In Re: Estate Of Elsie Stinchfield Brownlee, et al. v. Jacque Brownlee Hughes, et al.
This case involves the construction of a holographic will. Decedent died in 2006, and was survived by her four children. Her will states that one of her sons is to “have” the “home place.” Two of the other siblings, the Appellees, contest the trial court’s determination that the Decedent’s will transfers fee simple title in the Decedent’s real property owned at the time of her death to her son. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
The Estate of Ada Townsend v. The Estate of Jeanette East
The real parties at interest in this action are Carol Silvey, plaintiff and Jeanette East, defendant. They are represented by their respective conservators. Investments were made in the parties’ joint names and when the investments matured, the conservator for Jeanette East made investments in a sole account of Jeanette East. The conservator for Carol Silvey brought this action for a declaration that the investments should remain in the joint estates. The Trial Judge approved the actions of the conservator for Jeanette East but on appeal, we order that the accounts be returned to the joint ownership status. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Elizabeth Mooring v. Kindred Nursing Centers, et al.
This appeal involves an arbitration agreement executed when the decedent was admitted to a nursing home. The trial court denied the nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Foster Business Park, LLC., et al. v. Mark Winfree, et al.
Maker and guarantors of promissory note brought action against various parties including the maker’s former loan officer, the former holder of the note, and the current holder of the note, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the maker, tortiously interfered with the maker’s negotiations to pay off the note at a discount and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted defendants’ summary judgment. Maker and guarantors appealed. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas David Jordan v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, A Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, A Corporation
This is an appeal from a jury trial involving the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. A railroad employee was struck by a passing train belonging to another railroad. The employee sued both railroads, bringing a FELA claim against the employer railroad, and a negligence claim against the other railroad. The jury returned a verdict in the employee’s favor against the employer railroad, finding that the employer railroad was 100 percent at fault. The employee was awarded damages in the amount of $4 million. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tonya Gager v. River Park Hospital And Southeastern Emergency Services, P.C.
Plaintiff, a nurse practitioner formerly employed by a staffing service and supplied to hospital emergency department, sued the service and the hospital for retaliatory discharge, gender discrimination, breach of contract and violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act. Trial court granted summary judgment to staffing company. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Rural Developments, LLC v. John H. Tucker, Clara Tucker, Gene Carman Real Estate and Auctions Family Partnership, LP et. al.
This case involves allegations of intentional misrepresentation and associated causes of action all related to the sale of a spring for commercial development. Appellant contends that the output of the spring was misrepresented. The trial court granted summary judgment as to a number of causes of action, and the appellant then non-suited his remaining claims and appealed. For the reasons stated herein we affirm the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Best Signs, Inc. v. Bobby King, Design Team, Inc., and City of Savannah, Tennessee
Appellant purchased a commercial truck from a merchant who dealt in goods of that kind. Before obtaining good title, Appellant entrusted the merchant with the truck to allow the merchant to make agreed upon repairs. While the merchant had possession of the truck, he sold it to the Appellee. Appellant filed suit to recover the truck. The trial court found that Appellee was a bona fide purchaser in the ordinary course of business and that under Tenn. Code Ann. §47-2-403, Appellant’s entrustment of the truck to the merchant provided the merchant the authority to transfer title to the Appellee. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
James D. Jacks v. City of Millington Board of Zoning Appeals
On appeal, the crux of Appellant’s argument is that his local zoning board erred in determining that he could not use two structures on his property for human occupation. In support of this contention, Appellant argues that when reviewing the zoning board’s decision, the trial court applied the wrong standard of review, misconstrued the zoning ordinances, excluded admissible evidence, and should have applied the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel. On appeal, Appellee also asserted that Appellant’s argument was moot. Because we do not agree that Appellee’s case is moot, we review the merits of Appellant’s claim. Finding no error, however, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Latoya Keaton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., And Doyle Ray Atkins
Plaintiff alleged that she was robbed at knife-point on Wal-Mart’s parking lot, and Wal-Mart was negligent in failing to provide security to protect her from the robbery. Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Trial Judge ruled due to the paucity of crimes in the parking lot, Wal-Mart owed no duty to the plaintiff to provide security where the crime allegedly occurred. Plaintiff has appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
John Doe, Joe and Jane Doe v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Children's Services
In this action, plaintiff charged that defendant had placed him on a “secret, government maintained ‘indicated’ perpetrator list”, without affording him due process of law. The Trial Judge, responding to a Motion to Dismiss, held that plaintiff’s action was not “ripe” for determination and dismissed |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Powell vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., National Health Care of Cleveland, Inc., d/b/a Cleveland Community Hospital
We granted an appeal pursuant to Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. P., to determine the extent of discovery that would be allowed of an infection control nurse who had investigated the infectious rates at the hospital, because the investigation was prompted by the hospital’s Quality Control Committee. Defendants argued that the investigation was confidential and privileged, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 63-6-219. The Trial Court allowed discovery and we affirm, setting forth parameters of the discovery. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al. - Dissenting
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Henry County, Tennessee, Operating Through Its Adult Oriented Establishment Board v. Charles Redden, d/b/a “The Foxy Lady” and d/b/a “The SugarShack” and Roger Inman d/b/a “The Office”
In this appeal, we are asked to determine: (1) whether there existed sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding Appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt; (2) whether the circuit court erred in finding Appellant “willfully attempt[ed] to circumvent the requirements of the Act and Injunction Order of the Court[;]” and (3) whether the circuit court erred in fining Appellant for fifty contemptuous acts when the exact number of such acts is uncertain. We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Edward Carpenter, Sr. v. Mary Alice Bobo Carpenter
This is a divorce case. The parties had a long-term marriage and enjoyed a high standard of living. The parties then filed for divorce. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court adopted the wife’s proposal for the distribution of marital property and ordered the husband to pay the wife substantial alimony in futuro and attorney’s fees. The husband now challenges the distribution of marital property as well as the award of alimony and attorney’s fees. Regarding the distribution of the marital estate, the husband argues that the trial court overvalued his law practice, undervalued the wife’s counseling business, and failed to give the husband credit for several tax liabilities that he assumed. He further argues that the trial court awarded the wife an excessive amount of alimony and attorney’s fees. We affirm in part as modified, determining that the facts as found by the trial court were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the distribution of marital property and award of alimony. We reverse the award of attorney’s fees. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Psalms, Inc. d/b/a Kirby Pines Estates. v. William Pretsch
Appellant nursing home appeals the trial court’s award of a portion of the damages it sought from Appellee, the son of one of its residents. The Appellee had previously signed a guaranty to cover expenses that his mother could not meet on her own. At the initial hearing, Appellant failed to meet its burden of proof concerning damages, and the trial court re-opened the proof on its own motion to allow Appellant more time to produce the missing evidence. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in so doing, and that, in the absence of the new proof, Appellant failed to carry its burden, we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Realty Center New Homes Division, LLC v. Dowlen Construction, LLC
This is a breach of contract case in which the plaintiff, reflected as “Realty Center New Homes Division, LLC” (“Realty Center”), a real estate broker, sued Dowlen Construction, LLC (“Dowlen”), a builder and developer, for unpaid commissions on sales of real estate. Realty Center signed the contracts at issue in a name slightly different from the name on its real estate broker’s license. The trial court held that Realty Center is entitled to commissions, prejudgment interest, and discretionary costs. Dowlen appeals. We hold, in accord with the general rule, that the misnomer in the contracts did not render those documents invalid or inoperative where there was evidence that Dowlen knew the identity of the real party and, in this circumstance, Dowlen was estopped to deny the existence of the entity with which it contracted. We further hold that the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act of 1973, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-13-101 et seq. (“the Act”) does not expressly require a real estate broker to sign contracts in its licensed name, and we decline Dowlen’s invitation to construe the Act to find this requirement. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Lucille Ray Heirs of Howard Ray v. Magdalene Long and Joshua (“Josh”) Todd Crews
This is a will contest. The decedent had three children, two daughters who survived her and a son who predeceased her. Two months before the decedent’s death, she executed a will that left all of her property to her daughters and some of their family members, but left nothing to any of the six children of the predeceased son. After the decedent’s death, one of the daughters sought to probate the will. The deceased son’s children filed this petition to contest the will, arguing that it was procured through undue influence. After a jury trial, the jury found that the will had not been procured through undue influence and was, therefore, valid. The son’s children now appeal the jury verdict. We affirm, concluding that the evidence in the record supports the jury verdict. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Gregg Boles v. Timothy Moore and Moore Family Medicine, PLLC
This is a construction case. The plaintiff filed an action in general sessions court to collect money that he alleged that the defendants owed him under a construction contract. The general sessions court entered a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, and the defendants appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court also entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. After the circuit court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial, the defendants appealed. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Julie A. Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,Inc. and Paul Ludovissie
