Gilbert Olerud, et al. v. Dr. Walter M. Morgan, III, et al.
This is an appeal of a grant of summary judgment to a hospital and physician in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs also appeal the denial of their motion that the trial court recuse itself due to the court’s membership on the board of directors of the defendant hospital and the court’s denial of their motion for default judgment based on spoliation of evidence. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alcoa, Inc., v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization, et al.
In this case the Blount County property assessor assessed ad valorem taxes against defendant for certain raw materials the defendant used to fabricate sheets of aluminum at its manufacturing facility in Blount County. The State Board of Equalization and the Chancery Court for Blount County upheld the assessment. Defendants have appealed to this Court arguing that Article II, Sections 28 and 30 of the Tennessee Constitution provide exemptions from ad valorem taxes for "the direct product of the soil in the hands of the producer, and his immediate vendee". We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Edmond Cato et al. v. D. L. Batts et al.
Purchasers of home filed this action against the sellers for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation for the failure to disclose defects in the home. The trial court found for the purchasers on their claim of negligent misrepresentation but denied their claim of fraudulent misrepresentation and their request for rescission. Purchasers appealed contending the trial court erred by not finding fraudulent misrepresentation and partially denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment in which they sought to introduce new evidence. We affirm the ruling of the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Faith F.
Father filed a petition to relocate with minor child, and mother filed a petition for change of custody. After a hearing, the trial court denied father’s petition to relocate and mother’s petition to change custody but increased mother’s parenting time. A week after the court’s order was entered, mother filed a petition to reopen the proof, and the court granted her motion. After another hearing, the trial court granted mother’s petition for a change of custody. On appeal, father argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition to relocate, in reopening the proof, and in granting mother’s petition to change custody. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Chloe R.P.
In this action to terminate the parental rights of the mother, the petitioner alleged statutory grounds for termination of the mother's parental rights. The mother answered, defending her right to remain a parent. At trial, the parties stipulated that there were statutory grounds for termination of the mother's parental rights. The only issue at trial, was whether or not it was in the best interest of the child for the mother's rights to be terminated. Following the evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court found that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother's parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. On appeal, we concur with the Trial Court that there was clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother's parental rights. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Diane Carr v. Gregory F. Allen
Elizabeth Diane Carr (“Petitioner”) filed for and obtained an ex parte order of protection against her cousin, Gregory F. Allen (“Respondent”). Pursuant to statute, a hearing was conducted on whether to dissolve or to extend the order of protection. In accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-605(b), a trial court has two options at such a hearing: (1) to dissolve the order of protection; or (2) to extend the order of protection for a definite period of time not to exceed one year. With respect to taxing costs, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-617(a) expressly prohibits taxing costs against a victim, even if the order of protection is dissolved. If the order of protection is extended, the costs must be taxed against the respondent. In the present case, following the hearing on whether to extend or dissolve the order of protection, the Trial Court instead entered a mutual restraining order and taxed costs equally to both parties. Because neither action was authorized by statute, we vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Keri Williams v. The City of Milan, Tennessee and Mayor Chris Crider, in his official and individual capacities
This appeal involves the transfer of a case from the chancery court to the circuit court. The plaintiff was terminated from her employment with the defendant municipality. She filed this lawsuit against the municipality for wrongful termination, seeking only unliquidated damages. The municipality filed a motion to transfer the case to circuit court, asserting that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act and also based on Tennessee Code Annotated § 16-11-102, which addresses the chancery court’s jurisdiction over claims for unliquidated damages. The chancery court denied the motion to transfer. The municipality now appeals. We reverse, concluding that once an objection to jurisdiction was made under Section 16-11-102, the chancery court was required to transfer the case to the circuit court. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Eric Boone et al. v. City of Lavergne, Tennessee, et al.
Two former employees of the City of LaVergne claimed that the defendants retaliated against them in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act for complaining of race discrimination in the workplace and for filing claims with the EEOC. One of the plaintiffs asserted an additional claim for hostile work environment discrimination. The jury returned a verdict for both plaintiffs for retaliation and for hostile work environment for one plaintiff. The defendants appeal the trial court’s admission of certain testimony and evidence about an alleged listening device as well as the jury verdict for hostile work environment and the amount of damages for humiliation and embarrassment. We find that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony, but that the error was harmless. The court did not err in admitting evidence about the alleged listening device. We conclude that there is material evidence to support the jury verdict’s for a hostile work environment as well as the amount of the award for damages. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
W.T. Walker et al. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
The Walkers, the appellants, sued the appellee railroad seeking a declaration that an easement already existed over the railroad tracks so that appellants could have access to a public road without contracting for an easement from the railroad. The jury found that the easement contract was not valid and that the appellants had an easement by necessity and implication. The trial court granted the railroad a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the existence of the easement. The Walkers appealed. We reverse the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
James and Patricia Cullum, et al. v. Baptist Hospital Systems, Inc., et al.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs, parents of child who suffered severe, permanent brain injuries during the course of his labor and delivery, filed suit against their physician, physician’s employer, and related hospitals. The physician and her employer settled prior to trial, leaving the related hospitals as the only defendants. This case has been tried twice. Following the first trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, which the trial court set aside pursuant to the thirteenth juror rule. The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, with the jury assigning 3.75 percent of fault to the defendants and 96.25 percent of fault to the nonparty physician. Because the evidence shows that the members of the jury agreed to be bound by the result of a predetermined averaging process, we have concluded that the jury reached a quotient verdict, which is impermissible. Consequently, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Karah and Ryan DePue, et al v. Charles D. Schroeder, et al
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging medical malpractice against numerous healthcare providers on May 26, 2009. They alleged that they had given the notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-121(a) prior to April 8, 2009 to the defendants. The defendants filed several motions, including motions for summary judgment, stating that plaintiffs failed to comply with the notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-121. The record establishes that plaintiffs did not give the requisite notice, "at least 60 days before the filing of their Complaint". In response to the motions for summary judgment the Trial Court excused compliance with the code section and defendants appealed. On appeal, we reverse the holding of the Trial Court on the grounds that non-compliance with the code section could only be excused upon the showing of extraordinary cause. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Karah and Ryan DePue, et al v. Charles D. Schroeder, et al - Dissenting
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Dotson McConnell, et al v. Pat Fuller, et al
In September of 2009, Judy Dotson McConnell and Jerry Dotson (“Plaintiffs”) sued Pat Fuller, John Fuller, and Lela Dotson Gravett (“Defendants”) alleging, in relevant part, that the Last Will and Testament of Clarence E. Dotson, which was offered for probate in May of 2003, was a fraudulent will. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted alleging that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claim. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered its order on February 16, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations and that Plaintiffs failed to “allege facts which would bring into play fraudulent concealment,” which would have tolled the statute of limitations. The Trial Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ suit. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Suzanne H. McKin v. Charles David McKin
In this divorce case the Trial Judge granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and ordered transitional alimony to the wife until the husband pays the wife an amount ordered by the Court to render the property settlement equitable. The parties have appealed, and we modify the Judgment because the Trial Court inadvertently included an amount in the property division which he had found to be the separate property of the husband. We adjust the property division along the lines intended by the Trial Judge and set a definite time for the transitional alimony to comply with the statute. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Billy Ernest Kilburn v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
Inmate brought petition for writ of certiorari challenging his conviction of the prison disciplinary offense of conspiracy to violate state law. The trial court granted judgment on the record to the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). We have concluded that TDOC failed to follow the Uniform Disciplinary Procedures, but that this departure did not affect the disposition of the case. We therefore affirm the chancellor’s decision. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of James A. Hamilton a/k/a James Robert Hamilton
A woman who failed to have her paternity determined while her putative father was living filed a complaint seeking to establish her right to inherit a part of his estate. Tennessee Code Annotated §31-2-105 requires paternity to be established by clear and convincing evidence if paternity is sought to be established after the putative father’s death. Prior to the trial, the woman moved the chancery court to order the deceased’s family to provide her with DNA samples in an effort to prove the deceased was her father. The trial court denied this motion, finding the rules of civil procedure do not require nonparties to provide DNA samples. Following a bench trial, the court concluded the woman failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the deceased was her father. The woman appealed. We affirm the trial court in all respects because, first, nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the deceased’s family members to provide DNA samples to assist the woman in proving she was the deceased’s daughter. Second, the positive and negative evidence rule does not apply to the testimony in this case because there was no conflicting testimony by eyewitnesses to the woman’s conception. Third, the missing evidence and missing witness rule applies to jury trials, whereas this trial was a bench trial, and there was no evidence that the purportedly missing evidence or missing witnesses were under the estate’s control. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Kristene M. Brewer v. Boyd W. Brewer
Former cohabitant brought this partition action with respect to real and personal property. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in dividing the real property and a mobile home, in finding the motor vehicles to be jointly-owned property, and in dividing the proceeds of a savings account equally between the parties. We have concluded that the trial court erred in dividing the savings account, which is titled in the defendant’s name alone. In all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Zulu Naantaanbuu v. Sheila Naantaanbuu
In this divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s denial of: (1) an oral motion for a continuance supported by her doctor’s affidavit; and (2) a motion to add, as necessary parties, two mortgagees of real estate alleged to be marital property. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rachel Elaine Smith v. James Daniel McGrath
Mother appeals action of the trial court in adding a “paramour provision” to an order approving parenting plan for minor child. We modify the judgment and affirm in all other respects. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis Robin Russsell, et al. v. Anderson County, et al.
This is the second appeal of this wrongful death action, arising from a pedestrian versus motor vehicle collision that fatally injured a seven-year-old child at a downtown Clinton intersection. The action was filed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 et seq., against the City of Clinton (“the City”) by plaintiffs Curtis Robin Russell (“Mr. Russell”) and Dorothy Louise Russell (“Mrs. Russell”) (collectively “the Russells”) as next of kin of the decedent, their son Curtis Tyler Russell (“Curtis”). The Russells settled with the driver of the vehicle, Ladislav Misek (“Mr. Misek”), who was subsequently dismissed as a party-defendant from the lawsuit. The trial court in the first trial entered judgment after a nonjury trial, apportioning equivalent liability to Mrs. Russell and the City. On appeal, this court held that: (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to rule on the fault to be attributed to Mr. Misek; and (2) material evidence existed for the culpability and fault to be assigned to Mr. Misek. On remand, the trial court altered its judgment, attributing 45% of the fault each to Mrs. Russell and the City and 10% to Mr. Misek. The City appealed. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Mattie M. Lindsey, et al. v. Mark Lambert, et al.
This appeal involves an award of sanctions. We reverse because the moving party did not comply with the safe harbor provision of Rule 11.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tommy K. Hindman vs. Louise Helen Hindman
Louise Helen Hindman (“Wife”) and Tommy K. Hindman (“Husband”) were divorced in August of 1997, at which time the trial court approved a marital dissolution agreement (“the MDA”) submitted by the parties. Relevant to the instant case, the MDA addressed future medical and educational expenses for the parties’ minor child (“Son”). After Wife refused to reimburse Husband in compliance with the pertinent provisions of the MDA, he filed a petition seeking to have her held in contempt. The trial court ultimately ordered Wife to pay $43,678. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Randall Phillip Boyce v. Tennessee Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission
Sheriff filed a petition for judicial review regarding a decision of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) denying the sheriff’s request for certification. The sheriff argued that his basic recruit training in 1976, when he was a sheriff’s deputy, was equivalent to the Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Academy recruit training required by POST. The chancellor ordered POST to issue a certificate of compliance to the sheriff. Finding no error in POST’s decision, we reverse the chancellor’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ryne W. Brown v. Catherine L. Brown, Trustee, et al.
Appellant contends that he is a beneficiary of a trust created by his parents and thus entitled to distributions of principal and income. In a declaratory judgment action, the trial court determined that Appellant was not entitled to mandatory distributions of income or principal until both of his parents were deceased. We affirm this portion of the trial court’s judgment. The trial court also determined that no corporate trustee was required. We reverse this portion of the trial court’s judgment and remand for the appointment of a corporate trustee. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Ardell Hamilton Trigg, Deceased
The Bureau of TennCare filed a claim against a decedent’s estate to recover the cost of medical assistance provided to the decedent. The Estate filed an exception to the claim. The probate court sustained the claim, and the Estate appealed the probate court’s ruling to the circuit court which heard the matter de novo. The circuit court reversed the probate court and disallowed the claim of TennCare. TennCare appeals; we hold that the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to review the probate court’s order. We vacate the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals |
