Jennifer McClain Swan v. Frank Edward Swan
Jennifer McClain Swan (“Mother”) and Frank Edward Swan (“Father”) were divorced in March of 2006 in Knox County Chancery Court (“Chancery Court”). The parties have two minor children born of the marriage (“the Children”). In October of 2006, Mother obtained first an Ex Parte Order of Protection against Father and then a Bridging Ex Parte Order of Protection from the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County (“Circuit Court”). Over the next few months, Mother filed multiple petitions for contempt alleging that Father had violated the Order of Protection. After a hearing, the Circuit Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Father had violated the Bridging Order of Protection a total of forty-four times, that Father would serve time in the Knox County Penal Farm, that Mother had a no-contact Order of Protection against Father for ten years, and that Mother would be allowed to relocate outside the state of Tennessee without having to reveal her address to Father. The Circuit Court also entered a modification of the Chancery Court’s Permanent Parenting Plan that, inter alia, named Mother the primary residential parent and provided that Father would have co-parenting time with the Children only upon the recommendation and approval of Father’s psychologist, the Children’s psychologist, the Guardian Ad Litem, and the Court. Father appeals to this Court. We vacate the Permanent Parenting Plan entered by the Circuit Court and affirm the remainder of the Order of Protection.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Universal Outdoor, Inc., et al. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
The Tennessee Department of Transportation ordered the removal of a long-existing billboard to permit the expansion of a highway right-of-way. The billboard’s owner removed the sign and reinstalled it on another part of its leasehold, within 30 feet of its original location. The Department refused to renew the permit for the sign or to issue a new permit because its new location did not comply with the requirements of The Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972. The owner challenged that decision at an administrative hearing, arguing that it was entitled to maintain the nonconforming billboard at its new location under the “grandfathering” clause of the zoning statute. The administrative law judge disagreed and ordered the billboard’s removal. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge. We affirm the chancery court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Smith v. Sally Brittingham Smith and John Michael Charles Smith
This is an appeal from an order joining a third party in a divorce action. During the husband and wife’s marriage, husband’s mother gave the couple a substantial amount of money. The wife filed for a divorce in circuit court. Soon after, the husband’s mother filed a lawsuit in chancery court against the husband and wife, alleging breach of an agreement to repay the funds and to grant her a security interest in the marital home. Simultaneously, she filed a lien lis pendens on the marital home. The marital home was sold, and the chancery court transferred the husband’s mother’s lien lis pendens to the proceeds of the sale. The husband allowed a default judgment to be taken against him in his mother’s chancery court lawsuit. Subsequently, the circuit court granted the wife’s motion to join the husband’s mother in the divorce proceedings as a necessary party. Thereafter, the chancery court case was transferred to the circuit court. The circuit court held a trial on the merits; it found no agreement by the wife to repay the monies given to the couple by the husband’s mother, and dismissed her claim against the wife. The husband’s mother was awarded damages against the husband for the full amount of the money loaned, to be paid out of his share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home. The circuit court’s distribution of the martial estate, however, effectively eliminated his share of the proceeds. The husband’s mother appeals, arguing that she was improperly joined in the divorce action, and that the circuit court did not give proper effect to her lien lis pendens against the proceeds from the sale of the marital home. On appeal, we affirm, finding that the joinder was proper and finding no error in the application of the lien against the husband’s share of the proceeds. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Smith v. Sally Brittingham Smith and John Michael Charles Smith - Order
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.N.F. (d/o/b 10/24/99), a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age
This opinion involves two consolidated appeals. The first case involves post-divorce petitions to modify a parenting plan, filed by the husband and the wife, regarding custody of two children. The second case was filed by the wife and a third party, seeking to establish the third party’s parentage of one of the two children. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision in the custody case as modified, and we affirm the trial court’s decision in the paternity case. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, et al. v. Good Times, Ltd., et al.
The State of Tennessee (“State”) sued Good Times, Ltd. (“Good Times”) 1 and others with regard to real property deeded to the State by Good Times after the State was sued for inverse condemnation by Good Times’ lessee, Pun Wun Chan d/b/a #1 China Buffet (“China Buffet”). The State claimed that it was entitled to indemnity from Good Times in the inverse condemnation action under its warranty deed. The Trial Court consolidated the State’s case against Good Times with the inverse condemnation action and then bifurcated the trial. The inverse condemnation case was tried before a jury and China Buffet was awarded a judgment against the State. The Trial Court then granted summary judgment to Good Times in the State’s case against Good Times and dismissed the State’s case. The State appeals to this Court. We vacate the grant of summary judgment to Good Times, grant the State summary judgment against Good Times, and remand this case to the Trial Court for a determination of the amount of damages, and for further proceedings as necessary with regard to all other parties and claims. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Vickie Robnett v. Edward H. Tenison, Jr.
The issue is whether a court-ordered easement by necessity for ingress and egress to landlocked property may be terminated on the ground it is no longer necessary because the landlocked owner has an express easement through which that owner has reasonable, although not as desirable, ingress and egress. The trial court denied the petition to terminate the easement by necessity upon a finding it would place an undue burden on the landlocked property owner to have it terminated. We have determined the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, that of undue burden, to deny the petition to terminate the easement at issue. Easements by necessity are dependent on the necessity that created them; therefore, a way of necessity continues only as long as a necessity for its use continues. The fact that the way of necessity would be the most convenient does not prevent its extinguishment when it ceases to be absolutely necessary. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis Morris v. Amsouth Bank
This appeal involves forged endorsements on a check. The appellant had two checking accounts at the defendant bank. The appellant forged endorsements on a check, deposited the check into his account at the bank, and then removed the proceeds from his bank account. The bank later determined that the endorsements on the check were forged and debited the appellant’s other account in the amount of the fraudulently endorsed check. The appellant filed a lawsuit against the bank, and the bank counterclaimed for the amount of the check on which the appellant forged the endorsements. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment and submitted a statement of undisputed material facts in support of the motion. The appellant did not respond to the bank’s statement of undisputed material facts. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, and the appellant appeals. We affirm and remand the case to the trial court for determination of damages against the appellant for a frivolous appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Frederick Bertrand, a citizen and resident of Benton County, Tennessee v. The Regional Medical Center At Memphis, A Tennessee Corporation
This appeal arises from an October 2003 medical malpractice action filed against The Regional Medical Center at Memphis (“the Med”) and several physicians. Plaintiff voluntarily nonsuited his action and re-filed it within the one-year period provided by the savings statute codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the Med upon determining Plaintiff could not rely on the savings statute where the General Assembly had amended the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“the GTLA”), bringing the Med within the scope of the GTLA as codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-101 (2007 Supp.), et seq. The amendment became effective July 1, 2003. On November 26, 2007, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Med pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah Jenkins et. al. v. Southland Capital Corporation, Southland Equity Corporation, Terry Lynch and Bradford Farms LLC
This is a consolidated wrongful death and personal injury case. In May 2002, three young boys walking beside the road were struck by a drunken driver in a residential subdivision. Two were killed, the third severely injured. The plaintiffs sued the developers of the subdivision, arguing that the absence of sidewalks in the area where the boys were walking was a cause of the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the developers on grounds that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was time-barred under the four-year statute of repose for improvements to real property, T.C.A. § 28-3-202. We agree with the trial court that the improvements to the real property on which the accident occurred were substantially completed more than four years prior to the filing of the lawsuits under the statutory definition at T.C.A. § 28-3-201(2), and therefore affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Maxwell Medical, Inc., Successor in Interest to Max Well Medical, LLC v. Loren L. Chumley, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
The Clerk and Master, a substitute Judge, granted defendant summary judgment in this case, and plaintiff appealed. The record reveals that the substitute Judge was not designated in accordance with the statutes and case decisions, and we therefore vacate the summary judgment and remand to the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Sanders v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc.
This is a premises liability case. Appellant sued Appellee for injuries sustained in a fall on an icy parking lot that was maintained by Appellee. The material facts of the case are undisputed and, on principles of comparative fault, the trial court determined that Appellant was at least 50% liable for the injuries he sustained in that Appellant (1) ignored the open and obvious danger when he undertook to walk inside the bank, (2) decided not to use the drive-through window in order to avoid traversing the ice, and (3) undertook a risk that a reasonable person would have avoided. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cordelia Ream
After the appellant pled guilty to criminal contempt in the juvenile court and received a four-day sentence, she appealed to circuit court, contending that the sentence was excessive. After being unsuccessful in circuit court , she then appealed to this Court. We found that the appeal of a criminal contempt conviction should be directly to this Court and not to the circuit court. Having resolved the appeal process issue, this Court finds that the acceptance of the guilty plea below was in contravention of constitutional standards and was plain error. The criminal contempt conviction is therefore vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Rode Oil Company, Inc. and Long Outdoor Advertisign v. Lamar Advertising Company (Formerly Outdoor Communication, Inc.)
At its core, this appeal presents a dispute over whether two parties had entered into an enforceable agreement for the lease of land to be used for the placement of a roadside billboard. The trial court held that there existed only an offer from the property owner which was revocable and that therefore the property owner could freely lease the same property to a third party. During the pendency of this litigation in the trial court, which took many years, a series of corporate asset transfers and acquisitions occurred—the result of which raises the question of whether the same party is in fact now on both sides of this suit. The court below held that a live controversy still exists, and it subsequently proceeded to set damages. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the trial court erred in its initial decision regarding the existence of a binding lease agreement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Margaret Hudson
This is an appeal from an award of discretionary costs. The defendant owned a rental house in an historic district. She violated the historic district’s design guidelines by having vinyl siding installed on the house. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to require the homeowner to remove the siding. The plaintiff was granted summary judgment, from which the defendant homeowner appealed. In the first appeal of this case, the grant of summary judgment was affirmed. After remand, the defendant homeowner failed to remove the siding, so the plaintiff filed a petition for contempt. After a hearing, the trial court found that the homeowner had the financial resources to have the siding removed, so it ordered the homeowner to (1) retain a contractor and (2) remove the siding. The homeowner was required to notify the court upon completion of both steps. The siding was removed. Once the house was brought into compliance, the plaintiff filed a proposed “order closing the file.” The trial court granted the motion. Within thirty days after entry of this order, the plaintiff filed a motion for an award of its discretionary costs. The homeowner opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiff’s motion for discretionary costs was untimely, and that the order requiring compliance was the final order, not the “order closing the file.” The trial court awarded the plaintiff its discretionary costs, and the homeowner appealed. We affirm, finding that the motion for discretionary costs was timely filed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tony Monroe v. Jacqueline Zierden, et al.
The trial court dismissed Appellant’s complaint for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, and granted Appellee reasonable attorney’s fees as provided in the contract. Appellant appeals the award of attorney’s fees; Appellee asserts error in the amount of fees awarded. We affirm. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Walker Newman v. Wayne Woodard, et al.
This case concerns the access rights of a landowner to a section of her property divided from the rest of her land by a steep bluff. The trial court held that the landowner did not have an implied easement through her neighbor’s land to access her property at the bottom of the bluff because the there was insufficient evidence that the right-of-way preexisted severance of the properties. The trial court determined that Mrs. Newman did not have an implied easement by necessity because there was insufficient evidence that Mrs. Newman would be unable build a road down the bluff for a reasonable cost. Because the evidence does not preponderate otherwise, we affirm that Mrs. Newman does not have an implied easement or an implied easement by necessity over the right-of-way. The trial court also held that Mrs. Newman lacked a prescriptive easement over the right-of-way because she failed to prove that her use was exclusive; we affirm on the basis that Mrs. Newman failed to demonstrate that her use of the right-of-way was continuous. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
John Doe v. Catholic Bishop for The Diocese of Memphis
This appeal involves the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff, a thirty-seven year old man, filed a lawsuit against the defendant Catholic diocese. His complaint alleged that, as an adolescent, he was sexually abused by a Catholic priest employed by the defendant diocese. The lawsuit alleged that the diocese was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising the priest, and that the diocese breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by failing to disclose to him its knowledge that the priest had abused other young boys. The diocese filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. In response, the plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations was tolled under the discovery rule, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, and the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The diocese was granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. On appeal, we reverse, finding that the plaintiff’s complaint is time-barred, and cannot be saved by the discovery rule, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, or the doctrine of equitable estoppel. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor Company Litigation
The second appeal in this case involves the effect of a previous forum non conveniens dismissal. The plaintiffs, residents and citizens of Mexico, were injured in automobile accidents that took place in Mexico. They filed multiple lawsuits against several American corporate defendants, alleging that the accidents were the result of defects in the vehicles’ tires. The corporate defendants moved for dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motions, and the defendants were granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the consolidated case on the ground of forum non conveniens, based on the availability of Mexico as a more convenient forum for litigation of the plaintiffs’ claims. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed numerous lawsuits in several Mexican trial courts. These cases were all dismissed, and the dismissals were affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs then filed new lawsuits in Davidson County Circuit Court against the same defendants, which were again consolidated for pretrial purposes. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on grounds of issue preclusion, arguing that the issues of forum non conveniens and the availability of Mexico as an available alternate forum had been determined in their favor in the first appeal. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Mexico was not, in fact, an available forum, as evidenced by the numerous dismissals by the Mexican tribunals. The defendants were granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. On appeal, we address the effect of our previous decision and vacate the order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings on the availability of Mexico as an alternate forum for the plaintiffs’ claims. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Bee Deselm, et al. v. Diane Jordan, et al.
The plaintiffs brought this action seeking the removal of several Knox County officials from office on the ground that they were ineligible for their positions by operation of the term limits provision of the Knox County Charter. Six days after the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the Tennessee Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Jordan v. Knox County. The Supreme Court in its Jordan opinion, released on January 12, 2007, decided all issues raised in the case before us. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the basis of mootness. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Cordova the Town Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Gill Development Company, Inc.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association. The declaration made the developer a member of the homeowners’ association, insofar as the developer owned lots within the development. It also stated that the obligation to pay assessments on a given lot did not begin until either the lot was transferred from the developer or improvements on the lot were completed, whichever occurred first. The homeowners’ association sued the developer, seeking damages for unpaid assessments on lots owned by the developer, on which improvements were not complete. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the homeowners’ association. The developer appeals. We reverse, concluding that the declaration of covenants provides that the obligation to pay assessments on the lots owned by the developer had not yet commenced. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Frankie Lewis, et al. v Cleveland Municipal Airport Authority, et al.
This lawsuit challenges actions by the Cleveland Municipal Airport Authority (the “Airport Authority”) and the Bradley County Commission (the “Commission”) involving the rezoning by the Commission of certain property located in Bradley County from Forestry Agricultural Residential to Special Impact Industrial. The Airport Authority intends to relocate the Cleveland Municipal Airport to the rezoned property. Frankie Lewis originally filed this lawsuit and Herbert Haney was added later as a plaintiff. As pertinent to this appeal, the Trial Court determined that Lewis lacked taxpayer standing to bring this lawsuit against the Airport Authority and granted the Airport Authority’s motion to dismiss. Lewis appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Airport Authority. As to the Commission, both plaintiffs allege statutory and procedural violations surrounding notice of the requested rezoning and the conduct of the Commission in eventually granting the request for rezoning. The Trial Court granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment after concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the Commission was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Both Lewis and Haney appeal that summary judgment. We conclude that the Trial Court did not err in granting the Airport Authority’s motion to dismiss and the Commission’s motion for summary judgment. The judgment of the Trial Court is, therefore, affirmed. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Barsha Bates Land et al. v. Larry W. Barnes et al.
The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice case after granting motions to exclude the testimony of both of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Based upon our conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of either expert witness, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Vickie F. (Lout) Hudson v. David P. Lout
This domestic relations action requires us to construe a provision of the parties’ 1993 divorce decree with respect to the division of defendant/Appellant David P. Lout’s (Mr. Lout’s) military retirement pay. The trial court construed the 1993 decree as requiring Mr. Lout to pay to Plaintiff/Appellee Vickie F. Lout Hudson (Ms. Hudson), Mr. Lout’s former wife, an amount equivalent to 28 percent of his military retirement pay. The trial court calculated this amount as onehalf the retirement pay received by Mr. Lout, multiplied by a fraction representing the number of years the parties were married divided by the number of years Mr. Lout served in the military. The trial court also ordered Mr. Lout to pay arrearages and awarded Wife her attorney’s fees as damages predicated on a finding of contempt. Mr. Lout appeals; we affirm the trial court’s construction of the parties’ 1993 decree of divorce, vacate the finding of contempt and award of attorney’s fees, and remand. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Stellena Marie Morelock, individually and as next of kin of Delmus Holmer McCarter vs. The Estate of Rhiannon R. Galford and Danny McKee
In this wrongful death action the Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff was not a proper party to maintain the action. On appeal, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
