Randall S. Patton, et al vs. Larry Massey
Lessor and Lessee entered into a lease with an option to purchase. Lessee subsequently assigned his interest in the Lease to a third party, who lived on the property throughout the Lease's primary term. The option to purchase the property was never completed and Lessee's assignee remained on the property after the expiration of the lease. Lessor filed a suit alleging breach of contract and sought damages from Lessee. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the lease was renewed by oral agreement; Lessee breached the contractual obligations of the lease; and Lessee was liable for damages. Lessee appeals. We affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
P & N Development, A Partnership, et al vs. Betty B. Church
Lessee sued Lessor for specific performance and damages, alleging breach of contract after Lessor did not permit Lessee to exercise the option to purchase the property. Lessor moved to dismiss, claiming that Lessee failed to properly and timely exercise the option to purchase the property. Lessor filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract and damages. After a bench trial, the trial court held that Lessee properly and timely exercised the option to purchase the property. Lessor appeals. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude Lessee did not exercise the option to purchase the property before the expiration of the Lease. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Joseph A.
This proceeding began in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court when the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") filed a petition seeking to have Joseph A. (the "Child") declared dependent and neglected based on allegations of abuse committed by Douglas A. ("Father"). Katheryn B. ("Mother") was allowed to intervene. A guardian ad litem was appointed on the Child's behalf. The Juvenile Court found the Child to be dependent and neglected, and Father appealed that finding to the circuit court. While this case was pending in the circuit court, DCS voluntarily dismissed the original petition. Thereafter, the guardian ad litem filed a motion seeking payment of attorney fees and costs. The circuit court granted this motion and entered a judgment against DCS for the guardian ad litem's fees and expenses. DCS appeals. We vacate the order taxing the guardian ad litem fees and costs against DCS and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Alvin Seagroves v. State of Tennessee and Tennessee Board of Probation & Parole
This appeal involves a prisoner who has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the wrong court for the second time. The instant petition was filed in the Davidson County Circuit Court, which dismissed the petition upon concluding that it should have been filed in Davidson County Chancery Court. The prisoner appeals, contending that the Circuit Court should have exercised jurisdiction over the petition or transferred it to the proper court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Reda Jo Mills v. Matthew Scott Mills
This is a divorce case. Wife appeals from the trial court's decision denying her alimony in futuro and attorney's fees. After reviewing the record, we discern no error and affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Coleman et al. v. St. Thomas Hospital
Plaintiffs filed suit against their employer, alleging common law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to their exposure to carbon monoxide in the workplace. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' tort claims were barred by Tennessee's workers' compensation law. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs' injuries did not "arise out of" their employment. The employer's application for an extraordinary appeal was granted. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting summary judgment to the employer. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the matter of: Arteria H.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Both Mother and Father appeal the trial court's decision to terminate their parental rights. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Noel Montepeque, et al vs. Patricia Claire Adevai, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Adevai
The parties own adjoining properties with a common party wall. The building belonging to Noel Montepeque and Celia M. Martinez (collectively "Party A") is one story, whereas the building of Joseph Adevai ("Party B") is two stories and overlooks Party A's roof. The party wall contains four windows on the second level of Party B's building. The bottom sills of two of these windows are below the roof line, thus creating open spaces between the party wall and Party A's roof. While Party A was in the process of having a new rubberized roof installed by a contractor, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the manner in which the new roof would be secured to the party wall. Actions allegedly taken by Mr. Adevai to remove the flashing covering the party wall windows eventually resulted in water damage to the existing roof and interior portions of Party A's building. Party A sued Mr. Adevai for compensatory damages and requested that Mr. Adevai be enjoined from committing further damage to the party wall. Mr. Adevai filed a counterclaim, alleging harassment and intimidation by Party A. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the counterclaim and awarded Party A damages for negligence, totaling $28,350.00. We affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Dave Brundage, et al vs. Cumberland County, et al
Petitioners filed a Statutory Writ of Certiorari, seeking the review of respondents' action in granting the right to develop a landfill to Smith Mountain Solutions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _68-211-704. Petitioners did not timely verify their petitions and the Trial Judge dismissed the action on the ground he did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. On appeal, we affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Wyatt v. Ronald Byrd
Property was purchased in Mr. Byrd's name alone, but Ms. Wyatt contends that partnership/joint venture profits were used to secure the purchase, such that she is entitled to an interest in the property. We find that, to the extent that partnership profits were used towards earnest money and closing costs, Ms. Wyatt is presumed to have an interest in the property. We vacate the trial court's dismissal order and we remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding whether R & J Remodeling profits were expended towards earnest money and closing costs, and to allow Mr. Byrd an opportunity to rebut the presumption of partnership property. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Robert Anderson v. Chris (Anderson) Webster
The order that is the subject of this appeal purports to amend the division of marital property as stated in the final judgment. It was entered in response to a motion filed more than a year after the entry of the final judgment. We have determined the motion was untimely because it did not qualify as a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion; therefore, the order that purports to amend the division of marital property as stated in the final judgment is void. We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the order that purports to amend the final judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Conservatorship of Joyce D. Benny
This is an appeal in a conservatorship case. The notice of appeal was mailed via overnight delivery. Had the notice of appeal been delivered the next day, it would have been timely. Unfortunately, the notice of appeal was not delivered the next day and, therefore, was not timely filed. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty (30) days of entry of the final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this appeal must be dismissed. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Gayle Bernard and Edward Michael Shea v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee
This is the second appeal by two former police officers who sought retirement gifts provided for by Metro ordinance and police department policies. The officers requested the gifts and were denied based on lacking good standing at the time they retired, as required by the ordinance. The officers filed a declaratory judgment action as well as civil rights claims, which the trial court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim, respectively. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action and remanded. On remand, the trial court found that, because the officers were under investigation for misconduct at the time of their retirement, they were not in good standing as required by the ordinance and, thus, not entitled to the retirement gifts. The officers appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rennee N. Dhillon v. Gursheel S. Dhillon
Husband challenges various rulings of the trial court in this second appeal of the post-divorce proceedings. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Bee Deselm, et al vs. Knox County Commission, et al
Plaintiffs' action sought the removal of twelve Knox County office holders who had been appointed by the Knox County Commission in violation of the Open Meetings Act, according to plaintiffs' complaint. Another action, independent of plaintiffs' action, sought removal of the office holders on the grounds that the office holders had been appointed in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Plaintiffs were allowed to intervene in the independent case which, following trial, resulted in a finding that the Commission had violated the Open Meetings Act, and the office holders were removed from office. In this case, the trial court held that since plaintiffs had obtained the results that they sought in their action as a result of their intervention that the continuation of this action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs sought and were granted several amendments with their complaint seeking relief on other grounds, but the trial court denied any further relief to plaintiffs' bid. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Anderson v. Roy W. Hendrix, Jr.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff buyer of land, concluding that defendant seller was liable for rollback taxes pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 67-5-1008(f). We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ferrel C. Glover v. Celia Ann Clevenger Glover
After the parties' brief marriage, the trial court awarded Wife $25,000.00 for equity allegedly accrued in the marital residence during the marriage. Finding no contributions by Wife to support a transmutation from separate to marital property, we reverse. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Janis Oliver Cummins v. Roy B. Cummins
Husband appeals the trial court's decision that Wife's payment of taxes, insurance and association dues on houses titled jointly were contributions of separate property to the homes which, under a premarital agreement, entitled her to a credit before Husband could recover appreciation on those homes. The agreement provides for the treatment of a party's contributions of separate property to jointly held property, and we share the trial court's interpretation of those provisions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy L. Chapman et al vs. James V. Lewis, M.D., et al
On April 10, 2000, William D. Chapman, II ("the Deceased") was involved in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of his injuries, he was admitted to Holston Valley Hospital and Medical Center in Kingsport where he came under the care of trauma surgeons, the defendants, James V. Lewis, M.D., and George M. Testerman, Jr., M.D., as well as other physicians and medical personnel. The plaintiff, Cathy L. Chapman, brought this wrongful death action against the defendants based upon her allegation that they were guilty of medical malpractice in the treatment of her husband; she claims that their malpractice caused the death of the Deceased on April 15, 2000. Following eight days of a jury trial in July 2008, counsel for the parties made their closing arguments. During the defense's argument, counsel for the plaintiff objected when counsel for Dr. Testerman projected on a video screen what purported to be the Q. and A. trial testimony of the plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Philip Witorsch. The trial court overruled the objection and thereafter the jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. Later, the trial court, acting on the plaintiff's motion, reversed itself and held that the defendants failed to lay a proper foundation for the use of the projected testimony. The court also pointed out that the defendants failed to give the plaintiff prior notice of their intention to use portions of the trial transcript in closing argument. As a consequence, the court granted the plaintiff a new trial. The defendants appeal. We reverse the trial court's grant of a new trial and reinstate the court's judgment in favor of the defendants. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Robert A. McAlister v. Kelly D. McAlister
In June of 2008, Kelly D. McAlister ("Wife") filed a Petition to Enforce Final Decree against Robert A. McAlister ("Husband") seeking, among other things, to enforce the parties' final decree of divorce entered in June of 2000. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on November 2, 2009 finding and holding, inter alia, that the house at issue shall be sold and the net proceeds divided by the percentages stated in the divorce decree, and that Wife's share of Husband's pension shall be calculated upon Husband's salary at the time of divorce using a fraction with the denominator being the number of months worked by Husband when he retires and the numerator being the number of months of the seventeen year marriage with Wife to receive one- half of the calculated amount. Wife appeals to this Court. We affirm as to the division of the house, reverse as to the calculation of the pension based upon Husband's salary at the time of divorce, and order that Wife's share of Husband's pension shall be calculated upon the amount of the pension at the time Husband retires based upon the formula stated in the divorce decree. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Maddox v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation
Employee sued her employer under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, alleging that she was denied a promotion because of her race. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer. We reverse the summary dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tina Marie Jennings Elam (Engle) v. Larry Daniel Elam, Jr.
The father has appealed from the trial court's order naming the mother as the primary residential parent and allowing her to move to Indiana with the parties' minor child. Because the trial court's order does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Lena Michelle Silvey Rolen vs. Charles Martin Wilson
In 2008, Lena Michelle Silvey Rolen ("Mother") sued Charles Martin Wilson ("Father") alleging, in part, that Father had failed to pay child support as ordered. Father responded and filed a counter-claim seeking custody. After a trial, the trial court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Father was in contempt for willful failure to pay child support as ordered, and that no material change in circumstances had occurred to justify a change in custody. Mother was awarded a judgment against Father for the child support arrearage, among other things. Father appeals to this Court. Because the record on appeal contains no transcript and no Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c) statement of the evidence, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Donna J. Cottingham v. William B. Cottingham
This appeal involves a father's child support and alimony arrearages. The trial court found the father in contempt and sentenced him to ten days in jail, with three days suspended. The court also awarded interest on the alimony and child support arrearages. We affirm in part and reverse and vacate in part. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert A. Leedy v. The Realty Store, Inc., et al
After a bench trial, the court found that, in September 2005, the principals "settled up" their affairs and that thereafter Leedy wrongfully took an excess of $131,489.99, for which the court gave the Agency a judgment. The court declined to award the Agency approximately $70,000 that it claimed Leedy had taken before September 2005 in excess of what he had earned. Leedy appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of a continuance, among other things, including the award to the Agency. Jones and the Agency challenge the trial court's refusal to award judgment against Leedy for the monies taken before September 2005. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals |
