W2002-01540-COA-R3-CV
W2002-01540-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Edward Hochhauser, Iii v. Annelle G. Hochhauser
W2003-00119-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

Forrest L. Whaley &Amp; Margaret Ann Whaley v. First
W2002-01940-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Rita L. Stotts

W2002-02534-COA-R3-CV
W2002-02534-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Antoine Lamarr v. City of Memphis,
CH-01-1967-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

Antoine Lamarr v. City of Memphis,
CH-01-1967-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

Kathy Gardenhire vs. Real Estate Inspection Service
E2002-02214-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
Todd Gardenhire and his wife, Kathy Gardenhire ("the plaintiffs"), own a residence and lot on Signal Mountain. In 1995, they contracted with Real Estate Inspection Service, Inc. and Stephen Eady, doing business as Stephen Eady Company (collectively "the defendants"), for the construction of a sunroom addition, a swimming pool, and other work at their residence. Later that same year, the plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging that the defendants had failed to complete the work and that "much of the work" was not accomplished according to the parties' agreement. The defendants answered and filed a counterclaim seeking money allegedly due them for work performed in connection with the contract. Following a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs $35,000 and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants appeal. We affirm the judgment in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

Dayne O 'Bannon vs. Stephanie O'Bannon
E2002-02553-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
This appeal from the Bradley County Circuit Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in denying the Wife's proposed relocation to South Dakota and in changing custody of the parties' children from Wife to Husband. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Jackie Cline vs. Emily Plemmons
E2002-02584-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
This is a dispute between brother and sister over the handling of the affairs as conservators of their mother. The brother appeals from the Trial Court's rulings as to compensation, attorney's fees and conservatorship. On appeal, we affirm.

Robert Carrier vs. Speedway Motorsports
E2002-02724-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
This case involves a dispute as to exactly what property was leased to the plaintiff, Robert L. "Larry" Carrier. In January, 1996, the plaintiff and his family sold their 100% stock ownership interest in National Raceways, Inc., to the defendant, Speedway Motorsports, Inc. ("SMI"). National Raceways, Inc., operated the well-known Bristol Motor Speedway ("the Speedway"). In conjunction with the sale, the parties executed a lease agreement, wherein SMI leased back a portion of the Speedway's property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit against SMI and Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., the new corporate name of National Raceways, Inc., claiming that the defendants had breached the lease by interfering with the plaintiff's leasehold interest. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the lease covers a 15.54 acre parcel of land lying adjacent to the grandstand at the racetrack. The defendants answered, denying that they had breached the lease and asserting that the subject matter of the lease is limited to three buildings on the 15.54 acre tract rather than to the entire tract. The defendants also filed a counterclaim for an unpaid debt. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the lease involves the entire parcel of land rather than just the three buildings. It ultimately awarded the plaintiff damages of $2,401,728. The trial court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. From this judgment, both sides appeal. We affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim, but reverse the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the original complaint. That complaint is dismissed at the plaintiff's costs.

Roger L. Smith v. State of Tennessee
E2003-00094-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner

The Defendant, Roger L. Smith, pled guilty to three counts of child rape in 1998. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief and for DNA testing. The trial court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition on the grounds that it is time-barred. The trial court further summarily denied the Defendant's request for DNA testing. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's claim for post-conviction relief, but reverse and remand for further proceedings the trial court's dismissal of the Defendant's request for DNA testing.

Sun Splash Painting v. Homestead Village
M2002-00853-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a challenge to the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees pursuant to the Prompt Pay Act, and to the court's denial of prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

State of Tennessee v. Joel Anthony Davenport
E2003-01330-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

The Defendant, Joel Anthony Davenport, pled guilty to multiple counts of passing worthless checks and was sentenced to probation. The Defendant's probation was violated and revoked. Upon revocation, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that he was sentenced to four years of incarceration, plus an additional year for the count which violated his probation, to be served consecutively to a six year sentence in another county. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that his sentence was to total eleven years. The Tennessee Department of Corrections report showed that the Defendant was sentenced to fourteen years, not eleven, and the Defendant filed a motion with the trial court to enter an order correcting the "clerical mistake." The trial court denied that motion and the Defendant appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion, we affirm.

Frankie Maples vs. Frank Maples
E2003-00722-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
Husband, for the second time, seeks a reduction in his alimony obligation, claiming that his bona fide retirement coincided with a substantial decrease in income. The trial court modified the obligation by reducing it to $919.50 monthly. Wife receives $752.00 from social security. Her reasonable expenses were found to be $2176.00. Husband appeals, insisting that the reduction is insufficient. Wife presents for review the issue of whether any reduction was justified. We reinstate the initial award, finding that Husband, as in the prior appeal, continued his pattern of conduct in restructuring his assets to award his obligation.

Jimmy Ray Robinson v. State of Tennessee
W2002-02151-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Moore

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

W2002-02166-COA-R3-CV
W2002-02166-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Donn Southern

Rose Marie Harper Britt v. Elmer Lee Britt
W2003-00430-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

State of Tennessee v. Deborah Kay Thomas Atkins
W2002-02312-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The defendant entered pleas of guilt to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, and possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed concurrent Range I sentences of eight years, two years, and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant was required to serve one year in jail followed by seven years in community corrections. Later, the community corrections sentence was revoked and an eight-year sentence imposed. An appeal resulted in a remand by this court with directions to credit both jail time and the length of service within the program. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in the imposition of the resentence. The judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Darwin Treece
W2002-02738-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The defendant pled guilty to one count of delivering a Schedule II controlled substance (Hydromorphone). He was sentenced to 50 months to be served with Corrections Management Corporation, a community-based alternative, after service of 180 days in the county jail. The defendant appealed the sentence, contending that it was excessive. We hold that the trial court properly rejected mitigating factor one because drug dealing inherently involves the risk of bodily injury and that the defendant’s prior criminal behavior justified the sentence imposed. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

W2002-02353-COA-R3-CV
W2002-02353-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Clemmye Mullenix Berger v. Brenda O'Brien,
W2002-00227-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Clemmye Mullenix Berger v. Brenda O'Brien,
W2002-00227-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

CH-02-0609-1
CH-02-0609-1
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans

James Jackson vs. Jackson, Johnson & Murphey
E2002-02476-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
This litigation is between a former shareholder of the defendant accounting corporation. These parties entered into an employment contract together with a deferred compensation agreement. After two years, each party claimed the other was in material breach: the Plaintiff asserted a breach because, inter alia, the Defendant refused to treat him as an employee, while the Defendant asserted a breach because the Plaintiff prepared a number of tax returns [66], inter alia, for clients of the firm without recourse to the firm. The trial court found that no mutual material breaches had occurred, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the balance of his deferred compensation which had been terminated by the Defendant owing to the Plaintiff's alleged breaches. The judgment is modified.

Patricia Lyman v. Lawrence James
E2002-02859-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
After over thirty years of marriage, Patricia A. Lyman ("Wife") left Lawrence A. James ("Husband") and moved to the state of Washington and began living with her new boyfriend. After Husband learned of Wife's affair, the parties agreed to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences and entered into a marital dissolution agreement ("MDA"). Both parties signed the MDA before a Notary Public, but neither party was administered an oath prior to his or her signing. The MDA provided that Husband would receive the entire amount of his pension. Over six months after the parties were granted a divorce, Wife filed a new lawsuit claiming she gave up any claim to Husband's pension because of Husband's fraud and/or misrepresentations. Wife also claimed the court which granted the divorce lacked personal jurisdiction to enter the final divorce decree because neither Husband nor Wife were administered oaths prior to signing the MDA, which Wife claimed resulted in the MDA not being properly notarized. The Trial Court concluded the failure of the Notary Publics to administer oaths did not render the MDA invalid. The Trial Court also concluded Wife failed to meet her burden of proving fraud and/or misrepresentations on the part of Husband. Wife appeals, and we affirm.