plant cotton, when the Mississippi River rose and the backwater covered his property. Because the backwater remained on the land for such a long period of time, the defendant could no longer grow cotton; he had to grow soybeans instead. Subsequently, the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff the amount the plaintiff claimed under the contract, and the plaintiff sued. The trial court held that the contract was enforceable and that the defendant's performance was not excused by the doctrine of frustration of commercial purpose. The defendant appeals the ruling of the trial court. For the reasons below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court to modify the judgment.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Carrie Marsh vs. Christopher Sensabaugh W2001-00016-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Roland Reid
This is a child custody case involving the child's natural father and a third-party, the maternal aunt. The trial court held in favor of the maternal aunt, upon a determination the father was an unfit parent. The court based its decision on the father's previous charge of contempt for failure to pay child support, previous visitation practices, and lack of knowledge regarding the child's educational status, such as her teachers, grades and attendance at parent-teacher conferences. Father appeals the trial court's decision. For the reasons below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
Comm. DOT vs. Frances Patrick & Frank Duncan W2001-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal involves the owner of an undivided five-sixths interest in property acquiring the remaining one-sixth interest from her co-tenants under the doctrine of title by prescription. The circuit court made finding of facts indicating that the prescriptive holder of the property held the property exclusively and uninterrupted for more than a twenty year period. Further, the circuit court found that no co-tenants were under a disability to assert their rights during the twenty year period and that no permission was given to the prescriptive holder to possess the property. Based on these findings of fact, the circuit court ruled that under the doctrine of title by prescription, the prescriptive holder had acquired full title in the property. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
Hardin
Court of Appeals
Howard Zoldessy vs. Ingrid Davis, et al E2000-02526-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
Upon the application of Howard Zoldessy, a temporary injunction was issued by the trial court against the defendants, Ingrid Davis and Arthur Davis. The Davises are the parents of Zoldessy's deceased wife and the grandparents of Zoldessy's daughter, Rachel. The injunction in question prohibits the defendants "from coming about [Howard Zoldessy] and his daughter, Rachel Zoldessy, or contacting him in any manner whatsoever." Following a bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants had committed willful criminal contempt by "coming about [Zoldessy's] residence on October 4, 1999." Each defendant was sentenced to 48 hours imprisonment for their contempt. Mr. Davis was also found in contempt for sending letters to Zoldessy and was sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment of 48 hours. The defendants appeal the trial court's findings of contempt, as well as the sentences imposed. We affirm the finding of contempt as to the letters sent to Zoldessy; however, we reverse the finding of contempt for the defendants' purported "coming about" Zoldessy and his daughter.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Jeanne Alice Gabel vs. Todd Edward Gabel E2000-02585-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendant in this divorce case even though the defendant had filed an answer within the time frame set forth in Rule 12.01. We conclude that entry of the default judgment was not appropriate when the defendant timely filed an answer, and, therefore, vacate the judgment of the trial court.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
In re: Estate of J. Crawford Murphy vs. Robert A. Murphy, et al. E2001-01112-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey D. Rader
In this case the Probate Court held that the personal representative of the Estate of Mae Thompson Murphy did not have authority to dissent from the will of her husband, J. Crawford Murphy, and thereby take an elective share of his estate. We find that T.C.A. 31-4-105 gives the personal representative this right and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Philip Owens vs Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc. E2000-02667-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this putative class action suit, the plaintiff, Philip Owens, alleges that the defendant, Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc. ("Bristol Speedway"), engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of souvenirs sold at its racetrack. The trial court denied certification of the alleged class and granted Bristol Speedway's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's individual claims. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Barbara Gaskins vs. Roger Gaskins E2000-02915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
This appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene County questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Ms. Gaskins alimony for a seven year period. Mr. Gaskins appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Greene County. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court as modified and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, Roger Arthur Gaskins, and his surety.
Elizabeth Hickman vs. Celia Jordan W2000-03070-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
This dispute stems from an accident in a restaurant parking lot in which a pedestrian, the plaintiff, was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant, who was backing-up through the parking lot. The jury in this case found the defendant driver not at fault. We affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Ricky Brown Sr. vs. C.O.I. Majors W2001-00536-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This appeal arises from the dismissal of the Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of disciplinary action and the confiscation of property. The Circuit Court of Hardeman County dismissed the Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari for the Appellant's failure to comply with section 41-21-801, et seq. of the Tennessee Code, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Emmett Dunlap vs. Nancy Davis W2001-00894-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Plaintiff-inmate, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the general sessions court dismissing his case. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition and he appeals. We affirm.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
William Martin vs. Douglas Sizemore, et al M1997-00203-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a disciplinary proceeding against a licensed architect. Following a lengthy hearing, the Tennessee Board of Examiners for Architects and Engineers concluded that the architect had engaged in misconduct in the practice of architecture in connection with four projects and suspended his certificate of registration for three years. The architect appealed the Board's decision to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The trial court reversed the Board's decision after determining that the decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. On this appeal, the Board asserts that its suspension of the architect's certificate of registration has adequate evidentiary support. The architect renews his argument that the Board's proceedings violated his procedural due process rights because the attorney who prosecuted the State's case against him also served as the Board's lawyer in other matters. Except for a portion of the charges involving one project, we concur with the trial court's conclusion that the Board's decision lacked evidentiary support because the State failed to present expert testimony regarding the applicable standard of care. We have also determined that the architect has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the Board was actually biased against him because the lawyer who prosecuted the State's case also provided other, unrelated legal services to the Board. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified herein and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Brenda King vs. Danny King, D.V.M. M1999-02556-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. The parties divorced after 31 years of marriage. The trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The wife was awarded alimony in futuro in the amount of $6000 per month for two years. After two years, the wife would receive $4500 per month and, upon remarriage, the amount of alimony in futuro would decrease to $2000 per month. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay $10,000 of the wife's attorney's fees. Both parties appeal; the wife appeals the division of marital property and the husband appeals the award of alimony. We affirm in part, modify in part, and reverse in part, affirming the award of alimony in futuro, modifying the amount of alimony and eliminating the award of alimony in futuro after the wife's remarriage.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Kimberly Caudill vs. William Howard Foley M2000-01512-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal arises from an action seeking attorney's fees from a previous child custody action. After divorce, Mother was awarded custody of Child. Upon remarrying, Mother sought to move to Florida with Child. Father protested and sought primary custody of Child. Judge, finding the child relocation statutes unconstitutional, awarded Father custody. Mother hired Lawyer for an appeal of this ruling. While this appeal was pending, Father brought suit for child support. Lawyer sought recusal of Judge due to previous contact between them when Judge was an attorney. Judge refused to recuse himself and disqualified Lawyer. This action was appealed. While this appeal was pending, the child custody appeal was decided by this court and Child was returned to Mother's custody. Mother brought action in the trial court seeking fees from this first trial and appeal which Judge denied. Mother appealed this denial, with the result that the failure of Judge to recuse, the disqualification of Lawyer and the attorney's fees appeals were consolidated before this court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Ronald Davis vs. The Tennessean, et al M1999-01602-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
The plaintiff filed a libel action against a newspaper, The Tennessean, its publisher and its editor, alleging his reputation had been harmed by a sentence in an article which stated that he had shot a man, when, in fact, his co-defendant had killed the victim. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff to be "libel proof" in this matter because he had been convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder and incarcerated for the remainder of his life for the crime, "render[ing] any reputation he may have had virtually valueless." We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Mohamed Ali, M.D., vs. Fredia Moore and Danny Story E2000-02534-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The Trial Court held the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff's Complaint. On appeal, we dismiss the appeal as not being timely filed.
Washington
Court of Appeals
E2001-00228-COA-R3-CV E2001-00228-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
Cocke
Court of Appeals
E2001-01163-COA-R3-JV E2001-01163-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Roane
Court of Appeals
Deborah Warren vs. James Ferguson W2000-02027-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: James H. Bradberry
This appeal involves a complaint to establish parentage and set child support. The court below ordered genetic testing, which proved that James R. Ferguson is the natural father of the children at issue. The court also entered a judgment of $8,623.00 for retroactive child support, $280.00 for the cost of genetic testing, and the court reserved the issue of current support until Mr. Ferguson is released from prison. We vacate the trial court's final order based on our conclusion that the trial court erred in failing to rule on Mr. Ferguson's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, or alternatively, his request that the matter be held in abeyance until he is released from incarceration.
Weakley
Court of Appeals
Robert LeeGrand v. Trinity Universal Insurance W2000-02664-SC-WCM-CV
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
The appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff did not sustain an injury that arose out of his employment; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff received no permanent disability from his injuries; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding as to the benefit rate, and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff discretionary costs. Although we hold that the plaintiff's injury arose out of the plaintiff's employment, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff received no permanent disability from his injury.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Parks Properties, et al vs. Maury County, et al M1997-00235-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain
Parks Properties and Columbia Warehouses, Inc. have filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39 requesting a rehearing of this court's August, 17, 2001 opinion. We requested and have now received an answer to this petition on behalf of Maury County and Judy Langsdon. Parks Properties and Columbia Warehouses insist that our conclusion that they lacked a protectable property interest in constructing the two warehouses without installing the automatic required sprinkler systems is based on our "misunderstanding that the warehouses would have contained tobacco or other combustible products." They assert that "there was never any evidence before the trial court that the warehouses would be used to store tobacco or other combustible products." This argument misses the point. The lynchpin of our opinion is that the record contains no evidence (1) that the Parks family ever told any county official that tobacco and other combustible materials would not be stored in these warehouses and (2) that the Parks family never sought a waiver of the automatic sprinkler requirements under Section 402.4.1 exception
Maury
Court of Appeals
Joe Jones v. Mary McMurray, et al M2000-01959-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
In this malicious prosecution action, Joe T. Jones ("Plaintiff") appeals the Trial Court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants after concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting Plaintiff's allegation of fraud surrounding entry of a judgment against Plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Joe Grant vs. Service Transport W2000-02688-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Rita L. Stotts
This appeal arises from a negligence claim filed by the appellee against the appellant in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. The appellant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial court denied the appellant's motion. The appellant filed a motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal. The appellee filed an order of voluntary dismissal before the appellant's motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal could be heard. The appellant appeals, arguing that the order of voluntary dismissal deprived it of the right to seek appellate review of the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.
