Richard Jennings v. City of Smithville, et al.
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Smithville suspended and ultimately terminated the chief of police because they were unhappy with his efforts to combat the drug and crime problems in the City. The police chief filed a writ of certiorari and asked the trial court to order the City to reinstate him because he was terminated without cause. The trial court concluded there was sufficient evidence in the record to justify the City’s decision and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The police chief appealed, and we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition for writ of certiorari. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Roger William Byrd, D.C. v. Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners
This appeal arises out of disciplinary proceedings against a chiropractor before the Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The allegations originally involved a single incident of solicitation that occurred in 2000, in which Dr. Byrd telephoned a car accident victim just two days after her accident in violation of the Board’s rule governing telemarketing or solicitation. The notice of charges was later amended to include additional allegations regarding Dr. Byrd’s use of an office in Florida to telemarket Tennessee accident victims in violation of the aforementioned rule. Dr. Byrd admitted that telemarketing was being conducted by the Florida employees. However, he claimed that a corporation was responsible for conducting the telemarketing, rather than himself, and he argued that the corporation was not subject to the Board’s telemarketing rules. The Board found Dr. Byrd guilty of several violations and revoked his chiropractic license. The chancery court affirmed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
BSG, LLC v. Check Velocity, Inc.
BSG, LLC introduced CheckVelocity to Weight Watchers. In 2005, CheckVelocity and Weight Watchers entered into an agreement whereby CheckVelocity provided check collection services. BSG, in accordance with its agreement with CheckVelocity, was to receive compensation for its introduction of CheckVelocity to Weight Watchers in the form of residual fees during the time of the CheckVelocity - Weight Watchers agreement and any renewal agreements. In 2008, CheckVelocity and Weight Watchers entered into a new agreement in which credit card collection services were added and the check collection services were continued unchanged. CheckVelocitystopped paying the residual fees because it considered the Weight Watchers agreement to be a new agreement, not a renewal of the old one. BSG sued. The trial court considered the 2008 agreement to be a new agreement, not a renewal, and ruled for CheckVelocity. BSG appealed. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Krystal Dawn (Walton) Cantrell v. Patricia Tolley
This case arises from the circuit court’s execution of judgment. Following dismissal of Appellant’s appeal from the general sessions court, the circuit court specifically affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court, issued execution thereon, and denied Appellant’s motion to quash the execution upon its finding that the ten year time period for collection of judgments, under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-110, ran from the date of the circuit court’s order. Upon review, we conclude that, by affirming the general sessions court’s judgment, the circuit court retained jurisdiction to execute the judgment, and that the ten year time period for collection of the judgment ran from the date of the circuit court’s order and was not expired when levy was made. Affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Glenn Cupp et al. v. Bill Heath et al.
In late 2007, the defendant Bill Heath built a fence on a line running generally east and west, said line having been established by surveyor Bill Parsons in 1990 and then re-staked in 2007 by surveyor Dennis Fultz. The plaintiff Glenn Cupp, an adjoining landowner to the south of Heath, hired surveyor Mark Comparoni to establish his northern line because Cupp believed Heath had built the fence much too far to the south. Marjorie Keck, who joins Heath on her northern boundary and Cupp on her western boundary, also commissioned Comparoni to survey her land. Comparoni’s survey confirmed that Heath’s new fence incorrectly encompassed approximately 35 acres of Cupp’s land and approximately 6 acres of Keck’s land. Cupp and Keck filed this action against Heath in 2008 to establish their northern boundary with Heath and the Cupp/Keck common boundary as surveyed by Comparoni. The trial court found that the Comparoni survey correctly established the boundary lines of all the parties. Heath appeals. We affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.M.K.
This appeal concerns the changing of a minor child’s surname. Tyler Weseman (“Father”) and Amanda King (“Mother”) are, respectively, the father and mother of the minor child A.M.K.(“the Child”). Father filed a petition to establish parentage and co-parenting time. Father sought to have the Child bear his surname. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) changed the Child’s surname from King to King-Weseman. Mother appeals. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s finding that changing the Child’s surname to King-Weseman is in the Child’s best interest. We further hold that the Juvenile Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney’s fees to Mother. The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Billie Seay, Nationwide Insurance v. Betty Walsh et al.
On or about May 28, 2005, Billie Seay was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle driven by the defendant Thomas E. Walsh (“the Driver”), which vehicle was owned by the defendant Betty Walsh (“the Owner”). Seay’s insurance company, Nationwide Insurance Company, settled her claim and filed this subrogation action in Seay’s name for the use and benefit of Nationwide against the Driver and the Owner. The Driver and the Owner filed separate pro se answers. The Owner appeared at trial, but the Driver did not appear. The trial court entered a judgment against both defendants. Two and a half years later, the Driver filed a motion to set aside the judgment. It was denied. He then filed a series of similar unsuccessful post-judgment motions. The Driver appeals from the last order denying post judgment relief. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza
This appeal involves a post-divorce petition to modify a parenting plan. The parties divorced in Tennessee and agreed to a parenting plan that esignated the mother as the primary residential parent of their two minor children. By the time the divorce decree was entered, both parties had moved to New York. Months later, the mother filed a petition in the Tennessee trial court seeking court approval to relocate with the minor children to Colorado. The mother also sought an increase in child support, and to recover a child support arrearage. The father objected and filed a cross-petition in the Tennessee trial court to be designated as the primary residential parent. After a hearing, the Tennessee trial court granted the mother’s petition to relocate, increased the father’s child support obligation, and assessed a child support arrearage against the father. The father appeals. We hold that, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Tennessee trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the mother’s petition to relocate or the father’s petition to change the designation of primary residential parent. We also hold that, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the mother’s request for modification of child support. The trial court, however, retained jurisdiction to enforce the existing child support order. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order insofar as it modified the parenting plan and child support. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Jared Ajani Lima v. Marcia Gabriel Lima
This appeal involves parental relocation. Mother intended to relocate from Tennessee to Las Vegas with the parties’ two children in order to accept another position with her current employer. Father filed a petition opposing the relocation and seeking modification of the parenting plan to be named primary residential parent. The trial court found that the parties were not spending substantially equal intervals of time with the children, and that the move had a reasonable purpose. Therefore, it permitted Mother to relocate with the children pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108. Father raises numerous issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, et al. v. William R. Hill, et al.
Defendant allegedly suffered an on-the-job injury to his knees over the course of several years, and Plaintiffs paid workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf. However, after Defendant was videotaped building a barn, his employment was terminated and suit was filed against him for fraud. Defendant then filed a counter-complaint alleging, among other things, retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to the retaliatory discharge claim, and we affirm and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation, et al.
An applicant for a billboard permit appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation to deny his application. During the pendency of this action, the applicant admitted he had sold his leasehold interest in the property on which the billboard was to be located. Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court concluded that petitioner “lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit and this cause is moot as a matter of law.” We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank of Nashville v. Charles Chipman, Sr., et al.
Defendant defaulted on a $300,000 loan from plaintiff bank. He subsequently renewed the loan but not before transferring certain assets to his wife. He never repaid the loan. The bank filed suit against the husband for breach of contract and fraud and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance, conversion, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment. The bank also sought a lien lis pendens, a constructive trust, and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The trial court found against the husband with respect to the bank’s claims for breach of contract and fraud (in renewing the loan), against the wife for unjust enrichment, and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance. The court denied the bank’s request for a constructive trust and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The parties appeal the trial court’s disposition of claims for fraud, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as its decision not to impose a constructive trust. We find for the bank on its fraud (against the husband) and unjust enrichment (against the wife) claims. We find against the bank on its claims for civil conspiracy to defraud and the imposition of a constructive trust. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Kittrell v. Wilson County, Tennessee, et al.
The owner of a piece of rural property in Wilson County applied for a “permissible use” permit that would allow him to display vehicles for sale on the property. The County planning staff recommended against issuance of a permit, reasoning that the proposed use was not consistent with other uses permitted in an A-1 (agricultural) zoning district. The owner appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which agreed to issue the permit, but limited the use to “no more than 10 serviceable items being on the property at any given time.” The owner challenged the limitation by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wilson County Chancery Court. The court determined that the BZA had acted arbitrarily and had exceeded its authority by placing a condition on the owner’s use of the property of a type not contemplated by the controlling ordinance, and it removed that condition. We affirm the removal of the condition, but we reverse the trial court’s holding that the BZA had violated the property owner’s substantive due process rights. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Davey Mann, and wife, Teresa Mann v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, et al.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants in an amended complaint following the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendants moved for summary judgment/judgment on the pleadings based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Subsequently, co-defendants alleged Defendants’ comparative fault in an amended answer. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings were granted, but were not made final. Based on co-defendants’ answer, Plaintiffs again amended their complaint to name Defendants pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119. However, Defendants claimed that section 20-1-119 could not be utilized as they were already parties to the lawsuit, and they moved for summary judgment and to dismiss. The trial court granted said motions, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Bonanno, Sr. v. Willa Faris
The plaintiff requested a transcript of a deposition from the defendant, a court reporter. When the defendant notified the plaintiff that the transcript was ready and told him her fee, he neither retrieved the transcript nor paid her. After the defendant made several telephone calls to the plaintiff in an attempt to obtain payment, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Walter Jessee Brumit v. Stefanie Lynnne Brumit (Durham)
This wife, Stefanie Lynne Brumit (Durham) (“Wife”), and husband, Walter Jessee Brumit (“Husband”), were divorced in the early 1990s. The parties had one child, and Husband was ordered to pay $1500 per month in child support. From that amount, Wife was ordered to place $300 per month into an educational trust account for the child’s benefit. In 2008, Husband filed a motion for contempt, asserting that Wife was $6,600 behind in the payments to the trust account. Wife claimed that she had fallen behind in the payments because of financial difficulties and brought the trust account up to date prior to filing her response. In April 2009, the trial court, prior to hearing, dismissed the contempt motion and taxed the costs to Husband. Upon Husband’s appeal, we vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a hearing on the merits before a new trial judge. On remand, the trial court found Wife in contempt of court. As Wife had brought the payments to the trust account up to date, the trial court ordered her to pay the interest income lost by the account due to her delinquent payments and half of Husband’s attorney’s fees. Husband appeals. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Ashraf M. Saweres v. Royal Net Auto Sale, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises out of an action in which the plaintiff asserted a claim that the agent of a used car business in which the plaintiff allegedly invested committed misrepresentation, fraud, and conversion, and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in failing to give him stock in the business or compensate him for work performed at the business. Plaintiff also asserted a claim based on defendants’ alleged failure to repair his vehicle. The trial court held that plaintiff had not established the necessary elements for any of his claims and dismissed the case; plaintiff appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Miller v. Jessica Miller (Tolbe)
A Colorado court granted a divorce to married parents who were both active-duty members of the armed forces. The court named the mother as the primary residential parent of their two minor children, and a parenting plan with flexible provisions was fashioned in the event of overseas deployment by one or both parents. Both parties were deployed overseas at various times during the next five years. The children spent the majority of that time in the care of the father, or, during father’s deployments, in the care of his mother or his new wife. The father moved to Clarksville, Tennessee in April of 2007, and after living there with the children for eighteen consecutive months, he filed a petition in the Tennessee court for registration of the Colorado judgment and modification of the parenting plan. He asked the court to name him as the children’s primary residential parent. After a hearing, the trial court granted the father’s petition. The mother argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that there had been a material change of circumstances which was unanticipated at the time of the divorce, and she contends that the father had therefore failed to meet the statutory threshold before a change in a parenting plan may be ordered under Tennessee law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B). She also argues that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-113 limits the authority of the trial court to permanently modify the custody and visitation arrangements for the children of a mobilized parent. We affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jabari Issa Mandela a/k/a John H. Wooden v. Tennessee Department of Correction
This is a petition for declaratory judgment filed by an inmate seeking review of the calculation of his prison sentence. The petitioner inmate filed two administrative petitions for a declaratory order challenging the calculation of his sentence, and the respondent Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) denied both petitions. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant petition for declaratory judgment, arguing that his sentence was improperly calculated. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of TDOC. The petitioner now appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Paul W. Chambers v. First Volunteer Bank of Tennessee
This case arises from a dispute over the repayment of a loan. Penny Chambers obtained a loan through a bank in order to buy a house. Penny Chambers defaulted on the loan. Paul W. Chambers (“Chambers”), Penny Chambers’s husband, later assumed the mortgage. Chambers allegedly defaulted and First Volunteer Bank of Tennessee (“the Bank”) stated that it would foreclose if he did not cure the default. Chambers sued the Bank in the Chancery Court for Polk County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss. Chambers appeals. We find that the Trial Court did not err in granting the Bank’s motion to dismiss. We further find that the Trial Court did not err in denying Chambers’s motion to alter or amend and motion for default. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Millen v. Shelby County District Attorney Office, et al.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint for failure to conform to the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against numerous public officials. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. After review of the complaint, the trial court found that it was unintelligible and failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Freddie Davis v. Shelby County Government
This is a negligence action. Plaintiff/Appellant asserts that Defendant/Appellee is liable for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell while walking down the steps at the Shelby County courthouse. Due to Appellant’s incarceration, the trial court granted three continuances; however, Appellant’s request for a fourth continuance was denied. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had failed to meet his burden to show negligence on the part of the Appellee, and further concluded that, if there was negligence in the case, Appellant was at least fifty percent at fault so as to bar recovery. Appellant appeals both the denial of his fourth motion for a continuance and the trial court’s ruling in favor of Appellee. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Garrison, et al. v. Andy E. Bickford, et al.
Plaintiffs brought this action for the wrongful death of their son, and also for their damages arising from "negligent infliction of emotional distress". State Farm Mutual Insurance Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the grounds that its policy afforded no coverage for a negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Trial Court overruled the Motion but proposed a Rule 9 appeal, which this Court granted. We reverse the Trial Court on this issue and grant the summary judgment motion. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
Package Express Center, Inc. v. Doug Maund, et al.
In the initial suit between these parties, plaintiff sued and recovered damages for breach of contract and attorney's fees as provided in the contract between the parties. Subsequently, plaintiff brought this action for additional attorney's fees to recover the fees incurred in collecting the judgment against defendants. The Trial Court awarded attorney's fees and defendants appealed to this Court. We reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court and hold that the statute of limitations barred further recovery under the terms of the contract between the parties. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Beth L. Wineland v. City of Cleveland, Tennessee et al.
Beth L. Wineland, the sole plaintiff, sustained serious injuries when the front wheel of her bicycle fell into the open slots of a metal drainage grate (“the subject grate” or “the old style grate”) situated near a curb of State Highway 60. The slots on the subject grate run parallel with the direction of traffic. The subject grate is inside the municipal boundaries of the City of Cleveland. The plaintiff made a claim against the State of Tennessee in the Claims Commission and filed this action against the City of Cleveland in the trial court. The claim against the State was consolidated with this action for trial. The plaintiff alleges that the old style grate constitutes a dangerous condition on the highway and that both the City of Cleveland and the State were negligent in maintaining the highway. The trial court determined that neither defendant had a duty to change the grate and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appeals only as to the State. We reverse the judgment and remand for a determination of damages. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals |
