State, ex rel, Purlie Page, vs Ricardo Trabal E2000-02738-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
This action to establish paternity was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds of estoppel and laches. We reinstate the action and remand.
Lisa Venable vs. Boyd Venable E2000-01543-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
This divorce action was filed November 12, 1998. All issues involving money were contested: marital assets, debts, child support, attorney fees, costs.
Kristin Huntley vs. William Huntley E2000-01718-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
In this child support modification action, the Trial Court held that a significant variance existed between William Sidney Huntley's ("Defendant") child support obligation set by the parties' Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA") and the amount mandated by the Child Support Guidelines ("Guidelines"). The Trial Court ordered an increase in child support consistent with the Guidelines. Because the Guidelines' flat percentage amount of child support totaled approximately $6,600 per month, the Trial Court ordered it be divided between child support payments of $3,100 and payments to a non-educational trust ("Trust") in the amount of $3,500. Defendant appeals and primarily contends that his child support obligation should not be increased to the Guidelines' flat percentage amount because that amount exceeds a reasonable amount of child support and because the MDA controls his child support obligation despite any increases in his income. Kristin B. Huntley ("Plaintiff") also raises issues on appeal, primarily regarding the Trust. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Leon William G.C. vs. D.F. Shoffner Inc. E2000-01877-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
This is a suit by a general contractor against a sub-contractor for breach of contract and negligence in installing heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of the sub-contractor, resulting in this appeal. We find in light of the Supreme Court case of Harris v. Chern, which was delivered after the Trial Court ruled on the motion to alter or amend, that the order overruling the motion should be vacated and the Trial Court should reconsider it in light of Harris. We accordingly vacate the order overruling the motion to alter or amend, and remand.
Blount
Court of Appeals
Craig Tatman vsl. Fort Sanders Medical Center E2000-02163-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
Craig Tatman ("Plaintiff"), a devout Jehovah's Witness, underwent heart surgery at Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center ("Defendant"). Prior to the surgery, the attending physician and Defendant were specifically informed that Plaintiff was not to receive any blood or blood products. While Plaintiff was recovering from the surgery, he experienced a dramatic decrease in blood pressure. The attending critical care nurse forgot that Plaintiff was a Jehovah's Witness and administered Protenate, a protein fraction derived from human plasma. This was contrary to Plaintiff's religious tenets. At trial, Defendant admitted that a medical battery had taken place. The only issue presented to the jury was compensatory damages resulting from the medical battery. No jury instruction was requested or given regarding nominal damages. The jury awarded no compensatory damages. Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an additur or a new trial. Plaintiff's motion was denied, and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Deborah Davis vs. Jerry Davis E1999-02737-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
This appeal from the Hamilton County Circuit Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in failing to approve Ms. Davis's Statement of the Evidence, in retroactively modifying child support, in determining the amount of Mr. Davis's mortgage obligation to Ms. Davis, and in determining the amount of attorney's fees Mr. Davis was ordered to pay Ms. Davis. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified and remand with directions.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
2000-02174-COA-R3-CV 2000-02174-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Brenda Tipton vs. Richard Jones, et al E2000-01860-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
Brenda L. Tipton ("Plaintiff") filed this lawsuit seeking damages for personal injury. Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), Plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier, filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude portions of the testimony of Plaintiff's treating physician because it was not based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Allstate also claimed that the jury verdict was excessive and it was entitled to a remittitur or a new trial. We affirm the Trial Court's evidentiary rulings and its refusal to grant a remittitur or new trial.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Roy Schrimsher vs. Sherry Schrimsher E2000-02169-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
This is a post divorce custody dispute. Mother seeks custody of the two minor children because she believes the children are dependent and neglected. Father seeks an increase in child support for the children. Mother requested the Trial Judge to hear the testimony of the children who were 12 and 11 at the time. The children were the witnesses to the acts complained of in the petition to change custody. Mother could only present hearsay evidence from the children. The Trial Judge refused to hear the testimony of the children and continued custody with Father and increased Mother's child support. Mother then filed this appeal. We vacate the decision of the trial court and remand for the purpose hereinafter set out.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
In Re: Estate of Martha Woodard E2000-02219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert G. Lincoln
This declaratory judgment action focuses on a dispute among three adult children concerning the ownership of certain funds in their mother's estate. In earlier litigation relating to the administration of the estate of the children's father, a chancellor found the same funds had been owned by the children's parents as tenants by the entireties and directed that the funds be transferred out of the father's estate, and "deposited to [the mother's] account." The children's mother died approximately four months after the entry of the chancellor's order. At the time of her death, the funds were still in the father's estate due to the fact that the executrix of his estate, who was also the mother's attorney-in-fact, had failed to transfer the funds into her mother's name. The mother's will made several specific bequests, including a bequest, to the petitioner in the instant case, of "all of [sic] money deposited in the First Tennessee Bank." The petitioner filed this suit seeking a declaration that the funds should be treated as constructively having been placed in the mother's checking account at First Tennessee Bank. The trial court granted such relief, and the respondents, the other two children, now appeal. We reverse.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Margaret Akins vs. Pauline Clark, et al E2000-02337-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
Margaret Akins ("Plaintiff") stood to inherit a farm and stock from her close friend, Josephine A. Notgrass ("Notgrass"), through specific bequests ("Bequests") in Notgrass' will. After Notgrass' will ("Will") was executed, Notgrass and Plaintiff formed a limited partnership ("Limited Partnership") in an effort to save estate taxes. Notgrass held a substantially higher interest in the Limited Partnership than Plaintiff and was the sole general partner. Notgrass transferred to the Limited Partnership the farm and stock which were the subject of the Bequests. After Notgrass' death, Plaintiff, who also is the personal representative of Notgrass' estate, filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking an order from the Trial Court regarding how to distribute the assets of the Limited Partnership. The Trial Court held that the transfer of the farm and stock to the Limited Partnership did not materially change or alter those assets, and, therefore, the transfer did not result in an ademption by extinction of the Bequests. As a result, the Trial Court held that Plaintiff was entitled to inherit the farm and stock pursuant to the Bequests. Fourteen of the twenty one named residuary beneficiaries ("Defendants") appeal. We reverse.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
William H. Davis vs. Daira F. Davis E2000-02678-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
This appeal from the Cocke County Circuit Court questions whether the trial court erred in dividing the marital estate. Mr. Davis appeals the trial court's valuation of his closely held corporation, the payment of some debt by Mr. Davis, and the award of permanent periodic alimony to Ms. Davis. We affirm the decision of the trial court as modified and remand for such further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, William H. Davis and his surety.
Cocke
Court of Appeals
Daniel Lowe vs. Faytella Lowe E2000-01456-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
In this divorce case, the trial court dissolved a childless marriage of 5 1/2 years. Daniel Ed Lowe ("Husband") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in declaring the parties' antenuptial agreement void and (2) in granting Faytella D. Lowe ("Wife") half of the increase in value of Husband's retirement benefits accrued during the marriage. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Brian Elkins vs. Rex Berry & William Bolin W2000-01143-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
This case involves the right to a trial by jury. The plaintiff sued the defendants for injuries he sustained in an automobile collision that was allegedly caused by the defendants' negligence. In the plaintiff's complaint, he demanded a jury trial. The defendants also demanded a jury trial in their answers. On the eve of trial, unbeknownst to the defendants, the plaintiff withdrew his jury demand. On the morning of trial, the defendants appeared but were unrepresented by counsel. The trial court proceeded with a bench trial, and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants now appeal, claiming, inter alia, that they were denied their right to a jury trial. We affirm, finding that the defendants' participation in the bench trial, without objection, constituted a waiver of their right to a jury trial under Rules 38.05 and 39.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Carroll
Court of Appeals
Joe/Lovie Ross vs. Shelby Co. Healthcare W2000-01553-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This appeal arises from the contraction of the HIV virus by the appellant after he received blood transfusions from the appellees. The appellants brought a complaint with the Circuit Court of Shelby County against the appellees but then filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The appellants refiled the complaint against the appellees. Process for the appellees was issued but returned unserved. The appellants failed to reissue process within one year. The appellants filed a motion for enlargement of time to issue new process pursuant to Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied the appellants' motion and dismissed the complaint against the appellees. The appellants appeal from the denial of their motion and the dismissal of the complaint against the appellees by the Circuit Court of Shelby County. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Paul Holmes vs. Christy Holmes W2000-01759-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This is an appeal from a final decree of absolute divorce in which custody of the parties' minor son was given to the father for the school year and to the mother during the summer months when regular school is not in session. We affirm.
Chester
Court of Appeals
Leslie Crossett vs. Roy Fuller W2000-02482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This is an appeal from a boundary dispute. The property in dispute is a roadway used by both parties to access their properties. The trial court determined the common boundary line, provided the Crossetts with an easement for ingress and egress, and awarded the Fullers their costs. The Crossetts appeal. We affirm.
Carroll
Court of Appeals
American Federation vs. Chris Turner W2000-00166-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This appeal arises from a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Appellants and employees of the Shelby County General Sessions Court Clerk's office. The Appellees refused to recognize the collective bargaining agreement. The Appellants filed a complaint against the Appellees in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. The complaint alleged violations of Article 1, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and breach of contract under Tennessee law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. The Appellants appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees by the Circuit Court of Shelby County. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Suzanne Gibson vs. James Prokell W2000-01236-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Suzanne Gibson vs. James Prokell W2000-01236-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Cary Whitehead/Homer Bunker vs. Jim Rout W2000-01239-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This appeal involves a dispute over the sale of a tract of land to Shelby County for a road project. The trial court granted summary judgment to Shelby County. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Jodie Willis vs. Alan Willis W2000-01613-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Father petitioned the court for a reduction in his child support obligation based upon a significant variance between his former salary and his current salary. The trial court determined Father to be voluntarily underemployed. The trial court imputed Father's base salary as potential income but did not impute Father's overtime pay. As a result, the trial court reduced Father's child support obligation by ten dollars per week. We affirm the trial court's determination that Father was voluntarily underemployed; however, we reverse and remand the trial court's determination of Father's potential income.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Karen Roth vs. Richard Roth M1998-00911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal involves the dissolution of a sixteen-year marriage. The wife filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking a divorce and custody of the parties' three children. The husband did not contest the divorce but requested custody of the parties' two older children. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the wife a divorce on the ground of adultery and granted her custody of the children. On this appeal, the husband takes issue with the trial court's valuation of marital property, the allocation of marital debt, and the award of long-term spousal support. We have concluded that the trial court's decisions regarding the valuation of the marital property should be modified but that the remainder of the judgment should be affirmed.
