Francis Roy, M.D. vs. The City of Harriman, et al. - Concurring
|
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Francis Roy, M.D. vs. The City of Harriman, et al.
This cause of action arises out of statements made by Dr. William E. Bennett to PHP Companies, Inc. (“PHP”), a health insurance company, regarding Dr. Francis Roy. Dr. Roy alleges that, in connection with PHP’s review of Dr. Roy’s application to become an approved PHP provider, Dr. Bennett made written statements that reflected poorly on Dr. Roy’s work history and qualifications. Dr. Roy claims that these statements were false and defamatory. In response to Dr. Roy’s complaint, Dr. Bennett filed a motion for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that the document containing the allegedly defamatory statements is privileged and inadmissible under the Tennessee Peer Review Law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219 (2004). The court granted Dr. Bennett’s motion. We affirm. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Kenneth Allen Barbee v. Sherry Rosette Barbee
The State of Tennessee, acting on behalf of a father, filed a petition for contempt against the mother of the parties’ three minor children for her failure to pay child support. Following the contempt hearing, the trial court found the mother “might be slightly mentally retarded” but that she had the ability to pay and willfully failed to pay child support on eighteen occasions. Finding her guilty of criminal contempt, the trial court sentenced the mother to 180 days in jail. The mother appeals, contending the State failed to present sufficient evidence that she had the ability to pay child support and failed to present sufficient evidence that her failure to pay was willful. Finding the evidence in the record insufficient to prove that the mother had the ability to pay the amount of support as ordered and that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the mother’s failure to pay child support was willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy Keymon Adams v. Anthony D. Adams
This is a divorce case. The parties began living together in 1998, and married in 2004. Some time before the marriage, the parties purchased a residential lot on which they constructed a home, financing the construction with a credit card in the wife’s name. Title to the home was in the wife’s name alone. The husband performed manual labor on the lot and the home during and after the construction. During the marriage, the parties operated a business that proved unsuccessful. The wife eventually left to start her own business in a different field. At approximately the same time, the wife filed for divorce. A trial ensued. The parties introduced evidence on the value of the home, various items of personal property, and a significant amount of credit card debt. After the close of the evidence, the trial court granted a divorce to the wife, and awarded the home and the debt associated with the home to her. It ordered the sale of some property and application of the proceeds to the parties’ debt. The remaining debt was not classified as marital or separate and was not divided. The parties appeal. The husband argues that the trial court erred in not awarding him a share of the parties’ business and the increase in value of the marital home. The wife argues that the trial court erred in failing to designate the assets and debts as marital or separate and to divide them between the parties. We affirm the trial court’s decision not to award the Husband a share of the failed business or a share of the increase in value of the parties’ home. We vacate the remainder of the judgment and remand for allocation of the personal property and the debt. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Fleet Business Credit, Llc v. Grindstaff, Inc.
This is an appeal from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, seeking the balance allegedly due under a contract between the defendant and a third party. The plaintiff contended that it was the assignee of the rights, but not the obligations, of this contract. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the third party manifested its intent to terminate the contract prior to the alleged assignment. In the alternative, the defendant argued that its performance was excused because the third party filed for bankruptcy, which was a ground of default. The defendant also disputed whether there was in fact an assignment between the plaintiff and the third party. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Sheron L. Jones v. Martin Leon May
Martin Leon May (“Father”) appeals an order of the trial court directing him to pay interest on a child support obligation. We hold that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the imposition of interest in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court entered May 24, 2007, nunc pro tunc November 14, 2006. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Greig Massey, et al vs. R.W. Graf, Inc., et al - Dissenting
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Greig Massey, et al. v. R.W. Graf, Inc., et al.
Plaintiffs brought this declaratory judgment action, asking the Court to declare that building restrictions on platted parcels of property from a common grantor applied to a non-platted parcel purchased by defendants from a subsequent grantor. The Trial Court, responding to a summary judgment motion, made detailed findings of facts, and concluded that the “subject to” language in the deeds was ambiguous and construed the language against the inclusion of restrictions on any portion of the property that lay outside the platted subdivisions. Plaintiffs have appealed, and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
First Southern Mortgage Corporation of Tennessee v. Michael H. Weisser
A mortgage broker filed this breach of contract action against a real estate investor based upon the investor’s failure to pay a loan placement fee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the mortgage broker. Because we find that there are genuine issues of material fact, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Ernest Cunningham v. Cheryl Lynne Cheatham Cunningham
In this domestic dispute, Father appeals contending that the trial court erred in its retroactive treatment of child support and rehabilitative alimony, the assessment of interest, the accounting of payments made by Father to Mother, denying Father’s requested modification of his child support and alimony obligation, denying his requested modification of the parenting schedule and awarding attorney’s fees to Mother. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand the case to the trial court for recalculation of the statutory interest and arrearages and a redetermination of whether the facts in the case support an upward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. ORNL Federal Credit Union, et al.
In this appeal, we determine the priority between two recorded deeds of trust. Homeowners entered into a line of credit with a credit union secured by a recorded deed of trust on the homeowners’ home. The homeowners subsequently refinanced their home with a bank. The bank paid off the homeowners’ debt to the credit union, and recorded its own deed of trust securing its loan. At that same time, the loan and deed of trust was assigned to a second bank. Despite the payoff of the homeowners’ debt by the assignor bank, the first deed of trust to the credit union was never released, and the homeowners continued to draw on the line of credit. When the homeowners began having financial problems, the assignee bank discovered that the credit union had never released its deed of trust on the homeowners’ property because of a provision in the deed of trust stating that its release was conditioned upon the borrower requesting the cancellation of the line of credit. When the homeowners defaulted on both loans, the question arose as to which party’s deed of trust had priority. The trial court ruled in favor of the assignee bank on the basis that the credit union was equitably estopped from asserting its deed of trust because, at the time of payoff, the credit union did not follow its self-imposed practice of advising if any action other than payoff was required before release of the deed of trust. After careful review, we reverse because we conclude that the assignor bank had the means of discovering that payoff alone was insufficient to trigger the release of the deed of trust and because, under state statutory law, it had prior notice of all prerequisites to release the deed of trust as a result of the credit union’s registration of such deed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Arista Records, LLC as the successor to Arista Records, Inc. v. Loren L. Chumley, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee
This interlocutory appeal arises from Plaintiff/Taxpayer’s action against the Commissioner of Revenue under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-1-1802 for a refund of taxes. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents sought by Plaintiff in response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss based on the statutory limitations period prescribed in section 67-1-1802. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Glenna Robilio
From a trial de novo of an unlawful detainer action in circuit court, the defendant homeowner appeals, pro se, an award of summary judgment in favor of the purchaser at foreclosure. In a filing entered in general sessions – and considered by the circuit court – the defendant homeowner raised the defense of wrongful foreclosure, alleging the lender had failed to notify her of the default, of her opportunity to cure the default, and of the foreclosure sale itself. The plaintiff purchaser failed to address these points on motion for summary judgment, thus leaving open this factual question. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact bearing directly upon the plaintiff purchaser’s right to immediate possession of the property, we reverse the award of summary judgment and remand the matter. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ivan D. Bradley v. Ginger Kaye Bradley
This appeal arises from a divorce action. The trial court named Father primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child, and Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. v. William C. Kitchens, et al.
This appeal involves the validity of a covenant not to compete. The employee, William C. Kitchens (“Kitchens”), became a certified orthotist after entering into the covenant with his employer Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. (“Hanger”). After the employee quit his job and began providing orthotic services for a competitor, Hanger filed suit. Following a trial, the Trial Court determined that the covenant not to compete was enforceable and that Kitchens had breached the covenant. The Trial Court also determined that Kitchens’ new employer, defendant Choice Medical, Inc. (“Choice Medical”), had induced Kitchens to breach the contract in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. §47-50-109, and that an award of treble damages was appropriate. Judgment was entered against Kitchens and Choice Medical jointly for $240,182.00, and against Choice Medical for an additional $480,364.00. Defendants appeal raising numerous issues. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Flanary, on behalf of Himself and all other similaly situated vs. Carl Gregory Dodge of Johnson City, L.L.C.
This action charged the defendant with engaging in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that he suffered a loss of money or property. On appeal, we affirm the summary judgment. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Bradley County, Tennessee v. #’s Inc. et al.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the purchaser of real property at a delinquent tax sale is entitled to recover delinquent property taxes paid on the property during the redemption period. We hold that funds expended to pay delinquent property taxes during the redemption period are lawful charges to preserve the value of the property pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2704, and therefore, the purchaser is entitled to recover these charges. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re J.M.N. Jerry Clyde Nix ex rel. v. Amy Nix Cantrell
This case involves a non-custodial parent’s attempt to give consent for her fourteen-year-old daughter to get married. After the parties divorced, the father was designated the primary residential parent for the parties’ daughter, and the mother had regular visitation. When the daughter was fourteen years old, the father took her to the mother’s home for visitation. Without telling the father, the mother took the daughter and her eighteen-year-old boyfriend to the juvenile court below to seek permission to get married. At the juvenile court, the mother signed an affidavit consenting to the marriage. Based on the mother’s affidavit, the juvenile court judge signed an order granting the daughter and her boyfriend permission to marry. They immediately obtained a marriage license and got married. After learning of the marriage, the father filed a motion in the juvenile court asking it to set aside its order giving the daughter permission to marry. After a hearing, the juvenile court granted the motion to set aside. It also held that setting aside the prior order rendered the daughter’s marriage void. The mother now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside its order giving the daughter permission to marry. Additionally, we note that the marriage is merely voidable, not void. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Harriett Turner v. Napoleon Bryant
This appeal arises out of a petition for civil contempt based on the failure to pay child support. The state, on behalf of the obligee mother, filed this petition for contempt against the obligor father for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the juvenile court determined that the father was willfully underemployed and in contempt of court. The father filed a petition for a rehearing under the local rules of the juvenile court, seeking to introduce additional evidence on the issue of willful underemployment. The juvenile court treated the father’s petition as a motion to alter or amend under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the father was not entitled to such relief. The father appeals, arguing that he should have been permitted to introduce additional evidence under the applicable juvenile court local rules, and that the juvenile court erred in finding him in contempt. We conclude that the trial court appropriately considered the father’s petition as a motion to alter or amend under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of the father’s petition, and therefore affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Mark Atkins, surviving spouse and next of kin of Victoria H. Atkins, Deceased, and as parent of Lauren Atkins, et al. v. Robert Clive Marks
This is an appeal from a post-judgment collection proceeding in which the judgment creditor sought to subject the assets of three trusts, of which the judgment debtor was a beneficiary and trustee, to satisfy a default judgment. The trial court found that the trusts were passive or dry and that the legal and equitable estates had merged, resulting in the judgment debtor’s holding fee simple title to the trust property. Debtor asserted that he had dissipated the assets of two trusts, but one trust still held income-generating farm land. The trial court ordered the farm land sold and also ordered further discovery to locate the assets of the other two trusts. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Raymond Proctor, et al. v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C., et al.
Jesse Raymond Proctor and Janie Kay Proctor (“Plaintiffs”), husband and wife, sued Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C. and Center for Sports Medicine & Orthopaedics, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq., concerning certain business practices of Defendants related to surgery performed on Mr. Proctor. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claim sounded in alleged deceptive business practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977; that the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; that defendants’ affirmative defenses contending that Plaintiffs’ claims sound in medical malpractice should be denied; and that Plaintiffs were barred from amending their pleadings to raise medical malpractice claims. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We reverse and hold that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 can apply to the entrepreneurial, commercial, or business aspects of a medical practice, and since Plaintiffs’ complaint sounds in alleged deceptive business practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Captain Louis J. Gillespie, Jr., et al. v. City of Memphis
The charter and code of ordinances of the City of Memphis set out certain specific provisions, including civil service protections, concerning the organization and operation of the City’s police department. This appeal arises from a suit brought by several high ranking members of the police force who allege that the City created a de facto rank in conflict with the City’s charter and ordinances. The trial court held that the City had impermissibly created a new rank and granted relief in the form of an injunction and a declaratory judgment. It, however, denied claims for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an implied right of action under the City’s civil service rules. We find that the question regarding the appropriateness of the trial court’s awarding injunctive and declaratory relief is now moot and accordingly vacate that part of its decision. We affirm the trial court’s decision that monetary damages are not available. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Mary A. Grass
Probate Court did not have jurisdiction to extend the statute of limitations to elect against the will and that the Agreed Order extending the statute of limitations was not effective. The appellant also claims that the surviving spouse cannot elect against the will because he waived his right to elect by signing a waiver and accepting the benefits of the bequests to him under the will. Finally, the appellant claims that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, homestead exemption, and elective share. Finding that the Probate Court did not err in extending the statute of limitations, that the surviving spouse did not waive his right to elect against the will and that the Probate Court correctly awarded the homestead exemption, but finding that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, and the surviving spouse’s elective share, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the Probate Court to make recalculations. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charlie Robertson v. Tracy Mayes
This appeal involves a petition for custody of two minor children. The juvenile court named the father primary residential parent and the mother alternate residential parent. The mother appeals; we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Parsons v. Jeff Huffman, et al.
This appeal involves an election contest filed by a losing candidate for county executive. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the county election commission provided the minimum number of voting machines required by state law. However, the plaintiff alleged that the commission should have provided more voting machines because long lines at some voting locations caused many people to leave without voting. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, among other things. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals |
