COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Teresa Gard v. Dennis Harris, M.D.,
2008-01939-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation after her physician sent a letter she considered defamatory. After finding that plaintiff consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

Johnny C. Hensley vs. wharton Duke and Sharon Duke
E2009-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
The landlord brought this action against tenants under the lease agreement for damages allegedly caused by tenants and their animals to plaintiff's property. After an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court entered Judgment for damages to plaintiff's property and defendants have appealed. On appeal, we modify the Judgment downward and affirm the Trial Court, as modified.

Edward P. Landry, et al vs. South Cumberland Amoco, et al
E2009-01354-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
Plaintiffs brought this wrongful death action against defendants for the wrongful death of Brandi Coyle, who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by an underage intoxicated driver who had purchased intoxicating beverages from South Cumberland Amoco. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs would be unable to prove essential elements of their claim. The Trial Court held that the alleged underage driver had stated initially that he was over the age of 21, but later, in another statement, represented that he was a minor at the time of the accident. The Trial Judge held that his statements cancelled each other and there was no evidence to establish that he was a minor at the time of the accident. The Court also held that plaintiffs could not prove that the South Cumberland Amoco cashier had "knowingly sold intoxicating beverages to a minor". On appeal, we vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

City of Murfreesboro v. Thomas Leon Norton
M2009-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: J. Mark Rogers
This case involves an appeal from a judgment entered by a city court following a traffic citation. The circuit court found that the defendant had not violated the city ordinance alleged to have been violated, but the court sua sponte determined that the defendant had violated a different city ordinance. The defendant appeals. We reverse and remand.

James Morton Burris v. Lisa Estes Burris
M2009-00498-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Royce Taylor
This is a divorce case ending a twenty-one year marriage. Following a three day trial, the trial court entered a parenting plan naming Appellee/Father as the primary residential parent, granting Father decision making authority, and providing Appellant/Mother with visitation. The trial court also entered judgment against Mother for retroactive child support since the parties separation and for marital debts that had been paid by the Father during the separation. Discerning no error, we affirm.

David M. Sharp v. Debbie F. Stevenson
W2009-00096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Michael Maloan

I must respectfully dissent in this case. Unfortunately, I find that I disagree with both the majority opinion and the concurrence.

David M. Sharp v. Debbie And Michael Stevenson
W2009-00096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Michael Maloan

I concur in the result reached by Judge Farmer. However, because I reach the result by different reasoning, I write separately.

David M. Sharp v. Debbie F. Stevenson
W2009-00096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Michael Maloan

The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify custody of his three minor children, who are in the custody of their maternal grandparents. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

In Re IMP: a Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, J.J.A., Petitioner/Appellant, v. M.P., et al.
E2008-02695-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge April Meldrum

Petitioner brought this action in Juvenile Court to establish paternity and set co-parenting time with the child. The mother answered and, as an affirmative defense, averred that the father had signed a waiver of his parental right and cited the statutes stating that a waiver of parental rights could not be revoked. The Trial Court appointed a guardian ad litem, and the sole issue tried by the Trial Court was whether the waiver should be voided on the grounds that the father had signed the waiver under duress and undue pressure. The Trial Judge found that the father failed to carry the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he signed the waiver of interest and notice due to fraud, duress or intentional misrepresentation. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Saundra J. Counce, RN, v. Asecension Health, et al.
M2009-00741-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

The plaintiff, formerly an at-will employee of Baptist Hospital, filed this action asserting that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment. She asserted twelve claims, inter alia, retaliatory discharge, age and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, violation of wage and hour laws, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The trial court summarily dismissed all of the claims. We affirm.

State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Markie Jade Laxton v. Samuel Byron Biggerstaff
E2009-01707-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: James L. Cotton

This is an appeal by the father requesting modification of his child support obligation due to
his incarceration. The trial court denied relief. We affirm.

Lamar Tennessee, LLC, et al., v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.
M2007-00883-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County adopted a redevelopment plan for an area of the city which included the site of a long-existing billboard. The Tennessee Department of Transportation subsequently ordered the removal of the billboard to accommodate a road-widening project. The sign’s owner filed an application for a permit to relocate the sign on another portion of its leasehold, but the city declined to approve the application because the redevelopment plan totally prohibits signs of that type. The sign company filed a petition for certiorari in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, asserting that Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 of the zoning statutes gave it the right to replace the sign. The court agreed, and ordered the city to re-evaluate the permit application in accordance with the statutory provisions for a pre-existing non-conforming use after a change of zoning. We reverse, finding that the grandfather provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 have no applicability to the restrictions contained in redevelopment plans under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-20-201 et seq.

Shuttleworth, Williams, Harper, Waring and Derrick, PLLC, v. Gary K. Smith, Smith, Sabbatini, & McLeary, PLLC
W2007-02295-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James F. Butler

This dispute is between an attorney and his former firm. All parties to this suit appeal the trial court’s interpretation of their operating agreement about how the fees and expenses generated by the withdrawing member’s cases should be apportioned among them. The operating agreement gave the firm discretion to value the services provided by its other members, but the trial court correctly determined that the firm’s claimed value was not reasonable. We reverse the trial court’s holding with regard to the withdrawing lawyer’s interest in a member’s share of the expenses he is obligated to pay the firm. The trial court is affirmed on the issue of sanctions and as to its refusal to make an award to nonparties.

Charles M. Myer, III, et al. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
M2009-01644-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

Property owners sued, alleging that the Metropolitan Government was using or taking their property without their permission and without compensation. The Metropolitan Government took an easement over the property by eminent domain and the State built the Victory Memorial Bridge over part of it. The Metropolitan Government later transferred its interest in the property to the State. Much later, the Metropolitan Government built the Gay Street Connector over part of the easement and maintained exclusive control over the part of the easement not used for the bridge. The trial court found for the government. The property owners appealed. We affirm.

Alice L. Warren v. David E. Warren
M2009-00042-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ross H. Hicks

In a divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s division of the marital estate, its determination of her income for child support purposes, and its division of the parties’ income tax liabilities. We affirm.

Jane Field, et al., v. The Ladies Hermitage Association and State of Tennessee
M2008-02663-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

The heirs of the woman who conveyed Tulip Grove to the Ladies’ Hermitage Association filed suit claiming, among other things, that due to the Association’s failure to pay the heirs as required in the deed of conveyance, the property reverted to the heirs. We affirm the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the Association holding that the Association did not fail to comply with the obligations relevant to the reversion, so no reversion was triggered.
 

Naomi Schutte, as Adminstrator of the Estate of William Anthony Lucy, deceased v. Cheyenne Johnson, Shelby County Assessor et al.
CH-07-0180-3
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Kenny W. Armstrong

This appeal arises out of an action to refund tangible personal property taxes. The
administrator of a decedent’s estate filed suit against the Shelby County Assessor of Property
and the Shelby County Trustee following the payment of delinquent taxes. The administrator
alleged that prior forced assessments of the decedent’s property were illegal, arbitrary, and
unduly excessive. The chancery court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction
to hear the case. We affirm.

In the Matter of: The Estate of Anna Sue Dunlap, Deceased, Richard Gossum, Administrator CTA
W2009-00794-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor George R. Ellis

This dispute involves the administration of a decedent’s estate. The chancery court removed
the decedent’s children as co-administrators of her estate because they were unable to
peaceably complete their duties. The court appointed a successor administrator whose job
was made difficult by continued infighting between the interested parties. Nevertheless, the
successor administrator proceeded with his duties and proposed a final accounting five years
after the estate was opened. The appellants responded to the proposed accounting with an
objection and a motion for continuance. The chancery court denied the motion for
continuance and approved the final accounting. The court later denied the appellants’ motion
to alter or amend or for new trial and closed the estate. We affirm.

Christina Altice v. NATS, Inc., et al
M2009-00659-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen H. Lyle

Judgment creditor sued defendants to collect a judgment against a defunct nonprofit corporation, claiming defendants were the alter egos of the defunct corporation. In a prior appeal, this court instructed the parties to focus on whether certain transactions were or were not loans. If they were loans, then the plaintiff could not prove her case to make the defendants responsible for the judgment against the defunct corporation. The trial court found that the transactions were loans. We affirm.

In Re: Dravyn L.D.
M2009-00357-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Barry Tatum

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the
parental rights of Candis D. (“Mother”) with respect to her minor daughter, Dravyn L.D.
(“the Child”). The petition alleged multiple incidences of abandonment, substantial
noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The juvenile court
terminated Mother’s parental rights upon finding that each of the grounds alleged was
established by clear and convincing evidence. Mother appeals. She contends that DCS’s
handling of the case effectively denied her the right to due process. She further challenges
the juvenile court’s finding that she was in substantial noncompliance with the permanency
plan. We affirm.

Dorian Jones v. Ronald Hicks, Individually and DBA R and R Collision
E2009-00844-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor E.G. Moody

Dorian Jones left his Jeep with Ron Hicks dba R and R Collision for restorative repairs in the
summer or fall of 2005. On or about November 3, 2008, Hicks sent Jones a letter stating that
the Jeep would be “auctioned unless all repair and storage fees are paid in full within fifteen
(15) days of receipt of this letter.” Jones called Hicks and, when he learned that Hicks had
not performed any repairs, insisted on return of the Jeep without any payment. Hicks
refused. Jones filed an action for replevin of the Jeep. Hicks filed a counterclaim asserting
that he was entitled to sell the vehicle for collection of his repair and storage fees. After a
bench trial, the court entered an order stating that Hicks was entitled to recover $564 without
specifying what was to happen with the vehicle. Jones filed a motion to alter or amend
simultaneously with a notice of appeal. The trial court entered an order amending its earlier
order by addition of a paragraph which provided that the vehicle would be returned to Jones
upon payment of the $564 plus accrued interest. Jones contends in this appeal that Hicks was
not entitled to any repair charges or storage fees under their informal unwritten arrangement
since Hicks performed no repairs and gave him no notice that he would be charging storage
fees. We agree with Jones and reverse the judgment in favor of Hicks.

Carroll C. Martin vs. Jimmy Bankston, et al
E2009-00993-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howell N. Peoples

Plaintiff sued defendants, seeking to enforce the restrictive covenants on defendants' property as to an outbuilding constructed on defendants' property and seeking an injunction against defendants' alleged operation of a business on their premises in violation of the restrictive covenants. The Trial Court ruled in favor of defendants, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

In Re: Maverick H., Samantha Ann Moore, a/k/a Michelle M. Hartmen v. Mark W. Givler
E2009-00253-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.

In this action to establish paternity and recover back child support, plaintiff did not appear when the case was set for trial and the Trial Judge dismissed the action. Plaintiff then filed a Rule 60 motion to reinstate the case to the trial docket, which the Trial Judge denied. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Melvin Quarles v. Barbara Atkins Smith
W2009-00514-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge William C. Cole

This case involves a boundary line dispute. Plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin Defendant Walker from entering property they claimed to own. However, Defendant Walker filed a counter-claim against Plaintiffs asserting, among other things, ownership by adverse possession. The trial court found that title to the disputed property had vested in Defendant Walker, and therefore, it granted summary judgment in his favor. We affirm.

William W. Reed v. Bill McDaniel And Ahmad Elsebae
W2009-01348-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant sustained injuries after a fall through the
second-story floor of a water-damaged building. The trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Defendants/Appellees, finding that the danger was open and obvious, that
Defendants/Appellees had warned of the danger, and that Plaintiff/Appellant was at least
50% at fault for his own injuries, thus negating his negligence claim under McIntyre v.
Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn.1992). Finding no error, we affirm.