Rhonda Moffitt vs. Paul Moffitt W1999-02403-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
In this divorce case, Husband appeals the trial court's final decree as it deals with the division of marital property, the division of marital debt (including crediting Wife for monies spent prior to the sale of the marital home), and child support arrearages. We affirm.
Henderson
Court of Appeals
Frank Mills vs. Luis Wong W1999-00665-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This appeal presents a dispute over proper venue arising out of a medical malpractice suit against multiple defendants. The Shelby County Circuit Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue. The case is before this court on an interlocutory appeal.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Sam Simpson vs. Addie Davis W1999-00689-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield
This appeal arises from a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment action initiated by Sam Simpson against Addie Davis. Simpson alleged Davis breached her duty as trustee of her deceased mother's estate and was unjustly enriched by Simpson's construction of a residence on Davis' property. The trial court held that although Davis did not breach a fiduciary duty, she was unjustly enriched. The court ordered the sale of both the property and residence with proceeds to be allocated between the parties. Davis appeals.
Fayette
Court of Appeals
Michelle Baker Pisano v. Gerry Baker W1999-02660-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan
Weakley
Court of Appeals
Nancy Bloom vs. Douglas Bloom W1998-00365-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
This is a divorce case. The parties were married for eighteen years and had a fifteen year old son. The wife was granted the divorce. The wife was awarded, inter alia, the marital home and the equity in it, 60% of the value of various financial assets, her automobile, and various household furnishings. Custody of the parties' son was awarded to the wife, and the husband was granted supervised visitation. The husband was ordered to pay child support. The wife was awarded 60 months of rehabilitative alimony, with the rate of rehabilitative alimony to increase when the husband's child support obligation ends. The wife's request for attorney's fees was denied. The husband appeals the division of the marital property and the amount of rehabilitative alimony awarded. The wife appeals the denial of her request for attorney's fees. We affirm, finding that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's division of the marital property, the award of alimony, and the denial of the wife's request for attorney's fees.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Edgar/Mary Mulrooney vs. Town of Collierville W1999-01474-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This appeal arises from a quo warranto action filed by the Mulrooneys ("Property Owners") on behalf of residents of subdivisions annexed by Collierville ("Town"). Property Owners claimed that Town did not meet the statutory requirements needed to annex the subdivisions. The jury returned a verdict on behalf of Town, finding that the annexation was proper. Thereafter, Property Owners filed a motion for new trial which was denied by the court. Property Owners appeal.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
American Cable Corp. vs. ACI Management, Inc., et al M1997-00280-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a legal dispute arising out of a contract to install television cable in Alabama and Mississippi. After the corporation that installed the cable did not receive full payment for its work, it filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County Tennessee against the corporation and partnership that hired it and the president of the defendant corporation. The trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing the claims against the defendant corporation's president, and the installer took a default judgment against the corporation for $1,059,743. On this appeal, the installer takes issue with the summary judgment dismissing its claims against the defendant corporation's president. We have determined that the trial court properly granted the summary judgment because the installer failed to demonstrate that it will be able to prove all the essential elements of its tort claims against the defendant corporation's president.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Levenhagen vs. Levenhagen M1998-00967-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Husband appeals the trial court's refusal to vacate its order divorcing the parties, claiming the order is void because it failed to include an affirmative finding that the parties made adequate provision by written agreement for the custody and maintenance of their children. In addition, Husband contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by suspending his visitation with the couple's children until he received counseling, and then ordering supervised visitation. He also maintains that the trial court improperly based its finding that he was guilty of criminal contempt for failure to pay child support on insufficient evidence. Husband claims he was entitled to a jury trial on the contempt issue. We affirm the trial court in all respects.
Lincoln
Court of Appeals
Holley vs. Haehl M1999-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Landowner sued adjoining landowner and timber cutter in general sessions court for trespass and the cutting of timber on her land. From an adverse judgment, landowner appealed to the circuit court. After a trial de novo, the trial court held that adjoining landowner owned the land involved by adverse possession and entered judgment for defendants. Landowner has appealed.
Giles
Court of Appeals
Henderson vs. Henderson M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a dispute over the Trial Court's valuation and division of marital property in this divorce action. Mrs. Henderson contends that the Trial Court undervalued the marital business, Quality Systems, Inc. Additionally, Mrs. Henderson asserts the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital assets and liabilities, denying alimony and attorney's fees and in ordering her to refund alimony pendente lite payments. We affirm the Trial Court's order, except for the denial of alimony. We vacate the Trial Court's determination on the issue of alimony and remand for a determination of the proper type and amount of alimony to be awarded to Mrs. Henderson.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Henderson vs. Henderson M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a dispute over the Trial Court's valuation and division of marital property in this divorce action. Mrs. Henderson contends that the Trial Court undervalued the marital business, Quality Systems, Inc. Additionally, Mrs. Henderson asserts the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital assets and liabilities, denying alimony and attorney's fees and in ordering her to refund alimony pendente lite payments. We affirm the Trial Court's order, except for the denial of alimony. We vacate the Trial Court's determination on the issue of alimony and remand for a determination of the proper type and amount of alimony to be awarded to Mrs. Henderson.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Fillmore vs. Fillmore M1999-00714-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant Stephen Douglas Fillmore and Appellee Karen Leigh (Anderson) Fillmore regarding the terms of their divorce. The court issued a Final Decree of Divorce, divided the parties' marital property and debts, and awarded Ms. Anderson alimony in solido. In addition, the court awarded custody of the one minor child to Ms. Anderson and set a child support amount based on the appropriate guidelines. On appeal, Mr. Fillmore argues that the trial court erred in its valuation of certain marital property, improperly awarded alimony in solido, and failed to include as a marital debt a pre-marital debt of Mr. Fillmore. In addition, Mr. Fillmore argues that the trial court improperly calculated his child support obligation based on his current income. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Robertson
Court of Appeals
Ofman vs. Woodford M1999-00736-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
This is a suit by an attorney for breach of an oral contract relative to the professional services of an expert witness. Suit was instituted by civil warrant in the general sessions court. Following a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, an appeal was perfected by the defendant to the circuit court where the case was tried de novo, non-jury and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,500.00. The defendant appealed, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Blaylock vs. Nash M1999-00568-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This negligence action arises out of a collision between a cow and a car driven by the plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, the alleged owner and operator of a stockyard from which the cow supposedly escaped. We affirm the trial court's decision finding that the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant breached his duty of care. However, we do not find that the plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's decision was frivolous.
Putnam
Court of Appeals
Michael Alger vs. Corrections Corp. W2000-00500-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
An inmate sued Corrections Corporation of America and various individuals alleging failure to provide dental and medical care. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The judgment of the trial court is reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
James Karls vs. Percy Pitzer, et al W1999-01107-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is an appeal from the trial court's order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Clementine Newman vs. Allstate Insurance Co. W1999-02064-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
Automobile owner sued body shop and her insurance company for alleged faulty repairs to vehicle after it was involved in a collision. The body shop repaired what the insurance company authorized, but owner initially claimed other damages which the insurance company and body shop determined were not a result of the collision. During attempts to resolve the dispute, body shop was willing to repair anything authorized by the insurance company, but requested the owner to pay the deductible and retrieve her automobile from their facility. Owner refused to take the automobile, and the body shop, after notification to her, started charging storage charges. In the suit that was initially tried in general sessions court, then de novo in the circuit court, owner sought to recover storage charges paid an additional award for other damage to her vehicle and for relief under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court awarded owner a judgment against the insurance company for additional damages and denied her claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and for repayment of the storage charges. Owner has appealed.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
E1999-02594-COA-R3-CV E1999-02594-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
Blount
Court of Appeals
E2000-00256-COA-R3-CV E2000-00256-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
This is an appeal in a divorce case of the Trial Court’s denial of Wife’s Motion seeking postjudgment interest. The Judgment was satisfied three years and four months after it was entered. The Motion for post-judgment interest was filed three months after the Judgment was paid. The Trial Court denied post-judgment interest on two grounds. The first was the Trial Court’s finding of an accord and satisfaction resulting from Husband’s payment of the judgment without interest. The Trial Court also held it would be unconscionable and inequitable for Husband to pay post-judgment interest. The Trial Court then exercised its discretion to deny post-judgment interest. Wife argues that the Trial Court can not deny post judgment interest for equitable reasons, that Husband failed to prove an accord and satisfaction, and that the accord and satisfaction affirmative defense may not be raised for the first time during legal argument, cannot be established without proof, and is waived if not pleaded. We hold the Trial Court erred, reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court, and remand the case for further proceedings. To avoid the appearance of impropriety or lack of impartiality, the Trial Judge is to recuse himself from those further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. R. 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Reversed; Case Remanded
By this suit the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to four separate prescriptive easements across property owned by the Defendant. Prior to the commencement of trial the Defendant conceded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to one easement and the Plaintiffs conceded that they were not entitled to another one. The Trial Court found in favor of the Plaintiffs as to the remaining two easements, resulting in this appeal. We affirm.
Kenneth A. McBride appealed from an Order of the Chancellor confirming the Referee's Report that concluded McBride had offered no new evidence on the issue of reducing child support, which had been previously adjudicated. We affirm.
This appeal questions whether a forum selection clause is valid and enforceable against the Plaintiffs, Larry Wells and Signal Capital Corporation. Pursuant to the forum selection clause, Signal One LLC and NationsBanc Capital Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. The Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss by finding the forum selection clause was valid. We affirm.
This appeal arises from an action for ejectment filed by Plaintiff John W. Johnson ("Plaintiff") against Defendant Bernice Wade ("Defendant"). Plaintiff filed suit in the Gibson County Circuit Court alleging that he was the sole owner of the tract of land where both Plaintiff's and Defendant's residences are located. Prior to Defendant's filing on an answer, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. Thereafter, Defendant filed an answer, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition. Following Plaintiff's failure to appear for deposition, failure to prepare an order as directed by the court, and an attempt to file a premature appeal, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff's case for failure to properly prosecute. Plaintiff appeals.
Gibson
Court of Appeals
Tennessee Farmers vs. Judy Cobb, et al W1999-01729-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This appeal involves a motion to set aside a default judgment. The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendants based on their failure to respond to the lawsuit. Seven months later, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to set aside the default.
