The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear two civil cases, two Board of Professional Responsibility cases and one death penalty case when it sits for oral arguments in Nashville October 1.
State v. Howard Hawk Willis –This death penalty case comes to the Supreme Court on a direct appeal. The Supreme Court is required by law to review all death penalty cases. Mr. Willis was convicted of the 2003 murders of a teenage husband and wife near Johnson City and sentenced to death. The defendant, who represented himself at trial after changing lawyers multiple times, has raised 20 issues on appeal for the Court to consider regarding his conviction and sentence.
In re Estate of Edward Stephen McRedmond – This case involves a dispute among ten siblings over a family business. After years of litigation, the siblings agreed to dissolve the corporation and sell the business. Three of the siblings formed a new corporation, then purchased the assets of the original business. Several of the other siblings then started a competing company. More litigation ensued, which brings this case to the Supreme Court to consider whether the three siblings have standing to proceed in the case.
Guy Hawkins v. Diana Le-Hawkins –This is a divorce case from Coffee County. The wife filed for legal separation and the couple signed a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) that laid out financial terms for a divorce that included alimony, division of property, assets, and debts. Provisions of the MDA included a statement that it would be incorporated into any final decree of divorce. The wife’s attorney submitted an order for divorce, even though her original complaint sought a legal separation, and the divorce was granted. The wife then sought to set aside the decree, claiming the husband misrepresented the amount of his assets. The Court will consider whether the MDA is enforceable.
BPR v. Connie Reguli – This is a case between a Brentwood attorney and the Board of Professional Responsibility, which is the organization that investigates complaints against attorneys and initiates disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Reguli was disciplined for two separate incidents, one in which she did not return unused funds from a retainer fee paid for a divorce case and another in which her website published claims about her certification that were untrue. The Court will consider the appropriate disciplinary action for Ms. Reguli.
Paul J. Walwyn v. BPR –This is another Board of Professional Responsibility case. Nashville area attorney Paul Walwyn was found by a disciplinary board to have violated several of the Rules of Professional Conduct and was suspended from the practice of law for one month, to be followed by five months of probation. Mr. Walwyn contests the validity of the punishment, and the Court will determine what action to take.
Oral arguments, which are open to the public, begin at 9 a.m. CDT at the Supreme Court building, 401 7th Ave, N., Nashville.