Insured, Plaintiff/Appellant, filed suit under a policy of commercial insurance alleging a loss by theft that was covered by the policy. Defendant/Appellee filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss based upon expiration of the two year period in which suit could be brought under the terms of the policy. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and we affirm the action of the chancellor.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Dudley Stovall v. William Thomas Bagsby M2002-01901-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This twice-tried boundary line litigation, spanning five years, involves a small square-footage of a long-existing private roadway, five surveyors-engineers, and a host of lay witnesses. The Chancellor adopted the expert opinion of one of the surveyors with respect to the precise location of a crucial corner of the roadway. We affirm except as modified with respect to discretionary costs, which requires a remand for determination.
This case involves the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-1425, which governs occupancy taxes on hotels and motels. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the lower court found the statute constitutional. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the finding of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Antuan J. Foxx v. James Neely, et al M2003-01634-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This is an appeal by a former employee whose unemployment compensation benefits were denied on the basis of work-related misconduct, specifically for allegedly refusing to perform certain work as requested by a supervisor. The claim for benefits was denied by the Employment Security Division of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The employee filed a petition with the Chancery Court for judicial review. The Chancery Court affirmed. The employee asserts that the denial of his claim is not supported by substantial and material evidence. We find there is substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits and affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Melinda Anderson vs. Brett Wilder E2003-00460-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
This case involves a dispute between members of a limited liability company ("LLC") entitled FuturePoint Administrative Services, LLC. The Plaintiffs were expelled from the LLC by a vote of the Defendants, who together owned 53% of FuturePoint. The Plaintiffs received a buyout price of $150.00 per ownership unit in FuturePoint after they were expelled, pursuant to the operating agreement of the LLC. Shortly after the expulsion, the Defendants sold 499 ownership units, amounting to a 49.9% interest in the LLC, to a third party at a price of $250.00 per ownership unit. Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging, among other things, that the Defendants' actions violated their fiduciary duty and duty of good faith to Plaintiffs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that their actions were authorized by the operating agreement and that they acted in good faith in expelling the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court granted summary judgment in Defendants' favor. We vacate the order of summary judgment and remand.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Cynthia Cooper vs. James Cooper W2002-00595-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan
Petitioner sought an order from the trial court to require his former wife to turn over to him property awarded in the divorce action. Following a hearing, the trial court ruled that the Petitioner had not sustained his burden of proof and that Petitioner's former wife did not have in her possession any personal property granted to Petitioner in the divorce decree. The record is before this Court on Petitioner's appeal and absent a transcript or statement of the evidence. We affirm.
Weakley
Court of Appeals
Carl Evans vs. Clarence Douglas E2002-02191-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples
This is a suit by Carl Evans and his wife Sharon Evans against Clarence Douglas, Heritage Realty, Care Free Home Center, Inc., and Rick McManus. The suit sought damages because a lot they supposed they were buying from Mr. Douglas was not the lot they owned, but one adjacent thereto. Heritage Realty was sued as the employer of Mr. Douglas and Care Free Home Center, Inc., as the seller of a modular home which was placed on the wrong lot, and putting the Evanses in touch with Mr. Douglas. Rick McManus was the owner of the lot upon which the modular home was placed, although no relief was sought against him. Mr. McManus, however, did file a counter-complaint seeking rents from the Evanses for their use of his lot. The Trial Court awarded a judgment to the Evanses against Mr. Douglas only, under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and a judgment in favor of Mr. McManus against the Evanses for rental value of the property, as well as discretionary costs. We affirm as modified.
In Re: J.J.C., D.M.C., S.J.B. vs. John Calabretta W2002-01400-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
This is a termination of parental rights case. While the father was incarcerated for driving offenses, the mother was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result, the parties' two young children were placed in state custody. When the father was released from prison, he contacted the state to enter into a plan of permanency. Subsequently, the state filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both the mother and the father, alleging that they had failed to comply with the permanency plan, and that they abandoned the children by willfully failing to pay child support to the state. Almost a year later, the trial court conducted a trial in the matter. After the trial, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of both the mother and the father. The father's parental rights were terminated based, in part, upon abandonment. Only the father has appealed from the trial court's decision. We reverse, finding that the evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the father's failure to make support payments was willful.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
State of Tennessee, ex.rel. Vikki Davis vs. John Davis W2001-02565-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This case involves a judge's sua sponte decision not to enforce a Tennessee statute. The parties divorced in 1997, and the mother was awarded custody of the parties' minor daughter. The father was required to pay child support. The father failed to pay, and the State filed a petition for contempt on the mother's behalf. The father was found in contempt for his failure to pay. Sua sponte, the trial judge refused to enforce the Tennessee statute requiring the payment of a child support processing fee, citing a perceived violation of an unspecified federal law. The State appeals. We reverse, finding that the trial judge erred in refusing to apply the statute.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
W2002-03139-COA-R3-CV W2002-03139-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
Shelby
Court of Appeals
W2003-00017-COA-R3-CV W2003-00017-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
Lauderdale
Court of Appeals
W2002-02228-COA-R3-CV W2002-02228-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
CH-00-0939-2 CH-00-0939-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
CH-02-1470-3 CH-02-1470-3
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Thad Guerra v. Leonard Peeks M2002-02580-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: John D. Wootten, Jr.
The permit for a sewage disposal system required that the driveway be constructed along the lot line and be no wider than ten feet. The plaintiffs, during the course of constructing a residence on their lot, did not locate the driveway along the lot line as required, and made it twenty-five feet wide. The system was disapproved by the State unless the plaintiffs obtained a duplicate area, i.e., procured by easement or purchase square footage equivalent to the footage utilized by the mis-located, widened driveway. The complaint was filed more than three years after the disapproval by the State, the date on when the cause of action accrued, and the action was dismissed. We affirm.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Richard Feldman v. Board of Medical Examiners M2002-02784-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This is an appeal from a Chancery Court's review of an administrative hearing concerning violations of the Tennessee General Rules and Regulations Governing the Practice of Medicine for advertising. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners.
