Gary Flanary, et al. v. Carl Gregory Dodge of Johnson City, LLC
Gary Flanary filed suit against Carl Gregory Dodge of Johnson City, LLC (“the dealership”) and alleged that the dealership, without negotiation and without his consent or knowledge, had charged him an “administrative fee” in connection with his purchase of a vehicle. Flanary claimed that this practice violated, inter alia, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“the TCPA”). He sought class action certification. The dealership filed a motion for summary judgment, relying upon the arbitration agreement (“the Agreement”) signed by Flanary to support its position that Flanary was required to arbitrate his claims. The trial court stated that it personally did not believe an agreement to arbitrate under the circumstances of this case was fair; but, nevertheless, it opined that it felt compelled by the current state of the law to hold that arbitration was mandated by the terms of the Agreement. Flanary appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to submit to arbitration. We affirm the judgment below to the extent the trial court, albeit reluctantly, held that the Agreement, on its face, is enforceable. However, based upon our determination that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was mutuality with respect to the obligation to arbitrate, we vacate so much of the trial court’s judgment as holds that the parties entered into a contract to arbitrate. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on Flanary’s complaint. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Michelle Berry vs. Lester Stephen Berry
This is a post divorce child custody case. The trial court changed custody to the father based upon the mother's homosexuality and the effect it would have on the child as he grew older. We hold that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that there had been a material change in circumstances to justify a change of custody in the absence of proof that the mother's sexual orientation had affected or would affect the child's well-being in any meaningful way. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is reversed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Michelle Berry vs. Lester Stephen Berry - Concurring
I concur in the majority’s opinion. I write separately to stress that which is missing in this case, i.e., evidence, be it in the form of expert testimony or otherwise, showing that the subject child has been, or can reasonably be expected to be, adversely affected by his mother’s lifestyle. In my opinion, the trial court’s judgment must be reversed because of a lack of proof to support its critical finding of adverse effect. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Gloria Kim Smith v. Charles A. Portera, M.D., et al.
The plaintiff in this medical battery case argues that the trial court erred in granting the defendant doctor summary judgment and argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether she consented to an unnamed surgical procedure in addition to scheduled procedures named in a hospital consent form. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment upon findings that the case was actually a suit for medical malpractice, rather than medical battery, and that the plaintiff failed to present expert proof that such surgery was not in her best interest. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for trial on the merits upon our finding that the plaintiff's suit states a cause of action for medical battery; and that the consent form signed by the plaintiff authorized the additional surgery only if it was required by an unforseen condition and whether there was an unforseen condition requiring the additional surgery remained a genuine issue of material fact. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Keith Edward Garrett v. Priscilla Louise Garrett, et al., Estate of Luther Gaston Garrett
In this second appeal of this case, the Trial Court had ruled that appellee was entitled to a dwelling house and all improvements on land owned by the Deceased. Appellant appeals this and numerous issues. We affirm. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Estate of Joseph Owen Boote, Jr., Decedent, et al. v. Helen Boote Shivers, et al.
Appellants are residuary beneficiaries of their father's estate. They challenge the estate's payment of attorney fees and expenses incurred by executrix (the widow of testator and stepmother of Appellants) in unsuccessfully defending against her removal as executrix. Appellants contend that because litigation concerning the removal of their stepmother as executrix was solely for the personal benefit of the executrix and was necessitated by her neglect in administering the estate, the trial court erred as a matter of law in ordering the attorney fees and expenses incurred in defending against the removal petition be paid out of the estate. Appellee, the former executrix, contends that the trial court did not err in exercising its discretion in ordering legal fees to be paid out of estate. Finding that the trial court erred in ordering the expenses paid out of the estate, we reverse and remand. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Trull, et ux. v. Brad Ridgeway, et ux.
Plaintiffs-landowners filed a chancery court complaint seeking to establish ownership of a parcel of real estate which they claimed by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 28-2-110 (failure to pay real estate taxes for twenty years) and also allowed defendants to take a voluntary nonsuit of a counter-claim against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Dawn Eileen Shannon v. Thomas Rex Shannon
The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s petition to register and modify a foreign decree of child support for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kelli Whiteside v. Michael A. Hedge, et al.
The sole issue in this case is whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the attention of the jury. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Amanda Hardin, et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals from the order of the Juvenile Court of Benton County terminating his parental rights. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the grounds of failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan and persistence of conditions are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, that the Department of Children’s Services failed to exercise reasonable efforts toward reunification and/or relative placement, and that termination of his parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings, we affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Debra Ann Williams vs. George Jay Williams, IV
Debra Ann Williams ("Mother") and George Jay Williams, IV ("Father") were divorced in 1998. Mother was designated the custodial parent of the parties' two minor children. In 2003, Father filed a Petition for Modification and Contempt seeking, in part, a change in custody or visitation, and relief from the requirement that Father carry life insurance or, in the alternative, that Mother also be required to maintain life insurance. Mother filed a counter claim requesting, in part, increased child support and the right to claim the tax exemption for both children. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order holding, inter alia, "that there has been no change in circumstances which would justify the modification of the final judgment" as requested by Father and dismissing Father's petition for modification. The Trial Court, however, increased child support in accordance with the guidelines and held that for purposes of calculating child support under the guidelines, Father was not entitled to a reduction in his annual earnings for state income taxes he may pay. Father appeals raising issues regarding custody, visitation, life insurance, child support, and attorney's fees. We reverse as to the award to Mother of the tax exemption for one child, and affirm as to all other issues. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter Of Eugene Burnett Ellis v. Jerry Glenn Ellis and Sarah L. Kerley, Glen C. Shults, Guardian ad Litem
The Trial Court awarded fees to the Guardian Ad Litem who asked the Trial Court to award him fees and costs for collecting the initial award. The Trial Court refused. On appeal, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Justin L. Thurman v. Justin E. Harkins, et al.
This case involves a question of whether an insurance policy covers the injuries sustained by the plaintiff under the facts of this case. The original suit filed by plaintiff against Justin Harkins, Andrew Keon, and James Keon was settled out of court, leaving Great River Insurance Company, an unnamed defendant. After granting the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory and partial summary judgment on whether the plaintiff was a covered insured under the policy, the parties agreed to send the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator returned an award in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court confirmed the award but reduced the amount, accounting for the insurance policy’s limit. The trial court also awarded the plaintiff pre-judgment interest but stated that the total award to the plaintiff could not exceed the limit in the insurance policy. Great River Insurance Company appealed to this Court, and the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Alfonzo Silvestre Arze vs. Mary Anne Bracken Arze - Dissenting
In Tennessee, a determination of child support is statutory. Jones v. Jones, 870 S.W.2d 281 (Tenn. 1994).1 Accordingly, I would approach resolution of this appeal by resort to the applicable statutes. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Alfonzo Silvestre Arze vs. Mary Anne Bracken Arze
Alfonzo Silvestre Arze (“Father”) and MaryAnne Bracken Arze (“Mother”) were divorced in 2000. The divorce was based upon stipulated grounds of irreconcilable differences, and the parties submitted a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) to the Trial Court for approval. The terms of the MDA were agreed upon through mediation. At the time of the divorce, Father was employed as a physician with gross earnings of approximately $150,000. Mother was unemployed. Due to the significant disparity in income, Father agreed to pay Mother $2,000 in child support even though he was not obligated legally to do so since he was the primary residential parent for the parties’ four children. When the oldest child turned eighteen, Father reduced his child support payments by twenty-five percent, $500. After Mother challenged Father’s unilateral reduction in child support, the Trial Court entered an order which required Father to pay child support in an amount consistent with the Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”). We conclude that because Father was not legally obligated under the Guidelines to pay any child support, the payment of $2,000 was purely a contractual obligation which was not governed by the Guidelines. We also conclude that Father was within his contractual rights when he reduced the child support payments by $500 when the oldest child became emancipated. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
City Of Johnson City vs. Dorian Jones
Dorian Jones ("the defendant") was cited to the Municipal Court of Johnson City for a violation of the Animal Control Ordinance ("the Ordinance") of the City of Johnson City ("the City"). The City contends that the defendant failed to have his dog "under control." Following a finding of guilt and the imposition of a $50 fine and costs, the defendant appealed to the trial court. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered its judgment, in which it held that the defendant violated the Ordinance. The trial court dismissed the defendant's appeal and decreed that "the fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) . . . be reinstated and is hereby upheld and affirmed." The defendant appeals to us, contending that he was entitled to a jury trial. He also argues, in legal effect, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
John Jay Hooker v. Senator Lamar Alexander, et al.
Appellant was an independent candidate for election to the United States Senate in the November 5, 2002, election in which he was defeated by the present incumbent Lamar Alexander. He seeks to have the election declared void on the basis that Alexander used his own money and accepted campaign contribution in support of his candidacy. He alleges that such self financing arrangements and campaign contributions financing violate the qualifications clauses and the equal protection and due process clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions. Named as defendants were Lamar Alexander, Attorney General Paul Summers and the Lamar Alexander for Senate Committee. All defendants filed Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motions to dismiss, which motions were granted by the trial judge. We affirm the actions of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
J & M, Inc. v. Clarence D. Cupples and Crete Carrier Corp.
Plaintiff sued for damages incurred to correct condition of roadway caused by defendants' motor vehicle which destroyed a section of guardrail. Defendants appeal from Judgment awarding damages to plaintiff on grounds damages were not proved. On appeal, we affirm. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Billy K. Pomeroy v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Plaintiff, a switchman/brakeman for Illinois Central Railroad Company, filed a claim for damages arising from injuries allegedly caused by the railroad’s failure to maintain a track switch. The jury allocated 100% fault to the railroad and awarded Plaintiff $500,000 in damages. The trial court denied the railroad’s motion for a directed verdict, remittitur, or new trial. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Tassell, et al. v. U.S. Bank, Inc.
William and Shirley Tassell's ("Plaintiffs") purchase of a house in 1998 was financed through U.S. Bank, Inc. (the "Bank"). After Plaintiffs fell behind in their payments, the Bank filed a detainer warrant and began the foreclosure process. Plaintiffs claim they made a payment bringing their mortgage current and they made this payment one day before their house was to be sold at foreclosure. Plaintiffs claim the Bank, nevertheless, proceeded with the foreclosure sale thereby forcing them to file this lawsuit seeking to have the foreclosure set aside. The Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and refused to interfere with the foreclosure proceedings, noting that no valid appeal had been taken in the detainer action. Plaintiffs appeal. We dismiss this appeal because there is no final appealable judgment as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Julie Duff Petty vs. Randy Neal Petty
In this divorce case, Mother was declared to be the primary residential parent and Father's overnight co-parenting time was required to be exercised at his parents' home with them present. This restriction was prompted by presentation of evidence that Father haded computer internet sites exhibiting material of a sexual nature and had placed a personal advertisement on an internet site in an apparent effort to attract sexual partners. Father appeals. Absent proof that Father's actions presented any risk of harm to his children, we modify the judgment of the trial court and the parenting plan to delete the requirement that Father's overnight visitation be supervised by his parents at their home. We further modify the parenting plan to the extent that it does not require mutual decision-making. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Douglas McPherson v. Shea Ear Clinic, P.A.
The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having reviewed the complaint, we disagree and reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Citadel Investments, Inc., v. White Fox Inc., F/L/A The Jones Group, et al.
This is an action on a promissory note against two stockholders of a now insolvent closely-held corporation, who it is alleged, guaranteed payment of a note owed by the corporation. The alleged guarantee arises out of a stock purchase agreement. Liability hinges on the construction of the stock purchase agreement and whether parol evidence is admissible. The trial court found the agreement unambiguous and barred parol evidence. The defendants insist the agreement is ambiguous and that evidence of negotiations leading up to the execution of the agreement and the intent of the parties should have been admitted. We find the agreement is ambiguous and therefore parol evidence should have been considered. We also find that the defendants are entitled to a new trial on the merits because they have been deprived of the substantial right to introduce evidence of contract negotiations and the intent of the parties at the time the Agreement was executed. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Roger M. Ralph, et al. v. Robert Pipkin, et al.
Plaintiffs in this action, Roger Ralph and Kem Ralph, were sued in federal court for patent infringement and breach of contract. Their farmer’s liability insurance carrier, Grange Mutual, denied coverage and refused to defend. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Lauderdale County Chancery Court against Grange Mutual seeking a declaratory judgment, a judgment for breach of contract, and specific performance. They also filed a complaint for professional negligence and breach of contract against their insurance agent, Pipkin Insurance Agency/Mr. Robert Pipkin. The trial court granted Grange Mutual’s motion to dismiss and awarded the Pipkin Insurance Agency/Mr. Pipkin summary judgment. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Earl A. Crow, III v. Daniel R. LeDoux, et al.
Earl A. Crow, III, brought this action against his landlords, Daniel R. LeDoux and wife, Katherine Marie LeDoux (collectively "the defendants"), for injuries sustained by him in a fall caused by an allegedly defective heating grill in his apartment. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff's knowledge of the condition of the grill was at least co-extensive with that of the defendants, and that, as a consequence of this fact, no liability attached. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals. We vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals |
