COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

JGT Corporation v. E. Harwell Andrews, et al.
M1999-01395-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal arises from a dispute over whether a commercial lease was renewed. After lessors notified lessee that the lease had not been renewed, lessee filed for declaratory judgment on the issue of whether renewal notice was given timely, asserting an alternative ground of equitable relief from performance under the “special circumstances” doctrine. Lessors asserted the equitable maxim of unclean hands, averring that lessee created false evidence to attempt to establish timely compliance with the lease renewal requirement. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the Chancellor entered judgment for lessee based upon the finding of “special circumstances” to excuse untimely performance by lessee, noting that issues of material fact exist as to timely notice. On this appeal, lessors allege error by the Chancellor’s award of equitable relief without resolving the unclean hands issue, along with error in the finding of “special circumstances,” and error in denying lessors’ counterclaim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Because resolution of the issue of whether or not renewal notice was given timely is both necessary and dispostive of all other issues raised in this lawsuit, the order of the Chancellor awarding summary judgment to lessee is reversed, and this lawsuit remanded for trial.

Madge KirkhamFell v. Gloria Rambo
M1999-01039-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell

This appeal involves a dispute over the proceeds of the sale of a family farm by a life tenant with an unlimited power of disposition. Following the life tenant’s death, the remaindermen named in the life tenant’s husband’s will filed suit in the Chancery Court for Marshall County against the executrix of the life tenant’s estate, the estate itself, and the beneficiaries named in the life tenant’s will asserting that the life tenant lacked capacity to sell the farm, that the executrix had unduly influenced the life tenant to sell the farm, and that the executrix had tortiously interfered with their inheritance from the life tenant’s husband. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found no lack of capacity or undue influence but determined that the remaindermen have an interest in the proceeds of the sale of the farm. The trial court also awarded attorney’s fees to the lawyer the remaindermen had discharged earlier in the proceeding. The life tenant’s estate and her executrix now appeal the conclusion that the remaindermen named in her husband’s will have an interest in the proceeds of the sale; while the remaindermen appeal from the dismissal of their lack of capacity, undue influence, and intentional interference with inheritance claims and the award of fees to their former lawyer. We have determined that the trial court correctly concluded that the life tenant was capable of selling the farm, that her executrix did not unduly influence her decision, and that the remaindermen’s former attorney was entitled to payment. We have also determined that the life tenant’s sale of the farm terminated the remaindermen’s interest as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment awarding the remaindermen $269,420.89 and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
 

James Reed, et al., v. Jamie Hamilton, et ux.
W1999-00440-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Michael Maloan

This appeal arises from a dispute between neighboring landowners regarding whether there is an easement across the real property of Defendants Jamie and Bonnie Hamilton for the benefit of Plaintiffs Hulon O. Warlick, III, James Reed, and Wayne Matthews. Mr. Warlick filed a complaint and Mr. Reed and Mr. Matthews filed a similar complaint against the Hamiltons asking the trial court to declare the existence of such an easement. The court issued a number of orders in the Warlick and Reed/Matthews matters enjoining the Hamiltons from interfering with the easement and from obstructing or preventing Mr. Warlick, Mr. Reed, or Mr. Matthews from accessing their properties. The Hamiltons nevertheless performed a number of acts in violation of these orders. Consequently, the trial court found the Hamiltons in civil contempt and assessed sanctions and damages against them in the amount of $25,156.80, which is equal to the attorney’s fees incurred by Mr. Warlick, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Matthews. On appeal, the Hamiltons argue that the trial court was without authority to assess attorney’s fees against them. We hold that, under the circumstances of the case at bar, the trial court had the authority to assess attorney’s fees against the Hamiltons pursuant to section 29-9-105 of the Tennessee Code Annotated. We therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court.
 

John Pitner v. Fayette County, Tennessee
W1999-01217-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Wil V. Doran

This appeal results from the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff John Pitner’s cause of action against Defendant Fayette County, Tennessee (“County”) pursuant to Rule 41.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court ruled that Mr. Pitner, the former Director of Planning and Development for the County, failed to prove that the County was contractually obligated to pay overtime to him and that Mr. Pitner further failed to prove damages. We affirm on the basis that Mr. Pitner failed to prove the existence of a contract. Rule 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed
 

Sean N. Geiger v. Percy Pitzer, et al.
W1999-01776-COA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

An inmate presently in custody in the Whiteville Correctional Facility sued the warden and the CEO and Chairman of Corrections Corporation of America in a pleading styled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. He seeks release from that facility contending that the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) released him when it surrendered him to a facility outside the borders of the State of Wisconsin for incarceration. The trial court dismissed the cause of action and we affirm.
 

Christine Berkley, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, etc. v. H&R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc.
E1999-00379-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the Trial Judge’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement
entered by the parties. Defendant has appealed. We reverse and remand with instructions to enforce the arbitration agreement. Tenn. R. App. P.3 Interlocutory Appeal by Permission from the Trial Court; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed.
 

Washshukru Al-Jabbar A'La. v. Christine Bradley, et al.
E1999-01291-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr.

Plaintiff, an inmate in Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary, appeals the Trial Court’s dismissal of his civil suit for damages allegedly incurred as a result of the “capricious, arbitrary and unjust” operation of the Inmate Grievance Procedure, for “malfeasance”, and for “civil rights intimidation.” The Trial Court found that (1) the doctrine of res judicata prevents Plaintiff’s suit on one of his alleged claims because judgment has been entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on that claim; (2) all of Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory except for that one claim already resolved, and, therefore, do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (3) with respect to Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim, Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in the Tennessee Department of Correction grievance policy, and, therefore, that allegation fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Statement of Issues in this appeal alleges abuse of discretion by the Trial Court “by dismissing his civil rights claims” and cites Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-21-701, 4-21-702 and 4-21-801. Construing Plaintiff’s pro se appeal liberally, we deem it as challenging all three bases upon which the Trial Court dismissed his Complaint. For the reasons herein stated, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Claude Willis v. Lola Mae Willis
W1999-01537-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

This appeal arises from a dispute between Plaintiff Claude Willis and Defendant Lola Mae (Wright) Willis regarding the terms of their divorce. The trial court granted an absolute divorce to Ms. Wright,¹ divided the parties’ marital property, allocated the parties’ marital debt, and awarded Ms. Wright alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, Mr. Willis argues that the trial court’s division of marital property and allocation of marital debt are inequitable, and that, assuming an award of alimony is appropriate in the case at bar, the court should have awarded Ms. Wright rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro. Additionally, Ms. Wright requests on appeal that her award of attorney’s fees be designated as alimony. We affirm the ruling of the trial court; however, we modify the court’s ruling to reflect that attorney’s fees are awarded to Ms. Wright as alimony.

Walter A. Farris, et al., v. William S. Todd, et al.
E1999-1574-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard

This appeal involves the question of whether the Appellants, Walter and Gordon Farris, complied with the statute of limitations when filing their complaint for legal malpractice and conversion. The Appellees, William S. Todd and Thomas S. Dossett, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Appellants moved to amend their complaint to include declaratory judgment relief for determination of the ownership rights of the parties in a particular art work. The Circuit Court for Sullivan County granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the motion to amend. We affirm in part and vacate in part the Circuit Court’s judgment.
 

Venessa Lynn Totty v. Michael Alan Totty
W1999-02426-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

This appeal involves a dispute regarding a final decree of divorce entered in the Shelby County
Circuit Court. The Husband appeals the trial court’s order claiming error in several aspects of the
decision, including the determination as to his alimony obligation.

Lewis vs. Caputo
E1999-01182-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III

Karen Mundy vs. James Mundy
E1999-02697-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.

Penny Sue Mincy v. Charles David Mincy, Sr.
E1999-02304-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer

Groner vs. On-Site Grading
E1999-00219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples

Trebing vs. Fleming Companies
M1999-00473-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Trebing vs. Fleming Companies
M1999-00473-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Rocky Lee Coker vs. TN Dept. of Correction
M1999-02268-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed a petition for a declaratory judgment, claiming that his sentence reduction credits had been improperly calculated and that his "safety valve" release date had been wrongly cancelled. The trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment and the petitioner appeals. We affirm.

Beaman Pontiac vs. Gill
M1999-00666-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman

Clifford Taylor vs. State, et al
M1999-02418-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
An inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction sought a declaratory judgment that the Department had incorrectly calculated his sentence. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding no improper calculation. We affirm.

Jabari Mandela vs. Jim Rose, et al
M1999-02552-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Stella L. Hargrove
The trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiff pro se prisoner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction before service of process was had or response filed. Based on the record before us, we reverse.

Bank of Gleason vs. Weakley Farmers
W1999-02161-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

Joe Dyer vs. Bd. of Paroles
M1999-00787-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Joe P. Dyer, a prison inmate, filed a petition in the Chancery Court of Davidson County for a writ of common law certiorari to review denial of parole. The trial court granted the respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and we affirm the action of the trial court.

David J. Williams v. Tennessee Department of Correction
M1999-01661-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction regarding the expiration date of his Class X life sentence for aggravated rape. After unsuccessfully petitioning the Department for a declaratory order, the prisoner filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Department's Disciplinary Punishment Guidelines require the Department to treat his life sentence as one that fully expires in thirty years. The trial court granted the Department's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion, and the prisoner has appealed. We have determined that the trial court properly determined that the prisoner had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing the prisoner's complaint.

Henderson vs. Dept. of Safety
M1999-01911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Kenneth Henderson appeals pro se from an order of the Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissing his case for failure to prosecute his petition for review under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322 under which he sought judicial review of a judgment of Administrative Law Judge Marian Wall, which judgment had become final on December 29, 1995 with petition for reconsideration being denied on January 28, 1996. We affirm the action of the trial judge.

Jeff Utley v. Department of Corrections
M1999-01412-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction regarding his punishment for two unrelated disciplinary offenses. On both occasions, the Department extended the prisoner's release eligibility date in accordance with versions of Tenn. Dep't Corr. Policy Index No. 502.02 issued after he committed the crimes for which he was incarcerated. The prisoner filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Department's application of the later version of the policy to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The trial court granted the Department's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion, and the prisoner has appealed. We have determined that the prisoner's complaint fails to state a colorable ex post facto claim under either the federal or state constitution. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint.