COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Robin vs. Seaton
03A01-9704-CH-00146
Trial Court Judge: Chester S. Rainwater

Newton vs. Tinsley
03A01-9706-CV-00204
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly

Terri Demilt vs. Methodist Hosp., et al
02A01-9611-CV-00283
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Suzanne Gibson vs. James Prokell
02A01-9701-CH-00006
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

03A01-9708-CH-
03A01-9708-CH-

Watson vs. Ameredes
03A01-9704-CV-00129
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.

Thurman vs. Thurman
03A01-9707-CH-00261

Oneida vs. Oneida
03A01-9707-CH-00264

McManamay vs. McManamay
01A01-9802-CH-00081

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Wade Spurling D.C. v. Kirby Parkway Chiropractic, et al
02A01-9609-CH-00225
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

The plaintiff, Wade Spurling, D.C., appeals from the order of the trial court granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) T.R.C.P. Spurling filed a complaint titled “Complaint For Deceit in Inducement to Contract, Promissory Fraud, Fraud, Intentional Interference With Performance ofContractual Obligations and Breach of Contract.” The complaint alleges that Plaintiff owned and operated Spurling Chiropractic Clinic (SCC). He entered into negotiations with Defendant Michael K. Plambeck (Plambeck) for Plambeck to purchase SCC.

Gloria E. Hill-Evans v. Bredell Michael Evans, Sr.
02A01-9607-CV-00157
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

In this divorce action brought by Gloria E. Hill-Evans (Mother) against Bredell Michael Evans, Sr. (Father), the trial court awarded custody of the parties’ two minor sons to Mother with Father to have reasonable visitation. However, the trial court’s decree further provided that visitation be suspended “until both of the parties and the children have completed a counseling program which is satisfactory to the court, and the court has been furnished a report that the counseling course has been successfully completed. When the counseling process has been successfully completed, the court will consider the defendant’s visitation rights.”

Robert W. Bagby, v. Dean Russell Carricco
03A01-9705-CV-00183
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor G. Richard Johnson

In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant made an intentional misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a tract of unimproved real property. Following a bench trial, the court found that the defendant, Dean Russell Carrico (“Carrico”), had fraudulently misrepresented a material fact, resulting in a judgment of $21,911.97 for the plaintiff, Dr. Robert W. Bagby (“Bagby”). The trial court also found that Carrico’s conduct violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq. (“the Act”). Carrico appealed, raising three issues that present the following questions for our review:

Paul William McGaffic, v. Janice Elois McGaffic
03A01-9707-CV-00286
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William L. Brown

This is a post-divorce case. Paul William McGaffic filed a petition seeking to modify his child support and periodic alimony in futuro obligations. As pertinent to the issues on
this appeal, the trial court refused to modify its existing child support and alimony in futuro decrees. Mr. McGaffic appealed, raising issues that essentially present the following questions: 1. Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s refusal to modify its alimony in futuro award by either terminating it, or reducing it and/or converting it to an award of rehabilitative alimony? 2. Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s refusal to modify its child support award?

Super Grip Corporation v. B & D Super Grip, Inc., - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00257
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

In this contract action, the Trial Judge entered judgment for plaintiff against defendant in the amount of $50,431.29, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim which had sought damages for plaintiff’s alleged breach of the distributorship agreement.

John R. Whalen v. Ruben Roberts and Jo E. Roberts - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00246
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Simmons

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on defendants’ premises, the Trial Judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to T.R.C.P. 12.02(6), and plaintiff has appealed.

TRW Steering Systems Company, v. John D. Snavely
03A01-9706-CH-00216
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Earl H. Henley

This is a suit for declaratory judgment. The petitioner, TRW Koyo Steering Systems Company (“TRW Koyo”), seeks a declaration that a document filed by the defendant, John D. Snavely (“Snavely”), in the Monroe County Register of Deeds’ office is a cloud on its title to real property in Monroe County. The trial court granted TRW Koyo summary judgment, decreeing that the purported lien filed by Snavely “is...of no legal effect and, thus, is lifted and removed from [TRW Koyo’s] title.” Snavely appealed pro se.

C. Sam Roberts v. James E. Houston
03A01-9706-CH-00199
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Billy Joe White

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant and his wife, Diane, alleging that defendant “entered into agreement with plaintiff for plaintiff to grade and excavate . . . in order to make said land usable”. Plaintiff further averred that he expended over $29,000.00 for heavy equipment and operators on excavation, and “purchased and installed piping at the cost of $3,604.00, for a total due in the amount of $33,530.09".

James Walter Dellinger, v. The Arnold Engineering Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Larry Brinton, Jr., Director of the Second Injury Fund
03S01-9703-CV-00033
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Roger E. Thayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Holt, Jr.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Theorun J. Murvin and Melody S. Murvin v. Thomas F. Cofer and Cynthia H. Cofer
03A01-9702-CH-00055
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howell N. Peoples

This dispute arose out of the sale of a residence in Signal Mountain, Tennessee. The trial court found that the sellers, Thomas F. Cofer and wife, Cynthia H. Cofer, had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“the Act”) in connection with the sale of their five-bedroom, two and a halfbath residence to the plaintiffs, Theoren J. Murvin and wife, Melody S. Murvin. The Cofers appealed, arguing that the Act does not apply to this transaction, and that the evidence does not show that the Cofers “knowingly withheld information from the [Murvins] to constitute fraud.”

Jerry Hammock and wife, Ruby Hammock, et al., v. Sumner County, Tennessee
01A01-9710-CV-00600
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall

This interlocutory appeal involves the right of a party to discover the appraisal report of a testifying expert in a condemnation case. The Circuit Court for Sumner County denied the property owners’ request for the appraisal report in order to prepare to depose the appraiser on the grounds that the report is “privileged, as work porduct [sic]” but granted the property owners permission to apply for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur that an interlocutory appeal will prevent needless, expensive, and protracted litigation in this case. Because the application and the response thereto fully set forth the parties’ positions and the material facts, we dispense with further briefing and oral argument and proceed to the merits in order to save the parties additional time and expense.1 We vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case with instructions to enter an order compelling the production of the testifying appraiser’s reports.
 

Jerry Ray Brown, v. Phillip L. Davidson
01A01-9702-CV-00049
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

This is a legal malpractice action. The trial court dismissed the action as time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.

Ginger C. Snead and James D. Snead, v. Lois V. Metts
01A01-9702-CV-00085
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

The plaintiffs, Ginger C. Snead and James D. Snead, sued the defendant, Lois A. Metts as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on July 22, 1994. It is undisputed that the car driven by Ms. Metts struck the car driven by Ms. Snead in the rear while the Snead vehicle was stopped at a stop sign. Ms. Snead sued for injuries and damages and Mr. Snead sued for loss of consortium.
 

Reiko McCullough v. Whitford B. McCullough
01A01-9701-CV-00039
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This case involves a petition for the modification of alimony payments. The ex-husband
appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to reduce his alimony obligations to his ex-wife. We
affirm.

Joni Smart Holt v. Jack Sanders Holt
01A01-9609-CH-00423
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

This appeal involves the dissolution of a nineteen-year marriage. The wife filed suit for divorce in the Chancery Court for Sumner County but then suspended the proceedings while the parties attempted to reconcile. The efforts proved fruitless, and, following a bench trial, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The trial court also awarded the wife custody of the parties’ two children, divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife spousal support as well as additional funds for her legal expenses. The husband takes issue on this appeal with the financial aspects of the divorce decree, including the division of the marital property, the long-term spousal support award, and the additional award to defray the wife’s legal expenses at trial. While the trial court properly divided the marital property and awarded the wife funds for her legal expenses at trial, we modify the spousal support award to provide for rehabilitative alimony and for reduced longterm spousal support.