COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Daniel Lowe vs. Faytella Lowe
E2000-01456-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
In this divorce case, the trial court dissolved a childless marriage of 5 1/2 years. Daniel Ed Lowe ("Husband") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in declaring the parties' antenuptial agreement void and (2) in granting Faytella D. Lowe ("Wife") half of the increase in value of Husband's retirement benefits accrued during the marriage. We affirm.

Bradley Court of Appeals

2000-02174-COA-R3-CV
2000-02174-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.

Washington Court of Appeals

William H. Davis vs. Daira F. Davis
E2000-02678-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
This appeal from the Cocke County Circuit Court questions whether the trial court erred in dividing the marital estate. Mr. Davis appeals the trial court's valuation of his closely held corporation, the payment of some debt by Mr. Davis, and the award of permanent periodic alimony to Ms. Davis. We affirm the decision of the trial court as modified and remand for such further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, William H. Davis and his surety.

Cocke Court of Appeals

Brenda Tipton vs. Richard Jones, et al
E2000-01860-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
Brenda L. Tipton ("Plaintiff") filed this lawsuit seeking damages for personal injury. Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), Plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier, filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude portions of the testimony of Plaintiff's treating physician because it was not based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Allstate also claimed that the jury verdict was excessive and it was entitled to a remittitur or a new trial. We affirm the Trial Court's evidentiary rulings and its refusal to grant a remittitur or new trial.

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Joe/Lovie Ross vs. Shelby Co. Healthcare
W2000-01553-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This appeal arises from the contraction of the HIV virus by the appellant after he received blood transfusions from the appellees. The appellants brought a complaint with the Circuit Court of Shelby County against the appellees but then filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The appellants refiled the complaint against the appellees. Process for the appellees was issued but returned unserved. The appellants failed to reissue process within one year. The appellants filed a motion for enlargement of time to issue new process pursuant to Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied the appellants' motion and dismissed the complaint against the appellees. The appellants appeal from the denial of their motion and the dismissal of the complaint against the appellees by the Circuit Court of Shelby County. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Shelby Court of Appeals

American Federation vs. Chris Turner
W2000-00166-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This appeal arises from a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Appellants and employees of the Shelby County General Sessions Court Clerk's office. The Appellees refused to recognize the collective bargaining agreement. The Appellants filed a complaint against the Appellees in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. The complaint alleged violations of Article 1, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and breach of contract under Tennessee law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. The Appellants appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees by the Circuit Court of Shelby County. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Shelby Court of Appeals

Brian Elkins vs. Rex Berry & William Bolin
W2000-01143-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
This case involves the right to a trial by jury. The plaintiff sued the defendants for injuries he sustained in an automobile collision that was allegedly caused by the defendants' negligence. In the plaintiff's complaint, he demanded a jury trial. The defendants also demanded a jury trial in their answers. On the eve of trial, unbeknownst to the defendants, the plaintiff withdrew his jury demand. On the morning of trial, the defendants appeared but were unrepresented by counsel. The trial court proceeded with a bench trial, and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants now appeal, claiming, inter alia, that they were denied their right to a jury trial. We affirm, finding that the defendants' participation in the bench trial, without objection, constituted a waiver of their right to a jury trial under Rules 38.05 and 39.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Carroll Court of Appeals

Paul Holmes vs. Christy Holmes
W2000-01759-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This is an appeal from a final decree of absolute divorce in which custody of the parties' minor son was given to the father for the school year and to the mother during the summer months when regular school is not in session. We affirm.

Chester Court of Appeals

Leslie Crossett vs. Roy Fuller
W2000-02482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This is an appeal from a boundary dispute. The property in dispute is a roadway used by both parties to access their properties. The trial court determined the common boundary line, provided the Crossetts with an easement for ingress and egress, and awarded the Fullers their costs. The Crossetts appeal. We affirm.

Carroll Court of Appeals

Karen Roth vs. Richard Roth
M1998-00911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal involves the dissolution of a sixteen-year marriage. The wife filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking a divorce and custody of the parties' three children. The husband did not contest the divorce but requested custody of the parties' two older children. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the wife a divorce on the ground of adultery and granted her custody of the children. On this appeal, the husband takes issue with the trial court's valuation of marital property, the allocation of marital debt, and the award of long-term spousal support. We have concluded that the trial court's decisions regarding the valuation of the marital property should be modified but that the remainder of the judgment should be affirmed.

Sumner Court of Appeals

George Scott vs. Linda Scott
M1999-00322-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute over child support. Fifteen months after the parties were divorced in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, the custodial spouse petitioned the trial court to increase the noncustodial spouse's child support obligation because he was voluntarily underemployed and to hold the noncustodial spouse in criminal contempt. After being threatened with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions, the custodial spouse abandoned her criminal contempt allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the noncustodial spouse was not voluntarily underemployed but increased his child support prospectively because of an anticipated increase in his income. On this appeal, the custodial parent takes issue with the trial court's refusal to find that the noncustodial parent was voluntarily underemployed, to make the increased child support retroactive to the date of her petition, and to award her only a portion of her legal expenses. We affirm the trial court and further find that the custodial spouse is not entitled to an additional award for the legal expenses she has incurred on this appeal.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Patsy (Stiles) Templeton vs. Jeffrey Stiles
M1999-02388-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
This appeal arises from a hearing in the Circuit Court of Warren County wherein the court divided the property of the Appellant and the Appellee following their divorce. In relevant part, the trial court awarded all the guns and retirement accounts to the Appellee and refused to hear the Appellant's testimony concerning improvements made to the real estate. The Appellant appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Warren County, dividing the property of the Appellant and the Appellee. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision.

