Edgar Doyle, et al vs. Charles Frost, M.D., et al W1998-00391-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
In this appeal, the plaintiffs contest the trial court's overruling of a motion to amend their complaint to add the Jackson-Madison General Hospital District, a governmental entity, as a party defendant. At issue is the scope of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03, which allows the filing date of certain amendments to a pleading to "relate back" to the date of the filing of the original pleading. We are asked to determine whether Rule 15.03 applies to governmental entities. We conclude that it does and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Hardeman
Supreme Court
State vs. Maurice Shaw W1998-00503-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
We granted this appeal to decide two issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and to support the defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver and (2) whether the defendant was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice and to support the defendant's conviction and that the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we affirm the result reached by the Court of Criminal Appeals upon the separate grounds stated herein.
Tipton
Supreme Court
E.L. Billingsley and Oneida Farms, Inc. vs. Alvin D. Escue E2000-00463-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
The Trial Judge granted defendant summary judgment on grounds the action was time-barred. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Linda Taylor vs. James Taylor E2000-00476-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
This appeal arises from a divorce in which the Trial Court awarded Linda May Taylor ("Wife"), age 58, alimony until she reaches age 65 or she retires, whichever occurs first. Wife was also awarded the parties' home. The Trial Court granted James Arnold Taylor ("Husband"), age 61, his interest in the marital home but ordered that Wife does not have to pay Husband for his interest in the marital home until Wife reaches age 65. Husband appeals. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Lawrence Westfall vs. Brentwood Svc. Grp, Inc. E2000-01086-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
Lawrence O. Westfall filed suit against his former employer, Brentwood Service Group, Inc., seeking payment of post-employment commissions allegedly due him. The defendant counterclaimed for breach of a non-competition/non-disclosure agreement. Following a bench trial, the court below awarded post-employment commissions to the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding that the parties had not agreed to the non-competition/non-disclosure agreement. The employer now appeals, claiming that the plaintiff is not entitled to post-employment commissions and that the trial court erred in failing to enforce the parties' alleged non-competition/non-disclosure agreement. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
E2000-0816-COA-R3-CV E2000-0816-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr.
Loudon
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of All Assessments, Review of Ad Valorum M1998-00243-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
This Court granted the applications for permission to appeal submitted on behalf of the Tennessee Board of Equalization and certain public utility companies. The purpose of our grant was to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the Board of Equalization had exceeded its authority in granting a reduction in the assessed value of certain centrally-assessed public utility tangible personal property for tax year 1998. We hold that the Board of Equalization does have the legal authority, as part of the equalization process, to reduce the appraised value (and the assessed value) of centrally-assessed public utility property. Such a reduction is an appropriate remedy where the reduction causes the appraised value of such centrally-assessed personal property within each local tax jurisdiction to bear the same ratio to fair market value as obtains for the personal property within such local jurisdiction that is appraised and assessed by local taxing authorities. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Tennessee Board of Equalization for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Davidson
Supreme Court
Willie Jean Johnson vs. James Johnson W1999-01232-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
The parties' marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") divided Mr. Johnson's "military retirement benefits" to provide one half of those benefits to Ms. Johnson. After the final decree was entered, Mr. Johnson unilaterally waived a portion of his military retired pay to receive the same amount in non-taxable disability benefits. The payment of Ms. Johnson's share of the military retired pay was reduced accordingly. Ms. Johnson requested a modification of the MDA to provide for alimony in an amount equal to the reduction. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the requested relief, relying on Gilliland v. Stanley, No. 3258, 1997 WL 180587 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 16, 1997). We interpret the petition to modify as a petition to enforce the divorce decree. We hold that when an MDA divides military retirement benefits, the non-military spouse obtains a vested interest in his or her portion of those benefits as of the date of the court's decree. Any act of the military spouse that unilaterally decreases the non-military spouse's vested interest is an impermissible modification of a division of marital property and a violation of the final decree of divorce incorporating the MDA. The case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the decree.
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Timothy Walton W1998-00329-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
Dyer
Supreme Court
Memphis Housing Authority vs. Tara Thompson W1998-00108-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
The appellee, Memphis Housing Authority brought this unlawful detainer action seeking to evict the appellant, tenant Tara Thompson, after drugs were discovered on the father of her child while he was inside her apartment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellee, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the lease agreement imposes strict liability upon the appellant for the drug-related criminal activity of her "guests and other persons under her control." We granted permission to appeal to consider the appropriate standard that applies when a public housing authority seeks to evict a tenant for drug-related criminal activity. This is an issue of first impression in Tennessee. After due consideration, we hold that the lease agreement imposes strict liability for drug-related criminal activity engaged in by the tenant or any household member but permits eviction for the drug related criminal activity of "guests and other persons under [the tenant's] control"only if the tenant knew or should have known of the drug-related criminal activity and failed to take reasonable steps to halt or prevent the illegal activity. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of the appellee's motion for summary judgment under the legal standard announced herein.
