Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
The plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration regarding the proper interpretation of a will. The trial court found a will provision leaving "real property and contents" to the decedent's son, the plaintiff Dennis Mauk, is not ambiguous and that the word "contents" includes a 27-year old mobile home on the decedent's property. The decedent's other four children appeal, contending the will is ambiguous. They argue the trial court erred in failing to consider parol evidence as to the meaning of the subject language. They further contend the trial court erred in ordering a $6,000 bequest to the appellants to be paid into court, thus making it subject to the debts of the estate. We modify the trial court's judgment to provide that the share of personal property bequeathed to each of the decedent's children should be burdened with one-fifth of the decedent's debts. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Arthur E. Mcclellan
This appeal arises from the Appellant's filing of a Petition to Modify the Final Decree of Divorce in the Circuit Court of Sumner County. The Appellant requested a downward deviation in child support and a reduction in alimony. The Appellant also requested that he no longer be required to reimburse the Appellee for health insurance coverage. The Appellee filed a Counter-Petition requesting an upward deviation in child support. Following a trial on the Petition and Counter-Petition, the trial court entered an order reducing the Appellant's child support obligation to $1,000.00 per month. The trial court declined to modify the award of rehabilitative alimony and health insurance coverage. The Appellant appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Sumner County setting child support at $1,000.00 per month and refusing to modify the award of rehabilitative alimony and health insurance coverage. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Lee Davies
This appeal arises from the breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the Appellants and the Appellee. The Appellee filed a complaint against the Appellants in the Circuit Court for Williamson County, seeking damages for loss of reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and loss of the ability to advance. The Appellants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Thomas Stillwell ("Father") appeals the Trial Court's order which he claims improperly modified the original decree establishing child visitation. Father claims this was in error because there was no showing of a material change in circumstances. Father also appeals the Trial Court's order which prohibited him from possessing a firearm when he is exercising visitation with his son. We affirm the Trial Court's determination on visitation, as modified, and vacate the prohibition on Father's possessing a firearm in the presence of his child.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Joyce M. Ward
In 1983, Jerome Felix Havely and Almeda Matthews Havely were divorced. They had entered into a Property Settlement Agreement which was incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce ("Divorce Judgment"). Neither the Divorce Judgment nor the Property Settlement Agreement mentioned the military pension of Jerome Felix Havely ("Plaintiff"). Approximately one month after the entry of the Divorce Judgment, Almeda Matthews Havely ("Defendant") filed a motion essentially seeking relief under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 in which she alleged that the Divorce Judgment should be set aside because she had not been aware of her entitlement to Plaintiff's military pension. This motion was dismissed in 1984 by the trial court for failure to prosecute. This matter lay dormant for fourteen plus years until Defendant filed two more Rule 60.02 motions. Defendant's third and final Rule 60.02 motion, filed in 1999, is the subject of this appeal. After three notices of hearing were filed, the trial court dismissed Defendant's motion without providing its reasons for the dismissal. Defendant appeals. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
In this divorce case, the husband has appealed the award of alimony, child visitation and support, and the Court's division of marital property. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
This is an interpleader bill filed by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company against four named Beneficiaries in a policy of insurance issued to their father, Arnold Joe Johnson. Two of the Beneficiaries were children by a former marriage of Mr. Johnson, who were added as such shortly before his death. The two Beneficiaries by a subsequent marriage insisted that the provisions of a divorce decree precluded Mr. Johnson from adding his other two children as Beneficiaries. The Trial Court found that all four should share in the proceeds of the policy equally and entered a summary judgment to that effect. We vacate and remand.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
Catherine Dean Jackson ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint for divorce against her husband, Bruce Lane Jackson ("Defendant"). The parties entered a stipulation, which was approved by the Trial Court, in which they agreed both parties were entitled to a divorce and agreed that Plaintiff be granted custody of their minor child. The parties, however, did not agree on the remaining issues of alimony and the division of marital property and liabilities. Over approximately four years, the Trial Court referred these issues to a Special Master on three occasions. Upon each referral by the Trial Court, the Special Master held a hearing in which he heard arguments and, during the first two hearings, heard testimony from the parties and witnesses. After each hearing, the Special Master filed his report, but did not file a transcript of the hearing with the report as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.04(1). Among other findings, the Special Master recommended that Plaintiff receive "rehabilitative alimony for life . . . " in the amount of $1,000 per month and that Defendant pay the parties' entire 1994 tax liability. With the exception of modifying the Special Master's alimony recommendation to alimony in futuro, the Trial Court adopted the Special Master's recommendations which precipitated Defendant's appeal. Due to the Special Master's failure to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.04(1), we vacate the portion of the the Trial Court's judgment relative to alimony and the 1994 tax liability, affirm the remainder of the judgment, and remand.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This is a malicious prosecution case. The defendants obtained a warrant against the plaintiff after observing a man matching the plaintiff's description attempting to break into a car on the defendants' property. After a jury trial, the plaintiff was found not guilty. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a lawsuit against the defendants for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the defendants acted with probable cause and without malice in obtaining the warrant.
