APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant's automobile ran into the rear of the plaintiff's car. After the collision, the plaintiff learned that she had sustained a ruptured disk and commenced the underlying action, seeking compensation for both personal injury and property damage. At trial, the court admitted evidence that the plaintiff had been involved two prior accidents within the past ten months. The trial court granted a directed verdict to the plaintiff on the issue of liability for the accident, but left open the question of whether the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff's injuries. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in damages, notwithstanding the fact that her undisputed medical expenses were substantially higher. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the admission of the prejudicial and irrelevant evidence of prior accidents was error and that the jury improperly speculated on the cause of her injuries. The evidence of the prior accidents was limited, included no proof of personal injuries, and included no connection between the mere occurrence of these accidents and the plaintiff's injuries. Because the evidence of the prior collisions invited speculation, we reverse.

Arthur Blair ("Father") petitioned the Trial Court to modify a prior custody decree entered by a North Carolina court. Marilyn Badenhope, the child's maternal grandmother, has had custody of the child since the child's infancy. This is Father's second attempt in the Tennessee courts to obtain a modification of the North Carolina decree. In this suit, the Trial Court denied Father's petition, holding that Father failed to show that a material change in circumstances had occurred such that substantial harm to the child would not result if Father was awarded custody. Father appeals and contends that the Trial Court erroneously found no showing of a material change in circumstances and that substantial harm would result to the child if the child was placed in Father's custody. The grandmother does not dispute the Trial Court's ultimate decision, but she contends that the Trial Court only had to inquire as to whether a material change of circumstances had occurred and did not have to determine whether substantial harm would result to the child if custody was changed. We affirm.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to twelve years confinement as a standard, Range I offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial court erred in its application of sentencing enhancement factors. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves the dissolution of a five-year marriage in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, divided the marital estate, and ordered the husband to pay long-term spousal support. The trial court also directed the husband to maintain the wife's health insurance for three years and to reimburse her for medical expenses incurred prior to the divorce. On this appeal, the husband takes issue with the decision to award the wife the divorce, the classification and division of the marital property, and the long-term spousal support award. We have determined that the spousal support award should be modified and that the remaining portions of the trial court's decree should be affirmed.

This case arises from a dispute between neighbors over the use of an old road which connected Appellant's landlocked farm to a public roadway. The road crossed Appellees' property. After Appellees erected a locked gate across the old road, Appellant sought injunctive relief to permit access to the old road. After a trial, the court found that the old road was never a public road and that no prescriptive easement existed. The court declined to provide the requested relief. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings, we affirm.

This is a post-divorce action based on a petition for contempt and an accounting for delinquent alimony and child support. The trial court found the father in contempt, and granted the mother past due alimony and child support, attorney fees, and amounts owed for college expenses for the parties’ child. The father appealed to this Court. We affirm in part, reverse in part, modify, and remand.

Edmond Brothers Supply Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), a building materials supplier, sold materials to a contractor for use in a construction project for Bristol Regional Women’s Center, P.C., (“Defendant”). Plaintiff did not send statements to Defendant because the contractor instructed Plaintiff not to bill Defendant. When the project was completed, the contractor took the Plaintiff’s final bill to Defendant for payment. Defendant’s office manager sent a check in full payment to Plaintiff, but Defendant stopped payment on the check and refused to pay the bill. Plaintiff brought
suit against Defendant, individual defendants, and a partnership to enforce a materialmen’s lien for the outstanding debt. All defendants denied enforceability of the lien. The Trial Court dismissed the action to enforce the materialmen’s lien, dismissed the action against the individual defendants and the partnership, and granted judgment to Plaintiff against Defendant on an agency theory. The Trial Court found that the contractor had authority to make the purchases for Defendant and that since Defendant had used the materials in its building, Defendant was obligated to pay for them, despite its instruction to the contractor not to charge any materials for the project. Defendant appeals this judgment. We hold that the contractor had no actual, implied, apparent, or ostensible authority to charge building materials to Defendant. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court, and dismiss the Complaint against Defendant. Tenn. R. App. Rule 3; Judgment of the Trial Court Reversed; Case Remanded.
 

C.M. Reagan filed this action seeking to collect a money judgment previously obtained against the defendant Dan Connelly ("Connelly"), which judgment was based upon Connelly's guaranty of a note executed by his brother-in-law. Following a bench trial, the court below found that Connelly had fraudulently conveyed three pieces of real property to the defendant corporation, Dan Connelly, Inc. ("the Corporation"). With respect to a fourth piece of property, the trial court found that its transfer to the Corporation was not fraudulent. The trial court, however, went on to disregard the separate identity of the Corporation and find that 96% of the value of the fourth piece of property was available to satisfy the underlying judgment. This determination was based upon the trial court's finding that Connelly owned that percentage of the Corporation's stock. The Corporation and its record shareholders appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This case involves a chicken -- more specifically a rooster -- that allegedly ran "afoul" of the law. James Roden and his wife, Janet Roden, brought this action against their neighbors, Clark Heck, Sr., and Clark Heck, Jr., after Mr. Roden was injured by a chicken that had escaped from the defendants' property. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. We affirm.

Petitioner/Appellant, Gregory Domincovitch ("Petitioner") made a request to the Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals for a "use permissible on appeal" to establish a 250 foot communication tower on his A-1 zoned property. Defendant/Appellee, Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals ("the Board") denied this request. Mr. Domincovitch petitioned for Writ of Certiorari to the chancery court and subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in that court. The chancellor granted Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to deny the permit for construction of the communications tower. The Board appealed the chancery court's decision. We affirm the chancery court's ruling finding that Petitioner had presented evidence fulfilling all requirements set out in Wilson County's zoning ordinance regarding cell tower location, and thus, the Board had no jurisdiction to deny the permit to Petitioner.

The appellant, Norico S. Woods, appeals from the order of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking her Community Corrections sentences and reinstating her original nine-year sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Crim. App. R.

The appellant, Earl Arnoz Taylor, was convicted of second degree murder in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. On appeal, he argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the judgment.

The jury awarded the plaintiff, William Davidson, damages for breach of two oral contracts between Davidson and his former employer, the defendant Richard Holtzman, who, at the time the contracts were made, was the sole shareholder of the defendant Engel Stadium Corporation ("the Corporation"). Defendants appeal, arguing (1) that one of the agreements is barred by the Statute of Frauds; (2) that the same agreement is too indefinite to be enforced; and (3) that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of another former employee of Holtzman. We affirm.

This is an action for conversion of a $10,169.59 check. Responding to the plaintiff's allegations, the defendant claimed he had authority to negotiate the check because he and the plaintiff had orally entered into a partnership or joint venture. Following a bench trial, the court below found that no such relationship existed and that the defendant had wrongfully converted the check. We affirm.