COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Southwest Progressive Ent., Inc. v. Shri-Hari Hospitality, LLC and Trans Financial Bank of Tennessee - Concurring
01-A-01-9810-CH-00542
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

A construction company sued a hotelkeeper for payment of the balance due on their contract. The trial court ordered the hotelkeeper to pay the balance, as well as pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. We affirm the award of pre-judgment interest, but we reverse the award of attorney fees. We also reverse a $500 offset the trial court granted to the defendant for the plaintiff’s alleged failure to complete a punch list.

Michael King v. TFE, Inc.
01A01-9711-CV-00624
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

In this action filed against TFE, Inc. (hereafter “TFE”), Michael King appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to TFE as related to King’s claims for breach of an alleged employment contract. The trial court granted TFE’s motion for summary judgment based on the court’s conclusion that an employee handbook distributed by TFE did not constitute an employment contract. For the reasons hereafter stated, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Tim Taylor v. Robert L. Morris and Terry Muncey - Concurring
01A01-9804-CH-00211
Authoring Judge: Judge Farmer

Defendant Terry Muncey appeals, and Plaintiff Tim Taylor cross-appeals, the trial court’s judgment awarding Muncey $1000 in damages on his counterclaim for wrongful injunction against Taylor. We reverse the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that Muncey failed to meet his burden of proving the elements of his claim for wrongful injunction.

Terry David Mackie v. Sarah Catheine Mackie
01A01-9810-CV-00536
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bobby H. Capers

This case represents an appeal from the grant of divorce upon stipulation of grounds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-129. The parties to this action, Terry David Mackie ("Husband"), and Sarah Catherine Campbell Mackie ("Wife") were married on November 6, 1984. Husband filed a complaint in Williamson County Circuit Court on March 6, 1997, seeking divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. On March 20, 1997, Wife answered and counterclaimed. In her answer, Wife admitted the ground of irreconcilable differences and alleged inappropriate marital conduct on the part of the Husband. Over the next 14 months the parties participated in successive proceedings regarding pendente lite custody of their severely ill minor child. The case was originally set for trial on June 3, 1997. Both parties agreed to continue the case; each sought a scheduling order for the sequence of discovery. The parties were ordered to attend mediation on February 23, 1998. On May 18, 1998, Husband moved to change pendente lite custody and to compel discovery. This motion was to be heard on June 3, 1998. At the June 3, hearing, in an admittedly unorthodox proceeding, the parties stipulated under oath that each had grounds for divorce. At this point in the hearing, both parties were sent into an antechamber to provide for the division of the marital estate and custody of the child. These negotiations are documented in handwritten notes, signed by the parties and their counsel, and appearing in the record.

Edwin Elam vs. Martha Elam
02A01-9812-CH-00362
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton

02A01-9908-CH-00237
02A01-9908-CH-00237

Tire Shredders vs. ERM
02A01-9803-CV-00058
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

Lee Simmons vs. City of Lexington
02A01-9810-CH-00282
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

James Cozart vs. Lynn Cozart
02A01-9810-CV-00285
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

Doe vs. HCA Health Services of TN
01A01-9806-CV-00306
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Kesterson vs. Dept. of Safety
01A01-9805-CH-00256

Wilson vs. Dept. of Corrections
01A01-9806-CH-00302

Curtis vs. Curtis
01A01-9810-CV-00566
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Gipson vs. Taylor
01A01-9811-CH-00611

Victoria Robbins vs. Bill Wolfenbarger, D/B/A Wolf's Motors and Sam Horne
E1999-02012-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Plaintiff Robbins filed a complaint for damages against Wolfenbarger and Horne, alleging breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation and negligence, per se. On August 26, 1999, an Order of Compromise and Dismissal was entered as to Wolfenbarger individually and d/b/a Wolf Motors. Horne did not file an answer during the time allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and Robbins filed a motion for default judgment on July 9, 1999. Horne wrote a letter to the plaintiff's attorney in response to the complaint and summons, postmarked July 16, 1999. The letter was forwarded to the Clerk of the Court for filing by plaintiff's counsel's letter dated July 30, 1999. On August 27, Robbins' Motion for Default Judgment was heard, but Horne who had notice did not attend. A default judgment was entered against Horne and the Trial Court subsequently overruled Horne's Motion to Set Aside the Default. Horne has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

John Seals vs. James Bowlen, Warden, et al
M1999-00997-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Petitioner, a state inmate, filed the underlying pro se petition for a writ of certiorari to challenge the result of a disciplinary proceeding against him. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. We reverse the dismissal of all parties except the Department of Correction and affirm the dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Robert Odom v. Mary Odom
M1999-02811-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
This appeal involves a bitter custody dispute over three children between the ages of nine and fourteen. During the divorce proceeding in the Chancery Court for Dickson County, the parties agreed that the mother would have custody of the children and also agreed on visitation arrangements that accommodated the mother's planned move to another state. Several months after the entry of the divorce decree, the father petitioned to change custody and to hold the mother in contempt for interfering with his relationship with the children. During the ensuing three years, the parties traded allegations of sexual and physical abuse of the children and other misconduct. Following a bench trial in December 1998, the trial court found that there had been a material change in the children's circumstances and granted the father custody of the children. On this appeal, the mother asserts that she was denied due process by the trial court's refusal to require the parties and their children to undergo a psychological examination and that the trial court unlawfully delegated its judicial authority to a psychologist who had been counseling the children. We have determined that the mother received an essentially fair hearing on this custody dispute and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

Begley Lumber Company, Inc. vs. Wendell Trammell
03A01-9902-CH-00047

Saul T. Mallen (Sports-Wear Mills, Inc.) vs. PI, Inc.
03A01-9811-CH-00364

Gregory B. Hinton vs. City of Chattanooga
03A01-9901-CV-00013

William Terry Wyatt vs. Billie Carey
03A01-9809-CV-00307

Nationsbank, N.A. vs. FormPak, Inc. & Ron Campbell
03A01-9808-CH-00279

Nationsbank, N.A. vs. FormPak, Inc. & Ron Campbell
03A01-9808-CH-00279

Doris Sanders v. Samuel Sanders, Jr.
M1998-00978-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This appeal involves a former spouse's right to post-judgment interest on an award of alimony in solido. After her former husband failed to pay the alimony in solido required by the final divorce decree, the former wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking $9,847.68 in post-judgment interest. The trial court recognized that the post-judgment interest had accrued but decided not to award the interest to the former wife unless her former husband failed to make his future periodic alimony payments in a timely manner. When her former husband began to pay his alimony payments late, the former wife renewed her request for the post-judgment interest. The trial court found that the former husband had been delinquent in his alimony payments but again declined to order the former husband to pay the post-judgment interest if he prepaid the remaining balance of his periodic alimony. The former wife has appealed from the trial court's repeated refusal to award her the post-judgment interest on her alimony in solido award. We have determined that the former wife was entitled to post-judgment interest as a matter of law and, therefore, that the trial court erred by failing to award her $9,847.68 for post-judgment interest.

Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. Roy Patterson and Trump Taj Mahal Assoc. v. Roy Patterson
M1999-02805-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
This appeal involves the efforts of two Atlantic City casinos to collect the gambling debts of a Tennessee resident. After obtaining default judgments against the Tennessee resident in New Jersey, the casinos twice attempted to file their judgments in the Chancery Court for Putnam County in accordance with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. On both occasions, the trial court declined to file the judgments after finding that they were irregular and that they were not properly authenticated. On the second occasion, the trial court also concluded that its refusal to file the first set of judgments precluded the casinos from filing the second set of judgments. The casinos have appealed. We have determined that the second set of judgments meet the requirements for filing and enforcement under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and that the casinos' unsuccessful efforts to file the first set of judgments does not prevent them from filing the second set of judgments. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying the application to enforce the foreign judgments.