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Timothy Walton W1998-00329-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
Dyer
Supreme Court
Don Culbreath vs. First Tennessee Bank W1998-00426-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Don L. Culbreath (Culbreath) filed suit against Community First Bank (Community First) seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Culbreath alleged that Community First fraudulently refused to pay Culbreath the proceeds of a new $150,000 loan that had been agreed upon by a bank officer and Culbreath and for which Culbreath had signed a demand note and deed of trust. Instead, the bank used the deed of trust to serve as additional collateral for Culbreath's existing indebtedness to the bank. Prior to trial, Community First merged with First Tennessee Bank, N.A. (First Tennessee), and First Tennessee was substituted for Community First as the defendant in the case. The trial court found in favor of Culbreath and awarded $209,156 in compensatory damages. After a bifurcated hearing on the issue of punitive damages, the court awarded Culbreath an additional $9,000,000 in punitive damages. First Tennessee argues on appeal that as a successor corporation it should not be liable for punitive damages arising from Community First's actions. We hold that First Tennessee is liable for the compensatory damages awarded by the trial court and that it is also liable for punitive damages arising out of Community First's pre-merger conduct. However, we remand this case to the trial court for reassessment of punitive damages based upon the factors outlined in Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992).
Shelby
Supreme Court
State vs. Derrick Sayles W1998-00425-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett
Shelby County -Derrick Sayles was convicted of second degree murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial on the ground that the trial court had erred in refusing to allow Sayles's counsel to probe the circumstances surrounding the bond reduction and the charge reduction accorded to the State's principal witness immediately after his testimony. The State appealed. We hold that the trial court erred when it refused to allow Sayles's counsel to probe the circumstances surrounding benefits granted to the witness after his testimony; Sayles's right to confrontation was therefore violated. We cannot hold that this violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This cause is therefore remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to allow Sayles's counsel to probe the circumstances resulting in the bond reduction and the charge reduction, both of which were granted after the witness had testified. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part and this cause is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
Mitchell Bingham vs. Tammy Bingham E1999-01768-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
In this post-divorce case, Mitchell Blain Bingham filed a petition seeking the custody of his minor child. The trial court, instead, awarded the child's custody to the child's paternal grandparents, who, prior to the trial court's order awarding them custody, were not parties to the action and had not previously petitioned for custody. Both of the child's parents appeal the award of custody to the paternal grandparents. We vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
In re: Estate of Willette Bonita Carnahan M1999-00494-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal arises from a will contest in which the defendant has appealed from a jury verdict invalidating a will on the grounds of unsound mind and undue influence. The deceased executed two wills. The first will was executed in 1985 naming the plaintiff who was a friend, employee, and the son of the family who cared for her in her later years as the sole beneficiary. The second will was executed in 1993 naming the defendant, a man who share cropped tobacco on her farm and was paid to mow her lawn, as the sole beneficiary. The plaintiff alleged that at the time the latter will was executed, the testator was of unsound mind and had been unduly influenced by the defendant. At trial, the jury returned special findings that the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind on December 29, 1993, when the second will was executed and that she was unduly influenced by the defendant in making the last will and testament. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (1) whether there was material, substantial evidence to support the jury findings, (2) whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury regarding a presumption of undue influence and the burden of proof on finding a confidential relationship, and (3) whether the trial court erred in assessing court costs against the defendant and not awarding him attorneys fees. We affirm the judgment.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Heatherly vs. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co. M1998-00906-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This extraordinary appeal involves a dispute between two homeowners whose house was damaged by fire and the two insurance adjusting companies hired by the homeowners' insurance carrier to investigate their claim. Believing that their claim had been fraudulently processed, the homeowners filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against their insurance carrier and the two adjusting companies. The three defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as to the adjusting companies. After the trial court denied the motions and declined to grant an interlocutory appeal, the two adjusting companies petitioned for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal. We granted the application and now reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss because the homeowners have conceded that they have no breach of contract claim against the adjusting companies and because we have concluded that the homeowners' claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
State vs. Timothy Tyrone Sanders M2000-00603-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The Appellant, Timothy Tyrone Sanders, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The Appellant was sentenced to seventeen years six months as a range II offender. On appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the Appellant. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on simple possession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
Archie Lee Roberts vs. State M1999-02462-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.
The petitioner, Archie Lee Roberts, was found guilty by a jury in the DeKalb County Criminal Court of one count of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence, and one count of attempted first degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty years incarceration. On direct appeal, we affirmed the petitioner's convictions. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which petition was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issue for our review: whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim for relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
DeKalb
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Gregory Lynn Redden M2000-00988-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
The Appellant, Gregory Lynn Redden, was convicted by a Robertson County jury of burglary, theft of property over $1,000, and criminal impersonation. He received concurrent sentences of twelve years for burglary, twelve years for theft of property, and six months for criminal impersonation. On appeal, the Appellant raises the following three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in not excusing two jurors for cause during voir dire; and (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the statement of the Appellant's confession into evidence. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
Robertson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Mahan vs. Mahan M1999-01366-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this divorce case, the husband appeals the award of custody of the children to the wife, the admission of certain evidence at trial, and the redistribution of marital property on a post-judgment motion following his bankruptcy. We affirm the trial court.