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
In this negligence action, Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages in connection with the rupture of a gas line. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant appeals. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Three civil service employees sued Nashville Electric Service and the individual members of the civil service board primarily for violation of the age provision of the Tennessee Human Rights Act resulting in their denial of promotions. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
This appeal involves a grant of summary judgment, which dismissed loss of parental consortium claims brought by the children of a parent injured in an automobile accident. The children seek review of existing Tennessee precedent that fails to recognize loss of parental consortium causes of action resulting from the personal injury of a parent. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and decline to create a new cause of action.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This case involves child visitation with a prison inmate. The child's father has been incarcerated since 1994 at the Northwest Correctional Facility in Lake County, Tennessee. The child resides with his mother in Weakley County, Tennessee. In 1997, the father filed a petition in the Lake County Chancery Court seeking an order requiring the child's mother to allow the father to communicate with his child. The mother failed to respond to the petition. In April 1999, the Lake County Chancery Court sua sponte dismissed the petition, finding that it should have been filed in Weakley County. This Court reversed, holding that lack of venue was a defensewhich was waived when the mother failed to respond. After the case was remanded, the mother sent a letter to the Lake County Chancery Court, advising that a paternity petition had been filed in the Weakley County Juvenile Court. Thereafter, the Lake County Chancery Court transferred the father's petition to the Weakley County Juvenile Court to be determined in conjunction with the paternity petition. The father now appeals the transfer of his petition. We affirm, finding that the trial court acted within its authority in transferring the case to a court with concurrent jurisdiction.
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Don H. Allen
In a post-divorce proceeding, father filed a "motion" to increase visitation with his minor child. The trial court found that there had been no material change of circumstances since the entry of the prior visitation order and denied the "motion." Father has appealed. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This lawsuit arises out of a Letter of Intent entered into between two of the various parties to this action. The trial court entered judgment on the issue of which party was entitled to possession of the property, but did not rule on any of the remaining claims. Because the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment for purposes of Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. App. P., we dismiss the appeal.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant appraiser's negligence in making an appraisal resulted in their damage. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal the refusal of the Trial Judge to grant them additional time to defend the summary judgment motion. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
Linda Green, M.D., and Steve Ferguson, M.D. ("Plaintiffs"), who are married, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment ("Complaint") against their automobile insurance carrier, United States Automobile Association, or USAA, regarding a dispute over the terms of their insurance policy ("Policy"). Plaintiff Green claimed coverage under their Policy's uninsured/underinsured motorist liability section for her physical injuries, medical expenses, and loss of income resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiff Ferguson claimed coverage for loss of consortium. Defendant contends that the Policy limits Plaintiff Ferguson's loss of consortium claim to the $300,000 each person coverage already extended to Plaintiff Green. After Plaintiffs filed suit disputing this interpretation of the Policy, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the trial court. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Loue G. Manning appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of K-Trans Management, Inc., as to his suit seeking damages for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of his termination by K-Trans. We find there is no material evidence to support his insistence that he was terminated because of his race and affirm the judgment below.
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
This is a post-divorce child support dispute with a series of hearings and orders stretching over a 29-month period. Lawrence David Sadler ("Father"), the obligor parent, appeals the last order entered below, in which the trial court found him in arrears and awarded Patricia Jane Sadler ("Mother") her attorney's fees of $6,262.50. Because we find that the referee's action, as approved by the trial court in the subject order, retroactively modified Father's child support obligation and erroneously found Father to be in arrears in his child support obligation, we reverse.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett
In this custody dispute, the Trial Court gave custody to the father. The mother appealed. We affirm.
