Elizabeth Doramus, et al vs. Rogers Group, Inc. and T.W. Comer M1998-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves an intrafamily dispute over the use of a 498 acre farm. The conflict's seeds were sown nearly fifty years ago when the now-deceased owners conveyed the farm to a corporation and entered into a long-term lease which created successive leasehold tenancies for life for them, followed by their son, T. W. Comer. T. W. Comer's heirs at law were given the option to choose to become tenants upon his death. Years later, after T. W. Comer had become the tenant, he and Rogers Group, Inc., a mining company which had purchased the remainder interest in the farm, entered into an agreement involving the removal of limestone from the property. Mr. Comer's daughters and his granddaughters responded by commencing this action, seeking to prevent any mining on the property. After the daughters voluntarily dropped their claims, the trial court dismissed the complaint, and the granddaughters appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling because we find that the granddaughters' interest is not sufficient to warrant an injunction against the lessor and the current lessee.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mary Jarmakowicz, et al vs. Billy Suddarth, et al M1998-00920-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal arises out of a dispute over the purchase of Nationwide Travel Services, LLC. The jury found that the Sellers were still the owners of the agency and found for Buyers on the Sellers' claim for breach of contract. The jury found for Buyers on their claims of fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process and awarded compensatory damages. At the close of the proof, the trial court granted Sellers' motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. Later, the court denied Buyers' Motion for discretionary costs, and this appeal resulted. Buyers take issue with whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict on punitive damages and whether the Court abused its discretion by denying discretionary costs. Sellers argue there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's award on fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process. They also argue that the jury should have found for Sellers on the breach of contract claim. For the reasons below, we affirm the jury's award of compensatory damages and hold there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of fraud and deceit, conversion, abuse of process and no breach of contract. Further, we affirm the trial Court's directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. However, we vacate the denial of Buyers' motion for discretionary costs and remand for consideration consistent with this opinion.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton, E2000-02549-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
William R. Clark v. Willamette Industries, Inc. E1999-02693-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III, Chancellor
The dispositive issue is whether the evidence preponderantly proved that the condition of the plaintiff's right knee was causally related to a fall he suffered in March 1997. The expert proof was divergent, and the plaintiff's credibility was remarked by the trial judge.
The petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. We affirm the denial of the petition.
Johnson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jim Vines vs. David Gibson E2000-02257-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this breach of contract case, the defendant appeals from the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial or set aside an order favorable to the plaintiff. Because we find that the defendant did not receive advance notice of the hearing that led to the entry of the order, we vacate the order of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
James Fraysier vs. Karen Fraysier E2000-02485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
James Thomas Fraysier ("Husband") filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Karen Kay Singleton Fraysier ("Wife") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wife filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties agreed upon the distribution of the marital assets, which was approved by the Trial Court. The two issues to be decided at trial were who should be granted the divorce and whether Wife was entitled to alimony. The Trial Court determined that Husband was entitled to a divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct and that Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $600.00 per month for a period of 48 months or until further order of the court. Both parties appeal the Trial Court's determination with regard to alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Vickie Sherman vs. American Water Heater Co., Inc. E2000-01389-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The Trial Court held release given by plaintiff barred plaintiff's claim for statutory indemnification. On appeal we reverse.
Washington
Court of Appeals
John Fiser, et al vs. Town of Farragut E1999-00425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Farragut, which admittedly seeks to eliminate off-premises billboards, is invalid insofar as their property is concerned. The Trial Court found in favor of Farragut. We reverse.
The defendant, Jeffery S. Shands, challenges the trial court's order upholding the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion for the charges of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving. He contends that the District Attorney abused his discretion in failing to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors presented in the evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. David Plunk W2000-00526-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant challenges (1) the introduction of statements he made to officers, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Petitioner, Anthony M. Freeman, appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and/or post-conviction relief. We conclude the petition does not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson E2000-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
In this post-divorce case, the trial court (1) denied the father's request to relocate to Georgia with the parties' minor child; (2) imposed sanctions for the father's perjury; and (3) changed the joint custody decreed at the time of the divorce to sole custody in the mother. On this appeal, the father argues (1) that the trial court erred in reversing its initial post-divorce decision pursuant to which the father had been permitted to relocate to Georgia; (2) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to make a custody determination; (3) that the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum; (4) that the trial court erred in basing its change of custody upon the father's admittedly false testimony; (5) that the trial court's reversal of its prior decision to permit the father to relocate is barred by the doctrine of laches; (6) that the trial court erred in finding that father's contemptuous behavior was a proper basis for denying him an award of child support; and (7) that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for criminal contempt without providing the necessary procedural safeguards. We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Father's petition for child support. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Appeals
John Justice vs. Holly Justice M1998-00916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a dispute between a physician and a pharmacist regarding the provisions in their divorce decree for spousal support and legal expenses. In its decree ending their fourteen-year marriage, the Circuit Court for Davidson County directed the physician, among other things, to pay the pharmacist $50 per month in alimony in futuro until her death or remarriage, as well as $4,500 to partially defray the legal expenses she had incurred in the divorce proceeding. The physician asserts on this appeal that the spousal support award was punitive and that the pharmacist received sufficient assets as a result of the division of the marital estate to pay her own legal expenses. We have determined that the record supports the trial court's decisions regarding both the spousal support and the legal expenses and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jerry LaQuiere, et al vs. Daniel W. McCollum M1999-00926-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute arising out of the sale of a tract of real property in Antioch. After a survey revealed that the size of the tract was significantly less than the size stated in the contract, the purchaser filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking both specific performance of a provision in the contract requiring an adjustment in the purchase price and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The purchaser also filed a lis pendens notice with the Davidson County Register of Deeds. The trial court granted the vendor's motion for summary judgment on the issue of specific performance and ordered the lis pendens notice removed. However, the trial court declined to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. We granted the purchaser's Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for an extraordinary appeal. We now affirm the trial court because we concur with its conclusion that the price adjustment provision in the contract is not clear, definite, and complete.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Richard Conroy vs. City of Dickson, et al M2000-01189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
The driver of an automobile sued the City of Dickson under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for the severe injuries he suffered when a city police cruiser collided with his car. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff and the officer driving the police car were equally responsible for the accident, resulting in no recovery for the plaintiff. We affirm.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to the maximum term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served as a split sentence with five months and twenty-nine days served in confinement at the workhouse, and the balance served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the victim, his former wife, to testify as to two other bad acts committed by the defendant, one a prior beating incident and the other an act of vandalism of the victim’s car. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Susie Tackett, et al vs. Hulin Shepherd, et al M1999-02333-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
This case involves a two-vehicle accident between Defendant Jones Brothers Construction's truck and Plaintiff. The accident occurred on April 19, 1996, in Clarksville, Tennessee at the intersection of U.S. Highway 41-A North, also Fort Campbell Blvd, and Jack Miller Blvd. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Hulin D. Shepherd ("Shepherd"), an employee of Jones Brothers Construction, was negligent by failing to yield when he exited a "private" road and entered onto a "public" highway. The Defendants denied that it was a "private" road, denied liability, and asserted comparative fault on the part of Plaintiff John Roe ("Roe"). At the trial in November 1999, Plaintiffs requested special jury instructions concerning "private" roads. The trial court rejected the special instructions. The jury returned a verdict of equal fault and the case was dismissed. The Plaintiffs timely appealed after Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied. We affirm the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
M1999-02810-COA-R9-CV M1999-02810-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Gertrud Deneau vs. Donald Deneau M2000-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This divorce case involves property division and alimony after a short term marriage. The trial court awarded all of the real property to the husband and allowed each party to keep the personal property in his or her possession. The court ordered the husband to pay $50,000 to the court clerk's office, who shall in turn pay the wife's debt to the Department of Veterans Affairs and disburse the remainder to the wife. The court refused to award alimony. We affirm.
A Shelby County jury convicted defendant of one count of premeditated first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder and twenty years for each attempted first degree murder conviction. The two twenty-year sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the defendant's life sentence. In this appeal as of right, defendant challenges: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his identification by the two surviving victims, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence, and (3) the length and consecutive nature of his sentences. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This case raises issues of first impression in Tennessee. The defendants are convicted felons from Montana who were sent to serve portions of their Montana sentences at a private, for-profit prison facility in Tennessee. Following their escape from the Tennessee facility, the defendants were each convicted of one count of escape, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-16-605. The defendants now appeal their convictions, raising two interrelated issues: 1) whether Tennessee's escape statute makes it a crime for a prisoner who has not been convicted under Tennessee law to escape from a private prison in this state; and 2) whether they were unlawfully imprisoned in Tennessee. After a thorough review of applicable law, we conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-16-605, by its plain language, applies to the escape of an out-of-state prisoner from a private prison facility in this state. We further conclude that the defendants, duly convicted of crimes in Montana and incarcerated at the private prison pursuant to a contract between the Montana Department of Corrections and a private prison company, were not unlawfully imprisoned in Tennessee. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tipton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Stanley Blackwood vs. Patrick Martin & Hardee, Martin, Jaynes, Ivy W2000-01573-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a legal malpractice case arising from an underlying criminal conviction. The plaintiff prisoner was convicted on twelve counts, including one count of first degree murder. The plaintiff sued the defendant attorneys for malpractice, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants negligently failed to conduct a thorough investigation and that, after the plaintiff terminated the defendants' services, the defendants improperly retained a portion of the retainer fee paid by the plaintiff for post-trial representation. The defendant attorneys filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking the appointment of a court-appointed expert, which was denied. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint an expert and did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
