Lonnie H. Williams et al vs. Estate of James P. Hollingsworth, III, et al
At a bench trial, the court permitted the Williams to take a non-suit as to the estate of Mr. Hollingsworth.The trial court found Laurel Valley in violation of the court's orders and awarded the Williams damages of $194,915.60. Laurel Valley appeals. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Stoneybrook Golf Course, LLC v. City of Columbia
Stoneybrook Golf Course, LLC, purchased approximately 190 acres of land ("the Property")_ on part of which was located a golf course _ with plans to develop the vacant land surrounding the course. Before purchasing the property, Stoneybrook met with the mayor and other officials of the City of Columbia and received their verbal assurances of strong support for the annexation of the 190 acres into the City and the re-zoning of the area to permit the building of condominiums. After Stoneybrook purchased the property, the city council of Columbia refused to go forward with the annexation and re-zoning until a comprehensive land use plan could be completed against which to evaluate the proposed rezoning. Stoneybrook filed this action against the City, claiming, in essence, that the City's refusal to act promptly in accord with the verbal "commitment" constitutes an unconstitutional moratorium and, alternatively, that the City is estopped from refusing to rezone the property. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings. Stoneybrook appeals. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Michael D. Hershey, et al. v. Wallace Cathey, et al.
This is an action to enforce a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a subdivision. The trial court found the defendant homeowners erected a fence without having obtained proper approval from the Architectural Control Committee, that the fence was in violation of restrictive covenants, and that the fence must be removed. We have determined the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings that defendants failed to obtain the necessary approval to construct the fence and that the fence is in violation of restrictive covenants; thus, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Ann Wyatt vs. Delmer Colemen Wyatt
In this divorce case, the trial court granted the parties a divorce on stipulated grounds and, pursuant to their agreement, divided the bulk of their property. The parties litigated the issue of how the proceeds from the sale of a piece of improved real estate should be distributed. Following a hearing, at which each of the parties testified, the court awarded Delmer Coleman Wyatt ("Husband") $6,500, the stipulated pre-marital value of the unimproved lot, based upon Husband's ownership of the lot before the parties' marriage. It then divided the remaining net proceeds from the sale of the improved property, i.e., $111,376.37, equally between Husband and his wife, Barbara Ann Wyatt ("Wife"). Husband appeals. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
James Q. Holder, et al vs. Westgate Resorts Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnersyip d/b/a Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg - Concurring
I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment entered on the jury’s verdict. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Horner’s attempt to tell the jury what the “personal representatives of the International Code Council” told him is an effort to give the jury hearsay testimony. Finally, I agree that, assuming the trial court was incorrect in sustaining the plaintiff’s objection to the subject testimony, the error was nevertheless harmless. My departure from the majority opinion is with respect to the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred when it sustained the plaintiff’s objection. In my judgment, the proffered testimony was not only hearsay, it was hearsay that does not fit within any exception to the hearsay rule. I believe the trial court was correct in sustaining the objection |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
James Q. Holder, et al vs. Westgate Resorts Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnersyip d/b/a Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg
Plaintiff sustained personal injuries resulting from a fall on defendant's premises and brought this action for damages, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for damages against defendant. Defendant appealed, and asserted that the trial judge erred when he refused to allow defendant's expert to testify to his conversation with a third party. On appeal, we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the proffered testimony, but the error was harmless. We affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of David J.B. et al.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights with regard to a child, Nathan T., who came into protective custody of the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") on November 7, 2006. DCS initiated a proceeding to secure temporary custody of Nathan following receipt of a referral that he had been left by his mother, Megan T., ("Mother") with two elderly women in a house with no heat and where the women were using drugs; This Court has a policy of protecting the identity of children in parental termination cases by initializing their last name. could not be found.2 By order entered January 24, 2007, Nathan was adjudicated dependent and neglected and custody awarded to DCS; he was subsequently placed in a foster home, where he has remained throughout these proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Cooper vs. Clinton Utilities Board
Plaintiff brought this action, charging defendant utility breached its contract with plaintiff to construct a line and deliver electricity to his property. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the trial judge held that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties and defendant was not obligated to construct a line to deliver electricity to plaintiff's dwelling. On appeal, we affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Protection Agency, Inc. vs Jordon D. Mathies
Party A obtained a default judgment in general sessions court against Party B. The general sessions court subsequently granted Party B's motion to set aside the default judgment. Party A appealed to circuit court. The circuit court reversed the general sessions court's decision to set aside the default judgment. Party B appeals to this court. We affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Lynn Stanfield, et al. v. John Neblett, Jr., M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Lynn Stanfield, et al. v. John Neblett, Jr., M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Cynthia M-M, Et Al.
Father of child appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to continue hearing to terminate his parental rights and subsequent termination of his rights on the grounds of abandonment and failure to establish/exercise paternity. Finding that the court erred not recessing the hearing to allow Father to be present at the termination hearing, we vacate the judgment terminating Father's parental rights and remand for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Cynthia M-M, Et Al. - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred by denying Father’s request for a continuance and proceeding with the trial on the petition to terminate his parental rights. I reach my decision based on two factors: (1) the decision to grant a continuance or to proceed with the trial was within the discretion of the trial court, a decision that will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to the propriety of the decision made; and (2) the fact that Father was arrested three weeks prior to trial and knew he would be unable to attend, yet he did not inform his attorney until the night before trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Tristyn K. - Concurring
I agree with the majority that the absence of any evidence of the requirements of the permanency plan[s] sounds the “death knell” for the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to comply with those requirements. If we do not know what the requirements were – and we clearly do not – we cannot intelligently determine whether those requirements were satisfied or not. I completely concur in the majority’s decision to vacate the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the extent that decision is based upon a finding that she failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the plan(s). |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Tristyn K.
