Freddie Dean Smith and Anita Ann Smith (“Plaintiffs”) filed a medical malpractice action against Tony O. Haley, M.D. (“Defendant”). Defendant moved for summary judgment with his affidavit filed in support thereof. The motion was granted after Plaintiffs failed to file timely any competent medical proof to defeat the motion. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reconsider along with the affidavit of Joseph Bussey, M.D. The Trial Court granted the motion and reinstated the case to the active docket. Dr. Bussey later refused to give his deposition because he was not comfortable giving a deposition after reviewing the medical records and because he did not believe the case was going to “go this far” when he provided the affidavit. Defendant moved to strike the affidavit of Dr. Bussey and requested the Trial Court to reinstate its previous dismissal. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion. Seeking additional time to locate another medical expert, Plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04, Tenn. R. Civ. P., and for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rules 60.02(1) and 60.02(5), Tenn. R. Civ. P. The Trial Court denied this motion, and Plaintiffs appeal this denial. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal As Of Right; Judgment of the Law Court Affirmed; and Case Remanded.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Elizabeth Doramus, et al vs. Rogers Group, Inc. and T.W. Comer M1998-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves an intrafamily dispute over the use of a 498 acre farm. The conflict's seeds were sown nearly fifty years ago when the now-deceased owners conveyed the farm to a corporation and entered into a long-term lease which created successive leasehold tenancies for life for them, followed by their son, T. W. Comer. T. W. Comer's heirs at law were given the option to choose to become tenants upon his death. Years later, after T. W. Comer had become the tenant, he and Rogers Group, Inc., a mining company which had purchased the remainder interest in the farm, entered into an agreement involving the removal of limestone from the property. Mr. Comer's daughters and his granddaughters responded by commencing this action, seeking to prevent any mining on the property. After the daughters voluntarily dropped their claims, the trial court dismissed the complaint, and the granddaughters appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling because we find that the granddaughters' interest is not sufficient to warrant an injunction against the lessor and the current lessee.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mary Jarmakowicz, et al vs. Billy Suddarth, et al M1998-00920-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal arises out of a dispute over the purchase of Nationwide Travel Services, LLC. The jury found that the Sellers were still the owners of the agency and found for Buyers on the Sellers' claim for breach of contract. The jury found for Buyers on their claims of fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process and awarded compensatory damages. At the close of the proof, the trial court granted Sellers' motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. Later, the court denied Buyers' Motion for discretionary costs, and this appeal resulted. Buyers take issue with whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict on punitive damages and whether the Court abused its discretion by denying discretionary costs. Sellers argue there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's award on fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process. They also argue that the jury should have found for Sellers on the breach of contract claim. For the reasons below, we affirm the jury's award of compensatory damages and hold there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of fraud and deceit, conversion, abuse of process and no breach of contract. Further, we affirm the trial Court's directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. However, we vacate the denial of Buyers' motion for discretionary costs and remand for consideration consistent with this opinion.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton, E2000-02549-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
Jim Vines vs. David Gibson E2000-02257-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
In this breach of contract case, the defendant appeals from the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial or set aside an order favorable to the plaintiff. Because we find that the defendant did not receive advance notice of the hearing that led to the entry of the order, we vacate the order of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
James Fraysier vs. Karen Fraysier E2000-02485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
James Thomas Fraysier ("Husband") filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Karen Kay Singleton Fraysier ("Wife") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wife filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties agreed upon the distribution of the marital assets, which was approved by the Trial Court. The two issues to be decided at trial were who should be granted the divorce and whether Wife was entitled to alimony. The Trial Court determined that Husband was entitled to a divorce on the basis of inappropriate marital conduct and that Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $600.00 per month for a period of 48 months or until further order of the court. Both parties appeal the Trial Court's determination with regard to alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Vickie Sherman vs. American Water Heater Co., Inc. E2000-01389-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The Trial Court held release given by plaintiff barred plaintiff's claim for statutory indemnification. On appeal we reverse.
Washington
Court of Appeals
John Fiser, et al vs. Town of Farragut E1999-00425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Farragut, which admittedly seeks to eliminate off-premises billboards, is invalid insofar as their property is concerned. The Trial Court found in favor of Farragut. We reverse.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson E2000-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
In this post-divorce case, the trial court (1) denied the father's request to relocate to Georgia with the parties' minor child; (2) imposed sanctions for the father's perjury; and (3) changed the joint custody decreed at the time of the divorce to sole custody in the mother. On this appeal, the father argues (1) that the trial court erred in reversing its initial post-divorce decision pursuant to which the father had been permitted to relocate to Georgia; (2) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to make a custody determination; (3) that the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum; (4) that the trial court erred in basing its change of custody upon the father's admittedly false testimony; (5) that the trial court's reversal of its prior decision to permit the father to relocate is barred by the doctrine of laches; (6) that the trial court erred in finding that father's contemptuous behavior was a proper basis for denying him an award of child support; and (7) that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for criminal contempt without providing the necessary procedural safeguards. We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Father's petition for child support. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Appeals
John Justice vs. Holly Justice M1998-00916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a dispute between a physician and a pharmacist regarding the provisions in their divorce decree for spousal support and legal expenses. In its decree ending their fourteen-year marriage, the Circuit Court for Davidson County directed the physician, among other things, to pay the pharmacist $50 per month in alimony in futuro until her death or remarriage, as well as $4,500 to partially defray the legal expenses she had incurred in the divorce proceeding. The physician asserts on this appeal that the spousal support award was punitive and that the pharmacist received sufficient assets as a result of the division of the marital estate to pay her own legal expenses. We have determined that the record supports the trial court's decisions regarding both the spousal support and the legal expenses and, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jerry LaQuiere, et al vs. Daniel W. McCollum M1999-00926-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute arising out of the sale of a tract of real property in Antioch. After a survey revealed that the size of the tract was significantly less than the size stated in the contract, the purchaser filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking both specific performance of a provision in the contract requiring an adjustment in the purchase price and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The purchaser also filed a lis pendens notice with the Davidson County Register of Deeds. The trial court granted the vendor's motion for summary judgment on the issue of specific performance and ordered the lis pendens notice removed. However, the trial court declined to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation. We granted the purchaser's Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for an extraordinary appeal. We now affirm the trial court because we concur with its conclusion that the price adjustment provision in the contract is not clear, definite, and complete.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Richard Conroy vs. City of Dickson, et al M2000-01189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
The driver of an automobile sued the City of Dickson under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for the severe injuries he suffered when a city police cruiser collided with his car. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff and the officer driving the police car were equally responsible for the accident, resulting in no recovery for the plaintiff. We affirm.
Dickson
Court of Appeals
Susie Tackett, et al vs. Hulin Shepherd, et al M1999-02333-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
This case involves a two-vehicle accident between Defendant Jones Brothers Construction's truck and Plaintiff. The accident occurred on April 19, 1996, in Clarksville, Tennessee at the intersection of U.S. Highway 41-A North, also Fort Campbell Blvd, and Jack Miller Blvd. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Hulin D. Shepherd ("Shepherd"), an employee of Jones Brothers Construction, was negligent by failing to yield when he exited a "private" road and entered onto a "public" highway. The Defendants denied that it was a "private" road, denied liability, and asserted comparative fault on the part of Plaintiff John Roe ("Roe"). At the trial in November 1999, Plaintiffs requested special jury instructions concerning "private" roads. The trial court rejected the special instructions. The jury returned a verdict of equal fault and the case was dismissed. The Plaintiffs timely appealed after Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied. We affirm the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
M1999-02810-COA-R9-CV M1999-02810-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Gertrud Deneau vs. Donald Deneau M2000-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This divorce case involves property division and alimony after a short term marriage. The trial court awarded all of the real property to the husband and allowed each party to keep the personal property in his or her possession. The court ordered the husband to pay $50,000 to the court clerk's office, who shall in turn pay the wife's debt to the Department of Veterans Affairs and disburse the remainder to the wife. The court refused to award alimony. We affirm.
Stewart
Court of Appeals
Stanley Blackwood vs. Patrick Martin & Hardee, Martin, Jaynes, Ivy W2000-01573-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a legal malpractice case arising from an underlying criminal conviction. The plaintiff prisoner was convicted on twelve counts, including one count of first degree murder. The plaintiff sued the defendant attorneys for malpractice, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants negligently failed to conduct a thorough investigation and that, after the plaintiff terminated the defendants' services, the defendants improperly retained a portion of the retainer fee paid by the plaintiff for post-trial representation. The defendant attorneys filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking the appointment of a court-appointed expert, which was denied. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint an expert and did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Madison
Court of Appeals
De Lage Financial vs. Earthlab Productions W2000-02232-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
This appeal involves a contract dispute. The Appellant alleges that the Appellees made one payment but then failed to continue making payments as per the terms of the agreement. The Appellees, however, assert that consideration for the contract is lacking. At the close of Plaintiff's proof at trial, Defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court granted. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Tracy McGowan vs. Dr. Crants/Alan Bargery W2000-02398-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a civil lawsuit filed by a prisoner. The inmate filed a complaint against the prison warden and the chairman of the board of the company which owns and operates the prison, alleging negligence and violations of his constitutional rights. The inmate moved for default judgment, which was denied. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that there were no material facts in dispute. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The inmate now appeals. We reverse, finding that there are genuine issues of material fact.
Misty L. Cooper vs. Roy K. Norris, et al E2000-01208-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: William M. Dender
Misty L. Cooper sues Claiborne County Board of Education for breach of a teaching contract she contends was entered into with her. The School Board contends that the offer of employment was contingent upon her passing the National Teachers Examination, which she did not do. The Trial Court found in favor of the Board. We affirm.
Gloria Guinn vs. Lucious Guinn W1999-01809-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is a post-divorce proceeding pursuant to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 60. Defendant-husband filed a motion to set aside a final decree of divorce granted on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, because there was no written agreement settling property rights. Plaintiff-wife filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60 to amend the final decree of divorce to show that the ground for divorce is inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court denied Husband's motion, granted Wife's motion and entered an amended final decree showing the ground for divorce as inappropriate marital conduct. Husband appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
