In Re: Adoption of M.J.S. W1999-00197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
In Re: Adoption of M.J.S. W1999-00197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
In Re: Adoption of M.J.S. W1999-00197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Health Controls vs. Ronald Gifford W1999-02598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan
This is an insurance case. The defendant sustained injuries in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in a car owned by his mother. The defendant's insurance policy did not cover expenses for injuries "when a person, other than the person for whom the claim is made, is considered responsible for the sickness or injury." Unaware of any third party responsible for the accident, the insurance company paid part of the defendant's medical bills. The defendant subsequently recovered from his mother's automobile insurance carrier. When the defendant's insurance company learned of the subsequent recovery, it filed suit seeking repayment of the amount it paid for the defendant's medical bills. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, finding that it was entitled to recovery based on the policy. The defendant appeals. We affirm, finding inter alia that a person need not be at fault in the automobile accident to be "considered responsible" under the policy.
Weakley
Court of Appeals
Michael Smith vs. Steve Futris vs. Richard Feltus W1998-00181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
This is a contract dispute. The plaintiffs entered into a contract to buy the defendants' office condominium and equipment. The contract provided that the defendants would execute a note for the balance of the purchase price, payable in monthly installments over a twenty year term. The contract had no express provision on the right of prepayment. The promissory note expressly granted the plaintiffs the right of prepayment. Five years later, the plaintiffs attempted to prepay the note. The defendants refused the plaintiffs' offer, saying that the plaintiffs had no right of prepayment. The plaintiffs then ceased making any payments on the note. The plaintiffs later filed a lawsuit seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that they had the right of prepayment. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking reformation of the note and the deed of trust. The defendants also filed a third party claim for damages against the plaintiffs' attorney, who had prepared the closing documents, including the note. The defendants alleged that the attorney had breached his duty of due care to them by putting a right of prepayment in the note. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had the right to prepay and that the plaintiffs had made an effective tender of payment to the defendants. The trial court dismissed the defendants' third party claim against the attorney, finding that he had not represented the defendants and owed no duty of care to them. The defendants appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part, finding, inter alia, that the promissory note gave the plaintiffs the right of prepayment, and also finding that the plaintiffs have not made an effective tender of payment.
Ray vs. State M1999-00237-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
B&G Construction vs. Polk, et al M1999-00677-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Stephen Comella vs. City of Memphis W1999-00347-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay Spalding Robilio
This is a personal injury case involving the on-the-job injury of a police officer working for the City of Memphis. The city admitted liability. After a bench trial on the issue of damages, the trial court awarded the plaintiff a judgment of $25,000. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by treating this as a worker's compensation case rather than a negligence case. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by not granting his request for discretionary costs to pay for expert witness fees. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court's award and that there was no abuse of discretion in declining to order the city to pay the plaintiff's expert witness fees.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Lusk vs. Englett M1999-00294-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
Lewis
Court of Appeals
Cherry vs. Williams M1997-00216-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
Marilyn E. Reel vs. George C. Reel, Jr. M1999-01151-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: James T. Hamilton
This is a divorce case ending a twenty-seven year marriage. The trial court made an essentially equal division of property, awarding Wife the marital residence which remained unfinished even though the parties had occupied it since 1985. We modify the property division to provide Wife additional funds with which to complete and repair the residence.
Maury
Court of Appeals
Old Republic Surety Co. v. Morris Eshaghpour M1999-01918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
The defendant purchased a building permit bond from the plaintiff surety company and executed an indemnity agreement to hold the surety harmless against all loss, liability and expenses the company might sustain on the bond. A claim was made against the bond regarding a home built by the defendant. The surety company notified the defendant, investigated the claim, and eventually settled with the claimant. In this lawsuit to collect under the indemnity agreement, the trial court granted summary judgment to the surety. The defendant argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because the motion was not properly supported according to the Rules of Civil Procedure and, alternatively, the issue of whether the surety acted reasonably and in good faith in settling the claim precludes summary judgment. We disagree and affirm the summary judgment on the issue of liability, but remand for proof on total damages.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jeffery Tolbert vs. Dept. of Correction M1999-02387-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen H. Lyle
This appeal arises from an action challenging the calculation of sentence reduction credits for an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. After the inmate filed a petition claiming that he had been denied such credits, Department filed motion for summary judgment supported by an affidavit stating that Inmate's sentence had been properly calculated. Inmate failed to respond in a manner as required by Rule 56.06 Tenn. R. Civ. P. to establish that any genuine issues of material fact existed. As a result, trial court granted summary judgment motion. We affirm.
