Mary Duffer, as Executrix of the Estate of Elmer Hamilton Lawson v. Mary Lawson
This appeal concerns the ownership of real property. The decedent acquired the subject property while he was married to the defendant surviving spouse. Years later, the decedent quitclaimed his interest in the property to his grandson. Subsequently, the decedent and the grandson disputed ownership of the property and an ancillary lawsuit ensued. Before the litigation was resolved, the decedent died and his estate was substituted as a party. The surviving spouse filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the grandson, asserting he caused the decedent's death. The grandson settled both lawsuits; the settlement of each involved a transfer of the subject real property. Thereafter, the executrix of the decedent's estate filed the instant lawsuit against the surviving spouse seeking a determination as to the ownership of the property. The surviving spouse counterclaimed, asserting various theories of ownership. On the estate's motion, the trial court entered an order dismissing the surviving spouse's counterclaim to the extent that it sought fee simple ownership. The surviving spouse now appeals. We dismiss the appeal, finding that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Bill Travis, et al. v. Trustees of Lakewood Park v. Coffee County, Tennessee
This appeal concerns sovereign immunity. A subdivision in the defendant county had restrictive covenants that, inter alia, required the payment of an annual assessment by all lot owners to the subdivision trustees. In the wake of delinquent taxes, pursuant to statutes, the county took title to lots in the subdivision after delinquent tax sales failed to yield sufficient bids. The county held the lots for several years, and declined to pay the trustees the annual assessments on the properties. Residents of the subdivision sued the trustees, and crossclaims against the county were asserted for the past-due assessments. The county contended that it was immune from liability for the lot assessments under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. After a trial, the trial court held that the county was entitled to sovereign immunity insofar as it had complied with the pertinent statutes on delinquent tax sales, and granted a partial judgment against the county on the assessment claims. The trustees appeal, arguing that the county was not entitled to assert sovereign immunity as a defense to the contract claims under the restrictive covenants. We agree, and affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Shomaker Lumber Company, Inc. v. Hardwood Sales & Planning Services, Inc.
This appeal arises out of a dispute between a buyer and seller of lumber. The seller filed suit against the buyer alleging a right to recover in breach of contract, quantum meruit, and/or quantum valebant for an outstanding balance owed on several shipments of lumber. The trial court determined that the buyer accepted approximately half of the disputed shipments due to its failure to timely reject the initial deliveries but was not liable for additional shipments that it timely rejected. The trial court, however, did not address whether the buyer revoked its acceptance of the initial shipments or whether the buyer was entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in an attempt to salvage the rejected shipments. Because the parties tried these issues by consent, the order appealed is not a final judgment and the appeal must be dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Pearl Equipment, LLC v. Cartwright Construction Co.
This appeal involves a judgment creditor's attempt to enforce a foreign judgment entered by a Mississippi court against a Tennessee corporation. The Tennessee corporation moved to dismiss, contending that service of process was improper in the Mississippi action. The trial court found that the Tennessee corporation was not properly served, and it dismissed the petition. The judgment creditor appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
John H. Meeks, Trustee of Marital Trust and Credit Shelter Trust u/w/o Michael Holliday v. Successor Trustees of Marital Trust and Credit Shelter Trust u/w/o Michael Holliday
The plaintiff served as the trustee of two trusts for several years. After he was informed that his services were no longer needed, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to compensation in the form of trustee's fees for his service. The trial court ruled, on a motion for summary judgment, that the plaintiff had waived his right to trustee's fees and that he was equitably estopped from claiming such fees. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Karen D. Conover v. Brian Scott Conover
With the approval of the trial court, a divorced father of four children moved with the children from Tennessee to Arkansas. Four years later, the mother, who remained in Tennessee, fell behind in her child support payments and filed a petition for modification of child support. Father responded by filing a motion for contempt against the mother in the Arkansas court, and he entered a limited appearance in Tennessee for the purpose of transferring the entire cause to Arkansas. After a hearing, the Tennessee court declared Arkansas to be the children's home state, and it transferred all custody and visitation issues to that state, while retaining jurisdiction of child support matters. The court also denied Mother's petition for modification of child support. Mother argues on appeal that the trial court erred in relinquishing its jurisdiction over custody because the children still have a"significant connection" to Tennessee. We affirm the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
James McKay Andrews v. Susie Heasook Cho Andrews
This is a divorce case. The plaintiff husband is a successful physician and the defendant wife is a stay-at-home mother. They have one minor child. After twelve years of marriage, the husband left the marital home and filed for divorce. The wife counter-claimed for divorce, and protracted and contentious litigation ensued. The initial trial judge appointed a guardian ad litem and an attorney ad litem. After several trial judges recused themselves, a senior judge was assigned. After nearly three years of dispute, the case proceeded to trial. The trial court granted a divorce to the wife; it found that she was economically disadvantaged but capable of partial rehabilitation, and that the husband had the ability to pay spousal support. The wife was awarded alimony in futuro, rehabilitative alimony, attorney fees as alimony in solido, and discretionary costs. The husband appeals the award of alimony, attorney fees, and costs. We affirm, finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion under the circumstances. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Debbie Bakir, et al vs. Steven Brent Massengale, Individually and d/b/a Massengale Bonding Company
The plaintiffs advanced monies for the creation and operation of a bonding company, in which plaintiffs were to be partners with the defendant. A dispute arose between them about the bonding operation, and plaintiff sued defendant for a percentage of the profits of the bonding company and defendant counter-sued for a monetary judgment as well. The trial court ruled that no partnership existed, but plaintiffs were entitled to recover $15,000.00 from defendant. Defendant's counter-action was dismissed. On appeal, we affirm. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
E & J Construction Company vs. Liberty Building Systems, Inc.
E & J Construction Company ("Plaintiff") purchased a metal building from Liberty Building Systems, Inc. ("Defendant"). The metal building was purchased by plaintiff for one of its customers, Camel Manufacturing Company ("Camel"). Plaintiff constructed the metal building for Camel and connected it to an existing building. Almost from the outset, there was a problem with leaking. Plaintiff sued defendant raising various claims including, among others, breach of contract. After the trial court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the case proceeded to trial on the few remaining claims. At the conclusion of plaintiff's proof, the trial court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse the grant of a directed verdict on plaintiff's breach of contract claim and remand for further proceedings. The judgment of the trial court otherwise is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Richard P. Alexander et al vs. Antonio Zamperela, et al
Richard P. Alexander, Regina Phillips, Gail Young and Judy Sprinkles ("Plaintiffs") filed this products liability suit against Antonio Zamperla, S.p.A. and Zamperla, Inc. ("Defendants"), as a result of June Alexander's death that occurred while riding an amusement park ride manufactured by defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting defendants summary judgment, finding the act of a third party constituted both a superseding cause of the death and an alteration of the product which relieved defendants of liability. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee in hac parte Knox County District Attorney General Randall E. Nichols on Relationship of Bradley J. Mayes, et al vs. John E. Owings, et al
The defendants in this matter have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. The attachments to the motion support the allegation. Therefore, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley J. Elliott vs. Life Of the South Insurance Company, Inc.
The defendants in this matter have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The attachments to the motion support the allegation of the defendants that the only notice of appeal received by the trial court clerk was a facsimile filed notice of appeal. As such is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this court, the appeal is dismissed. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Sharon M. Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling, et al.
This matter was remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded for a frivolous appeal. Appellant challenges only the award itself and not the amount decided by the trial court. The party awarded the fees argued that the trial court erred in the amount awarded. Finding no error, the trial court is affirmed. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandi D. Jackson, et al. v. CVS Corporation, et al.
Plaintiff, individually and as the guardian of her minor child, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on her claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff claims that she and her child were harmed by the defendants' disclosure of their private health information. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: April P-C, Jennifer P-C, and Kenneth P-C
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to three children, asserting that the findings of the juvenile court that he had abandoned his children by failure to support and that the conditions which led to the children's removal persisted were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Father also asserts that the court erred in finding that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of his children. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Hensley v. Robert Cerza, et al. - Concurring
I concur with the result reached by the majority; however, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the trial court erred in excluding the proferred opinion testimony of two lay witnesses, Lisa Poe, a registered nurse, and Jimmy Brock, a surgical technician. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Hensley v. Robert Cerza, et al.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in this medical malpractice action. On appeal, the plaintiff assigns error to various decisions made by the trial court concerning the admission of evidence and arguments and to the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of negligent retention. While the trial court erred in several respects, we consider the errors to be harmless and affirm the judgment based on the jury verdict. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Shari Harp v. Darryelle E. Mills
Petitioner, Shari Harp, filed this action to recover personal property and for an injunction related to her deceased mother's estate. Respondent, Darryelle E. Mills, is surviving spouse of the decedent. The trial court entered a partial default judgment in Ms. Harp's favor after Mr. Mills failed to answer the complaint or otherwise plead _ despite ample notice of the consequences of failing to answer. Upon appeal, this court entered a show cause order directing Mr. Mills, acting pro se, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, among other things. Mr. Mills has failed to respond to the show cause order within the time allotted. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal because it is premature and because Mr. Mills has neglected to file a cost bond and has not paid the litigation tax associated with the appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani vs. Masoud Bajestani
After seven years of marriage, Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani ("Wife") sued Masoud Bajestani ("Husband") for divorce. After a trial, the trial court entered its order, inter alia, awarding wife a divorce, dividing the marital property, setting husband's child support obligation, awarding wife transitional alimony for nine years, awarding wife alimony in futuro to begin after the termination of the transitional alimony, and awarding wife attorney's fees. Husband appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the classification and distribution of marital property and the awards of alimony, among others. Wife raises issues regarding child support, and also requests that this Court take notice of a post-judicial fact, and award her attorney's fees on appeal. We modify as to the award of transitional alimony, vacate the award of alimony in futuro, affirm as to the child support and division of property, decline to award attorney's fees on appeal, and decline to take notice of the post-judicial fact. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Roy G. Butler v. David A. Still
This is a dispute to quiet title to 5 acres between the owners of adjacent tracts. Both parties claim ownership of the disputed property along their common boundary by color of title. At issue is whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated _ 28-2- 105 for quieting title to lands under color of title by establishing the deed had been recorded for at least 30 years and the property at issue had been adversely possessed by the plaintiff or his predecessors in title for at least 7 years. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff finding that the plaintiff and his predecessors had adversely possessed the disputed property for more than 7 years and that the plaintiff's claim derived from a metes and bounds description in a 1961 deed, which was of record for more than 30 years. Finding the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court's ruling, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of Zmaria C., et al.
The parents of the two children at issue appeal the termination of their parental rights. The issues on appeal pertain to the trial court's findings that both parents were in substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans and that termination was in the children's best interests. Also at issue is whether the requirements of the Permanency Plans were not reasonable, related and relevant to the stated goals. We find the requirements of the Permanency Plans were appropriate and that the efforts of the Department of Children's Services constituted reasonable attempts to reunify the family. We also find the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings that the parents failed to substantially comply with the permanency plans and that termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children. We, therefore, affirm the termination of the parental rights of both parents. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Lyle Douglas Vaughn, et al vs. Darrell Brewer, et al
This action was brought to determine whether a roadway that serves the plaintiff and certain of the defendants is a public or private road. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, declared the road to be a private road. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Wellmont Health System vs. John Quinton Qualls, et al
Plaintiff hospital filed a lawsuit against defendant patient for unpaid medical expenses. Defendant patient filed a third party complaint against defendant insurance company alleging that the insurance company was responsible for the unpaid medical expenses pursuant to a health insurance policy. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the insurance contract was ambiguous and construed it against the defendant insurance company. Defendant insurance company appeals. After reviewing the record and the health insurance policy, we conclude that the policy was not ambiguous and the insurance contract specifically excluded coverage of patient's pre-existing condition. Accordingly, we reverse. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie "Max" Watson, et al vs. Larry Waters, et al
A group of Sevier County residents identifying themselves as "Public Spirited Citizens" ("Plaintiffs") filed a set of quo warranto lawsuits against Sevier County, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and Larry Waters, the County Mayor of Sevier County ("Mayor") (collectively "Defendants"). The trial court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Arlie "Max" Watson, et al vs. Larry Waters, et al
A group of Sevier County residents identifying themselves as "Public Spirited Citizens" ("Plaintiffs") filed a set of quo warranto lawsuits against Sevier County, the Sevier County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and Larry Waters, the County Mayor of Sevier County ("Mayor") (collectively "Defendants"). The trial court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals |
