Bethany A. Adkins v. Robin Swensen
Driver of automobile which struck pedestrian appeals jury award of damages for future pain and suffering, asserting that there is no material evidence to support the award. Finding the verdict of the jury to be supported by the evidence we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William & Rose Allgood v. Gateway Health Systems
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment. The plaintiff patient filed a lawsuit against the defendant physician alleging medical negligence. The patient attempted personal service on the physician by leaving the summons and the complaint at the reception desk of the hospital at which the physician practiced. Eventually, the summons and the complaint were delivered to the physician. The summons stated that service would be made by the commissioner of insurance or the U.S. mail. In his answer to the complaint, the physician asserted insufficiency of service of process, and stated that the summons indicated that service was made by the commissioner of insurance through the U.S. mail. No new process was issued. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
James Jeffrey Jackson v. Kristi Lyn Williams
This is a post-divorce petition for contempt and to modify a parenting plan. The parties divorced when their son was about three years old. They were awarded joint custody of their son and the mother was designated as the primary residential parent. Many disputes ensued. The father filed a contempt petition against the mother, claiming that she was in contempt for failing to schedule compensatory weekend parenting time for the father after the child spent one of his weekends with the mother, and for causing the father to miss six scheduled telephone calls with their son over an eight-month period. The father asserted that this and other conduct showed that the mother intended to alienate the child from him, and on this basis filed a petition to modify the parenting plan. After a hearing, the trial court denied the father’s petitions for contempt and for modification. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Marion Barker v. Angel Chandler
This post-divorce appeal challenges the “overnight paramour” provision in the parties’ parenting plan. By agreement, the parties sought to modify the parenting plan for their two teenage children, a son and a daughter. At the time, the father lived with his new wife, and the mother lived with her unmarried partner of nine years. The parties agreed that the father would be the primary residential parent of their son, and that the mother would be the primary residential parent of their daughter. The permanent parenting plan form completed by the parties included a “paramour provision,” in accordance with a local court rule mandating that parenting plans prohibit the non-spouse paramour of either parent from spending the night in the same residence as the minor child. The mother objected to the inclusion of this provision, arguing that the children’s best interest would be served by permitting them to stay in her home along with her partner. Despite finding that the children’s well-being would not be adversely impacted by the arrangement on which the parties had agreed, |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Mark VII Transportation Co., Inc. v. Responsive Trucking, Inc.
This action arises from an agreement between Appellant Mark VII Transportation Co. and Appellee Responsive Trucking, Inc. Appellant filed suit seeking to recover for breach of contract based on the Carmack Amendment standard of liability adopted by the parties in their agreement and for indemnification as allowed by their agreement. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Finding material issues of fact in dispute, we affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda Stone, individually and derivatively in her capacity as a director of Appalachian caverns Foundation vs. Scott Smile, et al
The plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of a foundation of which she was formerly a director. She sought to reinstate a deed of trust securing a note belonging to the foundation and to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of the property that was subject to the deed of trust. The trial court found that the release of the deed of trust was improper and that the conveyance was fraudulent and, thus, reinstated the deed of trust and set aside the conveyance of the property. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Renee L. Johnson v. Grayson Rowsell, et al
Jackson County- This is a summary judgment case arising from a personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiff/Appellant alleged liability on the part of Appellee delivery company arising from the negligent acts of its driver. Finding that the driver was an independent contractor, and that the exceptions to the general rule of non-liability on the part of the employer of an independent contractor do not apply in this case, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee delivery company. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
Keith M. Farnham v. Donna M. Farnham
The plaintiff filed this action seeking to review the business records of the defendant, asserting under oath that she is a 25 percent shareholder of the defendant corporation. The defendant moved to dismiss. The trial court found that the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §48-26-104(a) – the corporate records statute – and ordered the defendant to comply with the request to inspect and/or copy corporate records. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees. We reverse. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Michael D. Reed vs. Darla Carden Steadham
The father left his salaried employment and began his own construction business, which resulted in a substantial decrease in his annual income. As a result the father reduced his child support payments to the mother, who then asked the Trial Court to find the father was voluntarily under employed and the Court should impute additional income, based upon his true earning capacity. After an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court found the father was not willfully unemployed and adjusted the child support amount in accordance with the guidelines based on his then income. The mother has appealed. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Alanna Christy Daniels Howe v. John Ashley Howe
In this divorce action, after a long and contentious trial, the Trial Court awarded the mother the divorce and awarded custody of the parties' minor child to the father. The sole issue on appeal by the mother is the award of custody to the father. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Wynn v. La Maruja Realty Corp.
This case arose from a complaint for specific performance, brought by a developer against a realtor to compel the realtor to complete the sale of a piece of real property which it had agreed to sell to the developer’s corporation. The realtor subsequently discovered that the corporation had been dissolved and moved the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to contract and lack of standing. The developer applied for and obtained reinstatement of his corporation and then moved the court to be allowed to amend his complaint to name it as an additional plaintiff. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. We granted this interlocutory appeal to review that decision. We reverse the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Lane vs. Jerrold L. Becker, et al.
Plaintiff brought claims of malicious prosecution, outrageous conduct, civil conspiracy, punitive damages, and respondeat superior against defendants for filing a lawsuit against him, on behalf of their clients. The trial court dismissed all the claims. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Shawn Cunningham v. City of Chattanooga d/b/a/ Chattanooga City Council
The Chattanooga Police Department terminated petitioner’s employment as a policeman for the City of Chattanooga. Petitioner appealed to the City Commission, whose hearing panel upheld his termination. He filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Chancery Court which was granted, and then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court also granted inter alia on the grounds that the City Council employed unlawful procedures which violated petitioner’s rights to a fair, impartial and unbiased appellate panel. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Peatross, Administrator of the Estate of Blanchard Greenwood, Deceased v. Shelby County, Tennessee
This appeal results from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The issue before the trial court was the scope of a release agreement signed by the decedent’s children and one of the defendants (“the Med”). The remaining defendants argued that this agreement provided for the release of claims against all potential defendants. Plaintiff responded that the parties to the agreement had no intention of releasing additional parties. Examining the language of the release and the circumstances surrounding its execution, we agree with the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s claims against defendants were released. We also agree with the trial court’s finding that the agreement released any civil rights claims that plaintiff might assert against the Med. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert W. Hawley v. Billy Joe Mauldin
This appeal arises from a judgment entered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff. In his complaint, plaintiff asked the trial court to remove a cloud from the title to his property and to enjoin defendant from making certain fraudulent claims in the future. Defendant asserts that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. On review, we find that the chancery court has the authority to grant the equitable relief requested by plaintiff. The court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The judgment is affirmed. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Thompson, Ed Gatlin, and Empire Express, Inc. v. J. T. Davis and Barbara Davis
This is an action for contribution. The two individual plaintiffs and the defendant formed a limited liability company for the purpose of owning and operating an arena football team. To fund the team, the three investors took out two loans in their individual names. The business was a losing venture, and eventually the team was sold. The proceeds of the sale were used to pay all of the business’s debts except the remaining liability on the two personal loans. The two plaintiffs paid the balance of the loans out of their personal funds. The plaintiffs then filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant for contribution, alleging that he was jointly and severally liable for his pro rata share of the debt. The defendant conceded that he owed a small part of the debt, but argued that his liability should be reduced by the amounts distributed to the plaintiffs by the business. The defendant contended that the funds distributed to the plaintiffs should have been applied to the business debt. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court rejected the defendant’s claim that his debt should be offset, finding that the distributions made to the plaintiffs constituted a repayment of loans, not a distribution of capital. It also awarded the plaintiffs attorney’s fees. The defendant now appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Benton County, Tennessee, et al. v. Vern Franklin Chumney
This is an eminent domain case. The Appellants appeal the trial court’s denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.02 motion. We dismiss the appeal for failure to appeal a final judgment. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda Brewer v. Kenny Brewer, Sr.
This is a divorce case. On appeal, Husband argues that certain settlement monies, which he claims Wife failed to disclose, should be considered marital property subject to equitable division. Such monies include Wife’s personal injury settlement, Wife’s payment for past SSI benefits, and Wife’s car insurance settlement proceeds. Husband also contends that Wife’s share of the marital home should be reduced based on the discovery of these additional assets. Finally, Husband argues that he should not have been required to pay rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro to Wife. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In RE: T.H.; A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age; Karen Riley v. Frankie Summeour
This case arose as a dispute over the custody of the minor child between the paternal aunt of the child and the maternal great aunt of the child. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Tammy Laree Kennamre v. Albert Thompson, et al.
This case involves an award of retroactive child support. Following her divorce from the man she claimed was the minor child’s biological father, Appellant/Mother filed a petition to establish paternity against the Appellee herein. Genetic testing revealed that the Appellee was the father, and the court awarded child support retroactive to the date of filing of the Appellant/Mother’s petition, which award was a deviation from the Child Support Guidelines. Finding that the trial court’s deviation from the guidelines is supported by the record, we affirm. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Michael J. Hogan v. Janet Katherine Hogan
In this appeal, Father asks this Court to consider whether the arbitrator erred in finding California to be the home state of the parties’ children under the UCCJEA, and in finding that Father failed to prove a material change of circumstances warranting modification of the parties’ parenting plan. Mother asks us to consider whether, pursuant to Tennessee’s Uniform Arbitration Act, Father is limited to the Act’s statutory grounds for vacating or modifying the arbitration award. We find that the courts of this state do not have jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement or to modify the parties’ parenting plan. Accordingly, the actions and orders of the trial court and the arbitrator are vacated, and the case is dismissed. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennesse, Department of Children's Services v. Dedrus Peterson, et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights on grounds of persistence of conditions, abandonment by willful failure to visit or support, failure to substantially comply with the permanency plans, and mental incompetence. Finding that the grounds for termination of Mothers's parental rights are established by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and that termination is in the best interests of the minor children, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Cable Telecommunication Association. v. Electric Power Board of Chattanooga
An association of cable providers sued the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga in Davidson County challenging the Board’s plan to provide a cable and internet network under Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52- 601 et seq. Specifically, the association alleged that the Board was improperly funding the network in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-603 and that the plan submitted to the comptroller for review in Davidson County under Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-602 was defective. The trial court dismissed finding that since no violation allegedly occurred in Davidson County then the trial court lacked jurisdiction and venue under Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-609. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Casey Barclay v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc.
The trial court concluded that decedent’s nephew had express oral authority to bind decedent to an optional arbitration agreement with a nursing home. It further determined that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Plaintiff, decedent’s son, appeals. We reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Barna v. Preston Law Group, P.C., et al - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
