Carol Ann Graybeal v. Howell H. Sherrod, Jr.
In 2003, Carol Ann Graybeal (“the Client”) filed this action against her former attorney and lover, Howell H. Sherrod, Jr. (“the Lawyer”), after he refused to give her an accounting regarding an investment she had made through him. In response to her demand for an accounting, he had accused her of stealing and damaging property, the value of which allegedly exceeded the value of her investment. In the answer later filed to her suit, he demanded a setoff; his answer was joined with a counterclaim seeking relief with respect to the stolen and damaged goods. Six years later, the case came on for trial. The court entered its first judgment on April 23, 2010 (“the April 2010 judgment”). The court found in favor of each of the parties regarding various of their respective claims, with the result that the Lawyer received a net judgment of $10,760.13, before interest. The Client filed a motion to alter or amend the April 2010 judgment. The court entered a second, almost identical, judgment on September 15, 2010 (“the September 2010 judgment”), in which it denied the Client’s motion. The Lawyer later filed a motion for discretionary costs as well as a motion to alter or amend the September 2010 judgment. In March 2011, the Client filed a motion for relief from the September 2010 judgment. In an order entered August 5, 2011 (“the August 2011 judgment”) and designated as “final,” the court granted the motion for discretionary costs in part, denied the Lawyer’s motion to alter or amend, and granted the Client’s motion for relief with respect to the calculation of prejudgment interest and the taxing of costs. The Lawyer appeals from the August 2011 judgment. The Client attempts to raise several issues of her own. We conclude that the merits of one of the earlier judgments – the September 2010 judgment – are not before us because what the Lawyer has labeled as a “motion to alter or amend” that judgment is not, despite its label, one of the motions recognized by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01 as having the effect of “extending the time for taking steps in the regular appellate process.” We find no reversible error in the August 2011 judgment. Accordingly, we affirm that judgment. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Rodney W. Schutt v. Jodie Ann Miller (Schutt)
This appeal concerns post-divorce motions to set aside a marital dissolution agreement. The parties were divorced based on a mediated marital dissolution agreement. Shortly after the final decree was entered, the appellant wife filed post-divorce motions to set aside the marital dissolution agreement. The original trial judge first recused herself as to certain issues in the proceedings, and then later recused herself as to the entire case, so the post-divorce matters were ultimately heard by a special judge. All told, the appellant wife filed over 83 post-divorce pleadings, most involving efforts to set aside the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. Eventually, the trial court denied the wife’s motions to set aside and awarded the appellee husband over $61,000 in fees as sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The wife now appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David White v. Empire Express, Inc. and Empire Transportation, Inc.
The case involves a lease-purchase agreement. The plaintiff is a truck driver. The co-defendants are two affiliated companies – a truckload hauling company and a leasing company. The plaintiff truck driver worked for the hauling company. The truck driver entered into a lease-purchase agreement with the leasing company to purchase the truck he drove in his work for the hauling company. His lease payments on the truck were made via weekly payroll deductions; the hauling company deducted the amount of the lease payments from the truck driver’s payroll and transferred those amounts to the leasing company on his behalf. If the driver earned less than the amount of the lease payment, the hauling company paid the lease payment anyway and the deficiency became a debt that the truck driver owed to the hauling company. At the end of the lease, the lease-purchase agreement required the truck driver to pay the residual value of the truck. He was allowed to pay this over the course of one year, also through weekly payroll deductions. After the final residual payment was made, the leasing company refused to give title of the truck to the plaintiff truck driver because he still owed money to the affiliated hauling company. The defendant leasing company then repossessed the truck and sold it. The plaintiff truck driver filed this lawsuit against both defendant companies, alleging breach of contract, conversion, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the truck driver on his breach-of-contract claim, and it conducted a bench trial on the breach-of- contract damages and the remaining claims. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff on all of his claims and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants now appeal. We affirm the award of compensatory damages and reverse the award of punitive damages. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
De Lano Parker v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board and The Shelby County Sheriff's Department
Appellee corrections officer’s employment with the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office was terminated for appearing in a video in which he stated that he had been a gang member. The Civil Service Merit Board affirmed the termination. The officer filed a petition for judicial review in the Shelby County Chancery Court, arguing that there was not substantial and material evidence to sustain his termination and that the termination violated his First Amendment rights. The trial court ruled that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. We reverse the trial court’s ruling that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence, but vacate and remand to the Civil Service Merit Board for consideration of Appellee’s First Amendment argument. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Reece et al v. Helen S. Valois et al
The issue in this case is whether a warranty deed made by a 98-year-old uncle to his 85-year old niece should be set aside for lack of competence or undue influence. Following a bench trial, the court found that the uncle was competent and that the niece did not exert undue influence on him. The uncle’s children appeal. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Farrar v. Michael E. Dyer et al
Gerald Farrar (“the Claimant”) submitted a claim under his homeowner’s insurance policy after his house was badly damaged by fire. His insurer, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“the Company”) denied coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action. The Company alleged that the Claimant had made a misrepresentation on his application – one that increased the Company’s risk of loss. The Claimant filed a counterclaim in which he alleged that the Company’s agent, Michael E. Dyer (“the Agent”), misled him about the meaning of question 13 on the application, the answer to which contains the alleged misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of the Company and dismissed the Claimant’s counterclaim predicated on the Claimant’s failure to carry the burden of proof. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farrar, 337 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (“Farrar I”). The Claimant then filed this action against the Agent alleging that the Agent made a misrepresentation about the meaning of question 13 that caused him to give an incorrect answer on the application. The complaint also named the Company as a defendant “principal” responsible for the Agent’s actions. The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, holding that Farrar is a bar to this second action. The Claimant appeals. We affirm. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip A. Corbitt et al. v. Rolanda Amos
The sellers of real estate brought this action against the successful bidder at a real estate auction after the bidder failed to close because she was unable to obtain a loan sufficient to purchase the property. The sellers later auctioned the property for a substantially lower price. It is undisputed that the buyer breached the contract by not closing and that the sellers are entitled to recover certain special damages; the buyer challenges the trial court’s award of $55,300 for the seller’s general damages for their loss of the benefit of the bargain. We have determined the trial court’s decision is not supported by competent evidence in the record and that the sellers failed to prove the fair market value of the property on the date of the breach was less than the contract price. Therefore, we reverse the award of $55,300 for the loss of the benefit of the bargain. We, however, affirm the award of special damages, specifically the expense of conducting a second auction and sale, property taxes paid between the date of the breach and the second sale, and prejudgment interest, which shall be calculated based upon the judgment as modified. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Chas Alan Sandford v. Kristine Elaine Sandford McKee
Husband and Wife were married for eight years when Husband filed for divorce. Husband had purchased 63 acres of real property before marrying Wife and split the property into two parcels. When dividing the property between the parties, the trial court determined the house and ten acres was Husband’s separate property, but the appreciation on that parcel was marital property pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(B). The trial court determined the remaining 53 acres was Husband’s separate property and that Wife had no interest in that parcel. Wife appealed, claiming both parcels transmuted into marital property during the marriage. In the alternative, Wife argued that the increase in value of the other 53 acres was marital property due to work she performed on a guesthouse located on the 53-acre parcel. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Christopher L. B.
Mother appeals the finding that termination of her parental rights to her son was in the son’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm the termination of her rights. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Dixie M. M.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights upon finding that four grounds for termination had been established – the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the provisions of the permanency plan, abandonment by willful failure to visit and support, and failure to establish parentage, and that termination of Father’s rights was in the child’s best interest. We have determined that three grounds for termination were established by the requisite proof and that termination of his rights is in the child’s best interest. Therefore, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Darion X. Y., Darius D. Y.
Father’s parental rights to his son were terminated on the ground that Father is confined in a correctional facility for more than ten years as a result of a criminal act and that the child was under the age of eight at the time of Father’s sentencing. Father contends that the trial court should have considered the possibility of his receiving parole in determining whether grounds for termination of his rights were present and whether termination was in the child’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Orlando Ladd v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board
Appellant, an inmate with the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his appeal for review of disciplinary actions taken against him by the prison, and affirmed by the TDOC Commissioner. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 27-9-102. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Heather Junghanel v. Andres Hernandez
Andres Hernandez (“Father”) filed a petition seeking to terminate his child support obligation. The Trial Court held a hearing and entered an order on March 17, 2011 awarding a judgment against Father of $5,726.47 in child support arrearages but also providing for further hearing for a full review and calculation of arrearages. The case subsequently was heard before a Special Master who found that Heather Junghanel (“Mother”) was entitled to a judgment against Father of $21,976.27 in child support arrearages. Father appealed the Special Master’s report to the Trial Court. The Trial Court found that the March 17, 2011 order was a final order and awarded a judgment against Father of $5,726.47 in child support arrearages. The State of Tennessee ex rel. Mother appeals to this Court arguing that the Trial Court improperly retroactively modified Father’s child support obligation. We find and hold that the Trial Court erred in holding that the March 17, 2011 order was a final order. We vacate the Trial Court’s September 20, 2011 order and remand this case to the Trial Court for a hearing on Father’s objections to the Special Master’s report. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Louise Battles v. Andrew Bruce Battles
This is an appeal of an alimony award. On appeal, Husband contends that the trial court |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Curb Records, Inc. v. Samuel T. McGraw
A recording company brought this breach of contract action against a recording artist. This appeal involves only the trial court’s decision to deny the recording company temporary and permanent injunctive relief. We find no error in the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William Patrick Van Erps v. Heather Jackson
Mother of child appeals the trial court’s designation of Father as primary residential parent and adoption of a residential parenting schedule which gave the parents equal parenting time. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
David A. Paczko et al. v. Suntrust Mortgages, Inc. et al.
Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to enjoin the foreclosure of their residence and to quiet title. They also alleged slander of title and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the action upon the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. We have determined that TCPA claims do not apply to allegedly deceptive conduct in foreclosure proceedings, thus the dismissal of the TCPA claim is affirmed. We have also determined that the plaintiffs never denied that they were in default of the Note and Deed of Trust and they admitted that, during the pendency of this action, the property was foreclosed upon and sold, thus they no longer have an interest in the property, which circumstances render the remaining claims moot. We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of this action. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Terry Gupton, et al. v. Gary A. Davis d/b/a Gary A. Davis & Associates, et al.
This appeal arises from what essentially is a fee dispute between lawyers. A Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) coal ash spill in 2008 damaged the farm of Sandra and Terry Gupton (“the Guptons”). The Guptons signed contingent fee agreements with Gary A. Davis (“Davis”), Stephen Crofford (“Crofford”), and Mary Parker (“Parker”) (“the Defendants,” collectively) to pursue their case. Rebecca Vernetti (“Vernetti”), a lawyer in Davis’s firm who worked on the Guptons’ case, left Davis’s law firm to start her own law firm. The Guptons fired Davis and hired Vernetti. The Guptons later reached an agreement with TVA to sell their farm to TVA, and Vernetti received her fee. The Guptons sued the Defendants in the Chancery Court for Roane County (“the Trial Court”), seeking judgment to the effect that they need not pay any fees to the Defendants. The Defendants counterclaimed and also sued Vernetti, arguing that they should be paid as per their original agreement with the Guptons. The Trial Court declined to award the Defendants their original contingency fee, but instead granted a judgment to the Defendants against Vernetti and her law firm on a quantum meruit theory for their legal services to the Guptons. Vernetti appeals, and the Defendants raise additional issues. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Mark T. Wickham v. Sovereign Homes, LLC
Plaintiff homeowner brought an action against Defendant builder alleging, inter alia, breach of warranty and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant builder. We affirm summary judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim; reverse summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Consumer Protection Act claim; and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rebecca Little v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee
This action involves requests made by the appellant pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 10-7-501, et seq. and 6-51-108(b), to the appellee city. After not receiving access to certain records to which she felt entitled, the appellant filed this petition. The trial court ruled that the city never refused to disclose the records but it just had not done much as of the time the petition was filed. However, because appellant did not prove that the city acted in bad faith as a result of its slowness in producing the public record requested the appellant was denied an award of attorney’s fees for the filing of the petition. We reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter Of Justice A.F.
This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The father had a history of domestic violence toward the mother, and there was a protection order requiring the father to stay away from the mother’s older children. Nevertheless, the mother went to work and left the child at issue, a toddler, and her younger sibling in the care of the father. While the mother was at work, the father murdered the infant sibling. After that, the child at issue was found to be dependent and neglected and the mother was found to have committed severe abuse based on her failure to protect the child from the father. The mother did not appeal this ruling. Thereafter, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed this petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, with grounds of severe abuse already established. After a trial, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother now appeals only the finding as to the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
George Woodson and Flora Woodson v. MEG Capital Management, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff was seriously injured during a dog attack by his neighbors’ two dogs. Plaintiff sued, among others, the neighbors’ landlord and an employee of the landlord. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining that although the defendants retained sufficient control over the leased property, they lacked notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We find a question of fact exists regarding defendants’ notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We affirm in part and reverse in part and we remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Donta S. Smith v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, et al.
Inmate filed a petition for certiorari, seeking a review of a decision of the prison disciplinary review board, affirmed by warden and the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, finding him guilty of certain prison disciplinary offenses. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was not filed within sixty days of the entry of the order for which review was sought. Finding no error, we affirm the action of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Chambers v. Gayle Ray, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correction
An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that the Department failed to credit him with 2,511 days of pretrial credits that were awarded him pursuant to a plea agreement. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the petition based upon a finding that the material facts show Petitioner received all pretrial jail credits awarded and due Petitioner. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Melanie T., Bailey T., and Miles R.
Father, who was previously found to have committed severe abuse against his two children, appeals the finding that termination of his parental rights to his biological son was in the son’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm the termination of his rights. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals |
