Evelyn Marie Abercrombie v. Stephen Eugene Abercrombie
Stephen Eugene Abercrombie ("Father"), the custodian of the parties' two minor children, filed a complaint against his former wife, Evelyn Marie Abercrombie ("Mother"), seeking to modify the trial court's January 19, 2000, order awarding him custody. That order had directed that, if Father decided to enroll the children in private school, Mother would pay one-half of the children's tuition and other private school expenses. The same order, however, recited that Mother was not required to pay any general child support to Father. In his post-divorce complaint, Father asked the trial court to set a sum certain to be paid by Mother to Father as general child support under the Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines"). The trial court declined to modify its previous order and dismissed Father's complaint "on the ground[] that the guidelines currently do not show any . . . child support due." Father appeals, arguing that Mother should be required to pay a set amount of general child support in addition to her obligation to pay one-half of the children's private school tuition and related expenses. We reverse and remand with instructions. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kokomo Grain Company, Inc., v. Randy Collins, et al.
This is a dispute between the former tenant of a grain storage facility and the new owners of the premises who acquired the property at a foreclosure sale. The issues in dispute are whether the tenant was a bailor or a holdover tenant following foreclosure and the fair market storage or rental value of the premises. The trial judge ruled that the former tenant was a holdover tenant and that the previous rental rate was the fair market rental value for the holdover period. We affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Cher Lynn Hogue v. Joseph Hogue
Chancellor found father of minor child, who told child he is gay, in contempt for violating restraining order which prohibited father "from taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle." Father appeals, asserting the restraining order was overbroad and/or vague, not issued pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.03, and had expired prior to the alleged offense. While we find the restraining order was issued properly and not overly broad, we find the father's act of telling child he is gay did not violate the restraining order as written. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
James Wilkerson v. Ifeatu Ekelem
This case involves a dispute between a Williamson County property owner who decided to oversee the construction of his own house and the masonry contractor he hired to do the brick work on the project. The brick mason filed suit in the Williamson County Chancery Court claiming the property owner had breached the parties' oral agreement by failing to pay the balance due under the agreement. The property owner responded by claiming it was the brick mason who had breached the contract, accusing the brick mason of failing to finish the work in a professional manner, and charging the brick mason with slander. The trial court found in favor of the brick mason on his breach of contract claim, rejected the property owner's claims, and entered a $29,268.99 judgment in favor of the brick mason. The property owner appealed. We concur with the trial court's finding that the property owner breached the contract and, therefore, affirm the judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Phillips. v. United Services Automobile Association
Charles C. Phillips, Jr. sued United Services Automobile Association ("USAA") under his homeowners insurance policy. His suit was prompted by USAA's denial of coverage for water damage to the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff claims that the damage was due to water seepage as a direct result of the faulty design or negligent installation of the synthetic stucco system applied to the exterior of his house. The plaintiff amended his complaint, seeking class certification for all other USAA insureds who had sustained similar losses caused by the failure of synthetic stucco material and whose claims had been denied by USAA. Following a bench trial on the issues of coverage and class certification, the trial court determined that the plaintiff's policy provided coverage for the water damage that ensued as a result of water penetrating the stucco exterior. In addition, the trial court ordered that a class of plaintiffs be conditionally certified. USAA appeals the finding of coverage. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Danny R. Blalock v. Carolyn S. Blalock
A mediated agreement provided that Husband would sell his one-half interest in Pigeon Forge property to Wife for $500,000.00, but if the purchase price was not paid in one year, the property would be sold at auction and the net proceeds divided. The property was sold at auction for $244,429.00, net. Wife claims this amount plus $255,271.00 and the trial court agreed. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Fred M. Leonard v. Knox County, Tennessee, et al.
This is an inverse condemnation claim brought by Fred M. Leonard ("Plaintiff") against the City of Knoxville (the "City") and Knox County (the "County"). Plaintiff sought damages to his property resulting from flooding which occurred during and after construction to Gleason Road in Knoxville. The Trial Court granted the County's motion for summary judgment because the County had no involvement with the road construction and because the construction occurred solely within the City's limits on a city street. The Trial Court granted Plaintiff's motion seeking to prohibit the City from introducing evidence at trial pertaining to the deed between the City and Plaintiff's predecessor in title, which the City claimed estopped Plaintiff from pursuing this litigation. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $50,000 and concluded that Plaintiff's action was not barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the County and the jury's verdict that this action was filed timely. We conclude, however, that the Trial Court erred when it prohibited the City from introducing the deed and evidence concerning whether that deed operated to estop Plaintiff from pursuing this action. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby R. Posey, and wife, Sabrina Posey, and Dale Teague, v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.
In this class action, the Trial Court refused to permit Homebuilders and individual claimants to intervene. On appeal, we reverse as to Homebuilders, but affirm as to the individual claimants. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Blake Burton and Michael Burton, v. Hardwood Pallets, Inc., Robert McKenzie and Edwin Reeves
The Trial Court granted defendants Summary Judgment on claims of fraud in the inducement to contract. On appeal, we Affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of B.E.D.
The biological, custodial parent of a minor child appeals the juvenile court’s award of visitation rights to the child’s adult half-sister. We find no authority granting an adult sibling visitation rights to a minor child. We accordingly vacate the juvenile court’s order. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: UpperCumberland Development District, Conservator for Alvie Puckett, Gloria Evins v. Helen Puckett
Administrator Ad Litem for estate of deceased-grantor appeals trial court's finding that deceased grantor was competent at the time he executed a deed of real property to his daughter, and that he was not acting under undue influence at the time of execution. We affirm. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Joyce Hardaway, et al., v. Board of Education of the Hamilton County Schools
The City of Chattanooga abolished its school system which was then integrated into the Hamilton County system. Two and one-half years later the Plaintiffs, who were administrators in the City system, filed this action claiming that under Tennessee law their compensation was unlawfully reduced by the Board of Education of Hamilton County. The County insisted that the Commissioner of Education of Tennessee approved the Personnel Plan proposed by the Superintendent of Education of Hamilton, as required by law, and that the Plaintiffs were paid in accordance with the Plan. Moreover, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and its teachers expired concurrently with the abolition of the school system, and the Plaintiffs’ salary agreement also expired. Further, the salary of Ms. Hardaway, paid by the City, was in excess of the negotiated amount, and the duties of Ms. Settles were substantially less burdensome in her new position. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: C.LaC. and D.L.
Mother appeals the decision of the trial court which terminated her parental rights on two statutory grounds, abandonment and failure to comply with the permanency plan, and upon the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children. Mother claims the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the clear and convincing evidentiary standard necessary to prove the statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: C.LaC. and D.L. - Concurring
WILLIAM B. CAIN, J., concurring. I concur in the judgment that clear and convincing evidence establishes abundant grounds for the termination of the parental rights of the mother in this case and further establishes that it is in the best interests of the children to terminate her parental rights |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Peggy Bailey, et al. v. Dr. John J. Tasker
Peggy Bailey and her husband, Gary Bailey, sued Dr. John J. Tasker for wrongful conduct in connection with two separate surgeries, one on April 10, 1997, and another on June 24, 1999. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the material filed by the parties fails to reflect a genuine issue of material fact and that the record before it demonstrates conclusively (1) that the defendant did not violate the applicable standard of care, and (2) that the plaintiffs' claims were filed outside the period of the applicable statutes of limitations and of repose. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Paul G. Summers, in his capacity as Attorney General and Reporter for The State of Tennessee v. Estate of James W. Ford., M.D.
This is an appeal from the order of the probate court on a claim filed against an estate by the Tennessee Attorney General pursuant to the authority granted by the Nonprofit Corporation Act. The probate court denied the claim in part and granted the claim in part by various rulings concerning the existence of a nonprofit public benefit corporation for operation of child daycare centers, the ownership of assets thereof, and continued operation of the centers. The estate appeals and the Attorney General appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Judith Lynn Silvey v. Darrell C. Silvey
In this divorce case the Appellant, Darrell C. Silvey, contends that the Trial Court erred in its allocation of property between himself and the Appellee, Judith Lynn Silvey. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court, affirm as modified and remand. Costs of this appeal are adjudged equally against Mr. and Ms. Silvey. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
James Wohlfahrt, et al., v. Arlene Scavuzzo
Plaintiffs’ insurer appeals award of benefits to Plaintiffs under Plaintiffs’ uninsured/underinsured motorist policy. We affirm. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Ernest Tarpley, et al, v. Bert Hornyak, et al.
Landowners sued to abate a nuisance claiming that a concrete causeway, built over a creek by an adjoining landowner, caused water to flood their property. After hearing from one witness, the trial judge discouraged further proof and instead chose to visit the plaintiffs' land at the next flooding. He subsequently found the causeway to be a nuisance and ordered it removed. We reverse because trial court based its decision solely on the basis of the judge's personal observations. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Estate of Ollie McCord; Joann Heinrich v. Helen Brooks
This is a will contest. The will disinherited two of the decedent's five living children and the one child who had predeceased her. One of the disinherited children contested the will, asserting that the decedent did not have the mental capacity to execute a valid will. Four years prior to the will's execution, the decedent had been diagnosed with dementia, a progressive mental disorder. Based on witness testimony, the trial court found that, on the date the will was executed, the decedent had the mental capacity to execute the will. The will was admitted into probate. The will contestant appeals. In deference to the trial court's determinations of credibility, and in light of the weight of the evidence demonstrating capacity, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ralph Sasser v. Quebecor Printing,(USA) Corp., D/B/A Quebecor Printing Clarkesville
This is a case involving an alleged hostile work environment based on disability. The employee worked in the maintenance department of a large printing facility. He had an on-the-job accident which resulted in the amputation of his leg. To accommodate his disability, the employer created a clerical position for him. The employee's work space was a "community desk" located in the maintenance area, an area to which numerous employees had regular access. The employee reported to the employer several incidents of alleged harassment, such as grease under the desk, lunch residue being left on the desk, dirty footprints in the desk's chair, and his computer monitor defaced with a profane statement. The employer moved the employee to a private office, and there were no further incidents. The employee filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, a hostile work environment based on disability, his amputated leg. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. We affirm, finding that the incidents do not amount to harassment, and that there is no evidence that the conduct was either directed at the employee or linked to his disability. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: C.M.M. and S.D.M
This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights with regard to two of her six children. Less than four months after the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services was granted temporary custody of the children, their foster parents filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Houston County seeking permanent custody and the termination of the parental rights of the biological parents. The children’s mother contested the petition, but the father did not. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. The mother has appealed. We have determined that the order terminating the mother’s parental rights must be vacated because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with her children. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
Wendell Freels and wife, Gweneth Freels v. Gus W. Chilton
Plaintiffs obtained two judgments in General Sessions Court. On appeal to Circuit Court the second Plaintiffs were awarded a monetary Judgment against defendant in Sessions Court, and defendant appealed to Circuit Court, where the Court declared the Judgment void for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the case judgment was vacated for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal we affirm. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Environmental Council, Inc., et at., v. Bright Par 3 Associates, L.P., et al.
A conservation easement affecting property adjoining South Chickamauga Creek in Chattanooga was created in 1996. Property zoned for business and owned and developed by some of the Defendants is adjacent to the easement. The Plaintiffs allege that the development and construction activities of the Defendants adversely and unlawfully affect the easement. The complaint was dismissed upon a ruling that the Plaintiffs had no standing to enforce the easement, notwithstanding the language of the Conservation Easement Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-9-301, et. seq., that it may be enforced by the “holder and/or beneficiaries” of the easement. The controversy centers on the meaning of the word “beneficiaries.” We hold that any resident of Tennessee is a beneficiary of the easement, and thus has standing to enforce it. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Claire Willcutts v. John Francis Willcutts
This is an appeal of a final decree of divorce primarily as it concerns custody of the parties’ children. The trial court awarded custody to mother and provided for a supervised visitation to father. Father appeals and, in addition to the custody issue, also presents issues pertaining to the trial court’s out-of-court interview with the children and the mental examination of the parties. We affirm. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals |
