COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Jeffrey Butler vs. City of Jackson
W2000-02154-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Donald H. Allen
This case is before the court for the second time. Defendant was tried in city court for violation of five separate city ordinances and was fined a total of $250.00 for the five violations. After a de novo trial in circuit court, defendant was found guilty of violating the five separate ordinances and was fined a total of $250.00. This Court reversed the conviction on two of the five ordinances and affirmed the convictions on three of the ordinances. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of fine for the three violations. On remand, the trial court assessed fines totaling $750.00, being $250.00 for the violation of each of the three ordinances. Defendant has appealed. We reverse the trial court and set defendant's fine at $250.00 for violation of the three city ordinances.

Eddie Joe Hurst, Sr. vs. Sheila Gail Williams Hurst
E2000-00458-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
This appeal from the Blount County General Sessions Court concerns whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Complaint to Enforce Judgment filed by the Appellant, Sheila Gail Williams Hurst. Ms. Hurst appeals the decision of the General Sessions Court. We reverse the decision of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge cost of the appeal against the Appellee, Eddie Joe Hurst, Sr.

Cathy L. Allen v. John Fox Allen, Jr.
CH-00-0092-3
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Travelers Indemnity Co. vs. Kenton Freeman, et al
M2001-00657-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Travelers Indemnity Company [Travelers] filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment respecting its liability to pay UM coverage for the minor child of its policyholder who was divorced from the child's mother, with joint custody having been awarded. Mother was killed in a traffic accident in Alabama; her passenger child was injured. Mother owned and was driving her automobile, and she also had UM coverage. The adverse driver had split liability coverage all of which was paid, in equal parts, to the Administrator of the mother's estate, and to the minor child. Mother's UM carrier paid its entire policy proceeds to her administrator. Travelers objected, inter alia, to the lack of allocation of the proceeds of mother's UM coverage. Travelers' insured, on behalf of his minor child, filed a counter-claim against Travelers for the entire UM coverage, notwithstanding an amount certain had never been determined. The court found that Travelers had never disputed that the value of the minor child's claim exceeded the UM coverage and rendered a summary judgment against Travelers for an amount certain. We vacate and remand.

In re: Estate of Lester Doyle and Estate of Edgar Doyle vs. William Hunt
M1997-00179-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
The beneficiaries of the Edgar J. Doyle estate and trust petitioned the court for removal of the executor/trustee of the estates and trusts of Lester Hill Doyle and Edgar J. Doyle for, inter alia, failure to timely file the required inventories and accountings of both estates. Finding that the executor/trustee breached his fiduciary duty, the trial court removed the executor/trustee and appointed a third party not nominated in either will as the successor executor/trustee in both estates. The executor/trustee alleges error with his removal without an evidentiary hearing and the court's appointment of the successor trustee. We reverse.

Woodrow Wilson vs. Sentence Information Services, et al
M1998-00939-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This otherwise routine dispute over sentence reduction credits raises a seldom-considered point of procedure regarding the proper method for deciding contested facts at the preliminary motion stage. A prisoner filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County against the Tennessee Department of Correction and other state and city officials asserting that he had not been awarded sentence reduction credits allegedly earned while incarcerated in the Davidson County Criminal Justice Center. After the Department filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1) motion to dismiss on the ground that the prisoner had not exhausted his administrative remedies, the prisoner asserted that he had exhausted all of the remedies available to him from the Department. After considering the arguments and evidentiary materials submitted by both parties, the trial court concluded that the prisoner had not exhausted his administrative remedies and dismissed the suit. On this appeal, the prisoner asserts that the trial court erred when it concluded that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. We have determined that the evidence regarding the prisoner's exhaustion of his administrative remedies does not preponderate against the trial court's conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the suit.

Billy Crowe, et al vs. Maury County, et al
M1999-02377-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This appeal arises from the purchase of part of the Appellees' property by the Appellant. The Appellees filed a complaint against the Appellant in the Circuit Court of Maury County, alleging trespass, material misrepresentation of fact or mutual mistake of fact, inverse condemnation, and unauthorized use of property. The Appellant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion on all counts but the inverse condemnation claim. Following a jury trial on the inverse condemnation claim, the jury found in favor of the Appellees in the amount of $12,000.00. The Appellees filed a motion for attorney's fees with the trial court, seeking $29,116.29. The trial court awarded the full amount of attorney's fees requested. The Appellant appeals the award of attorney's fees by the Circuit Court of Maury County. For the reasons stated herein, we remand this case for further findings of fact.

Eric Young v. Dept. of Corrections
M2002-01086-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
A prison inmate was convicted of a disciplinary offense, and sentenced to punitive segregation. He filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, claiming there were serious procedural defects in the disciplinary proceeding. The trial court dismissed his Petition as time-barred. We affirm the trial court.

Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson
E2000-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer
In this post-divorce case, the trial court (1) denied the father's request to relocate to Georgia with the parties' minor child; (2) imposed sanctions for the father's perjury; and (3) changed the joint custody decreed at the time of the divorce to sole custody in the mother. On this appeal, the father argues (1) that the trial court erred in reversing its initial post-divorce decision pursuant to which the father had been permitted to relocate to Georgia; (2) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to make a custody determination; (3) that the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum; (4) that the trial court erred in basing its change of custody upon the father's admittedly false testimony; (5) that the trial court's reversal of its prior decision to permit the father to relocate is barred by the doctrine of laches; (6) that the trial court erred in finding that father's contemptuous behavior was a proper basis for denying him an award of child support; and (7) that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions for criminal contempt without providing the necessary procedural safeguards. We find that the trial court erred in dismissing Father's petition for child support. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Lydia Brewster vs. Dan Brewster
M2000-01174-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This appeal involves the trial court's denial of the father's visitation after entry of a final decree of divorce granting the parents joint custody of the two minor children. The father filed a motion to alter and amend the final decree of divorce and for visitation. The mother opposed visitation by the father because of alleged sexual abuse of their daughter. The trial court denied father visitation. The father has appealed. We amend the final decree, affirm the denial of visitation, and remand the case for further proceedings.

Amy Blankenship vs. Carl Blankenship
M2000-01483-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
Husband appeals a final decree of divorce terminating a marriage of ten years, presenting issues regarding the trial court's finding of contempt, confiscation of his guns, alimony, division of marital assets and debts, and attorneys fees. We vacate in part, modify in part, and affirm as modified.

C.R. Batts Const. v. 101 Construction Co., et al.
M2004-00322-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel
This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. After a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the plaintiff $24,260.11. Additionally, the trial court awarded the plaintiff pre-judgment interest in the amount of $5,579.82. The defendants have appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Nina Noel vs. Harold Noel
W1999-02343-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This is a divorce case. The trial court granted the husband the divorce but ordered him to pay, inter alia, $8000 in child support arrearage, half of the wages owed to the former employees of the wife's new business, and court costs. The husband appealed. We reverse the trial court's holding that the husband should pay half of the wages of the wife's new business, since this is the wife's separate debt incurred after the parties separated, and affirm the remainder of the trial court's order.

Pyamid Computers vs. Ben Gasparro
W1999-01784-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
This case involves a business relationship between Pyramid Computers, Inc., and Ben Gasparro. Mr. Gasparro purchased computer equipment and related services from Pyramid for use in his businesses. Mr. Gasparro also sold Pyramid computers to his clients. Pyramid sued and alleged that Mr. Gasparro owed it $14,446.32. The trial court entered judgment for Pyramid in the amount of $11,989.32. Pyramid appeals, alleging that the trial court erred in reducing the amount it sought and that the trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest

Billy Walker vs. State
W2000-03079-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
This is a medical malpractice action before the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commission found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the defendant's employees failed to meet the required standard of care. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Claims Commission, asserting that the Commission improperly reviewed medical sources not presented at trial. We affirm, finding that the Commission did not base its decision on information outside the record and that any such review was harmless error.

Custom Built Homes, v. G.S. Hinsen Company, Inc.
01A01-9511-CV-00513
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

This appeal arises out of a dispute over the workmanship of residential renovations. The interior designer hired by the owner to undertake the renovations withheld final payment to the contractor who performed the work because the owner was dissatisfied with the renovations. After the contractor obtained a judgment against the interior designer in the Williamson County General Sessions Court, the interior designer perfected an appeal to the Circuit Court for Williamson County and filed a counterclaim against the contractor. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the interior designer’s claims against the contractor and entered a judgment against the interior designer for the remaining balance of the construction contract. The interior designer has appealed. While the trial court erroneously concluded that the Contractor’s Licensing Act of 1976 prevented the interior designer from pursuing its claims against the contractor, we have concluded that the trial court reached the proper result. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Connie Harris and Danny Harris vs. Marriott, Inc., & Fibercare, Inc.
M1999-00096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This is a slip and fall case. The plaintiff filed her complaint barely within one year of the injury, but did not cause process to issue until six months later. Both defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's case as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motions. We reverse and remand, finding that under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff can rely on the filing of her complaint to toll the statute of limitations so long as the plaintiff causes process to issue within one year of the filing of the complaint.

R.G. Burnett vs. James Swafford & Rhonda Swafford
M1999-01648-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This appeal arises from an oral contract between a landlord and tenant. The plaintiff operated a grocery and leased a grocery store to the defendant for a period of ten years, pursuant to a written lease. The parties had a separate oral agreement in which the defendant agreed to buy the plaintiff's business. When the defendant vacated the property at the end of the lease, the parties disagreed as to whether the oral agreement included a purchase of the store equipment. The trial court found that the plaintiff had converted certain items belonging to the defendant, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant for $5,000. We find that the trial court's decision is based on its determinations of credibility, and affirm.

Randall Jordan vs. CSX Transportation, Inc.
M1999-01415-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This is a suit by an employee against his employer, a railroad operator, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The employee alleged that he suffered injuries caused by chemical solvents used by the employer. Prior to trial, the employer made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. This offer was refused. After the trial, the jury found that the employee failed to prove that his injuries were caused by the chemical solvents. The employer moved for an award of costs not included in the court clerk's bill of costs, under Rules 68 and 54.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The employee moved for a new trial. The trial court denied both parties' motions, and both parties appealed. We affirm the trial court's denial of both parties' motions.

Nicole Lei Rowe vs. Fred C. Rowe
M2000-01446-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Royce Taylor
In this divorce case, Wife appeals the final decree as to the trial court's determination that there was a $21,000.00 debt due Husband's parents and accordingly charged Wife with one-half of the debt in the division of marital property. We affirm.

Michael Holmes vs. Jennifer L. Wilson, et al
M1999-01087-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: John D. Wootten, Jr.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to Jennifer Wilson and Car City, Inc. The case arises from an automobile collision between a vehicle driven by Mr. Holmes and a vehicle driven by Ms. Wilson while in the course and scope of her employment with Car City. The vehicle Ms. Wilson was driving had been purchased by Car City from Cumberland City Dodge on the day of the accident. The accident was caused by a mechanical failure, causing Ms. Wilson to lose control. The trial court found that the defendants had made a reasonable inspection of the vehicle prior to the accident and granted summary judgment. Mr. Holmes appeals the standard of care applied by the trial court and the sufficiency of the evidence that a reasonable inspection was performed. Because the defendants owed only the duty to make a reasonable inspection of the vehicle, and the undisputed evidence establishes that a reasonable inspection was made, we affirm.

M1997-00241-COA-R3-CV
M1997-00241-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Martin E. Walker v. Howard Carlton,
E2001-00171-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.

Charles Montague vs. Michael Kellum
E2000-02732-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
In this legal malpractice action, the Trial Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant, Michael D. Kellum ("Defendant"). Defendant submitted a Rule 56.03 statement and the affidavit of an expert witness in support of his motion. Charles Montague ("Plaintiff"), did not file either a Rule 56.03 response or a contravening affidavit. Prior to deciding Defendant's motion, the Trial Court stayed Plaintiff's discovery until it decided Defendant's motion. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, had previously served discovery requests upon Defendant which had not been answered. Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court.

In re All Assessments, Review of ad valorum Assessments of Public Utility Companies 1998
M2000-03014-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
On remand from the Supreme Court, this Court was instructed to consider the factual issue of whether the action of the Board of Equalization reducing the appraised value of public utility tangible personal property for tax year 1998 caused the ratio of such property's appraised value to its market value to be equal to the ratio for tangible personal property within each local jurisdiction that is appraised and assessed by local taxing authorities. We find that there is substantial and material evidence to support the Board's action in reducing the appraised value for the tax year 1998 and that it resulted in an equal ratio for locally assessed personal property.