Tex Helton, et al vs. Colonial Loan Assoc., Inc. et al
E2001-00060-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
Tex Helton and his wife sue Colonial Loan Association, Inc., and Lakeview Motors, Inc., seeking damages in connection with Colonial Loan's repossession of an automobile sold to them by Lakeview Motors. The Trial Court granted a summary judgment as to Colonial Loan. The claim as to Lakeview Motors has been concluded and this appeal only concerns the granting of a summary judgment in favor of Colonial Loan. We vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand.

Hawkins Court of Appeals

James Richard Bishop v. State of Tennessee
E2000-01725-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

Petitioner, James Richard Bishop, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Following a sentencing hearing, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder and concurrent sentences of twenty years and five years respectively for the especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. On appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. James Richard Bishop, No. 03C01-9308-CR-00268, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 536, at *1, Knox County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, August 18, 1994), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1994). Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Knox County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. He challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, based upon a ruling that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

Jerry Grace, et al vs. Mountain States Health Alliance
E2000-03031-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
In this medical malpractice suit the Trial Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Mountain States Health Alliance, d/b/a/ Johnson City Medical Center Hospital and five Doctors. The Trial Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend his determination that all Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. As to the Doctors, the determination was predicated upon the motion to alter or amend not being timely filed, and as to the Medical Center on the grounds that the delay in submitting materials accompanying the motion to alter or amend was not justified. We affirm.

Washington Court of Appeals

Donald Miller, et al vs. Choo Choo Partners
E2001-00007-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Donald Miller, et al vs. Choo Choo Partners
E2001-00007-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Tex Helton, et al vs. Colonial Loan Assoc., Inc. et al
E2001-00060-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
Tex Helton and his wife sue Colonial Loan Association, Inc., and Lakeview Motors, Inc., seeking damages in connection with Colonial Loan's repossession of an automobile sold to them by Lakeview Motors. The Trial Court granted a summary judgment as to Colonial Loan. The claim as to Lakeview Motors has been concluded and this appeal only concerns the granting of a summary judgment in favor of Colonial Loan. We vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand.

Hawkins Court of Appeals

Susan Green v. Leon Moore, et al.
M2000-03035-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Lee Davies
This appeal arises from the breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the Appellants and the Appellee. The Appellee filed a complaint against the Appellants in the Circuit Court for Williamson County, seeking damages for loss of reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and loss of the ability to advance. The Appellants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

Williamson Court of Appeals

Humphreys County Utility Dist. vs. Schatz Underground Cable, Inc.
M2000-02650-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
In this negligence action, Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages in connection with the rupture of a gas line. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

Humphreys Court of Appeals

Darra Mcmillin v. Mckenzie Special School District,
W2000-02165-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Julian Guinn, Judge
In this appeal, the Second Injury Fund (the Fund) insists the trial court erred in (1) awarding permanent total disability benefits and (2) apportioning the award between the Fund and the employer. The employer insists (1) the employee's injury is not compensable, (2) the trial court erred in commuting one-half of the award to a lump sum, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding the employee a scooter and special bed. As discussed below, the panel has concluded judgment should be modified by reducing the lump sum, because it exceeds the statutorily allowed maximum, but otherwise affirmed.

Carroll Workers Compensation Panel

Dorothy Pirtle v. Royal Insurance Company
W2000-00867-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan, Chancellor
In this appeal, the employer's insurer insists (1) the award of benefits based on 75 percent permanent partial disability to both arms is excessive and (2) the trial court erred in awarding as discretionary costs an independent medical examiner's fee for examining and evaluating the injured employee. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of disability benefits should be affirmed and the award of discretionary costs modified.

Obion Workers Compensation Panel

Kenneth Warren v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare, Nashville Memorial Hospital
M2000-02579-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This is a malicious prosecution case. The defendants obtained a warrant against the plaintiff after observing a man matching the plaintiff's description attempting to break into a car on the defendants' property. After a jury trial, the plaintiff was found not guilty. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a lawsuit against the defendants for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the defendants acted with probable cause and without malice in obtaining the warrant.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Mary Regina Blalock v. Travelers Insurance Company,
W2000-01616-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams, Judge
The appellant, Travelers, insists (1) the trial court improperly applied the last injurious injury rule, (2) the trial court erred by assuming certain facts and taking judicial notice of matters not in evidence, (3) the trial court erred by giving deference to the opinion of an evaluating physician instead of a treating physician and (4) the award of benefits based on 25 percent to both arms is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.

