Reginald M. Mudd and Mary Anne Mudd, d/b/a Mudd Properties v. Rexford L. Goostree, Jr. and Liberty Cabinets and Millwork, Inc.
In suit to recover rent due and owing under a lease agreement in which a corporation was named as tenant, trial court entered judgment in favor of landlord against individual who had signed the lease in the space in the signature box designated “Tenant.” Individual appeals, contending that his signature on the lease is not sufficient to bind him personally to the obligations under the lease. Landlord appeals award of damages. We affirm the holding that the individual’s signature on the lease renders him personally liable and remand the case for a determination of whether the landlord is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest and for an award of attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Jarrod Justin Jacobsen v. Olga Alekseenko Jacobsen
Mother appeals the trial court’s designation of Father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child, the parenting plan, and the division of marital property. The trial court found that the majority of the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106 weighed equally in favor of both parents but designated Father as the primary residential parent primarily because the court awarded Father the marital residence, which provides stability for the child. The trial court, however, did not make any findings concerning a wealth of evidence of physical and emotional abuse by Father, some of which Father admitted, and we have determined that the preponderance of the evidence established that Father was abusive of Mother, sometimes in the child’s presence. Because Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406(a) mandates that a parent’s parenting time shall be limited if the parent is found to have engaged in abuse, we reverse the designation of Father as the primary residential parent, as well as the parenting plan adopted by the court, and remand with instructions to designate Mother as the primary residential parent and establish a new parenting plan considering all applicable factors. As for the division of the marital estate, the trial court awarded Father 68% of the marital estate and Mother 32%, which Mother contends is inequitable. She asserts the inequitable distribution is due to Father being awarded the marital residence, which was unencumbered and valued at $216,000, with Mother receiving $55,000, being 26% of the equity, as her share of the marital residence. Considering the length of the marriage, that each spouse contributed substantially to satisfying the mortgage on the residence, and the relatively equal earning capacities of the parties, inter alia, we have determined it is inequitable to award Father 74% of the equity in the marital residence, the result of which awards him 68% of the marital estate. Therefore, we remand with instructions to modify the award by ordering Father to pay Mother $97,200, instead of $55,000, for her interest in the marital residence. As for attorney’s fees, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of Father’s request for his attorney’s fees at trial and we deny each party’s request for attorneys’ fees on appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Dhyanna Muro Ramirez, et al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., et al
These personal injury cases against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., and Ford Motor Company (collectively "the Defendants") were consolidated below for all pre-trial proceedings. They have been before this court twice before, first pursuant to a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal and later by way of a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal. They have generated two published opinions. In re Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor Company Tire Litigation, 138 S.W.3d 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), perm. app. den. Jun. 1, 2004 ("Firestone I"); In re Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford Motor Company Litigation, 286 S.W.3d 898 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008), perm. app. den. Mar. 23, 2009 ("Firestone II"). In Firestone I, we held that these cases should have been filed in Mexico. We dismissed them on the ground of forum non conveniens. In Firestone II, we held that unsuccessful attempts to file in Mexico could possibly establish that Mexico was not an available alternative forum,contrary to the assumption made by us in Firestone I. We remanded the cases for a hearing on the issue of whether the dismissals in Mexico took place in spite of the plaintiffs’ good faith efforts or, rather, occurred because of the plaintiffs’ manipulation of the cases in order to secure the dismissals in Mexico and thereby have an excuse to refile in Tennessee. The trial court dismissed eight of 26 pending cases. The cases that were dismissed fall into two distinct groups. One group involves tires ("the FR 480 tire cases"), specifically Firestone 480 tires, that were actually manufactured in Mexico. The trial court concluded that the failure to join the entity in Mexico that actually made the tires there showed that the plaintiffs in those cases should not be permitted to litigate whether Mexico was an available forum. The other group consists of two cases which were filed in Mexico on more than one occasion, only one of which was disclosed in discovery ("the Ramirez and Flores cases"). The plaintiffs in both groups (collectively "the Plaintiffs") appeal. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stephen H. Cook, et al v. David L. Alley, Sr., et al.
This appeal concerns the statute of limitation for the extension of a judgment. J. Waymon Ellison (“Plaintiff”) obtained a judgment in the Chancery Court for Loudon County (“the Trial Court”) against David L. Alley, Sr. and David L. Alley, Jr. (“the Defendants”) in an action related to a real estate transaction. Years later, Plaintiff’s successors-in-interest (“the Successors”) sought to extend the judgment a second time for another ten years. The Trial Court extended the judgment, holding that the first ten year extension of the judgment began to run upon the expiration of ten years from the date the judgment was entered, and, that the initial ten year period in this case began to run from the date the judgment actually was entered rather than the nunc pro tunc date indicated in the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Demetry Michele Allen v. Harry Lee Allen Jr.
The question presented by this appeal is which parent should be named the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child. The trial court named Appellee Mother primary residential parent. Appellant Father appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Taliah L.B.
This is a termination of parental rights case in which Custodial Parents sought termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Child. The trial court granted the termination petition, finding that Mother willfully failed to support and visit the Child and that termination was in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel Kathlene Waldo v. Jennifer Waldo
This is an appeal by a mother from the juvenile court’s judgment finding her in civil contempt for failure to pay child support and incarcerating her until she paid $400 toward the arrearage to purge the contempt. Finding the evidence inadequate to support a finding that the mother had the ability to pay child support when it was due or that she had the ability to pay $400 at the time of the hearing in order to purge the sentence, we reverse. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Hayley T. et al
The mother of two minor children appeals the order placing her children and a stepdaughter in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services and limiting her to supervised visitation following a determination that the mother’s husband severely sexually abused another child in the home and the determination that the children were dependent and neglected. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
H.A.S. v. H.D.S.
Lillian (“the Child”) is the offspring of H.A.S. (“Father”) and H.D.S. (“Mother”). The parties were never married to each other. They entered into two mediated agreements regarding Father’s co-parenting time with the Child. The agreements were never presented to or approved by a court. The parties followed the agreements for a time but conflicts developed and Father filed a petition seeking review and modification of the agreements. He asserted that there had been a material change in circumstances and that he should be awarded primary custody of the Child. Following a bench trial, the court found and approved the mediated agreements as being in the Child’s best interest. The court further determined that there had been no change in circumstances warranting a change in custody; but the court did find and hold that Father’s co-parenting time should be revised. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Maria B.S., et al
Matthew V. and Carlene V. (“the Foster Parents”) filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Lewis S. (“Father”), father to the minor twin children Maria B. S. and Anna J. S. (“the Children”). After a trial, the Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Children after finding that grounds for termination pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113 (g)(1), (g)(3), and (g)(9) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that clear and convincing evidence had been shown that it was in the Children’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. We affirm as modified. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie Dwight Coffey v. Paula Sue Coffey
Leslie Dwight Coffey (“Husband”) filed this action for divorce against his spouse, Paula Sue Coffey (“Wife”). During the course of the proceedings, Husband was held in contempt on no less than four separate occasions. The contempt findings were sometimes related to some aspect of his refusal to pay child support. He was also found guilty of contemptuous conduct related to other matters. Each time, his sentence was suspended. Eventually, the suspended time amounted to a total of 50 days in jail. After over ten years of litigation, Wife filed two separate petitions asking that Husband show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt. On the second petition, the court found Husband in criminal contempt, revoked the suspensions of the previously-imposed sentences and imposed a five day sentence for the new contempt. The court also awarded Wife $10,000 in attorney’s fees in a separate order entered the morning after Wife’s counsel filed an affidavit claiming over $20,000 in fees and expenses. Husband appeals. We affirm that part of the judgment holding Husband in criminal contempt and ordering him to serve a total of 55 days, which figure includes the previously-suspended sentences. We vacate that part of the judgment awarding Wife $10,000 in attorney’s fees and remand for a hearing to allow Husband an opportunity to challenge the fees and expenses claimed by Wife’s counsel. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Nicole Harbin v. Casey Parker Jones
This appeal involves a post-divorce order of protection. Several years after the parties’ divorce in another state, the appellant mother obtained an order of protection against the appellee father in a Tennessee general sessions court, to restrict his contact with her and the parties’ minor child. The parties’ out-of-state divorce decree was enrolled in the Tennessee chancery court, where the mother also sought a continued order of protection, contempt relief, and modification of the parties’ parenting arrangement. All matters, including the general sessions order of protection, were consolidated in the Tennessee chancery court. The chancery court held a hearing on the order of protection. It declined to extend the order of protection and dissolved it. All other matters before the chancery court remained pending. The mother filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We hold that the dissolution of the order of protection, with other matters still pending, is not a final and appealable judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and remand to the chancery court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Alma B. Long v. Raymond G. Creekmore
This appeal concerns Mother’s reservation of a life estate in property she conveyed to Son pursuant to a warranty deed. After the initial conveyance in 1983, Son resided on the property for years before renting the property to others. Mother prohibited the use of the property by certain tenants, who complied with her demand to vacate. In 2008, Mother objected to the current tenant’s occupation and filed suit to enforce her right to possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the claim was barred by a ten-year statute of limitations. Mother appeals. We reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Shemeka Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Medical Clinic Surgi Center, et al.
This is an appeal from an order of dismissal entered on January 23, 2013. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State University
This appeal involves an employee’s claim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The plaintiff employee filed a lawsuit against his employer, the defendant university, asserting several claims of employment discrimination under state and federal statutes. Subsequently, in a second lawsuit against the university, the plaintiff employee asserted that he suffered adverse job actions after he filed his charge of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the first discrimination lawsuit. The alleged adverse job actions included making the employee perform tasks that resulted in physical injuries. The lawsuits were consolidated and, after an eight-day jury trial, the jury awarded the employee $3 million in compensatory damages on the retaliation claim only. The defendant university appeals. We hold that, to prove a claim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, the plaintiff was required to present material evidence to the jury that the decisionmaker, his supervisor at the university, was aware of the plaintiff’s protected activity when she took the adverse job actions against the plaintiff. The plaintiff employee presented no material evidence at trial of such knowledge by his supervisor at the relevant time. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiff employee’s complaint. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Joseph Owen Boote, Jr., Helen Boote Shivers and Linda Boote, Co-Executors v. Richard H. Roberts, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Revenue
This appeal involves a claim for interest on inheritance and estate tax refunds. In 2002, the decedent’s estate filed a Tennessee inheritance tax return and paid an estimated amount of taxes due. Over the next several years, the estate was embroiled in litigation; the litigation expenses diminished the size of the estate. Once the litigation concluded, the estate became entitled to more deductions on its inheritance tax return. To obtain the benefit of the deductions, the estate filed two amended Tennessee inheritance tax returns, one in 2009 and one in 2010, claiming that it was entitled to substantial tax refunds based on its overpayment of inheritance and estate taxes in 2002. The defendant Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue paid the refunds claimed in the estate’s amended returns, plus a pittance of interest on the refunds. The estate filed this lawsuit against the commissioner, claiming that it was entitled to additional interest on the inheritance and estate tax refunds under the applicable law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; each agreed that the facts are undisputed and each claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the commissioner. The estate now appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Justin K., Courtney K., Eva K.
Mother’s parental rights to three children were terminated based on her abandonment, failure to comply with family permanency plans the Department of Children’s Services developed, and persistence of the conditions that required removal of the children initially. Mother appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. The trial court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Northland Insurance Company v. Michael Burton and Donald Burton d/b/a Burton Brothers Trucking
Insurance Company provided Trucking Company with a general liability insurance policy that included the MCS-90 endorsement required by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. A woman who was a passenger in the insured’s tractor made a claim against Insurance Company for injuries she sustained after the tractor turned over. Insurance Company paid the woman’s claim even though she had not filed a complaint or obtained a judgment against Trucking Company/Insured. Insurance Company then filed a complaint against Trucking Company seeking reimbursement for the amount it paid out. Trial court awarded Insurance Company reimbursement. We reverse because no judgment had been obtained against Trucking Company when Insurance Company paid the woman’s claim. The MCS-90 endorsement is not triggered unless an injured member of the public recovers a final judgment against a motor carrier/insured. Therefore, Insurance Company had no right of reimbursement. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Waste Connections of Tennessee, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee
The dispositive issue in this land use appeal highlights important legal distinctions between when a local governmental body is functioning in a legislative capacity or an administrative capacity, and what can go wrong when the governmental body fails to conduct its meetings pursuant to the proper legal standards. When the local governmental body is enacting laws, such as zoning ordinances, it is functioning in a legislative capacity; however, when the governmental body is implementing existing zoning ordinances it is functioning as an administrative body or board. In this case the Council of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (“Metro Council”) was functioning as an administrative board, not in a legislative capacity, when it disapproved an application for the location of a waste transfer station located on property zoned “industrial restrictive.” When the application was disapproved, the applicant filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking to set aside the disapproval on the ground that it was illegal, arbitrary, fraudulent, and/or capricious because the Metro Council failed to comply with the requirements of Metropolitan Code § 17.40.280 by making a decision for the sole reason that local residents opposed the station, and not because the proposed use was “consistent or not consistent” with the requirements of Metro Code § 17.16. The trial court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed. Under the common law writ of certiorari standard, our review of the Metro Council’s administrative decision is limited to determining whether the decision is clearly illegal, arbitrary, or capricious. An administrative decision that is not supportedby substantial and material evidence is, by definition, arbitrary and capricious.This record is devoid of any substantial or material evidence to support the decision to disapprove the location for a waste transfer station; accordingly, the decision was arbitrary. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the common law petition for writ of certiorari and remand with instructions to set aside the Metro Council’s disapproval of the location and to order that the application for a special exception be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals for its consideration pursuant to Metro Code § 17.40.280. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hardeman County v. Judy I. McIntyre, et al.
This case concerns the liability for a collision involving a vehicle operated by one of the appellees and an ambulance operated by the appellant county. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded damages to appellee driver against the appellant. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse and remand. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Angela K. Thomas v. Jeffery K. Thomas
In this post-divorce appeal, Husband appeals the trial court’s imputation of income to him for the purpose of setting his alimony and child support obligations, the determination of parenting time, and the award of a retirement account to Wife. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Earl Greenwood v. Christi Purrenhage
Father seeks additional time with the children, alleging that a failed attempted reconciliation created a material change in circumstances. The trial judge found no material change in circumstances. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
George Emrich, et al. v. Taylor Adams, et al.
In this post-trial dispute George Emrich and Mary Emrich (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the Trial Court’s order on Taylor Adams, Wanda Adams, and Adams Roofing Company, LLC’s (“Defendants”) emergency motion for relief from order and Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, among other things. We find no error in the Trial Court’s March 9, 2012 order, and we affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Frances G. Rodgers, et al. v. John Adam Noll, III
Frances G. Rodgers, as next friend of minors Julia Amber Noll and Joshua Aidan Noll (“Plaintiff”) sued John Adam Noll (“Defendant”) for the alleged wrongful death of their mother, Lori Bible Noll (“Deceased”). During discovery, Defendant filed multiple motions alleging discovery violations. After a hearing the Trial Court entered its order on April 25, 2012, which, among other things, imposed sanctions for certain discovery violations and then dismissed Plaintiff’s case due to discovery violations. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We find and hold that dismissal was too severe a sanction for the discovery violations found. We reverse the dismissal; remand to the Trial Court for a more appropriate award of sanctions; and affirm the remaining specific sanctions awarded by the Trial Court and the remainder of the Trial Court’s April 25, 2012 order. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Jacob H. C.
Petitioner in a proceeding to modify child support filed a motion for recusal with the trial judge alleging that the judge was a personal friend and had a business relationship with the father of one of the parties. The trial judge denied the motion and the petitioner then filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. We affirm the denial of the motion for recusal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
