This appeal involves the lower court's award of a garnishment judgment against Accuride Corporation, as well as its subsequent denial of Accuride's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand for further proceedings.
Alma Neiswinter v. Mark Murray M2002-02345-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
This appeal involves modification of child custody and child support, and contempt for failure to pay the support. When the mother and the father were divorced, the mother was designated as the primary residential parent. Three years later, custody was changed to the father. Subsequently, the mother filed a petition for change of custody and for modification of her child support obligation. The State later filed a petition on behalf of the father to hold the mother in criminal contempt for failure to pay child support. After a trial on both the mother's petition for change in custody and support and the State's petition for contempt, the trial court denied the mother's petition for custody, reduced the support retroactively because one child no longer lived with the father, and granted the State's petition, holding the mother in contempt. As punishment for the contempt, the trial court sentenced the mother to forty days in prison. From that order, the mother now appeals. We affirm the trial court's determinations regarding child custody and child support. We reverse the trial court's finding of criminal contempt, finding that the mother had in fact paid all of the required child support, based on the trial court's retroactive order reducing the child support obligation.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Ronald E. Brown v. Balaton Power, Inc. M2001-02770-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This case involves the issue of whether parties contracted for arbitration to be the sole method of dispute resolution with regard to contract disputes. We find the intent of the parties unclear due to an irreconcilable conflict between two sections of the contract dealing with dispute resolution. We, thus, affirm the trial court's ruling that Plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate.
Irby C. Simpkins v. Peaches G. Blank M2002-02383-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
This case involves an appeal from a grant of summary judgment equitably dividing a tax refund of the parties and refusing to reopen the parties' marital dissolution agreement. In addition, appellant contends the trial court erred by awarding attorney's fees to appellee for issues relating to child support litigated below. For the following reasons, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Lynn Blevins v. Lester Blevins M2002-02583-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal arises from Wife's complaint for divorce. Based on Husband's failure to file an answer, Wife filed a motion for default and notice of hearing. Husband attended the hearing pro se and was afforded the opportunity to continue the hearing to retain legal counsel but declined to do so. After receiving testimony, the trial court awarded Wife a divorce, divided marital property and awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony for 60 months. Husband appeals, asserting that the trial court's division of marital property was not fair and equitable and that Wife did not provide proof sufficient to establish a proper basis for an award of rehabilitative alimony. We reverse and modify in part the division of marital property and indebtedness and reclassify the alimony from rehabilitative to in solido. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Nashville & Davidson County v. Margaret Hudson M2002-02847-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This case involves an appeal from the trial court's grant of Appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellee filed suit seeking to enjoin Appellant to remove vinyl siding that she had installed on her house in violation of a historic zoning ordinance. Appellant counter-complained alleging that the ordinance was void and unenforceable on grounds that the ordinance was unconstitutional and never properly adopted. Appellee subsequently moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Donald Britt v. Roxanne Howell M2002-03070-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
The parties are adjacent commercial landowners of two story buildings with the second floors of their buildings being serviced by a common stairway between the two properties. The dispute involves use of the stairway and storage closets under and over the stairwell. The trial court held that the stairway was a common stairway, owned in equal undivided interests by the parties as was the upper floor storage area. The trial court further held that the lower floor storage area belonged exclusively to Appellees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Maury
Court of Appeals
Mary Watkins v. Bryan Watkins M2002-01777-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Royce Taylor
This is an appeal from an order denying a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Wife in her divorce from Husband. For the following reasons, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Susan Taylor v. Square D Company M2002-01620-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
Disobeying the direct orders of his supervisor, an electrician began work on a substation without following the proper safety procedures. He was electrocuted and perished almost instantly. The widow of the electrician brought suit against the manufacturer of the substation, alleging that the manufacturer was negligent and had defectively designed an unreasonably dangerous product. The trial court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer. Because there are no material factual disputes, and the negligence of the electrician was clearly greater than that of the manufacturer, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
In Re: D.D.K., D.M.M., and T.J.M., Jr. M2003-01016-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: L. Raymond Grimes
This appeal involves a petition filed by the Department of Children's Services to terminate the parental rights of Father to his two minor children. The trial court granted the petition and Father appeals the decision. Because we find the petition was improperly granted, we vacate and remand.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Eleonora Kogan. v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry M2003-00291-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In this case we are asked to determine the type of notice required to be given a defendant in a contested case hearing before a state administrative agency. We determine that Tennessee Compilation of Administrative Rules and Regulations 13604-1-.06 applies and requires personal service, return receipt mail, or, in the event of evading service, personal service with a person at the parties' dwelling place. In the case at bar, service of notice of the new trial date was made through regular mail only. This method of service is insufficient. The decision of the Board of Dentistry is vacated, and the case is remanded.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Earl M. Shahan v. Franklin County M2002-00725-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
This case involves a dispute between Franklin County and the developer and residents of a subdivision over the maintenance of roads in the subdivision. After the county declined the developer's public dedication of the roads and denied applications for building permits in the subdivision because of inadequate roads, the developer and several property owners filed separate suits against the county in the Chancery Court for Franklin County to determine the responsibility for maintaining the roads. The property owners also sought specific performance and damages from the developer. The trial court consolidated the cases and, following a bench trial, held that the county was not responsible for maintaining the roads. The trial court also directed the developer to bring the roads up to 1990 subdivision standards. The developer asserts on this appeal that there had been an implied public dedication of the roads and, therefore, that the county was responsible for maintaining them. For their part, two property owners assert that they are entitled to damages in addition to specific performance. We have determined that the trial court correctly determined that the roads were not public roads and that the property owners were not entitled to damages as well as specific performance. However, we have also determined that the trial court should have ordered the developer to bring the roads up to the county's current road standards.
Franklin
Court of Appeals
Inez Seals and Terry Hurd v. Life Investors Insurance M2002-01753-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
This is a case involving the reformation of a settlement agreement terminating claims on two policies between plaintiffs and the defendant insurance company. The trial court refused to reform the settlement agreement and denied defendants their attorney's fees. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.
Sequatchie
Court of Appeals
Meaji Nisley Lockmiller v. Mark Lockmiller E2002-02586-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
In this divorce case, the parties contested, among other things, the issues of divorce and the custody of their minor children, Victoria Grace Lockmiller (DOB: August 27, 1994) and James Roman Lockmiller (DOB: November 24, 1998). Expressing its belief that Mark Douglas Lockmiller ("Father") would not tell "a knowing untruth," the trial court granted him a divorce from Meaji Lynn Nisley Lockmiller ("Mother") on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct and designated him as the primary residential parent of the parties' children. Wife appeals, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of primary custody to Father. We affirm.
This lawsuit emanates from a 1989 sale of land, which included a portion of land to which the seller did not have title. Two subsequent assignees of the original buyer filed a cause of action against the seller, seeking rescission or reformation of the 1989 transaction and alternate relief. The trial court awarded plaintiffs’ damages and declined to award equitable relief. We affirm.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Four Seasons Heating & Air Conditioning vs. Beers Skanska. M2002-02783-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This is a breach of contract case. The defendant general contractor was hired to construct a building on a state college campus. The contractor hired the plaintiff subcontractor to perform substantial work on the job. During the course of the project, the subcontractor sought additional labor costs incurred in the project. This issue was not resolved. Later, the subcontractor sought from the contractor the retainage kept by the contractor. When the check was ready, the subcontractor sent its project manager to retrieve it. In order to get the check, the project manager was required by the contractor to sign a document releasing all claims between the contractor and the subcontractor. Later, the subcontractor filed this lawsuit, seeking the additional labor costs. The contractor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that, by the project manager's signature on the release, the subcontractor waived its claim to the additional labor costs. The subcontractor argued that its project manager did not have the authority to bind the company to the release. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the subcontractor's complaint. The subcontractor now appeals. We reverse, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that the project manager had actual or apparent authority to bind the subcontractor or to establish as a matter of law that the subcontractor ratified the release signed by the project manager.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Elaine H. Deathridge, et ux vs. Richard T. Barksdale M2003-00032-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
Plaintiffs brought action against driver for damages arising from a rear-end automobile collision. Defendant raised affirmative defense of sudden emergency caused by a "phantom" non-party defendant's placing duct work in the roadway. The jury found that Defendant was not at fault. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In re: K.N.R., et al M2003-01301-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Max D. Fagan
Robertson
Court of Appeals
In re: K.N.R., et al M2003-01301-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Max D. Fagan
Robertson
Court of Appeals
Clement Bernard vs. Sumner Regional Health System M2002-02962-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This case was dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment for res judicata. Plaintiff had previously filed an action against the same defendant for actions of defendant surrounding a sexual harassment allegation. The previous action was for procurement of breach of contract and defamation. A final judgment has been rendered in that case. The current action is for failure to follow internal procedures resulting in breach of contract. The issue to be decided on appeal is whether these two cases involve the same "cause of action" necessary for a finding of res judicata. We find that they do involve the same "cause of action" and affirm the trial court's decision.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Erik Maasikas vs. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County M2002-02652-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Appellant, a former Metropolitan Nashville police officer, appeals an adverse judgment of the Chancery Court of Davidson County wherein that court affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Civil Service Commission imposing a two-day suspension for a disciplinary infraction. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas G. Hyde vs. Ishikawa Gasket America M2002-02653-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
This case involves the breach of a contract when defendant refused to pay fees to which plaintiff claims an entitlement. The trial court below found that, under the facts of the case, the contract did not apply and, therefore, refused to award plaintiff its fees. Instead, the trial court awarded plaintiff a lesser amount under the theory of quantum meruit. Plaintiff timely appealed that decision and, for the reasons stated below, this Court reverses the ruling of the lower court.