Warren Court of Appeals

Jerry Thomas Ricks vs. Dept. of Correction
M1999-01916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case arises from the commutation of the Appellant's prison sentence from eighty-five years imprisonment to forty years. The Appellant's commutation was revoked after he was arrested on misdemeanor charges. The revocation occurred following the expiration of the term of the commuted sentence but within the term of the original sentence. The Appellant filed a petition for declaratory judgment with the Chancery Court of Davidson County, claiming that the Appellee failed to correctly calculate his sentence expiration date. The trial court dismissed the Appellee's petition.

Davidson Court of Appeals

M1999-02801-COA-R12-CV
M1999-02801-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell

Court of Appeals

Suzanne Gibson vs. James Prokell
W2000-01236-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans

Shelby Court of Appeals

Suzanne Gibson vs. James Prokell
W2000-01236-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans

Shelby Court of Appeals

Cary Whitehead/Homer Bunker vs. Jim Rout
W2000-01239-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This appeal involves a dispute over the sale of a tract of land to Shelby County for a road project. The trial court granted summary judgment to Shelby County. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Shelby Court of Appeals

Jodie Willis vs. Alan Willis
W2000-01613-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Father petitioned the court for a reduction in his child support obligation based upon a significant variance between his former salary and his current salary. The trial court determined Father to be voluntarily underemployed. The trial court imputed Father's base salary as potential income but did not impute Father's overtime pay. As a result, the trial court reduced Father's child support obligation by ten dollars per week. We affirm the trial court's determination that Father was voluntarily underemployed; however, we reverse and remand the trial court's determination of Father's potential income.

Dyer Court of Appeals

Glenna Fink vs. Richard Fink
E2000-02468-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
Glenna C. Fink ("Wife") filed a Complaint for Divorce against Richard H. Fink ("Husband") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. Husband filed an Answer and Counter-Complaint seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The Trial Court awarded the divorce to Wife and dismissed Husband's Counter-Complaint. The parties agreed to the sale of the marital residence, and the Trial Court awarded Wife $14,000.00 in attorney's fees out of the sale of the proceeds, with the remaining proceeds from the sale to be split 55% to Wife and 45% to Husband. Wife was awarded the full interest in her retirement/disability benefits. The Trial Court also determined that certain sums which Husband claimed were marital property were actually a gift to the parties' minor daughter and the daughter was, therefore, entitled to keep these funds. The Trial Court further awarded Wife $450.00 per month as alimony in futuro. Husband filed a Motion pursuant to Rules 59.02 and 59.04 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. challenging these determinations. The Trial Court denied Husband's motion, and Husband appeals. We affirm, award Wife attorney's fees incident to this appeal, and remand this matter to the Trial Court for a determination of the amount of reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Wife on appeal.

Knox Court of Appeals

Judy Hall Travis vs. Kenneth D. Travis, Jr.
E2000-01043-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
This appeal from the Hamblen County Chancery Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in finding that a portion of the value of the marital residence is the separate property of the Appellee, Kenneth D. Travis, Jr.,and whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by allowing Mr. Travis to claim the parties' minor children as dependents for federal income tax purposes, by failing to award the parties joint custody of their minor children, and in setting Mr. Travis's visitation schedule. We reverse in part, affirm in part and remand for further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against Judy Hall Travis and Kenneth D. Travis, Jr. equally.

Hamblen Court of Appeals

Walter Hanselman, Jr. vs. Linda Hanselman
M1998-00919-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a father's effort to reduce his child support and spousal support obligations. Approximately one year after the parties were divorced, the father filed a petition in the Hickman County Chancery Court seeking a downward modification of his support obligations because his income had declined due to his employer's cutbacks in the availability of overtime work. Following a bench trial, the trial court denied the father's petition because he had failed to establish a significant variance in his child support obligations and because he had failed to demonstrate that a substantial and material change in the parties' circumstances warranting a reduction in spousal support had occurred. We agree with the trial court's findings and affirm the judgment.

Hickman Court of Appeals

Tax The Costs on Appeal To The Appellant, James v. Doramus, on Behalf of Elizabeth Nicoll
M2000-01928-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Ben H. Cantrell

Sumner Court of Appeals

Patricia Baker vs. Tiffany Hooper, et al
E2000-01615-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr.
Plaintiff appeals the Court's modification of her non-competition agreement with defendants and the amount of damages awarded, as well as the Court's refusal to recuse. We affirm.

McMinn Court of Appeals

Lavonda Cable vs. Lowe's of Johnson City, Inc.
E2000-01075-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
Lowe's of Johnson City, Inc., filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to set aside a default judgment rendered against it on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. The Trial Court overruled the motion and Lowe's appeals. We affirm.

Washington Court of Appeals

Millisa Martinez, Ind., & Ex Rel Aaron Chavez, et al vs. Charles Martinez, et al
E2000-01990-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
This case presents a question of first impression. We are asked to decide whether, and, if so, under what circumstances, a driver who motions to another driver intending to turn left in front of the signaling driver can be assigned fault in the event of a resulting accident. In the instant case, the trial court granted the signaling driver summary judgment, finding on the facts before it that there could be no liability. We find that summary judgment is not appropriate and accordingly vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Blount Court of Appeals