James McKay Andrews v. Susie Heasook Cho Andrews
This is a divorce case. The plaintiff husband is a successful physician and the defendant wife is a stay-at-home mother. They have one minor child. After twelve years of marriage, the husband left the marital home and filed for divorce. The wife counter-claimed for divorce, and protracted and contentious litigation ensued. The initial trial judge appointed a guardian ad litem and an attorney ad litem. After several trial judges recused themselves, a senior judge was assigned. After nearly three years of dispute, the case proceeded to trial. The trial court granted a divorce to the wife; it found that she was economically disadvantaged but capable of partial rehabilitation, and that the husband had the ability to pay spousal support. The wife was awarded alimony in futuro, rehabilitative alimony, attorney fees as alimony in solido, and discretionary costs. The husband appeals the award of alimony, attorney fees, and costs. We affirm, finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion under the circumstances. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Debbie Bakir, et al vs. Steven Brent Massengale, Individually and d/b/a Massengale Bonding Company
The plaintiffs advanced monies for the creation and operation of a bonding company, in which plaintiffs were to be partners with the defendant. A dispute arose between them about the bonding operation, and plaintiff sued defendant for a percentage of the profits of the bonding company and defendant counter-sued for a monetary judgment as well. The trial court ruled that no partnership existed, but plaintiffs were entitled to recover $15,000.00 from defendant. Defendant's counter-action was dismissed. On appeal, we affirm. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
E & J Construction Company vs. Liberty Building Systems, Inc.
E & J Construction Company ("Plaintiff") purchased a metal building from Liberty Building Systems, Inc. ("Defendant"). The metal building was purchased by plaintiff for one of its customers, Camel Manufacturing Company ("Camel"). Plaintiff constructed the metal building for Camel and connected it to an existing building. Almost from the outset, there was a problem with leaking. Plaintiff sued defendant raising various claims including, among others, breach of contract. After the trial court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the case proceeded to trial on the few remaining claims. At the conclusion of plaintiff's proof, the trial court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse the grant of a directed verdict on plaintiff's breach of contract claim and remand for further proceedings. The judgment of the trial court otherwise is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Richard P. Alexander et al vs. Antonio Zamperela, et al
Richard P. Alexander, Regina Phillips, Gail Young and Judy Sprinkles ("Plaintiffs") filed this products liability suit against Antonio Zamperla, S.p.A. and Zamperla, Inc. ("Defendants"), as a result of June Alexander's death that occurred while riding an amusement park ride manufactured by defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting defendants summary judgment, finding the act of a third party constituted both a superseding cause of the death and an alteration of the product which relieved defendants of liability. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee in hac parte Knox County District Attorney General Randall E. Nichols on Relationship of Bradley J. Mayes, et al vs. John E. Owings, et al
The defendants in this matter have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. The attachments to the motion support the allegation. Therefore, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley J. Elliott vs. Life Of the South Insurance Company, Inc.
The defendants in this matter have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The attachments to the motion support the allegation of the defendants that the only notice of appeal received by the trial court clerk was a facsimile filed notice of appeal. As such is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this court, the appeal is dismissed. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Sharon M. Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling, et al.
This matter was remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded for a frivolous appeal. Appellant challenges only the award itself and not the amount decided by the trial court. The party awarded the fees argued that the trial court erred in the amount awarded. Finding no error, the trial court is affirmed. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandi D. Jackson, et al. v. CVS Corporation, et al.
Plaintiff, individually and as the guardian of her minor child, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on her claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff claims that she and her child were harmed by the defendants' disclosure of their private health information. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: April P-C, Jennifer P-C, and Kenneth P-C
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to three children, asserting that the findings of the juvenile court that he had abandoned his children by failure to support and that the conditions which led to the children's removal persisted were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Father also asserts that the court erred in finding that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of his children. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Hensley v. Robert Cerza, et al. - Concurring
I concur with the result reached by the majority; however, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the trial court erred in excluding the proferred opinion testimony of two lay witnesses, Lisa Poe, a registered nurse, and Jimmy Brock, a surgical technician. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Hensley v. Robert Cerza, et al.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in this medical malpractice action. On appeal, the plaintiff assigns error to various decisions made by the trial court concerning the admission of evidence and arguments and to the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of negligent retention. While the trial court erred in several respects, we consider the errors to be harmless and affirm the judgment based on the jury verdict. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Shari Harp v. Darryelle E. Mills
Petitioner, Shari Harp, filed this action to recover personal property and for an injunction related to her deceased mother's estate. Respondent, Darryelle E. Mills, is surviving spouse of the decedent. The trial court entered a partial default judgment in Ms. Harp's favor after Mr. Mills failed to answer the complaint or otherwise plead _ despite ample notice of the consequences of failing to answer. Upon appeal, this court entered a show cause order directing Mr. Mills, acting pro se, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, among other things. Mr. Mills has failed to respond to the show cause order within the time allotted. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal because it is premature and because Mr. Mills has neglected to file a cost bond and has not paid the litigation tax associated with the appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani vs. Masoud Bajestani
After seven years of marriage, Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani ("Wife") sued Masoud Bajestani ("Husband") for divorce. After a trial, the trial court entered its order, inter alia, awarding wife a divorce, dividing the marital property, setting husband's child support obligation, awarding wife transitional alimony for nine years, awarding wife alimony in futuro to begin after the termination of the transitional alimony, and awarding wife attorney's fees. Husband appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the classification and distribution of marital property and the awards of alimony, among others. Wife raises issues regarding child support, and also requests that this Court take notice of a post-judicial fact, and award her attorney's fees on appeal. We modify as to the award of transitional alimony, vacate the award of alimony in futuro, affirm as to the child support and division of property, decline to award attorney's fees on appeal, and decline to take notice of the post-judicial fact. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Roy G. Butler v. David A. Still
This is a dispute to quiet title to 5 acres between the owners of adjacent tracts. Both parties claim ownership of the disputed property along their common boundary by color of title. At issue is whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated _ 28-2- 105 for quieting title to lands under color of title by establishing the deed had been recorded for at least 30 years and the property at issue had been adversely possessed by the plaintiff or his predecessors in title for at least 7 years. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff finding that the plaintiff and his predecessors had adversely possessed the disputed property for more than 7 years and that the plaintiff's claim derived from a metes and bounds description in a 1961 deed, which was of record for more than 30 years. Finding the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court's ruling, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of Zmaria C., et al.
The parents of the two children at issue appeal the termination of their parental rights. The issues on appeal pertain to the trial court's findings that both parents were in substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans and that termination was in the children's best interests. Also at issue is whether the requirements of the Permanency Plans were not reasonable, related and relevant to the stated goals. We find the requirements of the Permanency Plans were appropriate and that the efforts of the Department of Children's Services constituted reasonable attempts to reunify the family. We also find the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings that the parents failed to substantially comply with the permanency plans and that termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children. We, therefore, affirm the termination of the parental rights of both parents. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Lyle Douglas Vaughn, et al vs. Darrell Brewer, et al
This action was brought to determine whether a roadway that serves the plaintiff and certain of the defendants is a public or private road. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, declared the road to be a private road. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Wellmont Health System vs. John Quinton Qualls, et al
Plaintiff hospital filed a lawsuit against defendant patient for unpaid medical expenses. Defendant patient filed a third party complaint against defendant insurance company alleging that the insurance company was responsible for the unpaid medical expenses pursuant to a health insurance policy. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the insurance contract was ambiguous and construed it against the defendant insurance company. Defendant insurance company appeals. After reviewing the record and the health insurance policy, we conclude that the policy was not ambiguous and the insurance contract specifically excluded coverage of patient's pre-existing condition. Accordingly, we reverse. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie "Max" Watson, et al vs. Larry Waters, et al
A group of Sevier County residents identifying themselves as "Public Spirited Citizens" ("Plaintiffs") filed a set of quo warranto lawsuits against Sevier County, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and Larry Waters, the County Mayor of Sevier County ("Mayor") (collectively "Defendants"). The trial court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie "Max" Watson, et al vs. Larry Waters, et al
A group of Sevier County residents identifying themselves as "Public Spirited Citizens" ("Plaintiffs") filed a set of quo warranto lawsuits against Sevier County, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and Larry Waters, the County Mayor of Sevier County ("Mayor") (collectively "Defendants"). The trial court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
William C. Brothers v. Office of the Governor, Phil Bredesen, et al.
Appellant filed petitions seeking increased library access as well as his release from incarceration. Because Appellant has been unconditionally released from prison, we find his appeal moot and affirm the trial court's dismissal of his claims. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
American Legion Post 212 vs. Hollis F. Summers, et al
The trial court in this matter granted a motion to dismiss and entered a default judgment for the plaintiff, American Legion Post 212 ("Post 212"). The defendant, Hollis F. Summers ("Mr. Summers"), who was not present at the hearing, had removed the action to federal court days earlier. Under 28 U.S.C. _ 1446(d), once a case is removed to federal court, a state court has no authority to take further action in the matter. Accordingly, because the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case, we must summarily reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
Trustmark National Bank, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
This case concerns the priority of lienholders' respective interests in real property. The plaintiffs/appellees, Trustmark National Bank and FirstBank, filed this joint action as amended for declaratory judgment against the defendants/appellants, Long Beach Mortgage Company, Sonya R. Thomas, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and for enforcement of their liens through judicial sale of the property. The plaintiffs' amended complaint asserted that Trustmark and FirstBank held judgment liens against the property that were valid, enforceable, and superior to the defendants' interests. The defendants responded in pertinent part that they were entitled to priority under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, even if the plaintiffs held prior-recorded judgment liens against the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the undisputed facts demonstrated that the plaintiffs' liens were enforceable and superior to the defendants' later-recorded deeds of trust and that the defendants were not entitled to equitable subrogation. The defendants appealed, challenging only whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on the question of equitable subrogation. Because the plaintiffs failed to negate an essential element of equitable subrogation or show that the defendants cannot establish an essential element of equitable subrogation at trial, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in part and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John A. Van Grouw v. Tracey P. Malone
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's award of summary judgment to defendant attorney in an action alleging professional malpractice, fraud, and violation of the consumer protection act. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dewayne Sharkey v. Molly O'Toole, M.D.
An inmate appeals a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice and 42 U.S.C._ 1983 claims against the correctional facility's psychiatrist. Since the defendant's doctor negated essential elements of both claims with her expert affidavit and plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Robertson, a/k/a Jere Robertson vs. Clara Robertson Hodges, et ux., et al
In this action plaintiff asked the Court to declare that he had an interest in property which he inherited by will, and for a partition and sale of the land. The trial court determined that plaintiff was judicially estopped to claim an interest in the land and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals |
