COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Harris vs. Hensley
M1999-00654-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones

State, ex rel vs. Xantus
M2000-00120-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

State, ex rel vs. Xantus
M2000-00120-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Rebecca Cole-Turner vs. Christian Psy.
W1999-00707-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute over money Plaintiffs paid into a reserve fund while they were employed by Defendant Christian Psychological Center. Plaintiffs believed that the money they contributed to the fund would later be refunded. However, when Plaintiffs resigned from the Center and requested that the money be returned, the Center refused to return the money. The Chancery Court held that Plaintiffs might be entitled to a refund of a portion of monies that they had paid into the reserve fund if the funds were not used by Defendant for ordinary and necessary operating expenses. The Chancery Court then referred the case to a Special Master for a determination of how the funds were spent by the Center. The Special Master held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund, as the Defendant Center used the reserve funds for ordinary and necessary operating expenses. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Purchased Parts vs. Royal Appl. Co.
W1999-01550-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute over jurisdiction. The court below dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Royal Manufacturing Corporation. Appellant Purchased Parts Group, Inc. appeals from the trial court's decision.

Linda Gage vs. Riley Gage
W1999-01513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a divorce case. The wife filed for divorce approximately fourteen months after she moved out of the marital home. The husband filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce. The trial court granted the divorce to the wife and awarded her half of the value of the husband's pension and alimony in futuro. Husband appeals. We affirm.

Cassandra Myles vs. Peter Myles
W1999-00495-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is a divorce case. The husband failed to appear for the rescheduled hearing on the wife's motion for default judgment. The trial court granted default judgment and, at a subsequent final divorce hearing from which the husband was also absent, granted the wife a divorce and awarded her alimony in solido. The husband then filed motions to set aside the default judgment and for a new trial, asserting that he had not received notice of either the rescheduled hearing on default judgment or the final divorce hearing. The trial court denied both motions. The husband appeals. We affirm, finding that the husband's neglect was not excusable.

Billy Childress vs. Natasha Currie
W1999-00471-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

Roger Kaufman vs. State
W1999-02449-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

John Layton vs. Penny Layton
W1999-02274-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Roxie Crowell vs. City of Memphis
W1999-02747-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

Stacy's Carpet Steam Cleaning Co. vs. David McNeely, et al
E1999-01880-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
Stacy's Carpet Steam Cleaning Company d/b/a Bent Nail Construction, the Plaintiff, appeals a judgment from the Carter County Chancery Court. The Plaintiff's issues are whether the Trial Court erred in calculating the damages, erred in failing to award prejudgment interest, and erred in failing to enforce a mechanic's lien. The Defendants raise an issue insisting the parties reached an accord and satisfaction or a new contract. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court pursuant to Rule 10 of this Court as to the Plaintiff's issues one and two and as to the Defendants' issue and modify its judgment as to the Plaintiff's issue three regarding enforcement of its lien.

Goolsby vs. Upper Cumberland Oil, Inc.
M1998-00986-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Bobby H. Capers

In re: S.B., et al
M1999-00140-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

Roller vs. Roller
M1999-00103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert P. Hamilton

Mario Haywood vs. Dept. of Corrections, et al
M1999-02282-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
The plaintiff prison inmate filed pro se petition for declaratory judgment and/or a writ of certiorari seeking review of prison disciplinary board's finding of guilt and the punishment relating to a prison incident. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that declaratory judgment was not available for a review of prison disciplinary proceedings and that the petition for a writ of certiorari was untimely filed. The trial court also denied the plaintiff's subsequent petition to rehear. The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his original petition and the denial of his petition to rehear. We affirm

Crowe vs. Crowe
M1999-01889-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd

Horton vs. Parole Eligibility Review Bd.
M1999-02617-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
An inmate in custody of the Department of Correction filed a petition for a common law Writ of Certiorari alleging that the Board of Paroles acted arbitrarily and illegally in denying him parole. The trial court entered a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This appeal followed and we affirm the trial court.

Mirage Casino vs. J. Roger Pearsall
W1999-01543-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

Sarah Wilkerson vs. Robert Wilkerson
W1999-01684-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

City of Brentwood v.Metro Zoning Appeals
M2002-00514-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves the efforts of the City of Brentwood to stop the construction of a billboard located in Davidson County. After Nashville's zoning administrator granted a building permit for the billboard, the City of Brentwood appealed to the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals. When the Board affirmed the building permit, the City of Brentwood and four neighboring property owners filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking judicial review of the Board's decision. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss filed by the Board and the owner of the billboard on the ground that the City of Brentwood and the individual property owners lacked standing. We have determined that the trial court erred by determining that the City of Brentwood and its public officials lacked standing to seek judicial review of the Board's decision.

Harold Russom vs. Philip McClore
W1999-02215-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Mack Brown vs. Dwight W. Ogle, et al
E1999-02513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

Crestin Burke, et vs. James Monty Burke, et al
E1999-02481-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White

Lamar C. Pell, v. The City of Chattanooga, et al.
E1999-01712-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howell N. Peoples

Plaintiff’s residential property in Hamilton County was sold for delinquent property taxes after default judgment was entered against Plaintiff, the property owner. Plaintiff brought suit against the subsequent tax sale purchaser, and others, to set aside the default judgment and sale, asserting process had not been served properly on him in the delinquent tax suit. The Trial Court found that certified mail return receipts signed by Plaintiff’s wife were sufficient proof of service under T.R.C.P. 4.04(10) and T.C.A. § 67-5-2415(e)(1), and granted summary judgment to the tax sale purchaser of the property and the other Defendants. Plaintiff argues on appeal that he was not served properly with process, first arguing that he was not served at all and then arguing that the statutory service procedure relied upon by the Trial Court violates due process. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed.