In Re. Mikayla Grace Clark, Samuel Kent Clark v. Leah Joy Cerden
This is a child custody dispute. The biological parents of the child involved in this action met in Georgia, where the child was born in December 2002. The parties lived together with the child, but never married. Initially, the parties moved several times with the child, following job opportunities for the father. When the child was about nine months old, the parties moved to Jackson, Tennessee. Not long after that, the mother and the child returned to Georgia to live with the mother’s parents in Georgia, in order for the mother to seek professional help for depression. About nine months later, after an altercation between the mother and the child’s maternal grandmother, the mother told the father that she could not care for the child and asked him to assume custody. Accordingly, the father took the child to live with him in Jackson. About two months later, the father filed the instant petition for legitimation of the child and to seek custody. The mother opposed the father’s petition and filed a counter-petition for custody. After a hearing, the trial court determined that the father was comparatively more fit than the mother and designated him as the primary residential parent. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Dale Anthony Scott, et al. v. Marion Yarbro, et al.
This is the second appeal of a property case involving the ownership of three parcels of real property held by tenants-in-common. We dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the trial court's order did not constitute a final judgment. On remand, the trial court entered a supplemental decree. After reviewing the record and the supplemental decree, we find that there is still not a final appealable judgment. We must, therefore, dismiss this second appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
Cargo Master, Inc. v. Ace USA Insurance Company, Steven W. Hines, D/B/A S & A Trucking, and S & A Transportation, Inc. D/B/A S & A Trucking
This is an insurance case. The plaintiff cargo company entered into a carrier agreement with an independent trucking company to transport freight, in which the trucking company agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss or damage to the freight transported. The trucking company obtained a motor truck cargo liability insurance policy, which insured property while in due course of transit. In the process of transporting a shipment of tires for the plaintiff, the driver for the trucking company parked the trailer portion of the tractor-trailer behind a shopping center and left it overnight. During the night, the cargo was stolen. The trucking company submitted a claim against its cargo insurance policy and the claim was denied. The plaintiff sued the trucking company and the cargo insurance company for breach of contract, seeking to recover the value of the stolen cargo. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant cargo insurance company and, in response, the defendant insurance company filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the cargo insurance company, finding that the shipment of tires was not “in transit” when it was stolen and that, consequently, there was no coverage under the policy. The plaintiff cargo company appeals. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rosalind Pruitt, Individually and as Mother and Next of Kin of Domonique Pruitt, a Minor v. City of Memphis
This is a negligence case brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The plaintiff’s minor daughter slipped and fell at a public swimming facility and broke her arm. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant swimming facility, alleging that her minor daughter slipped |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Allstar Consulting Group, a/k/a Allstar Consulting Group, LLC v. Trinity Church & Christian Center and Trustmark National Bank
This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff finance broker and the defendant church entered into an agreement under which the plaintiff broker was to assist the church in obtaining a loan, and the church would pay the plaintiff a 3% broker’s fee for this service. The plaintiff broker negotiated a financing arrangement as requested by the church. Independent of the plaintiff, the church obtained financing from a different lender. The plaintiff then claimed a right to its broker’s fee under the parties’ agreement, claiming that it had an exclusive arrangement with the church. The church refused to pay the fee, denying that it had an exclusive arrangement with the plaintiff broker. The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the church to recover its broker’s fee. The trial court held in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the parties’ agreement was exclusive. The church now appeals. We affirm, finding that the issue turns on the credibility of the witnesses. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Seth Zamek, et ux. v. Sean O'Donnell, et. al
This case involves an automobile accident that occurred on a road maintained by Madison County. The plaintiff sued the negligent driver who struck his vehicle, the other driver’s parents, and Madison County. Relevant to this appeal, the plaintiff alleged that the design of the road and inadequate signs and road markings contributed to the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to Madison County, finding that it was immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
CitiFinancial Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Augustus Beasley, et al.
Appellants Augustus and Sheila Beasley (the Beasleys) seek to challenge the denial of their request to appeal an adverse unlawful detainer judgment to circuit court and to set aside the foreclosure of their residence. Specifically, the Beasleys appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to CitiFinancial Mortgage, Inc. (Citi) and denial of their petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, filed after the deadline for appealing the judgment as of right. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it did not set forth sufficient merits for removal to circuit court for a trial de novo. In the petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, the Beasleys advanced as grounds for review the insufficiency of funds for filing a timely appeal and premature foreclosure on their residence in violation of the deed of trust. On appeal, they contend these allegations constituted sufficient merits as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-129. We reverse and remand. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Jackson v. Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board, et al.
Petitioner/Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his appeal under a writ of certiorari arising from the decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board to terminate his employment with the Criminal Court Clerk’s Office. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Adams
Appellant appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his appeal from the Juvenile Court of Shelby County. The Criminal Court found that Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under T.C.A. § 37-1-159. Finding that the Appellant’s appeal was timely, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Dawn Winton Haines v. Lee Alan Haines
In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the petition of Lee Alan Haines (“Father”) to change the custody of the parties’ two minor children from Lisa Dawn Winton Haines (“Mother”) to Father. The change in custody followed a bench trial at which the trial court heard, in chambers, the testimony of the children as elicited by the leading questions of the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”). The examination took place outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. Mother appeals, (1) challenging the change of custody; (2) questioning evidentiary rulings by the trial court; and (3) asserting that the trial court erred in allowing the children to be questioned in chambers by the GAL outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. We hold that the in-chambers proceeding, as designed and conducted by the trial court, constitutes error. Because we deem the error to be a violation of due process and prejudicial to the judicial process, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in toto and remand for a new trial before a different judge. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Neva Jane Marcrum v. Thomas T. Marcrum, Sr.
The sole issue in this appeal involves the division of property upon the divorce of the two parties. Having reviewed the record, we modify the division as to one specific finding of fact and affirm the judgment as modified. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Conley, as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Stinson, Deceased v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., et al. - Concurring
Although I concur in the result and reasoning of reached by the majority opinion, I think it important to emphasize one point. I agree with the trial court that none of the allegations regarding Ms. Stinson’s stay at the nursing home prior to January 1, 2000, state any cause of action warranting relief. They were properly dismissed because there was no causal connection between those alleged incidents or omissions and the injuries suffered by Ms. Stinson due to the assault by Mr. Johnson. That determination eliminates most of the allegations supporting the TAPA claims that Plaintiff wanted to add. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Conley, as Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Stinson, Deceased v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., et al.
The estate of a former nursing home resident brought this wrongful death action, asserting sundry claims against the nursing home arising out of an attack on Mrs. Stinson by another resident. As a result of the attack, Mrs. Stinson was hospitalized and treated for injuries including a broken hip. She died four months later of pneumonia. Initially, the claims against the nursing home sounded principally in medical malpractice, with the plaintiff contending the attack, injuries, and death were the result of a variety and series of acts and omissions of the nursing home, including failing to properly screen and/or subsequently discharge the resident who attacked Mrs. Stinson. The plaintiff additionally asserted claims against Genesis of Jackson, Inc., a provider of psychiatric services, and the State of Tennessee, contending they, along with the nursing home, were responsible for determining whether the resident who assaulted Mrs. Stinson should have been admitted or retained as a resident at the nursing home. The plaintiff’s claim against Genesis was dismissed by the trial court, and the claim against the State was denied by the Claims Commission. The plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add a claim for attorney fees against the nursing home under the Tennessee Adult Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the TAPA claim finding the plaintiff’s claims sounded in medical malpractice and therefore, by statute, the exclusive remedy was under the Medical Malpractice Act. The plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against the nursing home went to the jury. Following a six-day jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded $130,000 in compensatory damages against the nursing home. The plaintiff and the nursing home appeal. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the surviving claims for a new trial. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Dawn Winton Haines v. Lee Alan Haines
In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the petition of Lee Alan Haines (“Father”) to change the custody of the parties’ two minor children from Lisa Dawn Winton Haines (“Mother”) to Father. The change in custody followed a bench trial at which the trial court heard, in chambers, the testimony of the children as elicited by the leading questions of the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”). The examination took place outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. Mother appeals, (1) challenging the change of custody; (2) questioning evidentiary rulings by the trial court; and (3) asserting that the trial court erred in allowing the children to be questioned in chambers by the GAL outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. We hold that the in-chambers proceeding, as designed and conducted by the trial court, constitutes error. Because we deem the error to be a violation of due process and prejudicial to the judicial process, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in toto and remand for a new trial before a different judge. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jean E. Hood v. J. Daniel Freemon, et al.
The owner of a tract of undeveloped commercial property in the city of Lawrenceburg asked the trial court to enjoin the lessees of that property from subletting it to the city for the purpose of building a retention pond. She claimed that such a use would constitute waste or create a permanent and private nuisance on the land. The trial court declined to issue the injunction and certified its decision as final for purposes of appeal. We reverse. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Anita Wadhwani v. Peter White
A former spouse challenges the extension and modification of an Order of Protection, contending the proof was insufficient to justify either the extension or modification. Finding the record contains sufficient evidence from which the trial court could determine an extension and modification of the Order was necessary, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William James Jekot v. Pennie Christine Jekot - Dissenting and Concurring
I respectfully both concur and dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I agree with the majority that the Trial Court’s judgment should be modified to award alimony in futuro to Wife because Wife is not capable of being totally rehabilitated and that the amount of alimony awarded should be altered. However, I cannot concur with the amount awarded by the majority. My difficulty with the amount of alimony awarded by the majority is two fold. First, the majority operates under the assumption that this fifty-five year old adult, well educated and in good health, must be assumed, not proved but assumed, to have absolutely zero earning capacity. This assumption, I believe, is contrary to both the evidence in this case and to the public policy of this state as established by the Tennessee Legislature by the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions related to alimony. Second, I believe the majority’s award of $9,000 per month in alimony in futuro exceeds Wife’s proven needs.
Despite the complete absence of any supporting evidence, the majority assumes that Wife, a healthy and well educated adult, has absolutely zero earning capacity and will always have zero earning capacity. It is equally clear from the evidence in the record and in the majority’s What is exceptionally telling is Wife’s statement in her brief, made with no citation to any supporting evidence, that “[a]t her age of 55, obtaining further education and training to improve her earning capacity to a reasonable level is not practical.” Apparently, the majority wholeheartedly accepts this conclusion despite all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, it appears to be Wife’s position, and apparently is a position accepted by the majority, that if she cannot improve her earning capacity to what she believes is a “reasonable level”, she has zero earning capacity and never has to work at a job for pay. Again, I believe there is a total absence of evidence in the record supporting this conclusion by Wife as accepted by the majority. I believe the conclusion that a healthy, intelligent, and well educated fifty-five year old adult has zero earning capacity is both patronizing and unsupported either by the evidence in the record or the law of this state. I am unaware of anything in Tennessee law that requires Husband to continue to cover 100% Taking all the above into consideration, I would, respectfully, vacate the Trial Court’s award of alimony and remand this matter to the Trial Court to receive additional proof to determine the appropriate amount of alimony in futuro to be awarded to Wife. On remand, I would instruct the |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Frances E. DeFord v. Harpeth Valley Utilities District
The plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her breach of contract action against her former employer, Harpeth Valley Utilities District. The plaintiff entered into a Deferred Compensation Agreement with Harpeth Valley at the beginning of her employment in 1998 that afforded her a retirement benefit if she remained employed until the year 2012. The plaintiff voluntarily left the employment of Harpeth Valley in 2003 after only five years of employment. One year later, she filed this action contending that a handwritten modification was made to the Agreement which provided that she was entitled to receive the retirement benefit and death benefit specified in the Agreement. The trial court dismissed her Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Risa Stock v. Morris Stock
This appeal involves a trial court’s distribution of marital property in a divorce proceeding. The parties owned their own business, and the husband generally ran its operations while the wife handled its financial aspects. After the business caught fire, the husband found $240,000 in the company safe. He took the money to a bank and placed it in a safety deposit box. The company’s head of security accompanied the husband to the bank and testified about these events at trial. The wife also had access to the box, and the bank records revealed that she accessed it over thirty times in the next five years. The husband and the security officer returned to the safety deposit box when he learned that the wife intended to file for divorce, but there was no cash remaining in the box. The trial court determined that the wife had dissipated the marital estate in the amount of $240,000 and subtracted half that amount, $120,000, from her award of the marital property. The wife appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Harvey Dalton v. Linda Jane Faasen Dalton
This case involves a trial court’s division of marital property following a divorce. The wife came into the marriage with substantial assets, but the husband had no assets and owed a large debt to the IRS. During the marriage, the wife was continuously employed, and the husband was often unemployed. After the wife found out that her husband had quit one of his jobs, he executed a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in their house to the wife. When they later divorced, the trial court appointed a special master to classify certain assets and debts as marital or separate property. The trial court affirmed the special master’s report with modifications. Both parties now challenge the classification of certain assets and the court’s division of the marital property. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Elizabeth Stillwell, Decedent by and through Husband, H. Chester Stillwell v. Kenneth Wayne Hackney, Sr., et al.
Invitee fell in gravel driveway of rental property, allegedly due to a partially hidden concrete divider. Invitee ultimately died as result of the fall and invitee, by and through her husband, filed an action against rental property owners. Property owners filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish an exception to the general rule of landlord non-liability. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hal Gerber v. Robert R. Holcomb
Attorney filed an action against client to collect unpaid installments due under a promissory note. The trial court entered a consent final decree awarding attorney the sum currently due under the note. Attorney filed a second action against client to collect the then unpaid installments due under the same promissory note. Client answered alleging affirmative defenses which attacked the validity of the note and which were not raised in the first proceeding. Attorney filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that client was precluded from asserting the defenses under the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court denied the motion and attorney filed an extraordinary appeal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent herewith. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marc Eskin, et al. v. Alice B. Bartee, et al. - Concurring
I agree with the result reached by the majority and the substance of the majority’s reasoning. I write separately only to note that I disagree with a portion of the majority’s reading of Ramsey v. Beavers, 931 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. 1996), and in particular its reliance on Thing v. La Chusa, 771 P.2d 814 (Cal. 1989). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marc Eskin, et al. v. Alice B. Bartee, et al.
Parents, individually and on behalf of their two minor children, sued various defendants for damages resulting from an automobile accident caused allegedly by the negligence of defendants. The complaint, in addition to seeking damages for the personal injuries sustained by one of the minor children, seeks damages on behalf of the mother and one minor child for negligent infliction of emotional distress. An uninsured motorist insurance carrier filed an answer in the cause and subsequentlymoved for summary judgment, which ostensibly involved only the claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion but failed to denote that the grant was only a partial summary judgment for that particular claim. We modify the trial court's order by granting only a partial summary judgment and further reverse and remand that grant. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby L. Holland and Wife, Rita Holland v. Amelia Jo Dinwiddie, DDS d/b/a Jo Dinwiddie, DDS
The plaintiff patient visited the defendant dentist periodically between 1998 and 2003. Between 2001 and 2003, the defendant performed dental work on the plaintiff including root canals, fillings, and crown work. Over this period, the plaintiff’s dental condition became significantly worse. The plaintiff developed abscesses and infection in his mouth and suffered from substantial dental pain. The plaintiff’s last visit to the defendant was in October of 2003. Over the 2003 holidays, the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to contact the defendant for relief from his increasingly painful condition. The plaintiff ultimately received treatment from another dentist throughout 2004. After receiving the plaintiff’s dental records from the defendant in October of 2004, the treating dentist informed the plaintiff that the defendant’s treatment had been negligent. The plaintiff filed a dental |
Benton | Court of Appeals |
