Walter Himes v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a state prisoner. The prisoner was found guilty of a disciplinary offense while in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. After exhausting his administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. The trial court granted the petition. After reviewing the record, the trial court found that the prisoner was not entitled to relief and dismissed the petition. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Hope A.P.
This appeal concerns a termination of parental rights. Sean and Amber G. (“the Petitioners”) filed a petition for adoption and termination of parental rights with respect to Hope A.P. (“the Child”) against Jessica N. (“Mother”) in the Circuit Court for Greene County (“the Trial Court”). The petition alleged that Mother willfully failed to visit or support the Child in the four month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition. The Trial Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Child after finding that Mother’s willful failure to support had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that clear and convincing evidence showed that it was in the Child’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Lowell Blanchard, II v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
This appeal involves the petitioner’s efforts to be paroled. After the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole declined to recommend the petitioner for parole, he filed a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari. The Board filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the Board’s motion, and the petitioner appeals. We affirm. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Esmat Eslami v. Mark Derrick, et al.
On June 6, 2012, Esmat Eslami (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of appeal of an order entered by the Trial Court on May 9, 2012. On November 5, 2012, this Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Cheatham County, Tennessee v Cheatham County Board of Zoning Appeals and Randall and Margaret Mooneyhan - CONCUR
The Mooneyhans were brought into court by the county government and were forced to defend a decision by the county’s board of zoning appeals. After that decision was upheld in the trial court, the county once again forced the Mooneyhans into this court. They were required to spend money on an attorney in both courts to defend an action by the county government from attack by the county government. These egregious actions by the county were unauthorized. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Una P. Irvin v. Ernest J. Irvin, II
This is the second appeal in this divorce case. During the parties’ ten-year marriage, they had two children. The husband served in the military, stationed in several different places. Eventually the family moved to Tennessee, where the wife worked part-time and took care of the children while the husband was deployed. Just after the husband returned from his deployment, the wife filed a petition for divorce, and the husband filed a cross-petition. The parties reached an agreement on property issues, but no others. After a trial, the trial court entered a final decree, found the husband at fault for the demise of the marriage, and granted the wife a divorce. The final decree designated the wife as the children’s primary residential parent, awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony, and divided the marital estate in accordance with the parties’agreement. The husband filed the first appeal.The appellate court dismissed the first appeal for lack of a final order and remanded the case for resolution of several issues. After a post-remand hearing, the trial court entered an order mostly reaffirming its initial decision. However, in light of the wife’s post-remand admission of infidelity during the marriage, the trial court declared the parties to be divorced, rather than granting the wife a divorce. The husband again appeals, challenging the trial court’s failure to find the wife at fault for the demise of the marriage, its designation of the wife as the children’s primary residential parent, the award of rehabilitative alimony, the property division, and the award of attorney fees in favor of the wife. We modify the award of alimony, but otherwise affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Chase B.S., et al.
The trial court dismissed “petitions for medical support” of non-marital children filed by the Department of Human Services as inconsistent with the child support statutes and guidelines. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re The James M. Cannon Family Trust
The plaintiff filed this action alleging that the defendant killed the latter’s husband thereby forfeiting any rights she had under a trust the husband had created. After the complaint was filed, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of her husband. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment supported by the judgment of conviction and other documents. The defendant filed an affidavit denying any responsibility for her husband’s death. While the motion for summary judgment was pending, the defendant filed a motion asking the trial judge to recuse himself. The trial court denied the motion to recuse. It then granted the motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to recuse but vacate the order granting the motion for summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Bernard Mobley v. Priscilla Ann Caffa-Mobley
The former husband appeals from the denial of his Motion to Set Aside or in the Alternative Alter or Amend the Final Decree of Divorce, which was filed 23 days after the entry of the Final Decree. In his Motion for relief, Husband sought to amend the Final Decree as it pertained to the division of the parties’ mortgage debt on two homes, the division of Husband’s military pension, and the award of rehabilitative alimony to Wife. We have determined the trial court should have granted partial relief as it pertained to Husband’s continuing liability on the mortgage on the Miami, Florida property awarded to Wife, and to address a mathematical error pertaining to Wife’s interest in Husband’s military retirement. Thus, we remand for review of these two issues and affirm in all other respects. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Christina Lea Womble v. Larry Glen Womble, II
Husband appeals from an order of the trial court granting Wife a divorce and making a distribution of marital property. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Cheatham County, Tennessee v. Cheatham County Board of Zoning Appeals and Randall and Margaret Mooneyhan
Property owners’ permit to place a mobile home on their property was revoked by the county building commissioner on the grounds that the property on which the home was to be located did not meet the minimum lot size requirement in the zoning ordinance; on appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the property owners were granted a variance. The County filed a petition in Chancery Court seeking certiorari review of the grant of the variance, naming the Board of Zoning Appeals and property owners as defendants. After a hearing, the trial dismissed the petition; the court denied the property owners’ request for attorney fees incurred in connection with the Board of Zoning Appeals and certiorari proceedings. We hold that the property owners are entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Elliott v. James Lucas Muhonen, et al
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the trial court’s denial of motions for recusal in two post- ivorce cases involving custody of the parties’ minor children. Having reviewed the appellant’s petition for recusal appeal pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, we affirm the Trial Court. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
U.S. Bank, N.A., as Servicer for the Tennessee Housing Development Agency v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
U.S. Bank, N.A. (“Bank”) had a mortgage on a residence which was insured against fire loss by Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“Tennessee Farmers”). When the owner of the residence failed to pay the mortgage, the Bank commenced foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, the owner filed for bankruptcy which stayed the foreclosure proceedings. After the residence was destroyed in a fire, the Bank filed a claim to recover the insurance proceeds. Tennessee Farmers refused to pay the claim. As a result, the Bank filed suit against Tennessee Farmers alleging breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim, and unfair or deceptive practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Bank, concluding that the Bank's failure to give Tennessee Farmers notice of the foreclosure proceedings did not invalidate the insurance coverage. On appeal to this Court, we reversed, finding that the Bank’s commencement of foreclosure proceedings amounted to an increase in hazard under the policy and the Bank’s failure to provide notice precluded coverage. After granting the Bank’s application for permission to appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court, and held that commencement of foreclosure proceedings did not constitute an increase in hazard under the terms of the insurance policy or the applicable statutory provisions, and therefore, the Bank was not required to give notice to Tennessee Farmers. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 277 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn. 2009). Subsequently, on remand from the Supreme Court, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Bank for the amount due on the mortgage plus accrued interest. The trial court further awarded the Bank attorney’s fees and costs based on its finding that Tennessee Farmers’ interpretation of the policy, that the Bank was required to provide them with notice of the commencement of foreclosure proceedings, amounted to bad faith and an unfair act or practice under the TCPA. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we reverse and remand. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Martha R. Scent v. Chester Shoemaker, et al.
Martha Scent filed a declaratory judgment action against multiple defendants to establish her rights with respect to a deed of trust that granted her a lien on a tract of land. In addition, Scent sought to establish that “her” signature on a release of her deed of trust is a forgery. The trial court granted Scent partial summary judgment voiding and nullifying the release of her trust deed. The case proceeded to a bench trial with the focus on the priority of trust deeds as between Scent and the defendant Ellen W. Hood. Based upon the application of the doctrine of merger, the court ruled that Scent held the priority position. The court awarded judgment in her favor and Hood appeals. We affirm. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Edward Joseph Warwick, Sr. v. Katherine Dodge Gribben Warwick, et al.
Edward Joseph Warwick, Sr. (“Husband”) sued his former spouse, Katherine Dodge Gribben Warwick (“Wife”); her attorney, David W. Noblit (“Counsel”); and Noblit’s law firm (collectively “Defendants”). Husband alleges that, since the time of the parties’ divorce, Wife and Counsel had conspired against him in an effort to destroy him and gain access to his separate funds. Husband claims the Defendants are guilty of fraud on the court, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a civil conspiracy, for which he seeks eight million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed Husband’s complaint. The court stated “that the[] causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations or that the complaint failed to state a claim, or both.” Husband appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Oak Ridge Land Company, LP., v. Richard H. Roberts, Commissioner Of Revenue For The State of Tennessee
The Department of Revenue conducted an audit on plaintiff's partnership, and as a result franchise and excise taxes of $317,659.72 plus interest of $59,525.59 were assessed against plaintiff. Plaintiff brought an action contesting the assessments, and since the Commissioner had relied on Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1320-6-1-.20 to make the assessment, the plaintiff charged the Rule was inconsistent with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-2006. The Trial Judge held the regulation was in conflict with the code section to the extent that the Rule attempted to restrict the deduction for charitable contributions made to only the book basis, rather than the fair market value, and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on that issue and an abatement in the assessment of $303,049. The Court also found that the plaintiff was in error in not including certain real property in calculating the net worth under the ruling of Crown Enterprises, Inc., v. Woods, and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment of additional tax in the amount of $14,610.72. Both parties appealed. On appeal, we reverse the Trial Court's Judgment regarding excise tax and we remand for a Judgment on the excise tax as assessed by the Commissioner. The Trial Court's Judgment regarding the franchise tax is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Lura M. McBride v. Farragut Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a certiorari review action where the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The trial court found that a proposed construction project involving the petitioner’s property was not covered by the local zoning ordinance, and, therefore, the petitioner was not required to seek a variance from the local board of zoning appeals in order to obtain a building permit. The respondents appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth C. Wright v. Frederico A. Dixon, III
Elizabeth C. Wright (“the Seller”) filed suit against Frederico A. Dixon, III (“the Buyer”) for breach of a contract to purchase real property. The contract allowed the Buyer to terminate in the event he was unable to obtain financing. Under the contract, termination was to be effective only if notice of same was “received.” The Buyer claims to have sent a notice of termination through his agent by fax to the Seller. The Seller claims that she did not receive it. The trial court found that the attempted termination was ineffective because it was not received. The Buyer appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth E. King v. Anderson County, Tennessee
Kenneth E. King was arrested for driving on a revoked license. He was put in a cell with several violent criminals. At his arraignment, the court ordered him released. The person charged with processing the release delayed his release by simply doing nothing. While awaiting his release, Mr. King was assaulted by one of his cellmates. He sustained serious injuries, including partial loss of vision in one eye. He filed this action against Anderson County (“the County”). After a bench trial, the court found the County 55% at fault and King 45% at fault for provoking the assault. It determined that the total damages were $170,000 reduced to $93,500 to account for King’s comparative fault. The County appeals. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Apollo Hair Systems of Nashville, Inc. v. Micromode Medical Limited et al.
Plaintiff, a retail business specializing in hair restoration and related services that leased “beauty equipment” from a third party lessor, filed this action against the manufacturer of the “beauty equipment” and the distributor of the products asserting claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff obtained a monetary judgment against the distributor, however, the trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the manufacturer. Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of its claims against the manufacturer. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Fork Union Medical Investors Limited Partnership; Goochland Medical Investors Limited Partnership; Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. HR Acquisition of Virginia Limited Partnership; HRT Holdings, Inc.
This is a dispute over a claim for rent reimbursements in a lease agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the undisputed facts showed that a limitation of remedy provision in the lease relieved the defendant from any liability. We affirm the judgment of the court below. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Delwin L. Huggins, John P. Konvalinka et al. v. R. Ellsworth McKee, et al.
This appeal arises from a dispute over setoff claims related to a bankruptcy proceeding. Delwin Huggins (“Huggins”) sued R. Ellsworth McKee (“McKee”) and Alternative Fuels, LLC (“AF”) (McKee and AF as “the Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). Huggins filed for bankruptcy. Konvalinka later purchased the claims asserted by Huggins in this lawsuit. The Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that, even if Konvalinka’s claim for damages was successful, McKee had an offset far in excess of these damages which rendered any further proceedings useless. The Trial Court agreed with the Defendants and dismissed the case. We affirm, in part, and, reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Darla Bullock, as next of kin and sole surviving heir of Linda H. Lobertini v. University Health Systems, Inc.
This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case. The original plaintiff, the decedent, filed the initial malpractice action against the defendant, but the case was dismissed after the decedent passed away during the pendency of the suit. Her sole surviving heir re-filed the action without complying with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and 122, which require a plaintiff who files a medical malpractice suit (1) to give a health care provider who is to be named in the suit notice of the claim sixty days before filing the suit, and (2) to file with the medical malpractice complaint a certificate of good faith confirming that the plaintiff has consulted with an expert who has provided a signed written statement that there is a good-faith basis to maintain the action. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
William H . Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation et al.
Petitioner challenges the decision of the Tennessee Department of Transportation denying his application for a billboard permit because his proposed location was within 1000 feet of another permit location. He contends the Department erroneously deviated from its regulation requiring permit applications for locations within 1000 feet of each other to be considered on a “first come first served” basis, insisting he submitted a “complete” application before the applicant who was granted a permit for the nearby location. The Chancery Court summarily dismissed the petition, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Department’s decision to grant a permit to the other applicant. The court also found that the Department complied with its rules in issuing the permit to the other applicant and denying the petitioner’s application because petitioner’s location was less than 1000 feet away from the other applicant’s location. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce et al.
This matter involves a disagreement between an insurer and an insured over the proper classification of employees for the purpose of workers’ compensation insurance. The decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance was in favor of the insurer. The insured appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the Department. We find that the decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance is supported by substantial and material evidence and affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
