COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

In Re: Estate of Lois Chandler
E2000-03055-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
Buster Chandler, Jr. ("Chandler") was appointed administrator of the estate of his mother, Lois Chandler, who died intestate in 1998. Chandler is incarcerated in Kentucky for a murder he committed in 1990. Chandler requested the Chancery Court arrange for his transportation from prison in Kentucky to Knoxville, Tennessee, so he could be present for the hearing regarding the closing of his mother's estate and so he could meet with the Knox County Attorney General regarding his murder conviction in Kentucky. Chandler argued that the Attorney General wanted to try him for the murder in Knoxville and would assist in obtaining a pardon from the governor of Kentucky. The Chancery Court denied his request, closed his mother's estate, and assessed court costs against Chandler as administrator. Chandler appeals. We affirm the Chancery Court.

Patrick Reinshagen vs. PHP Companies, Inc.
E2001-00025-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
In this action for breach of employment contract and defamation, the Trial Court granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

Wanda Steinbrunner vs. Tuner Funeral Home, Inc., et al
E2001-00014-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
Six years after her husband died, Wanda J. Steinbrunner sued the Chattanooga funeral home that handled his burial and the medical examiner that performed his autopsy. She made various claims based upon theories of negligence, gross negligence, and outrageous conduct. The trial court granted the funeral home and the medical examiner summary judgment. Steinbrunner appeals, challenging the grant of summary judgment. We affirm.

Sherry Lee Lightfoot v. Tommy Edwin Lightfoot
E2001-106-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams

Tarrance Robinson vs. Neil Clement, et al
M2001-00365-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a state prisoner housed at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution who was disciplined for possessing a deadly weapon. After exhausting his internal appeals, the prisoner filed a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings had violated his due process rights. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition. On this pro se appeal, the prisoner asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition. We have determined that the prisoner's petition does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

G. Kline Preston vs. Garrett Realty Service, Inc.
M2000-02350-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Davidson County -This matter comes to us on appeal from summary judgment granted due to Tennessee's lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff attempted to rent a condominium in Florida and sued Defendant in Tennessee for breach of contract after Defendant discovered a mistake in the quoted price and refused to rent the condo to Plaintiff for the quoted price. The circuit court determined that Tennessee had no personal jurisdiction over Defendant and dismissed the case. We affirm.

Suzanne Jones vs. Metro Elevator Co.
W2000-02002-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Mark Agee
This appeal involves claims for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in an elevator. The plaintiff brought suit against numerous parties including the company managing the building and the company under contract to service the elevators in the building. The circuit court granted a motion for summary judgment as to the company managing the building. The case proceeded to trial, however, against the company under contract to service the elevators. After the circuit court refused to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the elevator service provider. The plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment and the refusal to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and for the following reasons, we affirm.

Ella McCain, Conservator
W2000-02218-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a personal injury case arising from a vehicle/pedestrian accident. A pedestrian wandered from the nursing home at which he resided and began walking alongside a roadway. The defendant driver saw the pedestrian as he was driving on the roadway. As the driver approached, the pedestrian suddenly stepped into the roadway and was struck by the defendant's truck. The pedestrian suffered significant injuries. The pedestrian's daughter, as his conservator, filed suit against the defendant driver. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, the defendant driver moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant driver was negligent. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant driver and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence from which a reasonable jury might conclude that the defendant driver was negligent.

Meloney Carr vs. Grady Carr
W2000-02420-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a child custody case. The parties were separated in February 2000 and the father was awarded temporary custody of the parties' two minor children. After the trial, the mother was granted the divorce, but custody of the two children remained with the father. The father was required to pay rehabilitative alimony on the condition that the mother enroll in EMT classes. The mother appeals, asserting that the trial erred in denying a continuance when several of the mother's witnesses were unavailable to testify at the hearing, in awarding custody to the father, in making the rehabilitative alimony conditional on the mother enrolling in EMT classes and in the division of marital property. We reverse the award of custody to the father, modify the order on rehabilitative alimony, modify the division of marital property, and remand to the trial court to determine issues relating to child support.

James Moody vs. William Lea
W2000-02916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute over an oral contract to lease farming equipment. The agreement provided that the defendant could use the plaintiff's farming equipment for an amount to be determined by a formula. The defendant began farming his land, intending to plant cotton, when the Mississippi River rose and the backwater covered his property. Because the backwater remained on the land for such a long period of time, the defendant could no longer grow cotton; he had to grow soybeans instead. Subsequently, the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff the amount the plaintiff claimed under the contract, and the plaintiff sued. The trial court held that the contract was enforceable and that the defendant's performance was not excused by the doctrine of frustration of commercial purpose. The defendant appeals the ruling of the trial court. For the reasons below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court to modify the judgment.

Carrie Marsh vs. Christopher Sensabaugh
W2001-00016-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Roland Reid
This is a child custody case involving the child's natural father and a third-party, the maternal aunt. The trial court held in favor of the maternal aunt, upon a determination the father was an unfit parent. The court based its decision on the father's previous charge of contempt for failure to pay child support, previous visitation practices, and lack of knowledge regarding the child's educational status, such as her teachers, grades and attendance at parent-teacher conferences. Father appeals the trial court's decision. For the reasons below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Comm. DOT vs. Frances Patrick & Frank Duncan
W2001-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal involves the owner of an undivided five-sixths interest in property acquiring the remaining one-sixth interest from her co-tenants under the doctrine of title by prescription. The circuit court made finding of facts indicating that the prescriptive holder of the property held the property exclusively and uninterrupted for more than a twenty year period. Further, the circuit court found that no co-tenants were under a disability to assert their rights during the twenty year period and that no permission was given to the prescriptive holder to possess the property. Based on these findings of fact, the circuit court ruled that under the doctrine of title by prescription, the prescriptive holder had acquired full title in the property. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Howard Zoldessy vs. Ingrid Davis, et al
E2000-02526-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
Upon the application of Howard Zoldessy, a temporary injunction was issued by the trial court against the defendants, Ingrid Davis and Arthur Davis. The Davises are the parents of Zoldessy's deceased wife and the grandparents of Zoldessy's daughter, Rachel. The injunction in question prohibits the defendants "from coming about [Howard Zoldessy] and his daughter, Rachel Zoldessy, or contacting him in any manner whatsoever." Following a bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants had committed willful criminal contempt by "coming about [Zoldessy's] residence on October 4, 1999." Each defendant was sentenced to 48 hours imprisonment for their contempt. Mr. Davis was also found in contempt for sending letters to Zoldessy and was sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment of 48 hours. The defendants appeal the trial court's findings of contempt, as well as the sentences imposed. We affirm the finding of contempt as to the letters sent to Zoldessy; however, we reverse the finding of contempt for the defendants' purported "coming about" Zoldessy and his daughter.

Jeanne Alice Gabel vs. Todd Edward Gabel
E2000-02585-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendant in this divorce case even though the defendant had filed an answer within the time frame set forth in Rule 12.01. We conclude that entry of the default judgment was not appropriate when the defendant timely filed an answer, and, therefore, vacate the judgment of the trial court.

In re: Estate of J. Crawford Murphy vs. Robert A. Murphy, et al.
E2001-01112-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey D. Rader
In this case the Probate Court held that the personal representative of the Estate of Mae Thompson Murphy did not have authority to dissent from the will of her husband, J. Crawford Murphy, and thereby take an elective share of his estate. We find that T.C.A. 31-4-105 gives the personal representative this right and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Philip Owens vs Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc.
E2000-02667-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this putative class action suit, the plaintiff, Philip Owens, alleges that the defendant, Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc. ("Bristol Speedway"), engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of souvenirs sold at its racetrack. The trial court denied certification of the alleged class and granted Bristol Speedway's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's individual claims. We affirm.

Barbara Gaskins vs. Roger Gaskins
E2000-02915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
This appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene County questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Ms. Gaskins alimony for a seven year period. Mr. Gaskins appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Greene County. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court as modified and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, Roger Arthur Gaskins, and his surety.

Shepard Barbash vs. Monty Bruell & Anthony Smith
E2005-00387-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples

Elizabeth Hickman vs. Celia Jordan
W2000-03070-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
This dispute stems from an accident in a restaurant parking lot in which a pedestrian, the plaintiff, was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant, who was backing-up through the parking lot. The jury in this case found the defendant driver not at fault. We affirm.

Ricky Brown Sr. vs. C.O.I. Majors
W2001-00536-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This appeal arises from the dismissal of the Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of disciplinary action and the confiscation of property. The Circuit Court of Hardeman County dismissed the Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari for the Appellant's failure to comply with section 41-21-801, et seq. of the Tennessee Code, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Emmett Dunlap vs. Nancy Davis
W2001-00894-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Plaintiff-inmate, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the general sessions court dismissing his case. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition and he appeals. We affirm.

William Martin vs. Douglas Sizemore, et al
M1997-00203-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a disciplinary proceeding against a licensed architect. Following a lengthy hearing, the Tennessee Board of Examiners for Architects and Engineers concluded that the architect had engaged in misconduct in the practice of architecture in connection with four projects and suspended his certificate of registration for three years. The architect appealed the Board's decision to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The trial court reversed the Board's decision after determining that the decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. On this appeal, the Board asserts that its suspension of the architect's certificate of registration has adequate evidentiary support. The architect renews his argument that the Board's proceedings violated his procedural due process rights because the attorney who prosecuted the State's case against him also served as the Board's lawyer in other matters. Except for a portion of the charges involving one project, we concur with the trial court's conclusion that the Board's decision lacked evidentiary support because the State failed to present expert testimony regarding the applicable standard of care. We have also determined that the architect has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the Board was actually biased against him because the lawyer who prosecuted the State's case also provided other, unrelated legal services to the Board. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified herein and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings.

Brenda King vs. Danny King, D.V.M.
M1999-02556-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. The parties divorced after 31 years of marriage. The trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The wife was awarded alimony in futuro in the amount of $6000 per month for two years. After two years, the wife would receive $4500 per month and, upon remarriage, the amount of alimony in futuro would decrease to $2000 per month. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay $10,000 of the wife's attorney's fees. Both parties appeal; the wife appeals the division of marital property and the husband appeals the award of alimony. We affirm in part, modify in part, and reverse in part, affirming the award of alimony in futuro, modifying the amount of alimony and eliminating the award of alimony in futuro after the wife's remarriage.

Kimberly Caudill vs. William Howard Foley
M2000-01512-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal arises from an action seeking attorney's fees from a previous child custody action. After divorce, Mother was awarded custody of Child. Upon remarrying, Mother sought to move to Florida with Child. Father protested and sought primary custody of Child. Judge, finding the child relocation statutes unconstitutional, awarded Father custody. Mother hired Lawyer for an appeal of this ruling. While this appeal was pending, Father brought suit for child support. Lawyer sought recusal of Judge due to previous contact between them when Judge was an attorney. Judge refused to recuse himself and disqualified Lawyer. This action was appealed. While this appeal was pending, the child custody appeal was decided by this court and Child was returned to Mother's custody. Mother brought action in the trial court seeking fees from this first trial and appeal which Judge denied. Mother appealed this denial, with the result that the failure of Judge to recuse, the disqualification of Lawyer and the attorney's fees appeals were consolidated before this court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Ronald Davis vs. The Tennessean, et al
M1999-01602-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
The plaintiff filed a libel action against a newspaper, The Tennessean, its publisher and its editor, alleging his reputation had been harmed by a sentence in an article which stated that he had shot a man, when, in fact, his co-defendant had killed the victim. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff to be "libel proof" in this matter because he had been convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder and incarcerated for the remainder of his life for the crime, "render[ing] any reputation he may have had virtually valueless." We affirm.