Mark Pirtle Chevrolet v. Celebration Nissan M2002-00554-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: J. B. Cox
This case involved claims and counter-claims for breach of contract on the sale of an automobile dealership. After a hearing, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs damages for most of their claims. Since the defendants did not file a timely notice of appeal, we cannot consider arguments about the court's Final Order. However, the plaintiff filed a Rule 60 motion to clarify one paragraph of the Final Order. The trial court granted the motion, and modified the order to specify that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff $49,000 for certain cars that had been the subjects of a dispute. The defendant appealed the trial court's action. We affirm.
Bedford
Court of Appeals
James Pylant v. Karen Spivey M2002-00602-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This appeal involves a dispute over the extent of a father's obligation, under a provision in a property settlement agreement, to pay for his daughter's college education. The daughter chose to attend an expensive private college. The trial court found that father should pay tuition equivalent to the cost of an out-of-state public university. Both parties appealed. We affirm the trial court's decision that the father is obligated to pay reasonable costs, but vacate the judgment because there is insufficient proof of such costs.
Giles
Court of Appeals
Gail Allen v. Saturn Corp. M2002-01238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Appellants, Gail and Larry Allen, sustained injuries when a tent collapsed during a thunderstorm at a Homecoming at the Saturn Corporation in Spring Hill. They brought suit for their injuries caused by negligence in maintenance and construction of the tent. They dismissed or settled their claims with all Defendants except Saturn Corporation. Saturn filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Appellants were unable to establish a prima facie case of the Appellee's negligence. The trial court granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Maury
Court of Appeals
James Glover vs. Tetyana Glover E2002-01690-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
The trial court entered a judgment granting the complaint for annulment filed by James Eugene Glover ("Husband"). Within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, Tetyana Glover ("Wife") filed a motion seeking to set aside the judgment. She claims that she did not have prior notice that the complaint was to be considered on June 19, 2002, the date on which the record reflects this case was heard. The trial court, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Wife's motion, denied her request to set aside the judgment. Wife appeals. We vacate the trial court's order refusing to consider Wife's motion and remand this matter to the trial court for consideration of the motion.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Messer Griesheim dba MG Industries vs. Cryotech E2002-01728-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
This appeal from the Knox County Circuit Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of the Appellee/Defendant, Eastman Chemical Company, with respect to various claims connected with the purchase and sale of contaminated carbon dioxide by the Appellant/Plaintiff, Messer Griesheim Industries, Inc., d/b/a MG Industries. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Messer Griesheim dba MG Industries vs. Cryotech E2002-01728-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
This appeal from the Knox County Circuit Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of the Appellee/Defendant, Eastman Chemical Company, with respect to various claims connected with the purchase and sale of contaminated carbon dioxide by the Appellant/Plaintiff, Messer Griesheim Industries, Inc., d/b/a MG Industries. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Shamery Blair vs. West Town Mall E2002-02005-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Knox
Court of Appeals
Shamery Blair vs. West Town Mall E2002-02005-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Knox
Court of Appeals
Shamery Blair vs. West Town Mall E2002-02005-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Knox
Court of Appeals
Anne Strickland vs. Daniel Cartwright E2002-02176-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
Anne Strickland ("Plaintiff") approached Daniel Cartwright ("Defendant") about the possible purchase of Defendant's restaurant. Unable to come up with the full purchase price of $1.5 million, Plaintiff made an initial payment of $170,000 and began leasing the restaurant with monthly rental payments of $7,000. No written agreement ever was finalized between the parties. Plaintiff vacated the premises after six months allegedly due to the poor condition of the building and the amount of repairs that were needed. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a return of the $170,000, claiming this money was intended by the parties to be a down payment on the purchase of the restaurant, an event which never occurred. Defendant claimed the parties had agreed to a nonrefundable initial payment of $250,000 to allow Plaintiff the privilege of being able to walk in and take over a fully staffed and operational restaurant. Since Plaintiff paid only $170,000 toward the initial $250,000 payment, Defendant filed a counterclaim for the remaining $80,000. After a trial, the Trial Court awarded Plaintiff a judgment in the amount of $138,000. Both parties appeal. We affirm.
Blount
Court of Appeals
Adrian Scaife vs.Chantelle Roberson E2002-02666-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples
John D. Knowles, Jr. ("Deceased") died intestate in December of 2000. A Petition for Intestate Administration ("Petition") filed in April of 2001, listed Adrian Scaife ("Plaintiff") as one of Deceased's daughters. This Petition never was granted. Several months later, an Amended Petition for Intestate Administration ("Amended Petition") was filed. The Amended Petition listed Plaintiff as an heir, but did not state Plaintiff's relationship to the Deceased. A. Chantelle Roberson ("Defendant") sought to be appointed administratrix of the Deceased's estate (the "Estate") and signed the Amended Petition. The Amended Petition was granted and Defendant was named administratrix of the Estate in June of 2001. The Notice to Creditors for the Estate was published in June and July of 2001. Notice to Creditor letters were sent to all known creditors and any persons having claims, or believed to have claims, against the Estate. Plaintiff received a copy of the Letters of Administration and a Notice to Creditor letter informing her that in order to inherit from the Deceased, she would need to establish paternity within the four month time period allowed to creditors for filing claims. Plaintiff took no steps to establish paternity within the four month period. In February of 2002, Plaintiff sued seeking to prohibit Defendant from denying Plaintiff is a child of the Deceased. The Trial Court granted Defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Brenda Jones vs. David Jones E2002-01684-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
In this post-divorce case, David Wayne Jones (Husband) filed a motion requesting the Trial Court to discontinue alimony payments. The sole basis for the motion was that Brenda Gail McNeeley Jones (Wife) was "currently residing with a male individual." Wife denied that a reduction in alimony was appropriate, due to her alleged continuing need and Husband's continuing ability to pay. Wife moved for an increase in alimony payments due to her "increased medical expenses, and vocational disability that [she] suffers by reason of the need for eye surgery." The Trial Court awarded Husband a reduction in the amount of alimony from $1,500 per month to $1,000 per month. On appeal, Husband argues that the Trial Court erred by refusing to eliminate the alimony payments, and Wife argues that the Court erred by reducing them. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Wanda Shadwick vs. F.H. Shoemaker E2002-01525-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
Wanda Shadwick, individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of her common-law husband, Kenneth Lee Phillips, sued F. H. Shoemaker Distributors, Inc., and Floyd H. Shoemaker, II. The theory of the lawsuit is that the Defendants were guilty of abuse of process in connection with the sale of certain real estate and personal property owned by Kenneth Lee Phillips at the time of his death to pay a claim of the Corporation against his Estate. This claim, in the amount of $25,079.54, had been sustained by the Probate Judge. We find that neither the Corporation nor Mr. Shoemaker are liable for the misdeeds of Max Huff, the first attorney employed by them. Having so found, we reverse the judgment both as to compensatory damages in the amount of $156,000 which, incidentally, was higher than Ms. Shadwick's testimony as to the wholesale value of the personal property, and of punitive damages in the amount of $250,000, which was the amount of the ad damnum clause in the complaint. Mr. Shoemaker filed a counter-complaint seeking to recover the amount paid in delinquent taxes as to a house and lot he purchased at the purported sale, as well as delinquent taxes owed thereon. On this issue the jury found in favor of Ms. Shadwick and we affirm this determination.
Herbert Heinze vs. Patricia Severt E2002-01184-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Greene County the Appellant, Herbert Arthur Heinze, contends that the Trial Court erred in finding that a valid accord and satisfaction was entered into between him and the Appellee, Patricia Christine Severt (Heinze), with respect to the distribution of proceeds realized from the sale of the parties' marital residence pursuant to a divorce judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for collection of costs and enforcement of the judgment.
John Doe vs. Randall Pedigo E2002-01311-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
Knox
Court of Appeals
In Re: Petition of James F. Watson, General Sessions Court Judge E2002-02480-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
This is a declaratory judgment action. Judge James F. Watson was, at all relevant times, the general sessions court judge for McMinn County. Prior to 2000, McMinn County was classified as a county of the second class and Judge Watson was paid in accordance with the statutory compensation scheme for such counties. As a result of the 2000 census, McMinn County became a county of the first class. Judge Watson filed a petition seeking a determination as to the proper calculation of his salary as a class one general sessions court judge. The trial court determined that Judge Watson was entitled to continue receiving the jurisdictional supplements to his salary that he had been receiving as a class two judge. We reverse.
McMinn
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: Conservatorship of Ellen Groves M2000-00782-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This appeal involves the conservatorship of an elderly widow. Both the widow's brother-in-law and a niece filed petitions in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County requesting to be appointed her conservator. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the widow was "competent" and, therefore, dismissed both conservatorship petitions. The trial court also disapproved the brother-in-law's accounting of his expenditures on the widow's behalf and directed the brother-in-law and his wife to return the widow's real and personal property to her. On this appeal, the widow's brother-in-law asserts that the trial court erred (1) by refusing to appoint him conservator, (2) by refusing to approve reimbursing him for his expenses in caring for his sister-in-law, and (3) by directing him to return his sister-in-law's real and personal property. We have determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's conclusions that the widow is not disabled and that she does not need a conservator. However, we have also determined that the trial court properly declined to reimburse the widow's brother-in-law for his expenses in caring for her and properly ordered him to return her real and personal property.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Robert M. Overholt, M.D., et al vs. Hugh Ray Wilson E2002-01479-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit, Plaintiffs Robert M. Overholt, Joe W. Black, and Michael D. Price sue Defendant Hugh Ray Wilson, seeking possession of a portrait of long-time University of Tennessee football coach, General Robert R. Neyland. The suit also sought injunctive relief as to a proposed sale of the portrait by Mr. Wilson in connection with a bankruptcy sale of assets of a corporation owned by him. Mr. Wilson's sole defense of the suit was that it was barred by T.C.A. 28-3-105(2), the three-year statute of limitations for recovery of personal property. The trial court submitted to the jury a single question regarding the only material factual dispute, and upon receipt of the jury's finding held that the statute of limitations was not a viable defense and granted judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Mr. Wilson appeals and raises four issues, hereinafter set out, for our consideration. We find that they are without merit and affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Jackson Rose vs. Rick Welch E2002-02042-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Attorney R. Jackson Rose ("Plaintiff") was hired by Rick Welch ("Defendant') to defend him on drug related criminal charges. The parties agreed to a flat fee of $25,000 for this legal representation. A retainer of $5,000 was paid up-front. Defendant signed a promissory note for the remaining $20,000. Defendant claims he lost confidence in Plaintiff's ability to adequately represent him after Defendant paid a total of $6,850 in attorney fees. Defendant discharged Plaintiff and obtained new counsel. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Defendant filed a counterclaim for legal malpractice and also claimed as a defense, inter alia, that Plaintiff's representation fell below the professional standard of care. The case was tried to a jury. After all of the proof was presented, the Trial Court directed a verdict for Plaintiff because Defendant had offered no expert proof to support his counterclaim or his defense to the breach of contract claim. We hold expert proof was not necessary in order for Defendant to prove he lost confidence in Plaintiff and discharged him with cause for that reason. We, therefore, reverse the entry of the directed verdict as to that issue only and remand the case for trial on the sole issue of termination for cause because of Defendant's "loss of confidence." We affirm all other aspects of the Trial Court's judgment.
Claiborne
Court of Appeals
Zora Elsea vs. Frank Elsea E2002-00387-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
In this divorce action, the Trial Court identified, valued and divided marital property and awarded wife alimony. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court.
McMinn
Court of Appeals
Shirley Klein vs. David Klein E2002-00867-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
In this divorce proceeding the wife, Shirley Jean Klein, appeals the judgment of the Trial Court which held that Ms. Klein was not entitled to alimony. We affirm.
Greene
Court of Appeals
Margaret Wightman vs. Truman Clouse E2002-00318-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
The Trial Court held plaintiff was entitled to use roadway across defendants' land. On appeal, we affirm.
