McMinn County vs. Ocoee Environmental E2002-00702-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
This appeal questions the validity of a resolution enacted by Appellant McMinn County imposing a surcharge for solid waste disposal at all Class I landfills located in McMinn County. The resolution as initially passed imposed a surcharge of $4.00 per ton of waste, and was subsequently reduced by McMinn County to $2.75 per ton. Appellee Environmental Trust Company ("ETC"), which owns one of the two landfills in the county, refused to pay the surcharge, asserting that it was actually an unlawful tax. McMinn County filed this action to require ETC to pay the surcharge. The Trial Court held that the resolution imposed an unlawful tax, and granted summary judgment in favor of ETC. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
McMinn
Court of Appeals
Carroll Clabo vs. Great American Resorts vs. Jim Falin E2002-01008-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle
Carroll Clabo and wife, Blanche Clabo; Dorothy Reed and husband, Earl Reed; Edna Myers and husband, Jerry Myers; and Kate Clabo and husband, Junior Clabo ("Plaintiffs") and Great American Resorts, Inc. ("Defendant") own neighboring properties in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Defendant developed its property and during construction altered the natural drainage causing rainfall to be diverted onto Plaintiffs' properties. The diverted water caused a landslide that destroyed the access roadway to Plaintiffs' properties and caused damage to Carroll and Blanche Clabo's house. The Trial Court found a permanent nuisance existed and awarded all Plaintiffs damages for diminution in value and $10,000 for the damage to Carroll and Blanche Clabo's house. Defendant appeals claiming the Trial Court erred in finding a permanent nuisance. We affirm.
Willard Malone vs. Judy Malone E2002-01257-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
In this post-divorce case, Willard Eugene Malone (Husband) filed a motion requesting the Trial Court to decrease or discontinue his alimony payments to Judy Mae Bishop Malone (Wife). The sole basis for the motion was Husband's allegation that Wife "is cohabiting with a third person . . .and is no longer in need of the alimony paid by [Husband]." Wife denied that a reduction or elimination of alimony was appropriate, alleging that the person who had lived with her did not provide her financial support or contribution, and that he no longer lived in her trailer at the time of her answer. Wife also alleged that she remained in need of the alimony payments. The Trial Court found no substantial material change in circumstances and ordered Husband to continue paying alimony in the amount of $1000 per month. Husband appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Richard Lee v. City of Lavergne M2001-02098-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge Allen W. Wallace
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
The cause was heard by the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, on a petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Chancellor remanded the case and ordered the City of LaVergne to provide plaintiff a hearing before the City Administrator. The City appealed. We find the appellee was an at will employee, and as such, has no property interest in his job. Therefore, a due process claim is inapplicable. Appellee relies upon the City of LaVergne Employee Manual. The Manual does not contain clear and binding language to create a contract of employment, and does not create any property rights in appellee. Therefore, the judgment of the Chancellor is reversed.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Pacific Design Ventures v. Big River Breweries M2001-02395-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge Allen W. Wallace
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment and dismissed appellants' suit. On appeal, the appellants argue the Chancellor erred in striking their response to appellees' statement of undisputed facts, amended complaint and affidavit supporting the amended complaint as being late-filed. We find the Chancellor did not abuse his discretion, and we also find summary judgment was appropriate. Therefore, we affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State Dept of Children's Srvcs v. D.D.B. M2002-00523-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove
Trial Court Judge: John J. Hestle
This appeal arises from the termination of parental rights by the juvenile court. We affirm the juvenile court.
Leroy McBee v. David Elliott M2002-00277-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
In this case, a brother and sister dispute who is the actual owner of property formerly owned by their deceased parents. We are asked to decide if the trial court properly relied upon promissory estoppel and adverse possession to recognize that the brother had a defense to this claim for possession. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Franklin
Court of Appeals
Edward Gray vs. Johnson Mobile Homes W2001-01982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This is a contract case. The buyer contracted to purchase a mobile home. After the home was delivered, the buyer inspected it and found it to be in unsatisfactory condition. The buyer complained to the seller and then to the manufacturer, each of whom attempted to remedy the problems. The buyer found the repairs to be unacceptable and revoked his acceptance of the mobile home. The buyer sued the seller, the manufacturer, and the finance company. The buyer settled with the finance company. The seller became insolvent and did not appear at the trial. Consequently, the buyer went to trial against the seller and the manufacturer, with only the manufacturer present. The trial court found for the buyer and apportioned the damages between the seller and the manufacturer. On appeal, the buyer argues that the trial erred in apportioning the damages between the seller and the manufacturer, and in awarding him insufficient damages. The manufacturer argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for involuntary dismissal, and in awarding damages against the manufacturer. We affirm.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Ben Wilson vs. Kate Wilson Ward E2001-02177-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
The Trial Court, exercising its equitable powers, ordered property sold and proceeds distributed in accordance with the terms of a Will in an estate closed in 1982. On appeal, we affirm.
In Re: Shiann Horner E2002-00588-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Wright
This appeal focuses on the trial court's guardianship decree regarding Shiann Marie Horner (DOB: November 18, 1996) ("the child"). When the child's mother died, she moved in with her father, Charles E. Horner ("the father"), in Greene County. Following the father's incarceration as a result of his second arrest for driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), the child started living full-time with her weekend caregivers, Ralph L. Hensley and Diana Hensley ("the Greeneville couple"), a married couple who are not related to the child by blood or marriage. The child's maternal aunt, Lori Lynn Kopsi, a resident of Menominee, Michigan ("the Michigan aunt"), filed a petition seeking custody of the child. The Greeneville couple responded with their own petition for custody. Following a hearing on the competing petitions, the trial court determined that it was in the child's best interest that the Greeneville couple should serve as the child's guardian. The Michigan aunt appeals, challenging the trial court's judgment. We affirm.
Greene
Court of Appeals
State v. Travis Thompson M2001-02354-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case involves the Tennessee Health Club Act. The defendant/appellees purchased a health club and failed to obtain a certificate of registration. Three months later, the health club owners obtained a certificate of registration. The State of Tennessee, through the Attorney General, filed a lawsuit against the health club owners alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Health Club Act seeking injunctive relief, substantial fines, and several hundred thousand dollars in restitution. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the health club owners, holding that the remedies under the Health Club Act were available only to consumers, not the State, and that there was no proof of an "ascertainable loss" under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court also granted the health club owners' request for attorney's fees and costs. The State appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part, finding, inter alia, that the State may seek remedies under the Health Club Act on behalf of consumers, affirming the trial court's ruling that proof of an ascertainable loss is required, and affirming the award of attorney's fees.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Daniel Bills v. Conseco Insurance M2002-01906-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Daniel Bills v. Conseco Insurance M2002-01906-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Randall Cook v. Frank Hanner M2002-01083-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ross H. Hicks
Robertson County -This case involves allegations of an improper verdict form and jury instructions. As Appellants failed to make timely objections concerning these issues, and failed to file a motion for a new trial based on these perceived irregularities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Robertson
Court of Appeals
R.P. Industries v. United States Aluminum M2002-00897-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
This appeal arises from a dispute over an agreement to issue joint checks. The trial court found that the parties had an agreement whereby the general contractor was to issue checks jointly payable to the sub-contractor and the materials supplier, which the general contractor breached when it issued single payee checks. The court awarded the materials supplier $17,500.00. The parties raise two issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Donald Curlee v. State Auto Mutual M2002-01627-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This case involves the interpretation of a permit bond. The contractor and a surety entered into a permit bond relating to work the contractor was to perform for a metropolitan government. The bond was written in favor of the metropolitan government as well as property owners whose property was damaged due to the contractor's violation of certain metropolitan government codes. In the underlying lawsuit, a property owner was awarded a judgment against the contractor. In this lawsuit, the property owner sued the surety for failing to pay the judgment against the contractor. The trial court granted the surety's motion to dismiss, finding that there was no contractual relationship between the property owner and the surety on which a claim could be based, nor was the property owner a third-party beneficiary of the permit bond. The property owner appeals. We review the trial court's decision as a motion for summary judgment and affirm, finding that the record does not show that the property owner was among the parties protected under the language of the Bond.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State v. All Parties with an Interest in the Property /Map 158, Parcel 34 M2002-01137-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This is a case involving the proposed disinterment of Indian burial grounds. The Appellants urge this Court to consider numerous issues. Having determined that the only issue properly before this Court is the propriety of the trial court's denial of Appellants' motion to intervene, we affirm the trial court's denial of intervention.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
James Corbin v. Tom Lange Co. M2002-01162-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case involves a noncompetition agreement. An employee signed a noncompete agreement when he began working for an employer. The employee resigned and began working for a competitor of the employer. The employee sought a declaratory judgment that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable. Approximately eighteen months into the two-year noncompetition period, the trial court issued a ruling that the agreement was not enforceable. The employer appeals. We affirm, finding that neither the training provided to the employee nor the employee's relationship with the employer's customers created a business interest that warranted the protection of a noncompetition agreement.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
E2002-01156-COA-R3-CV E2002-01156-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Knox
Court of Appeals
Ethan Rider v. Laurie Rider M2002-00556-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal, from a grant of summary judgment, involves the imposition of a constructive trust on life insurance proceeds. The lower court imposed the constructive trust, for the benefit of Father's son from his first marriage, on proceeds distributed to Father's second wife. The basis for the constructive trust arose from Father's obligation, under the decree of divorce dissolving his first marriage, to maintain life insurance benefitting his minor son. For the following reasons, we reverse the ruling of the lower court.
