Mary Rachel Brown Williams v. Jeweline R. Crenshaw
Plaintiff brought suit on a defectively executed joint will, arguing that, despite its infirmities as a testamentary instrument, it is still enforceable as a contract for the benefit of a third party. In her suit, Plaintiff sought to recover certain property, purportedly covered by the defective joint will, that Decedent had devised to Defendant in a subsequent will. The lower court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the defective joint will does not constitute an enforceable contract. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Henderson Jolley, et al, v. Wanda K. Henderson
This is a will contest case. Patricia Henderson Jolley and Howard E. Henderson, Jr. (collectively "the Contestants") appeal the chancery court's judgment that they do not have standing to contest their father's will. The Contestants contend that the chancery court erred in addressing the issue of their standing and in other ways. They argue that their stepmother, Wanda K. Henderson ("the Executrix"), failed to raise the standing issue and, as a consequence, waived it. They also rely on alleged procedural errors and contend that they do have standing. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Burchell Insurance v. Western Sizzlin Steakhouse
Action by corporation for judgment on promissory notes representing loans made to partnership resulted in Judgment against defendant partner for one-half of amount of the loans plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal we affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
CBM Package Liquor, et al. v. City of Maryville, et al.
In this case it is argued that the Trial Court erred in approving the decision of the Appellees, the City of Maryville and the City Council for the City of Maryville, to issue certificates of compliance to three applicants as a precondition to each such applicant securing a license to operate a retail liquor store from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
A.D. Doe And M.A. Doe v. May et al.
The plaintiff A.D. Doe for himself and his daughter M.A. Doe sued the Sheriff of Knox County and the County itself for damages when M.A. Doe was allegedly raped by a deputy sheriff. The complaint alleged that the sheriff was liable on his bond and on his oath of office and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-302 imposed liability on the County because the deputy was acting “by virtue of or under color of the office.” The Circuit Court of Knox County dismissed the complaint against the Sheriff and the County for the failure to state a claim. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Deron A. Hatton v. CSX Transportation
This is a an action for damages under FELA wherein the Plaintiff claimed that he was negligently exposed to toxic chemicals in the workplace. The Defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defense of the three-year statute of limitations, to which the discovery rule was applicable. This issue was bifurcated and tried separately, to the same jury, which found in favor of the Plaintiff. On the issues of liability, causation, and damages [the second phase of the trial] the jury found in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that the issue of the statute of limitation should not have been bifurcated, that the court should have directed a verdict for the Plaintiff on account of OSHA violations, and the exclusion-admission of expert testimony. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Quinton Armstrong v. Michael MaGill, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and Piccadilly Cafeteria
This is a claim for unemployment benefits. The claimant was terminated from her employment at the defendant business. Her separation notice indicated that she was terminated for improper conduct and having a disrespectful attitude. Subsequently, the claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The agency denied benefits. The claimant appealed. The appellate tribunal conducted a telephonic hearing and affirmed the denial of benefits. The claimant filed the instant petition for judicial review, claiming that the administrative proceedings were so fundamentally flawed that her procedural due process rights were violated. The trial court denied the petition and affirmed the denial of benefits. The claimant now appeals. We affirm, finding that the claimant’s due process rights were not violated, and that there is substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Clayton O. Lovlace, Jr. v. Susan Verlain Irvine Lovlace
The trial court granted Mother's petition for conservatorship of the parties' disabled son; enforced MDA provision requiring Father to pay child support beyond child attaining age of majority; increased Father's child support obligation; and ordered Father to continue to maintain life and disability insurance. We affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Theresa Caldwell, et al., v. Canada Trace, Inc.
This case involves the attachment of a mobile home and its subsequent transport to a storage facility. The Appellee sued out an attachment on the Appellants’ mobile home to secure payment of past rent due on a tenancy at Appellee’s trailer park. Appellee had the mobile home transported after it was attached and Appellants sued Appellee for damages to the mobile home. The Shelby County General Sessions Court found in favor of Appellants, and Appellee appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court found in favor of Appellee, and Appellants now appeal to this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Laura Fabrizio vs. Richard R. Cadmus
In 2001, the trial court entered an order ("the 2001 order") awarding the State of Tennessee ex rel. Laura Fabrizio ("the State") a child support arrearage of $9,785. Subsequently, the same court, by order entered March 25, 2003, confirmed a referee's "Findings and Recommendations" adding interest of $2,152.70 to the original award. Richard R. Cadmus ("Father") seeks to go behind the 2001 order in an attempt to invalidate it on a number of grounds. The State, on the other hand, complains that the interest calculated by the referee and approved by the trial court is incorrect. We find no basis in the record submitted to us for disturbing the trial court's last order. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Ralph E. Harwell, Interim Conservator of the Property, Estate, and Financial Affairs of Carolyn Mitchell Brown v. John H. Watson, Jr.
Conservator brought action to recover assets for the Estate of Carolyn Brown which had been given to defendant by Brown. The Chancellor invoked the constructive trust doctrine and ordered assets returned to the Estate. On appeal, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Stefan Olaru v. Steven D. Brown
Stefan Olaru filed an action for malpractice against his former attorney, Steven D. Brown. The trial court dismissed the complaint based upon the defendant's plea of a discharge in bankruptcy. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Chattanooga Ag Assoc v. William F. Sapp, Joy G. Sapp, Tri-County Equipment Inc., Deer and Co., Gary Seals, D/B/A Gary Seals Livestock and Citizens Tri-County Bank
The Trial Court held defendant’s purchase money security interest in cattle had priority over |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Greer, D/B/A A-1 Septic Tank v. George Willis, et al.
This appeal involves an action for breach of an oral contract to pump out a swimming pool. The Circuit Court for Wilson County conducted a bench trial and awarded the plaintiff a judgment against both the owner of the pool and the affiliate real estate broker who requested the work. We have concluded that the evidence does not support the judgment against the property owner but affirm the judgment against the broker. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Sam Wilson v. Jerry Esch, et al.
The trial court awarded Appellee recision of a contract for purchase of an automobile. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Marks, Shell, and Maness, et al. v. Cynthia T. Mann, et al.
This cause is a civil suit for damages against Gary and Cynthia Mann resulting from Cynthia Mann's embezzlement of funds totaling $550,000.00 from the law firm of Marks, Shell, and Maness. The trial court found Mr. and Mrs. Mann jointly and severably liable for the loss. Mr. Mann appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Hargrove, et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the procedures for returning a formerly disabled police officer to work. After the Employee Benefit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County determined that the former officer was no longer disabled, the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department directed him to report to a 13-week training class. Fearing that he could lose both his disability pension and his job if he failed the training class, the officer filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department lacked the authority to require him to complete the training class before returning him to work. The trial court determined that requiring the officer to complete the training class before returning him to active duty was not inconsistent with Nashville's charter or ordinances. The officer perfected this appeal. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the Department has the authority to require the officer to complete the training before returning him to active duty. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: C.K.G., C.A.G., C.L.G.
Unmarried couple in their forties decide to have children. Due to the woman's concern that she may be too old to produce viable eggs, the couple engaged the services of an in vitro fertilization clinic and signed contracts required by the clinic, following which the clinic obtained eggs from an anonymous female donor, which were fertilized with the man's sperm and then implanted in the woman who carried them full term resulting in the birth of triplets. Thereafter, the couple separated and the woman filed for custody. The man answered and asserted that the woman is not the mother or a legal parent of the children because she was merely a gestational surrogate who has no genetic tie to the children. The man further asserted that the children have no mother because the egg donor waived her parental rights. The trial court held that the woman is the mother of the children, awarded joint custody to the couple and primary custody to the woman. The man appealed. We affirm, finding that the woman is a legal parent and the mother of the children based on the intent of the parties. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re The Estate of Clarice Lee Miller
This case involves the rights of a survivor in a joint bank account. During her lifetime, the decedent sold certain real property, put the proceeds in a separate bank account, and executed a will leaving half of the proceeds to her niece. The bank account in which the proceeds were deposited was a joint account between the decedent and her brother. The brother had power of attorney over the decedent's affairs and was the named executor in the her will. After the decedent died, the decedent's will was admitted to probate. The brother, as executor, filed a petition asking for instructions as to the proper disposition of the money in the joint bank account. The trial court held that, when the funds were placed in the joint bank account, the bequest to the niece was adeemed and the funds were no longer a part of the decedent's estate. Therefore, the trial court determined that the brother, as the joint account holder with a right of survivorship, was entitled to all of the proceeds. The named beneficiary now appeals. We reverse, concluding that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the bank account was a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Marjorie Delapp vs. Arthur Pratt, In Re: Estate of Mary Armstrong Pratt
Marjorie Delapp, Mary Sherrod, and Elsie Caton ("Plaintiffs") sued their brother, Arthur David Pratt ("Defendant") claiming, in part, that Defendant exercised undue influence over their mother, Mary Armstrong Pratt ("the Deceased") to induce the Deceased to make a will in Defendant's favor. After a jury trial, judgment was entered holding the Deceased was competent to make the will, that a confidential relationship existed between Defendant and the Deceased, and that the will was not the last will and testament of the Deceased. Defendant appeals claiming, in part, that the Trial Court erred in allowing testimony regarding his alleged racial prejudice to be introduced and in failing to grant a mistrial after reference was made to his alleged sexual misconduct. Defendant also argues there is no material evidence to support the jury's verdicts of confidential relationship and undue influence and that the Trial Court erred in denying his objection to the entry of judgment. We affirm |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis Allen, et al., v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, et al.
This appeal raises the validity of an ordinance passed by the City of Memphis annexing a portion of Shelby County. Appellants contend that Appellees violated the Open Meetings Act when such ordinance was passed. All parties filed motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted Appellees’ motion. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jim Pratt v. J.W. Gibson D/B/A J.W. Gibson Co.
This appeal involves competing claims for breach of contract. J.W. Gibson d/b/a J.W. Gibson Company ("Defendant"), entered into an oral contract with Pratt Masonry Company ("Pratt Masonry") for Pratt Masonry to furnish masonry work on a house. When the work was completed, Defendant refused to pay, claiming the masonry work was so defective that all the bricks had to be removed and replaced. Pratt Masonry filed suit seeking payment for the work performed under the oral contract. Defendant counterclaimed for damages incurred in having to remove and replace the bricks. The Trial Court concluded Pratt Masonry breached the contract by performing substandard masonry work, but Defendant failed to prove it was necessary to remove and replace all the bricks. Both parties appeal. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court and remand. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
James Ray Bartlett v. Gail Corder, et al.
An inmate who was convicted and sentenced for passing worthless checks filed suit against six officers of the court for conspiracy, violation of his constitutional rights, and various derelictions of duty. The plaintiff asked the trial court to sanction the defendants by impeachment and/or disbarment. He also asked for $33 million in monetary damages. The trial court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We affirm. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Lani Thomas Arnold and James Davis, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Reeves Davis v. W. Terry Davis
This case involves the interpretation of certain provisions of a Trust Instrument. The trial court found a latent ambiguity in the Instrument, allowed extrinsic evidence, and granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of T.S.R.
The juvenile court entered an order declaring Appellant the father of T.S.R. and ordered child support. Appellant failed to pay child support and incurred an arrearage of $27,051.68. Appellant petitioned the court for Rule 60.02 relief from the final order and requested a blood paternity test. The DNA test indicated that Appellant was not the father. The trial court relieved Appellant of his ongoing child support but required him to pay the child support arrearage. For the following reasons, we affirm |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
