Mark Tinsley v. Suzanne Tinsley M2001-02319-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
Mother sought modification of child support and a judgment against Father for contempt in the form of retroactive child support due to his failure to supply her with a yearly statement of his income as required by the final divorce decree. The trial court ordered a modification of the prospective child support, determining the amount of the obligation by averaging Father's fluctuating income for the three years prior to the hearing and awarded Mother a $54,192.00 judgment for retroactive child support during the five years that Father failed to provide his income statements to Mother. Because the trial court correctly calculated the prospective child support obligation, we affirm the amount of Father's monthly obligation in the amount of $1,300.00 from the date the petition was filed. However, because the trial court has no authority to award retroactive child support modification, we vacate the $54,192.00 judgment for retroactive child support. We remand the case for further proceedings to set reasonable attorney fees.
Cheatham
Court of Appeals
Paul Ivy v. Tennessee Department of Correction M2001-01219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction regarding a disciplinary proceeding at the Deberry Special Needs Facility in Davidson County. The prisoner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County alleging the disciplinary board acted illegally, arbitrarily, and vindictively by violating the Department's Uniform Disciplinary Procedures when it disciplined him for attempted escape. The Department filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, and the trial court, citing Sandin v. Conner, 512 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995), dismissed the petition. The prisoner has appealed. We have determined that the order dismissing the prisoner's petition should be reversed in part and that the case should be remanded for further consideration in light of Willis v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2003).
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Haithcote v. Donal Campbell M2001-01828-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
A prisoner convicted of numerous crimes filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, arguing that the Department of Correction had erred in its calculation of his sentence expiration date, and that he was entitled to be released. The Department stood by the correctness of its calculations. The petitioner's sentence expired during the course of the proceedings, and he was released. The trial court then dismissed the petition as moot. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Estate of Theresa Cunningham M2001-01965-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Don Davis
The plaintiff filed a claim against the estate of the deceased more than eighteen months after the first publication of notice to creditors and twenty months after her death. The trial court granted him a judgment against the estate for the full amount of his claim. We reverse.
Franklin
Court of Appeals
William Steele v. Richard Berkman M2001-02250-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This appeal arises from a medical malpractice complaint filed by the Appellees in the Circuit Court of Davidson County against the Appellant, six other doctors, and two hospitals. The Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the Appellant's motion for summary judgment. The Appellant filed an application for extraordinary appeal with this Court pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court granted the application for extraordinary appeal. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment against the Appellant.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas Dyer v. TDOC M2001-01446-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas Dyer v. TDOC M2001-01446-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Lisa Davis v. Charles Jensen M2001-00973-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Alfred L. Nations
Appellant, an incarcerated prisoner in the Department of Corrections of California, appeals the action of the Juvenile Court of Williamson County in terminating his parental rights to his biological child. He refused to participate in the termination hearing by means of telephonic communication as authorized by the trial court demanding, instead, that the trial court either continue the case until after his release from confinement, or have him transported from California to Williamson County for personal participation. The trial court held that he waived his right to participation in the termination proceedings and terminated his parental rights. We affirm the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Tony Makoka v. Howard Cook M2001-01013-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Tony Makoka v. Howard Cook M2001-01013-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jack Charles Blankenship v. Donal Campbell, et al M2001-01014-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Department of Correction regarding the prisoner's sentence credits and eligibility for parole. The prisoner filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Davidson County requesting the correction of his sentence and an immediate parole hearing. The Department filed a motion for summary judgment based on laches. When the prisoner failed to respond to the motion, the trial court granted the summary judgment in accordance with Davidson County Local R. 26.04(c), (f). Thereafter, the trial court denied the prisoner's motion to set aside the summary judgment, and the prisoner has appealed. We have determined that the summary judgment must be vacated because the Department's motion and supporting affidavit do not demonstrate that it is entitled to a judgment on its laches defense as a matter of law.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Mark Percy v. Dept of Correction M2001-01629-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a dispute between a multiple rapist and the Tennessee Department of Correction regarding the prisoner's sentence expiration date. The prisoner filed a petition for a declaratory order in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Department had misclassified him and that he was eligible to be released because his sentence had expired. The Department responded with a motion for summary judgment supported by an affidavit of a sentencing technician asserting that the prisoner had been correctly classified and that his sentence had not expired. The trial court granted the summary judgment and dismissed the petition. We find that the trial court reached the correct result, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment dismissing the prisoner's petition.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Steven Bohanon, et al vs. Jones Bros., Inc. M1998-00954-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ernest B. Pellegrin
This appeal involves a property damage claim arising from blasting activities incident to the construction of improvements to State Highway 52 in Macon County. Two neighboring property owners filed suit against the contractor responsible for the blasting in the Circuit Court for Macon County seeking actual and punitive damages. A jury returned a verdict for the contractor, and the trial court denied the property owners' post-trial motions. The property owners assert on this appeal that the trial court erred by permitting the introduction of incompetent evidence regarding compliance with the Tennessee Blasting Standards Act of 1975 and by failing to give a promised curative instruction. They also challenge the evidentiary support for the verdict. We have determined that the trial court did not commit reversible error either by admitting the evidence regarding the contractor's seismic monitoring or by overlooking the requested curative instruction. We also decline to second-guess the verdict to the extent that it rested on an assessment of the property owners' credibility regarding the nature and extent of the damages caused by the blasting. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
W2001-01941-COA-R3-JV W2001-01941-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Christy R. Little
Madison
Court of Appeals
Omawali Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean vs. Greeley Wells E2001-02315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In this suit, wherein Omawali Ashanti Shabazz, a/k/a, Fred Edmond Dean, seeks to acquire certain materials held in the office of the District Attorney General. The Trial Court denied the relief he sought because, under Tenn.R.Crim. P. 16, he was not entitled to the material while a post-conviction proceeding was pending. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Omawali Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean vs. Greeley Wells E2001-02315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In this suit, wherein Omawali Ashanti Shabazz, a/k/a, Fred Edmond Dean, seeks to acquire certain materials held in the office of the District Attorney General. The Trial Court denied the relief he sought because, under Tenn.R.Crim. P. 16, he was not entitled to the material while a post-conviction proceeding was pending. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Marilyn Yount v. Bruce Yount M2001-01335-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
The trial court granted a divorce to the wife, and awarded her alimony in futuro of $2,000 per month. The husband argues on appeal that the wife does not need any alimony, and that he himself does not have the ability to pay the alimony. The proof shows that he does indeed have the ability to pay, but that the wife's needs are more appropriately served by an award of rehabilitative alimony. We modify the alimony award accordingly.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
David Schwab v. David Miller M2001-00932-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: R.E. Lee Davies
The Chancery Court of Williamson County held that in order to claim a major benefit of an employment contract the employee had to be employed when the other contingencies in the contract were met. We affirm the lower court's interpretation.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
ANR Pipeline Co., Colonial Pipeline Co., Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., et al. v. TN Board of Equalization M2001-01098-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Pipelines for the transport of petroleum products were installed sub-surface by various companies which acquired easements over affected freeholds. These pipelines were assessed as real estate for purposes of taxation. Petitions for Review were filed by the Pipeline Companies alleging that the pipelines were personal property. The decision of the Board of Equalization is reversed.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Joyce Howell vs. Phillip Howell W2001-01167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Madison
Court of Appeals
Joyce Howell vs. Phillip Howell W2001-01167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Madison
Court of Appeals
Don Long vs. Ralph & Edna Langley W2001-01490-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This a lawsuit between the two stockholders of Gene Langley Ford, Inc., an automobile dealership. The issues involve the percentage of ownership owned by the two stockholders and whether the defendant paid himself an excessive salary for managing the business. The Chancellor held that the plaintiff owns forty-nine (49%) of the stock and the defendant owns fifty-one percent (51%). He further held that the defendant's salary was not excessive. We reverse the Chancellor's decision regarding the ownership of the stock and hold that each party owns fifty percent (50%). We affirm the Chancellor's decision that the defendant's salary was reasonable.
Gibson
Court of Appeals
Alfred/Florence Garionis vs. Andre Pride & Charles Holland W2001-01682-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
The plaintiffs filed a suit for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Through their attorney, they reached a settlement of their claims. Thereafter, they sought to set aside the settlement upon the grounds that they had not authorized their attorney to accept the defendants' offer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the plaintiffs had authorized their attorney to settle the case and entered an order enforcing the settlement. We hold that the findings of the trial court are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and affirm the lower court.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Shelia Bland vs. Jerry Bland W2001-01705-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Husband appeals from a final decree of divorce as to the amount of alimony awarded and the award of attorney fees. We affirm and modify.