Shelby Workers Compensation Panel

Thomas White v. Kathy White
M2000-02674-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Arthur E. Mcclellan
This appeal arises from the Appellant's filing of a Petition to Modify the Final Decree of Divorce in the Circuit Court of Sumner County. The Appellant requested a downward deviation in child support and a reduction in alimony. The Appellant also requested that he no longer be required to reimburse the Appellee for health insurance coverage. The Appellee filed a Counter-Petition requesting an upward deviation in child support. Following a trial on the Petition and Counter-Petition, the trial court entered an order reducing the Appellant's child support obligation to $1,000.00 per month. The trial court declined to modify the award of rehabilitative alimony and health insurance coverage. The Appellant appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Sumner County setting child support at $1,000.00 per month and refusing to modify the award of rehabilitative alimony and health insurance coverage. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision.

Sumner Court of Appeals

Doris Jean Bryant v. Tennessee Conference of The United
M2000-01797-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Davidson Court of Appeals

Provident Life & Accident Ins. vs.Tina Shankles, et al
E2000-02073-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
This is an interpleader bill filed by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company against four named Beneficiaries in a policy of insurance issued to their father, Arnold Joe Johnson. Two of the Beneficiaries were children by a former marriage of Mr. Johnson, who were added as such shortly before his death. The two Beneficiaries by a subsequent marriage insisted that the provisions of a divorce decree precluded Mr. Johnson from adding his other two children as Beneficiaries. The Trial Court found that all four should share in the proceeds of the policy equally and entered a summary judgment to that effect. We vacate and remand.

Hamilton Court of Appeals

E2000-02221-COA-R9-CV
E2000-02221-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Jerome Felix Havely vs. Almeda Matthews Havely
E2000-02275-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Joyce M. Ward
In 1983, Jerome Felix Havely and Almeda Matthews Havely were divorced. They had entered into a Property Settlement Agreement which was incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce ("Divorce Judgment"). Neither the Divorce Judgment nor the Property Settlement Agreement mentioned the military pension of Jerome Felix Havely ("Plaintiff"). Approximately one month after the entry of the Divorce Judgment, Almeda Matthews Havely ("Defendant") filed a motion essentially seeking relief under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 in which she alleged that the Divorce Judgment should be set aside because she had not been aware of her entitlement to Plaintiff's military pension. This motion was dismissed in 1984 by the trial court for failure to prosecute. This matter lay dormant for fourteen plus years until Defendant filed two more Rule 60.02 motions. Defendant's third and final Rule 60.02 motion, filed in 1999, is the subject of this appeal. After three notices of hearing were filed, the trial court dismissed Defendant's motion without providing its reasons for the dismissal. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

Hamblen Court of Appeals

Sherri Vaughn vs. Nathan Vaughn
E2000-02281-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
In this divorce case, the husband has appealed the award of alimony, child visitation and support, and the Court's division of marital property. We affirm.

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Kelly Stillwell vs. Thomas Stillwell
E2001-00245-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Thomas Stillwell ("Father") appeals the Trial Court's order which he claims improperly modified the original decree establishing child visitation. Father claims this was in error because there was no showing of a material change in circumstances. Father also appeals the Trial Court's order which prohibited him from possessing a firearm when he is exercising visitation with his son. We affirm the Trial Court's determination on visitation, as modified, and vacate the prohibition on Father's possessing a firearm in the presence of his child.

Bradley Court of Appeals

Catherine Jackson vs. Bruce Jackson
E2001-00287-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
Catherine Dean Jackson ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint for divorce against her husband, Bruce Lane Jackson ("Defendant"). The parties entered a stipulation, which was approved by the Trial Court, in which they agreed both parties were entitled to a divorce and agreed that Plaintiff be granted custody of their minor child. The parties, however, did not agree on the remaining issues of alimony and the division of marital property and liabilities. Over approximately four years, the Trial Court referred these issues to a Special Master on three occasions. Upon each referral by the Trial Court, the Special Master held a hearing in which he heard arguments and, during the first two hearings, heard testimony from the parties and witnesses. After each hearing, the Special Master filed his report, but did not file a transcript of the hearing with the report as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.04(1). Among other findings, the Special Master recommended that Plaintiff receive "rehabilitative alimony for life . . . " in the amount of $1,000 per month and that Defendant pay the parties' entire 1994 tax liability. With the exception of modifying the Special Master's alimony recommendation to alimony in futuro, the Trial Court adopted the Special Master's recommendations which precipitated Defendant's appeal. Due to the Special Master's failure to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.04(1), we vacate the portion of the the Trial Court's judgment relative to alimony and the 1994 tax liability, affirm the remainder of the judgment, and remand.

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Jerry Moore vs. NES
M2000-03186-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Three civil service employees sued Nashville Electric Service and the individual members of the civil service board primarily for violation of the age provision of the Tennessee Human Rights Act resulting in their denial of promotions. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Warren Restoration Co. vs. Northgate Shopping Center vs. State Auto Ins. Cos.
M2000-02402-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
This is a dispute regarding the valuation of a strip mall for purposes of determining the applicability of a co-insurance penalty clause in Northgate Shopping Center's casualty insurance policy. In a bench trial, the trial court found the witness for Northgate to be more credible than the witness for State Auto Insurance Companies, and found the replacement cost of the building to be $3,068,000. Since the building was insured for $3,100,000, the co-insurance penalty did not apply. The trial court awarded Northgate judgment of $73,637.56, less a $1,000 deductible. This judgment included prejudgment interest of $16,107.00 assessed against Northgate and awarded to Plaintiff Warren Restoration, which had repaired areas of the mall damaged by fire. On appeal, State Auto challenges the trial court's acceptance of the valuation as determined by witnesses for Northgate, contends that the co-insurance penalty clause is applicable, and challenges the award of prejudgment interest. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

Warren Court of Appeals

Dee Woolman v. Earl Woolman
M2000-02346-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
The Appellant and the Appellee are the parents of three minor children. Following the Appellant and the Appellee's divorce, they shared joint legal and physical custody of the children. The Appellant filed a Petition for Modification of Custody in the Circuit Court of Williamson County seeking to relocate with the children to Illinois. Following the close of the Appellant's proof at the hearing on the Petition, the Appellee made a Motion to Dismiss. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss and awarded attorney's fees to the Appellee. The Appellant appeals the order entered by the Circuit Court of Williamson County granting the Motion to Dismiss and awarding attorney's fees to the Appellee. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Williamson Court of Appeals

Martin Herrick, et ux vs. Mike Ford Custom Builders, LLC
M2000-02569-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
The Herricks entered into a sales agreement with Mike Ford for the construction of a home. The sales agreement provided that the deposit paid by the Herricks became non-refundable upon the presentation of a loan commitment letter. The Herricks presented Mike Ford with a loan commitment letter from Southeastern Mortgage Company which was conditioned upon proof of employment. Mr. Herrick was terminated from his employment, and, as a result, Southeastern denied the Herricks' loan application. The Herricks demanded Mike Ford return their deposit. Mike Ford refused, contending that the deposit became non-refundable at the time the Southeastern loan commitment letter was presented. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Herricks. We reverse and remand.

Williamson Court of Appeals

John Floyd vs. Carolyn Floyd
M2000-02344-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Royce Taylor
When husband and wife divorced, they signed a marital dissolution agreement which was incorporated into the Final Decree of Divorce providing, inter alia, that husband would have visitation rights with wife's daughter by a previous marriage and husband would in turn pay college tuition and expenses for the child and would leave to the child by Will one-fourth of his estate. A dispute arose as to the extent of visitation, and husband filed a petition to establish visitation rights. Wife filed a petition to require husband to continue his obligations expressed in the marital dissolution agreement. The trial court felt that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties with regard to the visitation issue; therefore, there was no valid contract. Husband appeals. We reverse and remand.

Rutherford Court of Appeals