This parental rights termination case was filed by Christopher W. ("Father") and Sara R. ("Stepmother") seeking to terminate the parental rights of Linsie K. ("Mother") to her daughter Tristyn K. ("the Child"). Stepmother also seeks to adopt the Child, who currently is four years old. Following a trial, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights after finding various grounds had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Child's best interest. For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, we vacate the trial court's judgment finding grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Danielle Christine Reinagel vs Alan N. Reinagel
After the parties were divorced for two years, the father sought to reduce his child support obligation and change the custody of the child which had been agreed upon at the time of the divorce. The trial court heard evidence and modified the visitation schedule, but vested the mother with primary custody all based on Tenn. Code Ann. _36-6-101(a)(2)(C). He also increased the child support obligation of the father, and the father has appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, A Municipal Corporation, et al., v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority, et al
Tennessee Regulatory Authority - The City of Chattanooga has appealed the decision by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority establishing a rate for the appellee, Tennessee American Water Company. The Tennessee American Water Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the issues before this Court are moot. We hold the issues on appeal are moot and in our discretion decline to consider the issues as an exception to the mootness doctrine. The appeal is dismissed. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Berkeley Park Homeowners Association, Inc., et al vs. John Tabor, et al
Berkeley Park Homeowners Association, Inc., and Southern Traditions Partners, LLC (collectively referred to as "Berkeley Park") filed a motion for contempt against John Tabor and Tabor Construction, Inc. (collectively called "Tabor"), seeking 1 to enforce a 2006 mediated settlement agreement governing the construction of a house being built by Tabor in Southern Traditions' development known as Berkeley Park Subdivision. Berkeley Park alleged that Tabor was in violation of numerous provisions of the mediated agreement, while Tabor contended that the parties had reached another agreement in 2007 that superseded the earlier agreement. Following a bench trial, the court held that there was no superseding agreement and that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed Tabor had violated the provisions of the mediated agreement. The court entered judgment in favor of Berkeley Park, awarding it damages of $34,042.11, including attorney's fees. Tabor appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Rob Matlock d/b/a Rob Matlock Construction vs. Regina M. Rourk
A homeowner and a contractor agreed to use mediation to resolve their disagreement over the contractor's bill for home renovations. The mediation resulted in an agreement, signed by both parties and their attorneys, which provided that the homeowner would pay the contractor $14,000 and that the parties would release each other from any and all claims. The homeowner paid $11,000, but refused to pay the rest. The contractor sued for the deficiency and filed a motion for summary judgment. The homeowner argued that she did not owe the money because the mediation procedure was unfair and because it did not comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 31. The trial court granted summary judgment to the contractor and ordered the homeowner to pay him $3,000. We affirm the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Thelma Morris vs John Morris
Husband appeals trial court's finding of substantial and material change in circumstances and modification of alimony awarded Wife in the parties' divorce. Finding no error, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Lou Gammo vs. Richard Rolen, et al
The parties were previously before this Court in an appeal by reason of an easement claim by the plaintiff. This Court ruled that plaintiff had an easement, and we remanded the case to the trial court and defendants filed a motion to determine the extent of the easement. A trial ensued and the trial judge ordered defendants to remove a gate and a fence which impaired plaintiff's use of her easement. On appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah Miller Gentile vs Michael Charles Gentile
Husband appeals the trial court's order under Rule 35 requiring the parties in this divorce action to undergo a mental examination and the court's alleged reliance on that examination. He also appeals the trial court's finding that the home titled solely to husband had transmuted to marital property. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Warren A. Hakanson, et al vs. Judith K. Holland, Trustee of the G.W. Hakanson Living Trust, et al
Warren A. Hakanson and Sylvia Harris sued Judith K. Holland both as Trustee of the G.W. Hakanson Living Trust dated November 19, 1996 ("the Trust"), and individually, seeking, among other things, to have Ms. Holland removed as Trustee and to have the Trust correctly administered. The case was tried, and the trial court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that the Trust, as written, did not comport with the intent of G.W. Hakanson, that Ms. Holland had proposed a distribution which she believed met G.W. Hakanson's intent, that Ms. Holland remain as Trustee, and that prior distributions to Mr. Hakanson and Ms. Harris should be added back into the Trust with Mr. Hakanson and Ms. Harris each to receive $247,800 from the Trust and then the remaining Trust assets divided equally three ways with Mr. Hakanson, Ms. Harris, and Ms. Holland each to receive one-third. Mr. Hakanson and Ms. Harris appeal to this Court. We reverse, in part, finding and holding that there is no ambiguity in the written Trust and that the Trust shall be distributed in accordance with its clear written directions. We affirm the remainder of the trial court's order. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Clement Homes, Inc. v. Beth Chilcutt a/k/a Beth Correll
This is a breach of contract case. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff but did not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 52.01, we vacate and remand. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Davis, M.D. v. Jackson Tennessee Hospital Company, LLC
This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment. After reviewing the record, we find that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed. |
Madison | Court of Appeals |