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial judge erred by failing to exercise his role as thirteenth juror in denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial. In support of her argument, Appellant urges this Court to consider comments the trial judge made in ruling on Appellees’ motions for a directed verdict; the Statement of the Evidence, Response, Reply, and Surreply; and Appellees’ proposed order, in which the trial judge struck certain language. Appellees, however, contend that this material is either not properly reviewable by this Court or does not bear on the issue of whether the thirteenth juror standard was met. We reverse and remand for a new trial. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter OF Derrick B.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Ethel B. (“Mother”) and David B. (“Father”) to their son, Derrick B. (the “Child”), who was 11 at the time of trial. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that several grounds for terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights existed and that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother and Father appeal, challenging the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence of grounds to terminate were established at trial. Mother and Father also challenge the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence was presented that termination of the parents’ rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Town of Oakland, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Tennessee v. Town of Somerville, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Tennessee in its own capacity, et. al.
This is the second appeal in an annexation case involving two municipalities. The plaintiff smaller municipality passed an ordinance annexing adjoining property. The annexation was to be effective ninety days later. The annexed property also adjoined the defendant larger municipality. After the passage of the plaintiff’s annexation ordinance, but before its effective date, the defendant municipality passed an ordinance annexing the same property. The plaintiff then filed a declaratory judgment action, asking the court to find that the defendant’s annexation was invalid because it attempted to annex property that the plaintiff had already annexed. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiff municipality appealed. In the first appeal, we reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court. The defendant then filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that its greater population gave it annexation priority over the plaintiff under Tennessee Code Annotated § 6-51-110. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, finding that the plaintiff’s annexation of the disputed property took place upon the passage of the ordinance after its final reading, not the effective date of the ordinance. Consequently, it found, the statute giving annexation priority to the larger municipality was not applicable because the defendant larger municipality did not initiate annexation proceedings until after the plaintiff had already annexed the property. The defendant now appeals. We reverse, finding that the effective date of the annexation, not the date of final passage, is the operative date by which a municipality with a larger population must initiate annexation proceedings in order to take advantage of its statutory priority. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Harry W. Lofton v. Nelda Joan Lofton
This is a divorce case terminating a 40 year marriage. Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s division of marital property, award of alimony in futuro, and award of attorney’s fees to Wife/Appellee. In addition, Husband/Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting Wife/Appellee’s motions to re-open proof, and in denying Husband/Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm as modified herein. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kina Crider, et al. v. The County of Henry, Tennessee
This case addresses the allocation of funds received by a county from the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Tennessee Valley Authority is exempted from state taxation, but makes payments to the county in lieu of taxes. Historically, the county has earmarked these funds for education and has allocated a portion of them to the special school districts within the county. In 2003, however, the county decided to phase out the allocation of funds to the special school districts. Subsequently, the plaintiffs in this action, parents of children in a special school district located in the county, sued the county, arguing that the county’s decision to stop sending funds to the special school district violated several statutory provisions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm, concluding that the case is controlled by the decision in Oak Ridge City Schools v. Anderson County, 677 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984), and that the county is entitled to summary judgment. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Patty Brown v. Chester County School District
This is a premises liability case against the county. The plaintiff attended a football game at a county high school. She fell on the steps leading to the bleachers in the football stadium and suffered back injuries. She claimed that the step on which she fell was dented prior to her fall, and that this caused her fall. The plaintiff filed this action against the school district, alleging that it was negligent in failing to correct a dangerous condition or in failing to warn her about the dangerous condition on the school district’s property. The school district filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the school district’s actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. Alternatively, it claimed that the school district was immune from suit under the GTLA. The trial court agreed with the school district and granted summary judgment based on both grounds. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse and remand, concluding that the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether the school district had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition, and that the school district is not immune from suit under the GTLA. |
Chester | Court of Appeals |
