Alvin King v. v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board
This is the second appeal of a case involving the termination of a county employee. The petitioner was a deputy jailor for the County Sheriff’s Department. His employment was terminated because he failed to report an injured inmate. The county’s administrative board upheld the termination. The petitioner then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. The trial court denied the writ, and the petitioner appealed. In the first appeal, the trial court’s order was vacated and the cause was remanded for reconsideration under the standard of review set forth in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, see T.C.A. § 4-5-322. On remand, the trial court entered a revised order, affirming the termination. The petitioner now appeals the revised order. We affirm, finding that the petitioner received a fair hearing before the administrative board and that the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of G. Wallace Creswell, Oral Ruth Creswell v. James Stewart Creswell
In this Estate, the parties in open court announced the terms of settlement between them of the entire Estate. Appellant sought to set aside the settlement on the grounds of duress, but after an evidentiary hearing the Trial Court refused to set aside the settlement. On appeal, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Conservatorship of Gladys R. Burchard, and Public Guardian for the Elderly as Conservator for Gladys R. Burchard v. Ralph O. Burchard
Petitioner intervened in this action, averring that the conservator for her mother had died and asked that she be appointed conservator of her mother. The Trial Court appointed a successor conservator and ruled that petitioner had no standing to contest the conservatorship and to be appointed conservator since she was a non-resident of the State. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Christy L. Taylor v. Randall Robinson, Jr.
The mother of a twelve year old boy filed a petition to establish the paternity of the child. A DNA test confirmed that the man named in the petition was indeed the biological father, and he agreed to pay temporary child support during the pendency of the case. The mother asked the court to order the father to pay retroactive child support back to the date of the child’s birth, in accordance with the child support guidelines. After a hearing, the trial court decided that a deviation from the guidelines was warranted because of the mother’s failure to inform the father of his possible paternity prior to filing the legitimation petition. The court accordingly ordered that retroactive support be paid only from the date of the filing of the petition. We affirm the trial court, but remand this case so the court can state in its order the “the total amount of retroactive support that would have been paid retroactively to the birth of the child, had a deviation not been made by the court,” as is required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-311(a)(11)(F). |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
WATCO, a joint venture comprised of Wayne Todd and Wilson Holdings, LP v. Pickering Environmental Consultants, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation
The plaintiff, a real estate development company, conditionally agreed to purchase real property from a trustee bank if the bank first obtained a satisfactory “Phase I” environmental site assessment of the property. The trustee bank hired the defendant environmental consulting company to perform a Phase I environmental site assessment. After performing an assessment, the defendant prepared a report in which it represented that it had conformed with the applicable professional standard in its assessment, that it had not detected any hazardous materials or environmental concerns at the subject property due to current or past uses of the property, that it had not identified any significant environmental concerns in the surrounding area of the subject property, and that it did not recommend further environmental review of the subject property. The plaintiff purchased the subject property in 1995. During residential development of the subject property in 2004, the plaintiff discovered the remains of a municipal garbage dump which had previously existed adjacent to the subject property, and which extended under a portion of the subject property. The plaintiff had the garbage removed and the land filled, and development was delayed as a result. The plaintiff development company sued the defendant environmental consulting company, alleging professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. A bench trial was held, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Nanci I. Holden v. Paul D. Holden
This is a post-divorce case. Paul D. Holden (“Husband”) filed a petition against his former spouse, Nanci I. Holden (“Wife”), seeking to modify the parties’ residential parenting plan pertaining to their minor children. Around the same time, the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) received an anonymous referral regarding the children’s “safety and possible sexual abuse” at Wife’s residence. The trial court subsequently appointed a guardian ad litem for the children. The court found, as was recommended by the guardian ad litem, that Husband was entitled to more parenting time with the children. The court also found that there was no foundation for the complaint made to DCS regarding the children. The court ordered Husband to pay the fees of the guardian ad litem. Husband appeals that order. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Virginia Dell Person v. James R. Wilson, et al., and Coffee County, Tennessee, et al.
This appeal arises from a two-car accident at the intersection of two county roads in Coffee County. The sixteen year-old driver of one of the two vehicles and his parents and sister, who were passengers in his vehicle, filed suit against the County for injuries they sustained in the accident, contending the County was at fault for failing to properly maintain the stop sign and vegetation at the intersection. The trial court attributed 50% of the fault to the County and 50% of the fault to the sixteen year-old driver. Because he was 50% at fault, the sixteen year-old driver was not awarded damages against the County; however, his parents and sister were awarded judgments against the County for 50% of their damages. On appeal, the County contends the parents are barred from recovering against it due to their negligence and negligent entrustment. The County also contends his sister was negligent for riding in the vehicle. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Funk v Target National Bank/Target Visa
In this suit on a credit card debt, the Trial Court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the amount claimed. On appeal, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Matthew Flory and Christi Flory v. John Arnold Fitzgerald
Plaintiffs purchased property from defendant by Warranty Deed which stated the property contained 15 acres. Plaintiffs subsequently learned in litigation with a neighbor over the boundary line, that the parcel only contained 10.66 acres. Plaintiffs then filed this action against defendant to recover damages and the Trial Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to damages under the warranties in the Deed in the amount of $6,660.00 for the shortage of acreage plus costs and the judgment they incurred in the boundary line dispute with their neighbor. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Smith, Executor of the Estate of Ethel Rogers Smith v. Jerry Smith
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion for relief from judgment. Following a bench trial and judgment in favor of the defendant, a third party provided additional materials pursuant to an agreed discovery order, which were not previously disclosed to the parties before trial. The plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60.02, requesting that the judgment be set aside based on this newly discovered evidence. The plaintiff also argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel should be applied to grant relief from the judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. After careful review, we find that the trial court incorrectly applied the law in deciding on the plaintiff’s Rule 60.02 motion. Therefore, we vacate and remand. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Diana B. Hannahan v. Terry Q. Hannahan
The trial court held Husband in contempt because he failed to comply with the terms of a postdivorce agreed order which modified the terms of the divorce decree regarding the disposition of the marital residence. On appeal, Husband argues that the agreed order was void because the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree after it became final. We hold that the agreed order, which was a modification of the divorce decree by the parties, was valid and enforceable. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in enforcing the terms of the agreed order by holding Husband in contempt of court for noncompliance with the order. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
John Wayne Webb v. Brandon O.Canada, et al - Concurring
The majority holds that the Judgment denominated “Final Judgment” reducing the previous Judgment from $723,426.27 to $598,426.27 was a “juristic act” of acceptance of the remittitur under protest. I do not agree. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
John Wayne Webb v. Brandon O.Canada, et al
John Wayne Webb was injured in a car wreck and filed suit against two other drivers. A jury found defendant Brandon O. Canada to be solely at fault and awarded Mr. Webb $723,426.27 in compensatory damages against Mr. Canada. An order was entered awarding Mr. Webb judgment against Mr. Canada in the amount of $723,426.27 and dismissing the case as to the other driver, Douglas D. Townsend. Mr. Canada filed a motion seeking a new trial or in the alternative, a remittitur. Following a hearing, the trial court suggested a remittitur in the amount of $125,000. Final judgment was entered on July 24, 2006, referencing the remittitur and reducing the amount of the judgment to $598,426.27. On appeal, Mr. Canada argues that he is entitled to a new trial because Mr. Webb never accepted the remittitur, the verdict was excessive, and the remittitur was inadequate. After review, we find no error and affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
William Harrison Nix, III v. Richard Terry Sutton
The appellant contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his appeal from general sessions court when he failed to appear on the date of the hearing. He claimed that he had gone to the wrong courthouse on the hearing date. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
C.S.C., et al. v. Knox County Board of Education, et al.
In this class action lawsuit filed against the Knox County Board of Education and its superintendent, the trial court awarded the Plaintiffs a portion of their attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Defendants argue on appeal that the trial court erred in finding the Plaintiffs to be “prevailing parties” in the litigation and that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees was unwarranted and erroneous. We hold that although the Plaintiffs were not successful on all of their claims, they achieved enough success in their lawsuit to be “prevailing parties.” We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in awarding Plaintiffs $45,000 in attorney’s fees, and consequently affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Rudolph Powers v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Paroles
This appeal involves a prisoner seeking parole. The petitioner was convicted in 1981 and is serving a life sentence. In 2004, he was denied parole based on the severity of his offense. He filed the instant petition for a common-law writ of certiorari, claiming violations of his constitutional right to equal protection and due process, and a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. The trial court dismissed the petition on its face, finding that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The petitioner filed this appeal. We affirm, concluding that the petition does not state a claim for relief. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Allen Shawn Dye v. Amanda Layne Fowler
The primary residential parent of the parties' eleven-year-old child requested permission to relocate to Georgia because her husband accepted employment that provided a significant increase in pay and better opportunities for advancement. The father opposed the relocation. The trial court, which made no findings of fact, denied the request based upon the conclusion the relocation did not have a reasonable purpose. We have determined the evidence preponderates in favor of the finding that the mother had a reasonable purpose for relocating to Georgia. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to grant the requested relocation to Georgia. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Patrick McGee v. Tommy Jacobs, Jacobs, Cohen & McCormick, PLLC CPAS
Appellant asserts the circuit court erred by dismissing this action as untimely under the savings statute. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda J. Woodward v. Michael v. Woodward - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s Opinion affirming the Trial Court’s division of the marital property. I take no issue with the Trial Court and the majority concerning what was marital property and what was separate property. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s Opinion as I believe that it, as did the Trial Court, largely ignores the fact that this is a short term marriage, a very short term marriage, and what is the court’s goal in such a situation. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda J. Woodward v. Michael v. Woodward
In this divorce case, Husband argues that the trial court erred in its classification, valuation, and division of the marital estate, including the award to Wife of $1,000 to “equalize the marital property division.” Upon our determination that the evidence did not support an award of $1,000 to Wife to equalize the marital property division, the trial court’s judgment is vacated in that regard. In all other respects, Husband failed to show that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s decision, and the judgment is affirmed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Vacated in Part and Affirmed in Part; Cause Remanded |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Herman Charles Heikkenen v. Janice Lee Heikkenen
On this appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding $1,500.00 per month as alimony in futuro to the wife. Finding no basis for determining the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony in this amount, we affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Marks, Shell & Maness, et al. v. Cynthia T. Mann, et al.
A judgment lienholder appeals from a trial court’s determination that a purchase money mortgage lien on real property has priority over a previously recorded judgment lien. Based upon this court’s holding in Guffey v. Creutzinger, 948 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), we affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald K. Pendergraph, v. J. Hilton Conger
In this action for legal malpractice against defendant attorney, the Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff, as a condition precedent to maintaining the malpractice action, had to obtain post-judgment relief from his criminal conviction, which plaintiff had failed to do after bringing his post-judgment action. On appeal, we affirm.
|
Van Buren | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy L. Clark v. Randal Lee Arthur
This appeal involves petitions for contempt and to modify a custody order. Both the mother and the father filed petitions seeking to have the initial custody order modified, and both asked that the other parent be held in contempt for failing to comply with the parenting plan. They presented various arguments about why custody should be changed in their favor, but neither alleged that any circumstances had changed since the initial order was entered. The trial court dismissed both petitions after finding that both parties had failed to prove a material change in circumstances to justify a modification of the custody order. The court also dismissed both petitions for contempt. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Cummins Station, LLC v. Allison Batey
This case arises from a default judgment entered against Appellant for failure to comply with an Order to Compel. Appellant appeals. We affirm and remand for determination of damages for frivolous appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
