State vs. Andrew Charles Helton M1999-01405-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
The Defendant, Andrew Charles Helton, was indicted, along with co-defendants Shirley Crowell and Shayne Cochran, for two counts of premeditated murder and two counts of felony murder for the shooting deaths of Robert Cole and Michael Chatman. After the trial court granted a motion for a judgment of acquittal on the felony murder charges, the Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder for the death of Robert Cole and of second degree murder for the death of Michael Chatman. The Defendant was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and to twenty-three years imprisonment for the second degree murder conviction. The Defendant now appeals and argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. The Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain crime scene and autopsy photographs into evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the Defendant's contentions and thus affirm his convictions.
Davidson
Court of Criminal 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.
Cherry vs. Williams M1997-00216-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
Davidson
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
State vs. Carter W1997-00248-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
McNairy
Supreme Court
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.
Barbara Vargo v. Lincoln Brass Works M1999-00734-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
This appeal involves a dispute between an employee and her former employer over severance pay. After the employee obtained a $13,750 judgment in the Metropolitan General Sessions Court of Davidson County, the employer perfected a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the employee had a vested right to severance pay under the employer's severance policy and awarded the employee $15,262.50. The employer has appealed. We have determined that the employer's severance policy contained an enforceable contractual obligation to pay severance pay to eligible employees. In the absence of proof that the employee was ineligible, we find that the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the severance policy. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
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
David Rivkin vs. Lori Postal M1999-01947-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal involves the financial aftermath of a short-lived nonmarital affair that ended badly. The man filed suit in the Chancery Court for Williamson County seeking a partition of the jointly-owned property and the return of his personal property. The woman responded with a counterclaim for breach of promise to marry. Following a bench trial, the trial court divided the jointly-owned property and awarded the woman $150,000 in damages on her breach of promise claim. Both parties now take issue with the judgment. The man asserts that the evidence does not support awarding the woman $150,000 or granting the woman such a large share of the jointly-owned property. The woman takes issue with the reduction of her share of the property because of damage to the man's personal property while it was in her possession. We have determined that the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that a promise to marry existed or that the woman was damaged by the failure of the marriage to take place. We have also determined that, with the exception of a cedar chest belonging to the man's grandmother, the manner in which the trial court divided the parties' jointly-owned property was proper.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Lisa Ann Vaccarella vs. Raymond M. Vaccarella M1999-01937-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
The unusual procedural history of this case presents for review the validity of the parties' marital dissolution agreement ("MDA") and the subsequent divorce decree entered by Judge Henry Denmark Bell incorporating this MDA, as well as the court's decision regarding child custody, support, and visitation. After Wife filed Rule 59 and 60.02 motions for relief from her MDA, the second trial judge, Russ Heldman, determined that Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-103(b) requires a hearing prior to incorporating the signed marital dissolution agreement into a decree granting the parties an irreconcilable differences divorce. Judge Heldman further found the MDA to be invalid due to duress and violations of Wife's due process rights and vacated Judge Bell's decree granting the parties' divorce. We overrule the trial court on these issues and find the MDA signed by the parties, as well as the January 31, 1998 decree of Judge Bell granting final divorce, to be valid. We thus reinstate both the MDA and original decree. With regard to the issues of custody, visitation, and child support, we find substantial change in circumstances and affirm Judge Heldman's determinations on these issues.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Clark vs. Farrell M1999-01945-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This is an appeal by the defendant from an action of the trial court in assessing discretionary costs against the defendant. The trial court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice on finding that "the parties have settled all matters in controversy . . ." which order was approved for entry by counsel for both parties. The plaintiff filed a motion for discretionary costs pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(2). The trial court then granted discretionary costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $2,185.75. We reverse.
Maury
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.
Davidson
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
Brenda Reese vs. Rickie Reese M1999-02429-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb
The defendant, an incarcerated felon, appeals the action of the Chancellor in granting a divorce to his wife and settling all property rights between the parties. We affirm the judgment of the Chancellor
Bedford
Court of Appeals
Pamela Sweat vs. James Sweat W1999-00158-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Bob G. Gray
