Tonya Patrice Ray v. William Martin Ray v. Stephen Eric Staggs
Natural father of minor twin children appeals trial court's final order of custody and visitation on multiple grounds, alleging primarily that (1) the trial court erred in awarding visitation to stepfather; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to change children's surname to that of their natural father; and (3) the trial court improperly based its opinion on a sealed psychological report. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nick Alfredo Santiago, et. al, v. Joy Cooper, et al.
Plaintiff, a minor student, brought suit for damages arising from an eye injury he sustained during recess at school. The Defendants, which are both governmental entities, moved for summary judgment, arguing that they are immune from suit and that Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish the elements of his negligence claim. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the Defendants summary judgment on both grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the lower court. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Dana Bryan Ellis v. Susan Lynn Ellis (Johnson)
Several years after Dana Bryan Ellis ("Father") and Susan Lynn Ellis (Johnson) ("Mother") were divorced, Mother filed a petition seeking to increase Father's child support payments. Father filed a counterclaim seeking a downward deviation in his child support payments claiming he was exercising visitation in excess of that contemplated by the Child Support Guidelines. After a trial, the Trial Court found Father's annual gross wages were $80,000 and set current child support payments based on that amount. The Trial Court also awarded retroactive child support to the date the petition for modification was filed and concluded the retroactive support also should be based on Father's current salary of $80,000. The Trial Court denied Father's request for a downward deviation after concluding it was in the best interests of the children not to reduce Father's child support payment. Father appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Beverly Miller, et al., v. United Automax
Appellants sued Appellee on theories of common law misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, arising from the sale of a used vehicle. A jury returned a verdict for Appellants on both theories and Appellants elected to take their remedy under the common law claim, which included an award of punitive damages. The trial court denied Appellants’ prayer for attorney fees, which were not available under the common law remedy but only under the Consumer Protection Act claim. Having been denied attorney fees, Appellants requested that they be allowed to amend their election of remedies. This request was denied. Appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Troy Sterling Fuller v. Janie Marie Nicholson
This is primarily a child custody dispute. The father and mother lived together with their infant son and the mother's two older sons in the mother's house trailer before moving into a house purchased by the mother with a down payment provided by the father. When their son was approximately eight months old, the parties separated and thereafter began a contentious legal battle over his custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the mother primary custody, granted the father broad visitation rights, and denied the father's request for the return of his down payment and closing costs, finding there was no equity in the house. The father appeals the trial court's award of primary custody to the mother and its denial of his request for the return of his down payment and closing costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of T.A.M.
This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of an incarcerated biological father of a five-year-old child. The child’s mother and her new husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Lincoln County seeking to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and to approve the new husband’s adoption of the child. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order on August 29, 2003 granting the petition to terminate the biological father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment. The biological father appealed. We concur with the trial court’s conclusion that the father abandoned his child by willfully failing to support and visit the child and that terminating the biological father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of T.A.M. - Concurring
I disagree with the standard of review employed by the court in this case for the reasons discussed at more length in In Re Z.J.S., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, 2003 WL 21266854, at *18-22 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 3, 2003) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed); Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527, 533-37 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001). I agree, however, that a review of the evidence in the case discloses that the truth of the factual conclusions made by the trial are “highly probable” and thus the clear and convincing evidence standard is met. Therefore, I concur with the court’s decision to affirm the order terminating R.G.L.’s parental rights. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Edwin Earl Sanborn v. Carlotta Joan Sanborn
After twenty-five years of marriage, Father filed for divorce asserting irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct due to Mother's alleged prescription drug abuse. Father requested that he be the primary residential parent of the parties' two minor children. Mother filed an answer and counterclaim also requesting to be the primary residential parent. The trial court granted Father the divorce but designated Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in designating Mother as the primary residential parent and in setting the residential schedule. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Allie Jane Collins, and husband, Cle Collins, v. Dana Edwards, M.D. and Robert Hunt, M.D.
The trial judge dismissed this medical malpractice action on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. On appeal, we vacate and remand. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: K.G., et al.
Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating parental rights and decree of guardianship. We affirm and vacate, in part. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Donna S. Young v. Fred C. Hartley, M.D., et al
Donna S. Young ("Plaintiff") sued Fred C. Hartley, M.D. ("Defendant") claiming that during a tubal ligation, defendant negligently performed additional surgeries upon plaintiff's vaginal area without her consent and that those extra surgeries caused plaintiff to suffer physical and emotional damage. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in defendant's favor. Plaintiff appeals raising, among other things, several questions regarding the admission of evidence at trial. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Arthur McRae et al., v. Knox County, et al.
This is a zoning dispute involving billboards. Its posture is not traditional because the Board of Zoning Appeals and the owner of the billboards are in agreement. The Board granted the owner two variance from a zoning ordinance; this action was challenged by the Appellees who claimed that the erection of the billboards adversely affected the value, use, and enjoyment of their property, which vested them with a special interest and entitlement to file a petition for certiorari for a judicial review of the Board's action. The Writ was granted, and a hearing resulted in a finding that the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals was unlawful and capricious. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kellie Cox v. Randy Cox
After twenty-one years of marriage and raising two children, now adults, Wife filed for divorce. The trial court granted the divorce and ordered Husband to pay rehabilitative alimony for three years, awarded Wife sole possession of the marital residence and ordered Husband to pay the mortgage as alimony in futuro until Wife remarries, lives with a person of the opposite sex or dies. Husband was also required to pay Wife's attorney fees. Husband appealed. We modify the trial court's order requiring Husband to pay alimony in futuro and reconstitute it as rehabilitative alimony with a three year limit. In all other aspects, we affirm the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Ruskin A. Vest, Jr., et al. v. Duncan-Williams, Inc.
Plaintiffs sued defendant alleging that defendant was negligent, breached its fiduciary duty, and committed fraud and state securities act violations in brokering the sale of municipal bonds to plaintiffs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue based upon an arbitration agreement plaintiffs entered into with a third party. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant appealed. After reviewing the record, we hold that defendant has failed to prove that it is an intended third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Waynell C. Burnette v. Teddy Sundeen, et al.
In this litigation arising out of an automobile accident, Waynell C. Burnette ("the plaintiff") filed a motion asking the trial court to sanction Teddy Sundeen and Elhame Dauti ("the defendants") for a discovery abuse. Acting under the authority of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37.02, the court entered a judgment by default against both defendants and, in the same order, awarded the plaintiff damages of $100,000. The defendants appeal, contending that they were not afforded proper notice of the plaintiff's intention to raise the issue of damages at the hearing on the motion for sanctions. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as awards the plaintiff unliquidated damages of $100,000. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Hamilton v. T & W of Knoxville, Inc., D/B/A Lexus of Knoxville
By special verdict the jury found that the defendant automobile dealer willfully and knowingly |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa Frazier Norwood Hoffmeister, now Brink v. John Kenneth Hoffmeister
The custody of a four-year old boy is the pivotal issue in this case. The Chancellor found that the father was the better qualified to be the primary residential custodian of his son following a recitation of the bizarre conduct of the mother. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Stacey G. Hill v. Donna Elizabeth Frazier Hill
Donna Elizabeth Frazier Hill ("Mother") filed a complaint against Stacey G. Hill ("Father") seeking to modify the parties' Permanent Parenting Plan ("the parenting plan"). Father responded and filed a counterclaim. Mother proposed a revised plan that would reduce Father's visitation time and increase his child support obligation. The trial court denied Mother's revised plan with respect to the oldest child, but granted her proposed changes with respect to the other children. The trial court designated Father as the primary residential parent of the oldest child and increased his child support obligation for the younger children; however, the trial court refused to order Mother to pay child support for the oldest child on the ground that Father "has not required the [oldest] child to comply with the original Parenting Plan based on the child's expressed desires." Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in deviating from the Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines") based upon the ground espoused by the court. We vacate so much of the trial court's order as absolves Mother of any obligation to support the oldest child in the custody of Father. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kelvin Shoughrue, et al., v. St. Mary's Medical Inc., et al.
In this appeal in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the Appellants, J.D. Lee and the law firm of Lee, Lee & Lee, contend that the Knox County Circuit Court erred in its award of attorneys' fees. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Nellie Elizabeth Crowell
This is a Will construction case. The decedent's Will provided that her estate would be distributed to her husband. However, the husband predeceased the decedent leaving no issue. The only remaining provision in the Will provided that her estate would be distributed to certain orphan's homes if she and her husband died at the same time. The trial court found it unreasonable to construe the Will to require simultaneous death and distributed the estate to the orphan's homes. We hold that the Will contains a failed condition resulting in intestate succession. We reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. Pamela Atkison, et al.
This case involves the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father over Child. Only Mother appeals the Juvenile Court’s decision. Specifically, the Juvenile Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the basis of abandonment, persistent conditions, and noncompliance with the permanency plan. In addition, Mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to transfer the case and have the issue presented to a jury. Finally, Mother asserts the trial court judge erred when he did not recuse himself. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Wayne Jerrolds v. Robert D. Kelley and wife, Mitsy Kelley v. Eddie K. Whitlow, Trustee for the Hardin County Bank
This cases involves an action for declaratory judgment regarding an easement for the benefit of a landlocked parcel. The lower court found that an easement does exist and that the owners of the servient parcel are not entitled to monetary damages. On appeal, the owners of the servient parcel maintain that the lower court demonstrated bias in its comments from the bench and, further, that it erred in failing to award damages. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Sandra Lilly, in the Matter of K.M.
This case arises from the termination of parental rights of Mother and Father. Only Mother has appealed the decision of the trial court, terminating her parental rights on the grounds that (1) she abandoned Child by failing to visit, (2) she abandoned Child by failing to provide more than token support, and (3) the conditions which led to Child’s removal still persist. Mother appeals arguing that the State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services failed to carry its burden of proof for these grounds. In addition, Mother argues that the Department of Children’s Services failed to prove that such termination of parental rights is in the best interest of Child. Finally, Mother argues the trial court committed prejudicial error when it allowed the rebuttal testimony of a witness in violation of the sequestration rule. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Julie Ann Taylor and Brian K. Taylor, in the matter of S.A.T. and B.K.T.
This case involves the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their children, though only Mother appeals the decision of the Juvenile Court. After conducting a hearing, the lower court found that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the bases of persistent conditions, noncompliance with the permanency plan, and abandonment. On appeal, Mother challenges each of the three grounds given for termination. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmie Lipford, et al., v. First Family Financial Services, Inc., et al.
The trial court excluded parol evidence and awarded Defendant summary judgment. We reverse. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals |
