COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Paul & Galvin
03A01-9807-CV-00233

Burns vs. Burns
03A01-9806-CH-00190

Lee vs. Strickland
03A01-9806-CH-00195

Beason vs. Beason
03A01-9809-CV-00314

Cochran vs. Lowe
03A01-9809-CV-00292

Julia Leach Bryan vs. James Leach
M1998-00922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
This case involves post-divorce disputes over alimony and child support and issues of contempt of court. The father commenced this appeal after the trial court declined to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and awarded the mother more than $50,000 in child support arrearages and, later, found the father in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 per day until all judgments were paid to the mother. On appeal, the father argues that his alimony obligation should have terminated or decreased, that a portion of his child support payments should be placed in trust for the benefit of the children, and that the trial court erred by fining him for contempt. We affirm the trial court's orders but modify the fine imposed upon the father.

Julia Leach Bryan vs. James Leach
M1998-00922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
This case involves post-divorce disputes over alimony and child support and issues of contempt of court. The father commenced this appeal after the trial court declined to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and awarded the mother more than $50,000 in child support arrearages and, later, found the father in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 per day until all judgments were paid to the mother. On appeal, the father argues that his alimony obligation should have terminated or decreased, that a portion of his child support payments should be placed in trust for the benefit of the children, and that the trial court erred by fining him for contempt. We affirm the trial court's orders but modify the fine imposed upon the father.

Billy Steagall vs. Nancy Steagall
M1998-00948-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute regarding the custody a 15-year-old boy. In August 1997, the boy's father petitioned the Chancery Court for Marshall County to change the minor's custody because of his concern that the mother's attempt to home school the boy had undermined his education and development of social skills. The mother opposed the petition and requested an increase in child support. During the June 1998 trial, the father presented evidence raising serious questions about the progress of the child's education and development of social skills, as well as other aspects of the mother's approach to parenting. The mother presented no evidence of her own. Instead, after the close of the father's proof, she asserted that the trial court could remediate the acknowledged deficiencies without changing custody. Thereafter, the parties and the court discussed at length the provisions of a proposed remedial order, and the hearing was adjourned when the parties and the court believed they had agreed on the contents of the proposed order. Before the trial court entered the proposed order, the wife took issue with a provision requiring her to enroll the child in public school. The trial court informed the parties that it had understood that both parties had agreed to send their child to public school and that it would resume the trial if its understanding was incorrect. Rather than requesting the trial court to resume the hearing, the mother filed this appeal claiming that the trial court had infringed on her constitutionally protected right to raise her child. We have determined, in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a), that the mother is not entitled to appellate relief because she is, in part, responsible for the error and because she failed to pursue the reasonably available steps that would have nullified the harmful effect of the error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Janice Hillyer vs. Charles Hillyer
M1998-00942-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
The issues in this post-divorce case arise because the former husband's waiver of military retirement pay in order to receive disability benefits cut off the former wife's receipt of her portion of the retirement pay which had been awarded to her in the distribution of marital property. The former wife filed a contempt petition, seeking to reinstate her portion of the benefits. The trial court, relying on Gilliland v. Stanley, an unpublished opinion from this court, denied her motion for contempt. In light of our Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. Johnson, No. W1999-01232-SC-R11-CV, 2001 WL 173502 (Tenn. Feb. 23, 2001), we reverse and remand.

Janice Hillyer vs. Charles Hillyer
M1998-00942-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
The issues in this post-divorce case arise because the former husband's waiver of military retirement pay in order to receive disability benefits cut off the former wife's receipt of her portion of the retirement pay which had been awarded to her in the distribution of marital property. The former wife filed a contempt petition, seeking to reinstate her portion of the benefits. The trial court, relying on Gilliland v. Stanley, an unpublished opinion from this court, denied her motion for contempt. In light of our Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. Johnson, No. W1999-01232-SC-R11-CV, 2001 WL 173502 (Tenn. Feb. 23, 2001), we reverse and remand.

Suzette Marie Elder vs. Sidney Lee Elder
M1998-00935-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith
This appeal involves a post-divorce custody dispute precipitated by the custodial parent's decision to accept a job in Texas. The custodial parent requested the Circuit Court for Franklin County to permit the parties' children to accompany him to Texas and to adjust the visitation arrangements accordingly. The non-custodial parent responded by requesting the trial court to change custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court declined to change the existing custody arrangement and permitted the custodial parent to move to Texas. On this appeal, the non-custodial parent takes issue with both the denial of her petition to change custody and the approval of the custodial parent's move to Texas. We have determined that the record supports both of these decisions and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

O'Bryant vs. Reeder Chevrolet
03A01-9810-CV-00325

Patricia Anne Pehlman v. Gregory Lawrence Pehlman and Sobieski and Associates
3A01-9809-CV-00311
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Swann

In this action Patricia Anne Pehlman essentially seeks a declaration that marital property awarded to her in a divorce is not subject to a lien in favor of the intervenor.

Street vs. Waddell
03A01-9710-CV-00488

McNair vs. Smith
03A01-9804-CH-00122

Norris vs. Gounaris
03A01-9807-CH-00238

Dpt. Human Services vs. Whaley
03A01-9809-JV-00272

McKinley vs. Holt
03A01-9807-PB-00220

Neas vs. Kerns
03A01-9812-CH-00386

Janice Leslie vs. Charles/Patricia Caldwell
02A01-9807-CV-00179
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

Elipidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
02A01-9803-CV-00065
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Conister Trust v. Boating Corp. of America & Villas-Afloat
M1998-00949-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
The buyer of three boats that were to be built pursuant to specific instructions defaulted on payment for the second and third boats by failing to pay the entire purchase price of the boats. The seller resold the two boats and recovered its damages caused by the buyer's breach. A creditor of the buyer, who furnished funds for the purchase of the first two boats, sought the excess proceeds from the sale of the second boat asserting that it had an unperfected security interest. Because the buyer did not attain rights in the collateral sufficient to meet the requirements for attachment of a security interest, the creditor is not entitled to distribution of the proceeds under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Instead, the rights of the buyer and seller are governed by Article 2. The creditor was entitled to assert the buyer's right to restitution of partial payments, and the seller was entitled to recover its damages from the resale of the two boats. The seller also had a right of setoff which it exercised to recover losses on the third boat from moneys realized in the sale of the second boat. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

Doyle Shirt Manufacturing Corporation, v. T. Michael O'Mara, et al.
01A01-9711-CH-00670
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Vernon Neal

This appeal involves the requirement of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.01 that pleadings be signed by an attorney or by a party if that party is not represented by an attorney. Finding that the plaintiff did not comply with Rule 11 within the statutory period of limitations, the Putnam County Chancery Court granted summary judgment to the defendant. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Luvana Leean Tudors vs. Carl William Bell, Jr., - Concurring
01-A-01-9802-CV-00103
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham

This is an appeal of two ten-day sentences for criminal contempt. We find that the procedural requirements for a sentence for criminal contempt have not been satisfied. We, therefore, reverse the lower court’s order.

Remington Investments, Inc., v. Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth Obenauf
01A01-9809-CH-00512
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the trial court domesticating a Connecticut judgment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-6-101 et seq. against both defendants. I. The Connecticut Action In September 1990, Connecticut Savings Bank brought suit in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut against Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth H. Obenauf on a promissory note in the amount of $34,000, executed by Ronald S. Obenauf and dated March 27, 1990. Plaintiff alleged that it was the current holder of the promissory note and that Ronald S. Obenauf had failed to make monthly payments in accordance therewith. The bank demanded judgment of the amount of the promissory note together with  nterest and costs. The bank further sought fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, asserting that plaintiff had been harmed by the failure of the defendant to make payment on the promissory note.