Fred H. Gillham v. City of Mt. Pleasant, et al.
A residential property owner challenged the procedures used by a planning commission and city commission in granting a rezoning application submitted by two industrial companies. The companies asked that the zoning for 95.2 acres of land be changed from agricultural to special impact industrial for the purpose of developing a landfill to dispose of salt cake produced as a byproduct of their smelting businesses. The property owner also asserted that two of the commissioners had a conflict of interest and that their participation granting the application invalidated the procedure. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions after concluding the planning commission and city commission complied with the procedural requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §§13-7-203(a) and 6-20-215 and that the two commissioners had no conflict of interest since they had no ownership interest in the rezoning applicants. We affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the property owner’s complaint. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Kathryn M. Claiborne v. Larry W. Goldston
In this case, Kathryn M. Claiborne sought to set aside a quitclaim deed relating to property given to Larry W. Goldston. The trial court set aside the deed but awarded damages to Larry W. Goldston based upon his counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Kathryn M. Claiborne appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Lauren Ephgrave Jarrell v. Emmett Blake Jarrell
The parties’ Parenting Plan required that major decisions regarding religious upbringing be made jointly, and if no consensus could be reached, that the dispute be submitted to a mediator. Mother had the parties’ children baptized without Father’s knowledge or consent, and Father filed a petition for civil and criminal contempt against Mother. The trial court found Mother in civil contempt, but it dismissed the criminal contempt petition, apparently for insufficient notice. We reverse the trial court’s finding that Mother was in civil contempt, and its award of attorney fees to Father based upon the civil contempt finding. We also reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Father’s criminal contempt petition, and we remand for further criminal contempt proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Ann Burton v. Robert Mark Mooneyham
In this divorce appeal, husband challenges the trial court’s valuation of his business, the division of marital assets, and the allocation of the debt on the marital residence. Husband also argues that the trial court erred in the amount and length of the alimony award and in awarding attorneyfees to wife. We find that the trial court erred in changing its net valuation of the business, after a second hearing, from $200,000 to $280,000 based upon the updated status of Husband’s payments on the tax lien. As this change did not affect the trial court’s division of the marital estate or the alimony award, however, the error is harmless. In all other respects, we find no error in the trial court’s decision. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kristie Lynn (McClannahan) Jenkins v. William Charles McClannahan
In this post-divorce action, the father appeals the entry of a default judgment modifying the parties’ parenting plan for their minor child and the denial of his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to set aside the default judgment. The father was personally served with the petition to modify the parenting plan at work but did not file an answer. He had changed residences after the divorce but did not provide the mother or the court with his new address after the petition was served. Over two months later, the mother filed a motion for default judgment, serving the father by mail at his last known address. The trial court granted the motion and entered a default judgment. Father filed a Rule 60.02 motion for relief, which was denied. This appeal followed. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
Oscar H. Vaughn v. James D. Morton
This is a personal injury action filed by Oscar H. Vaughn (“the Plaintiff”) against James D. Morton (“the Deceased”) that arose out of an automobile accident. The Deceased died within a year of the accident. The Deceased’s insurer, acting pursuant to its rights under the policy to “defend” an action against its insured, filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the only proper defendant was the personal representative of the Deceased and that the statute of limitations had expired prior to any attempt to make the representative a party to this litigation. The trial court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add the personal representative as a defendant, which motion was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
New Life Men's Clinic, Inc. v. Dr. Charles Beck
Appellee was granted a default judgment against Appellant in the general sessions court. More than five months after the entry of the default judgment, Appellant filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion for relief from the general sessions court’s judgment. The general sessions court dismissed the motion on grounds that it was not timely filed and that the general sessions court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to set aside its judgment. Appellant appealed to the circuit court. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was dismissed sua sponte by the circuit court. Appellant appeals. Because the writ of error coram nobis has long been abolished in the civil law, this filing had no legal effect; consequently, the trial court did not err in dismissing the writ. Affirmed and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Adoption of Destiny R. D.
The mother and stepfather of a three year old girl filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s father on the ground of abandonment so that the stepfather could adopt her. After hearing the proof, the trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners had not met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the father’s failure to visit the child or his failure to provide child support in the four months preceding the filing of the petition were willful. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Laude v. State of Tennessee
The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed Appellant’s claims upon concluding that the State was not negligent, and that in the alternative, Appellant was more than fifty percent (50%) at fault. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the Claims Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Claims Commission and dismiss. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Erlanger Medical Center v. Angela Strong a/k/a Granger, Shoney's North Georgia, LLC, Garnishee
This appeal concerns a garnishment action. Erlanger Medical Center (“Erlanger”) obtained a judgment against Angela Strong (“Strong”), an employee, by the time of trial, of Shoney’s North Georgia, LLC (“the Garnishee”). Erlanger sought to garnish Strong’s wages. Erlanger argued that Strong’s tips should be included in the calculation of her disposable earnings for the purposes of garnishment. The Garnishee disagreed, arguing, among other things, that federal law and labor policy stood for the proposition that tips were not to be included as wages for garnishment purposes. The Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) held that tips were, in fact, to be treated as wages subject to the calculation for garnishment purposes. The Garnishee appeals. We hold that tips are not to be included in the calculation of disposable wages for the purposes of garnishment. We reverse the Trial Court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth A. Ritchie v. Elizabeth Widmaier Pew Ritchie
After twenty-five years of marriage, Kenneth A. Ritchie (“Husband”) sued Elizabeth Widmaier Pew Ritchie (“Wife”) for divorce. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Judgment for Divorce, which inter alia, awarded Wife a divorce, distributed the marital assets and debts, and awarded Wife alimony in solido. Husband appeals to this Court raising an issue about the alimony in solido. Wife raises an issue about the Trial Court’s refusal to award her attorney’s fees, and also requests an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm, and decline to award attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Andrew Carman v. Kristi Michelle Carman
This is a post-divorce parental relocation case. The mother seeks to relocate to Grand Prairie, Alberta, Canada, with the parties’ seven (7) minor children, in order to reside with her new husband, a Canadian citizen she met on the internet. The father opposes the relocation. The mother spends substantially more time with the children, thus Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6108(d) applies. Finding there was no reasonable purpose for moving to Canada, that the move would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the children, and that the move is not in the best interests of the children, the trial court denied the request to relocate. We affirm. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Maria Amezcua v. Samuel Amezcua
In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals a judgment for child support arrearages and award of attorney’s fees to Mother. Finding that the court erred in its determination of the amount of arrearages, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. The award of attorney’s fees is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Edward Bassham v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al.
Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, housed at Morgan County Correctional Complex in Wartburg, Tennessee, filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wayne County Chancery Court seeking review of the prison disciplinary proceedings for his conviction for the disciplinary offense of “violation of state law” while incarcerated at South Central Correctional Center in Clifton, Tennessee. Based upon the filing of an Inmate Affidavit filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-801 et seq., a certified copy of his Inmate Trust Fund Account and a Uniform Civil Affidavit of Indigency, the trial court filed an Order allowing filing on pauper’s oath. Upon motion of respondents, the court was advised that Petitioner falsely stated that he had no income from anysource. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-804, the trial court dismissed the petition upon the finding that the inmate’s affidavit of indigency was false. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al. v. BFI Waste Services, LLC, et al.
After Metro’s waste-to-energy facility was damaged/destroyed by fire, Metro and the facility’s insurer filed suit against Defendants. Prior to trial, Defendants’ expert was precluded from testifying regarding the facility’s value, its condition prior to the fire, and the alleged pre-fire plans to discontinue its operation. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, and Defendants appeal. On appeal, Defendants challenge the exclusion of certain evidence, the jurycharge regarding damages, and an adverse inference juryinstruction given as a sanction against Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiffs challenge the denial of prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Fridrich E.T.W.
George R.W., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights with respect to his minor son, Fridrich E.T.W. (DOB: Aug. 27, 2008) (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) had filed a petition seeking to terminate both parents’ rights after the Child was taken into custody pursuant to an emergency protective order. He was subsequently adjudicated dependent and neglected as a result of being subjected to severe child abuse. As to Father, DCS pursued termination on the sole ground of severe child abuse. Father did not appear at trial. At the start of the trial, his counsel moved for a continuance based in part on counsel’s assertion that Father had advised her that he wished to effectuate a voluntary surrender of his parental rights. The trial court denied the motion and the hearing proceeded in Father’s absence. The court terminated Father’s rights based upon its finding that the sole ground for termination was established and that termination was in the best interest of the Child, both findings said by the court to be made by clear and convincing evidence. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Amber Brazilian Export Resources, Inc., DBA Amber International V. Crown Laboratories, Inc. et al.
Amber Brazilian Export Resources, Inc., doing business as Amber International (“the Plaintiff”), filed this action against Crown Laboratories, Inc. and Jeffrey A. Bedard (collectively “the Defendants”) to collect a debt owed on an “open account.” The liability of Mr. Bedard is based upon a personal guaranty of Crown’s obligation. The Defendants admit that something is owed on the account but deny the amount and further deny that Mr. Bedard signed the guaranty in a personal capacity. The Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment supported by the affidavit of its president, which the Defendants opposed with the affidavit of Mr. Bedard in which he states that he signed the guaranty in a representative capacity. He also disputes the amount due as stated in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s motion. The Defendants appeal. We affirm that part of the judgment holding Mr. Bedard liable on the guaranty and vacate that part of the judgment setting the amount owed because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Farmers Mutual of Tennessee v. Jennifer Atkins
This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment. Appellant insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that Appellee was precluded from recovering under her home owner’s insurance policy due to her failure to submit to an examination under oath. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the failure to submit to an examination under oath was the nonoccurrence of a condition precedent to recovery under the policy, as outlined in Spears v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 300 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). Appellee responded that she had not failed to submit to an examination and argued that, under Talley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 223 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2000), the insurance company must prove prejudice in order to preclude recovery. The trial court denied summary judgment, citing material factual disputes and noting, without deciding, the divergence of opinion regarding the condition precedent issue. Accordingly, the trial court granted an interlocutory appeal for this Court to determine the applicable law. This Court granted the interlocutory appeal; however, upon further review, we have determined that this issue is not properly before us. Accordingly, we vacate the grant of the interlocutory appeal, remand to the trial court for further proceedings and dismiss the appeal. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Orlando Fields v. Corrections Corporation of America et al.
An inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee, filed this Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge the decision of the prison grievance board and that of the Commissioner. All of the respondents filed motions to dismiss the petition on several grounds including that Petitioner failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805, that decisions bya prison grievance boards are not reviewable under a common law writ of certiorari, and Petitioner failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-806(b). The trial court dismissed the petition as to all respondents. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Robes P. Jean Philippe a/k/a Johnny Ralone et al. v. Jhuliana Lopez et al.
The appellants have filed notices of appeal from a final judgment purportedly entered on February 25, 2011. Because the appellants did not file their notices of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Izaiah J. et al.
The trial court terminated father’s parental rights to his daughter. We affirm because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s decision. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of: The Estate of Mary Isabel Gentry, Deceased
Appellant filed a motion to set aside an order that purported to settle a dispute concerning the real estate in a decedent’s estate. The court denied the motion; Appellant contends this was error. The parties announced their agreement to settle the dispute in open court. An order, titled “Agreed Order,” was subsequently entered but it was not signed by Appellant’s counsel; moreover, Appellant filed an objection to the entry of the order prior to it being approved by the court. The transcript of the agreement announced in court reveals that the so-called “Agreed Order” does not contain a material condition to the fulfillment of the agreement, that Appellant “is going to be borrowing money in order to come up with the funds necessary to offset that and pay these amounts to these other two individuals, so that’s part of the agreement.” We find the denial of Appellant’s motion to set aside the so-called Agreed Order causes an injustice to Appellant; accordingly, we reverse the denial of Appellant’s Rule 59.04 motion to set aside the November 3, 2010 Agreed Order. The trial court also found that performance under the agreement was not a legal impossibility, meaning that Appellant could obtain the requisite loan. We have determined the evidence preponderates against this finding because Appellant demonstrated that, due to the current appraised value of the property, she is unable to obtain the requisite financing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to the extent necessary to complete the administration of the decedent’s estate. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Equity Mortgage Funding, Inc. of Tennessee et al. v. Joe Bob Haynes
The issue in this case is which of two deeds of trust has priority. Deed of trust A was executed before deed of trust B was executed; A was also registered before B was registered, but after B was executed. We affirm the chancellor’s decision that A has priority over B and that equitable estoppel does not apply to change this result. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Laundries, Inc. v. Coinmach Corporation v. Carla Moyer, et al.
Plaintiff filed an action to recover $150,000 due on a promissory note executed in conjunction with the purchase of its assets. Defendant admitted that it had not paid the full amount of the promissory note but denied that the amount was due, and asserted a counterclaim contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff had breached the asset purchase agreement, committed misrepresentation and not disclosed material facts with respect to the transaction, had fraudulently induced defendant to close on the transaction, and that plaintiff had been unjustly enriched. Plaintiff filed a motion for dismissal and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted. Defendant appeals. Finding that the causes of actions asserted in defendant’s counterclaim failed to state a claim for relief, we affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim. We reverse the grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Shaun L. Tyus v. Pugh Farms, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained after being assaulted by a co-worker while working for the Defendants. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging vicarious liability for the assault committed by the co-worker, and liability for the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of the co-worker, and liability for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Subsequently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants after concluding that they owed no duty to Plaintiff and that the assault was not within the co-worker’s scope of employment. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion to recuse. The trial court granted the Rule 60.02 motion, denied the motion to recuse, and Plaintiff appealed. After reviewing the record, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals |
