Michael Love vs. Dr. Crants W2000-01518-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This case involves the incarceration of the Appellant in the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract between the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America. The Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County. The trial court entered an order dismissing the Appellant's for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Emanuel Johnson vs. Doctor Crans, et al W2000-01587-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Inmate, a State of Wisconsin prisoner in custody at a private correctional facility in Tennessee pursuant to a contract between the State of Wisconsin and the facility, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against respondent, the chief executive officer of the private correctional facility and the warden of the private facility. The petition alleges, in substance, that the act of the State of Wisconsin in sending the prisoner to a private correctional facility out of the state waived its jurisdiction over the inmate, voided his sentence, and released him from custody. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and inmate has appealed. We affirm.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Brenda Woods vs. Howard Hayden W2000-02362-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
The cases on appeal are three actions that were consolidated by Order of the court below. The Defendants in all cases are practicing attorneys. While Appellant's brief is difficult to follow and contains no citations to the record, it appears that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of two cases which were pending in the Chancery Courts of Shelby County, Tennessee. As a result, she sued the attorneys who worked on her behalf as well as her adversaries' counsel.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Isbell vs. Travis Electric Co., et al M1999-00052-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
After Plaintiff resigned from his job and attempted to start his own competing business, his former manager informed a mutual client of the circumstances surrounding his resignation. Plaintiff sued his former employer and its service manager, alleging slander, libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contract. The trial court directed a verdict for Defendants, and Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court misapplied the substantial truth doctrine, failed to apply the doctrine of implication, and was incorrect in its finding that no contract existed between Plaintiff and his new company's main client. Plaintiff also insists that, by failing to grant a new trial so that he could add an allegation of invasion of privacy, the court ignored the proper legal consequences arising from the disclosure of a confidential drug test. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Sheucraft vs. Roberts M1999-01645-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a custody dispute between the maternal grandparents, Petitioners, and the biological father, Respondent. The child, Lexie, was born to Dewey and Lisa Roberts in October of 1991 and was seven years of age at the June 1999 trial. In 1995, Dewey Roberts and Lisa Sheucraft Roberts separated, and Lisa Roberts and Lexie moved in with the Petitioners. Ms. Roberts and the child continued to reside with the Petitioners until her unexpected death in 1998 from a brain aneurysm related to a cocaine overdose. The Respondent has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and, at the time of trial, was involved in an abusive relationship with a female companion. The trial court, applying the "substantial harm" test of Bond v. McKenzie, 896 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. 1995), found that to change the residential arrangements from the grandparents' home to the father's home would be devastating to the child and would result in substantial harm to her. The trial court further found that it is in the child's best interests to spend the majority of her time with the maternal grandparents. Respondent appeals and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Fontenot vs. Fontenot M1999-02322-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
This appeal arises from the trial court's division of marital property and martial debt, award of alimony, and award of attorney's fees. After reviewing the record and applicable law, the trial court's judgment is affirmed as modified.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Moore vs. Moore M1999-02301-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
In this divorce case, the husband argues that the trial court erred in the way it classified and distributed the parties' marital property. We agree that the trial court's implied classification of the parties' home on Pleasant Cove Road was erroneous as a matter of law, but we find that its disposition of the property was nonetheless within the court's authority and discretion. We accordingly modify the final decree to reflect our view of its correct classification, but otherwise affirm the trial court.
Warren
Court of Appeals
Owen vs. Martin M1999-02305-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
The trial court found that a mother and her adult son had both breached an oral contract whereby the son agreed to pay off the mortgage on his mother's home and to permit her to remain there for the rest of her life, and the mother agreed to give the son her equity in the home upon her death, and to allow him to use a garage apartment in the home until that time. We reverse the trial court's finding that there was an enforceable contract between the parties, but we impress a resulting trust on the son's interest in the home, which inures to his mother's benefit.
This appeal from the Roane County Chancery Court concerns whether the Chancery Court erred in determining that a collective bargaining agreement entered into between Appellant, Local Union 760 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Appellees, the City of Harriman and the Harriman Utility Board, is null and void. We affirm the decision of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellants.
Roane
Court of Appeals
In re: Stephanie Ann Linville, a Minor M2000-01097-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben Hall McFarlin, Jr.
This appeal arises from the trial court's grant of an award of child support to the appellee, the child's paternal grandmother and legal custodian, from the child's mother. For reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This appeal involves a dispute between the owners of a bed and breakfast and the City of Winchester regarding a proposed expansion of the business's bar and banquet facilities. When the city's Board of Zoning Appeals declined to approve the expansion, the owners of the bed and breakfast filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court for Franklin County challenging the Board's decision. After reviewing the record of the proceedings before the Board, the trial court determined that the Board acted within its discretion when it declined to approve the proposed expansion of the bed and breakfast. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Plaintiffs, purchasers of house from defendants, were awarded damages for defects in house not revealed by defendants. Plaintiffs appeal, asking punitive damages and an increase in compensatory damages. We affirm.
Plaintiff's car was caught between the minivan in front of him and the dump truck behind him when the minivan and Plaintiff's car stopped to avoid an obstruction in the roadway. The dump truck was unable to stop and hit Plaintiff's car. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $225,000. The jury allocated 80 percent of the fault against the dump truck driver and owner and 20 percent of the fault against Plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurance carrier on behalf of the unknown driver of a truck which dropped the obstruction onto the road. The dump truck driver and owner appeal, raising issues of law including the introduction of claimed inadmissible evidence, prejudicial final argument, improper and incomplete jury instructions, jury misconduct and the failure of the Trial Court to grant Defendants' motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Kennedy vs. Kennedy M1997-00219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a man's efforts to use his voluntary early retirement as a basis for ending his spousal support obligation. Three years after the divorce, the man filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to end his responsibility to pay child support. His former wife responded by filing a petition seeking to hold him in contempt for failure to pay spousal support. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the man's petition, held him in contempt, and entered a $3,106 judgment against him for back spousal support. On this appeal, the man asserts that the trial court erred by declining to relieve him of his alimony obligation because of his inability to pay and his former spouse's lack of need. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Hodges vs. TN Atty. General M2000-00550-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a prisoner's pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. The Chancery Court for Davidson County dismissed the complaint eleven months after it was filed because the prisoner had failed to provide summonses and copies of the complaint for service on the defendants. The prisoner has appealed to this court. Instead of arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute, the prisoner has simply renewed the assertions he made in the trial court that his sentence credits have been calculated incorrectly and that he should be released on parole. We determined that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.
The trial court granted the parties a divorce, ordered joint custody of the parties' minor son, and divided the marital property. On appeal, Ms. Wagner contends that the trial court's award of joint custody on an alternating week basis was improper, that the division of marital property was inequitable, and that the trial court's order requiring her to bear one-half of the child's medical insurance was improper. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
James W. Hunter vs. Shirley C. Hunter E2000-00662-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
In this divorce case, Shirley C. Hunter ("Wife") appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in classifying and dividing the parties' property; (2) in refusing to find James W. Hunter ("Husband") in contempt for failing to pay Wife's medical bills; (3) in restricting Wife's spousal support award to one of alimony in solido of $7,200; (4) in awarding Husband a judgment against Wife for $5,068.53 in connection with Wife's use of his vehicle; and (5) in failing to award Wife her attorney's fees. We vacate the trial court's judgment ordering Wife to pay for her use of Husband's vehicle. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Grainger
Court of Appeals
Tindell's Inc. vs. Mary Ava Partin E2000-01640-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a suit to recover the sales price of certain materials sold to the Defendant and to enforce a lien against certain property if the judgment rendered is not paid. The Trial Court found in favor of the Plaintiff, resulting in this appeal, wherein the Defendant questions the introduction of certain proof and insists the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the Trial Court's determination. We affirm.
Campbell
Court of Appeals
G.L. Omohundro, et al vs. Paul Harrison, et al E2000-00666-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
This is a suit by investors in The Great Smoky Mountain Opry Corporation against a number of defendants including Paul Harrison. The trial court found a violation of the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980 and awarded the plaintiffs a judgment for $56,932.50. Harrison appeals, contending that the judgment should be reversed. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Department of Children's Services, vs. D. & G.M. E1999-01359-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
The Trial Judge terminated mother's parental rights to her three minor children. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Berman Kennedy vs. Darlene Lane-Detman, et al E2000-01315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
The defendant Herbert G. Adcox guaranteed, in part, payment of a $35,000 promissory note executed by Darlene Lane-Detman in favor of the plaintiff Berman D. Kennedy. Adcox's guaranty took the form of a post-dated check in the amount of $30,000. When Detman defaulted on the note and Adcox then stopped payment on the check, the plaintiff sued Adcox on the check. The trial court granted Adcox summary judgment, finding that the record before it established a number of affirmative defenses. We affirm the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Adcox, because we find that Kennedy modified the repayment terms of Detman's note without Adcox's consent.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Estate of Annie Hamilton et al. v. Walter Morris,et al. W1998-00191-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Proponents of 1992 will of testatrix offered the will for probate, and three beneficiaries of testatrix's 1987 will filed a complaint contesting the 1992 will. Proponents of the 1992 will filed a response to the complaint contesting the 1992 will which, inter alia, denies that the 1987 will is the last will and testament of the testatrix. The chancellor granted summary judgment against the proponents of the 1992 will, holding that the will was void by virtue of proponents' undue influence on testatrix. The chancellor also granted summary judgment for residuary beneficiary of the 1987 will and admitted the 1987 will to probate as the last will and testament of the testatrix. Appellants, the proponents of the 1992 will and contestants of the 1987 will, have appealed.
