In Re: Conservatorship of Lila M. Trout
This appeal involves a conservatorship. When the respondent was eighty-three years old, her sister |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye, v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., et al.
Defendants sold materials containing asbestos to the deceased’s employer, where he was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma from which he died. Plaintiff’s widow brought this action against the supplier, a jury trial resulted and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, which the Trial Court approved. On appeal, we hold that certain jury instructions were error and we reverse and remand for a new trial. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Morton v. State of Tennessee
Claimant filed this claim for damages seeking return of bond money he had posted. He alleged a violation of his constitutional rights resulted when the State charged him for the same two crimes in two different counties. The State responded with a motion to dismiss contending that the Claims Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion. Claimant appeals. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
William F. Mcneal v. Betty G. Mcneal
This appeal involves the enforcement of a marital dissolution agreement, which provided that the parties would jointly own various retirement accounts after their divorce. Several years after the divorce, the wife filed a petition for relief alleging that the husband was using the funds in the retirement accounts for his own benefit and denying her access to the funds. The trial court essentially divided the retirement funds between the parties and ordered the husband to repay the wife one-half of the funds he had withdrawn since the divorce. The husband appeals. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Arlene R. Starr v. Paul B. Hill, Sr., AND Paul B. Hill, Jr.
After Plaintiff was injured in a car accident, she filed suit against the minor who was driving the other vehicle and against the minor’s father, alleging that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his son pursuant to the family purpose doctrine. Father moved for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed facts showed that the family purpose doctrine was inapplicable as a matter of law. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, claiming that the family purpose doctrine was applicable as a matter of law. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Father. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting Plaintiff’s motion, as we find the family purpose doctrine applicable to this case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In RE: T.D.M.C. and D.M.A.
Mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two children. Father appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his child with Mother. Finding clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s determination, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Melody Cook Evans, et al. v. April Cook, Executrix of the Estate of David Carl Cook
This appeal involves claims made by a sister against her brother’s estate in addition to a separate dispute between the sister and the brother’s estate regarding how much money the estate was owed from the sale of a house owned by the brother and his siblings. The trial court referred the matters to a special master, who found in favor of the sister on some of the claims. Upon review of the special master’s report, however, the trial court rejected the special master’s findings in favor of the sister and ruled in favor of the brother’s estate. The sister appeals, claiming that the trial court should have deferred to the special master. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Rostis Timoshchuk v. Long of Chattanooga Mecedes-Benz, et al.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit after discovering damage to a Mercedes-Benz that had been represented to them as a new vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim against all defendants and plaintiffs’ breach of contract and warranty claims against defendant Mercedes-Benz USA. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jo Taylor v. Wendell Harris and Jo Taylor v. Louie R. Ladd
In this ejectment action, the plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s finding that they did not prove title to the property at issue by adverse possession in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-105 and that they failed to show the boundaries of the property they claimed. Plaintiffs also contend that they were entitled to the presumption of ownership set forth at Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-109. Finding no basis to reverse the judgment of the trial court, we affirm same. |
Grundy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children Services v. Amber Nicole Bennett
This is an appeal from an order terminating a mother’s parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, among others. The trial court found that termination was in the children’s best interest. The mother appeals, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
The Conservatorship of Annette H. Cross
Appellant previously acted as co-conservator of respondent’s estate and person. He was removed from this capacity due to difficulties with his co-conservator cousin. Appellant sought to be renamed conservator of respondent’s estate, but the trial court instead appointed an independent conservator citing Appellant’s previous removal as conservator, the distance Appellant lives from respondent, and the fact that Appellant’s mother is currently acting as conservator of respondent’s person. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s appointment of Robert T. Condo as conservator of respondent’s estate, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis G. Lohmann v. Ronald D. Lohmann, et al.
This is a suit between siblings over their mother's Estate. Plaintiff sued his brother, defendant, alleging the defendant had a confidential relationship with the parties' mother and sought a judgment declaring that certain transactions made by the defendant on behalf of the mother were void. Upon hearing the evidence, the Trial Court held the evidence established a presumption of undue influence and the defendant did not rebut the presumption. The Court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to one-half of the proceeds of the annuity contracts and bank contracts, that the defendant had caused the plaintiff's name to be deleted as a beneficiary of those contracts, and the Court entered Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $211,830.86 against defendant and placed a lien upon the defendants' real property until the Judgment is paid. Defendant has appealed and on appeal we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
LaFollette Medical Center, et al., v. CIty of LaFollette, et al.
In this second appeal of this case, the Trial Court had entered an Agreed Order for disbursement of the funds which stated the parties had determined that the purpose of the constructive trust would best be shared out by transferring the funds to a newly created non-profit corporation known as the Lafollette Medical Foundation (the funds had been held by the Clerk of the Court). The Court directed that the trust fund would be placed in the foundation with the monies retained for potential liabilities, and the charter of the LaFollette Medical Foundation, Inc., was filed with the Court, as well as its by-laws. The City of LaFollette filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order pursuant to Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. P., along with affidavits. The Court conducted a hearing and filed a Memorandum Opinion finding that its order was not void because the City had been found to have no interest in the fund and the City had actual knowledge of the Foundation and its rules, and transferring the money to the Foundation best served the interest of the public rather than the money being held by the Court. The City of LaFollette appealed to this Court. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Mathews Partners, LLC, d/b/a NAI Nashville v. Lucianna Lemme
Commercial real estate broker brought action against seller of property seeking commission following the sale of the property to buyers allegedly introduced to the seller by the broker during the term of the listing agreement. Upon cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment to the seller finding the listing agreement was unenforceable because there was no meeting of the minds and a lack of mutual assent to the terms of the agreement. Broker appeals and finding error, we reverse and remand. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Randloph Deakins v. Lynn Lampton Deakins - Concurring
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Randloph Deakins vs. Lynn Lampton Deakins
In this divorce case, the trial court granted Nancy Randolph Deakins (“Wife”) a divorce from Lynn Lampton Deakins (“Husband”) thereby ending the parties’ 24-year marriage. Upon dissolving the marriage, the court valued and divided the marital estate, declined Husband’s request for alimony, and awarded Wife discretionary costs, her attorney’s fees and court costs. Husband challenges each of these determinations as well as an evidentiary ruling and the court’s finding that Husband dissipated assets. We reverse the awards to Wife of attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Sarah Elizabeth Plunkett v. Bradley-Polk, OB/GYN Services, P.C.
This is a medical malpractice action filed by Sarah Elizabeth Plunkett and her husband Robert Plunkett (“the Plaintiffs”) as the natural parents and next of kin of their stillborn child. The complaint alleges that Michelle Perry, M.D., and Bradley-Polk OB/GYN Services, P.C. (collectively “the Bradley-Polk Defendants”), negligently failed to diagnose, manage and treat complications during Sarah’s pregnancy and that those failures resulted in the stillbirth delivery of the Plaintiffs’ infant. The Plaintiffs secured only one medical expert, Michael A. Ross, M.D., to present testimony that the Bradley-Polk Defendants violated the standard of care applicable in Bradley County at the time of treatment in early 2004. Doctor Ross was licensed in Virginia and practiced primarily in Fairfax, Virginia, and the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C. To satisfy the “locality rule” followed in Tennessee, Dr. Ross testified that Bradley County was similar to two communities where he practiced in Virginia, both of which are within the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., but both of which are distinct communities situated about 40 to 50 miles from Washington, D.C. The Bradley-Polk Defendants first challenged Dr. Ross’s qualifications to testify with a motion in limine, and the trial court denied the motion approximately one month before trial. The Bradley-Polk Defendants renewed their challenge to Dr. Ross’s qualifications on the first day of trial. The trial court allowed a voir dire of Dr. Ross out of the presence of the jury and held that Dr. Ross was not qualified because the large metropolitan area where he practiced was not similar to Bradley County. Upon a stipulation of the parties that there was no proof available other than through Dr. Ross to establish a violation of the standard of care in Bradley County, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs’ oral motion for continuance and granted the Bradley-Polk Defendants’ motion for directed verdict. The Plaintiffs appeal. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Julia Fisher v. Ashley Revell - Concurring
|
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Julia Fisher v. Ashley Revell - Concurring
|
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Julia Fisher, et al. v. Ashley Revell, et al.
This is a summary judgment case, arising from an automobile accident. Plaintiffs/Appellants, the two injured parties, filed suit and served a copy of the summons on their insurance provider, the Appellee herein. In interpreting the policy, the trial court concluded that the policy limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence limited Plaintiffs/Appellants’ coverage to $200,000 (or $100,000 per person). Plaintiffs/Appellants appeal, asserting that they are entitled to recover the policy limit of $300,000 per occurrence. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Bass Collins v. Stephen Butler Collins
This case involves a divorce ending a one year marriage. Husband appeals the trial court’s valuation of marital property, its decision not to include the increase in wife’s separate property in the distribution of marital property and the award of temporary support to the wife during the pendency of the divorce. Because the trial court failed to properly determine the marital value on some items of property we reverse the trial court’s decision as to those items and remand for further consideration. We affirm the trial court’s decision as to the value of the remaining items of property and its award of temporary support. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis S. Person v. The Board of Commissioners of Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
In 1967, the General Assembly passed a Private act consolidating the juvenile courts of Memphis and Shelby County by establishing a new court. The Act also provided for a second division, with the judgeship of that division to remain vacant until the County Commission determined the need for it. Almost forty years later, the Commission adopted a resolution approving the appointment of a judge to the second division of the court. The current judge of the Juvenile Court of Shelby County challenged the attempted creation of a second judgeship, arguing that the relevant portion of the Private Act constituted an unconstitutional delegation of the authority to ordain and establish courts, which power is reserved to the General Assembly by the Tennessee Constitution. Because a judge is a necessary component of a court, in order to “ordain and establish” a court under Art. VI, § 1, the legislation creating or establishing the court must make provision for a judge. The legislature cannot establish a court without also establishing a judgeship. Since Section 20 of the Private Act does not create or establish a judgeship for division 2, it did not effectively create or establish that division or court. Additionally, because in Section 20 of the Private Act the legislature delegated to the Commission the power to decide whether a judge for division 2 was needed, which is the equivalent of delegating to the Commission the authority to establish or create division 2 of the juvenile court, we conclude that Section 20 is an unconstitutional delegation of power reserved to the General Assembly by Art. VI, § 1 of the Tennessee Constitution and, therefore, reverse the trial court’s holding on that issue. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on Open Meeting Act claims based on a prior resolution that was promptly rescinded by the Commission. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wireless Properties, LLC vs. The Board of Appeals for the City of Chattanooga, et al
The plaintiff filed a petition challenging the grant of a building permit to Verizon Wireless. The decision of the City was affirmed by the Board. After the trial court conducted a hearing, it affirmed and dismissed the petition. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Carol J. Cataldo v. Larry B. Stanley, Sr., Executor of The Estate of James Alton Julian, Deceased
This case arises from the denial of Appellant’s claim against the Appellee Estate of James Alton Julian. Because Appellant held and exercised a power-of-attorney, a confidential relationship existed. The trial court determined that Appellant failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence, that the claim was satisfied by a specific bequest in the decedent’s will, and denied Appellant’s alternate theory of quantum meruit. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Macon v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board and Shelby County Sheriff's Department
This is an appeal from an administrative hearing on a termination. The plaintiff was a deputy jailer with the sheriff’s department. He was arrested and charged with, inter alia, driving under the influence. The subsequent internal investigation by the sheriff’s department revealed that, prior to his hire, the deputy jailer had pled guilty to a felony drug charge. The conviction was expunged. On the plaintiff’s later application for employment with the sheriff’s department and on the background check form, the plaintiff was asked whether he had had any arrests or convictions, including any that had been expunged. The plaintiff answered that he had none. After the internal investigation, the deputy jailer was terminated for violating sheriff’s department regulations governing personal conduct, adherence to law, and truthfulness. The deputy jailer appealed his termination to the civil service merit review board which upheld the termination based on violation of the truthfulness regulation. This was appealed to the trial court, which ultimately upheld the termination as well. From this order, the deputy jailer now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence before the board and arguing that the board’s failure to include conclusions of law precludes adequate judicial review. We affirm, finding that the evidence is substantial and material; that the sheriff’s department and the civil service board properly considered the expunged conviction; and that the board’s failure to include conclusions of law in its decision does not preclude adequate judicial review in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
