Opinions

Julia Leach Bryan vs. James Leach
M1998-00922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
This case involves post-divorce disputes over alimony and child support and issues of contempt of court. The father commenced this appeal after the trial court declined to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and awarded the mother more than $50,000 in child support arrearages and, later, found the father in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 per day until all judgments were paid to the mother. On appeal, the father argues that his alimony obligation should have terminated or decreased, that a portion of his child support payments should be placed in trust for the benefit of the children, and that the trial court erred by fining him for contempt. We affirm the trial court's orders but modify the fine imposed upon the father.

Suzette Marie Elder vs. Sidney Lee Elder
M1998-00935-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith
This appeal involves a post-divorce custody dispute precipitated by the custodial parent's decision to accept a job in Texas. The custodial parent requested the Circuit Court for Franklin County to permit the parties' children to accompany him to Texas and to adjust the visitation arrangements accordingly. The non-custodial parent responded by requesting the trial court to change custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court declined to change the existing custody arrangement and permitted the custodial parent to move to Texas. On this appeal, the non-custodial parent takes issue with both the denial of her petition to change custody and the approval of the custodial parent's move to Texas. We have determined that the record supports both of these decisions and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

Patricia Anne Pehlman v. Gregory Lawrence Pehlman and Sobieski and Associates
3A01-9809-CV-00311
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Swann

In this action Patricia Anne Pehlman essentially seeks a declaration that marital property awarded to her in a divorce is not subject to a lien in favor of the intervenor.

Essie M. Butler v. Emerson Motor Co .
02S01-9805-CH-00045
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. George E. Ellis,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to show she was entitled to compensation because of an alleged back injury.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The facts in this case are reasonably simple. The plaintiff, age 49, had been working for the defendant for 25 years. Several years prior to 1995 she injured her back at work. This injury is more historical than significant in the case before us. In January 1995, the plaintiff was working at a lathe, putting machine parts on the lathe and turning them. She began to experience pain in her back. She testified this was caused by having to twist her body side to side or back and forth in doing the work. Ultimately, the plaintiff was seen by several doctors and had several diagnostic tests and various treatments done. The most significant treatment was done by Dr. Dan Spengler, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the plaintiff as having instability of motion at the L4-5 section of her spine with some pinching of the nerve. Dr. Spengler was of the opinion that the cause of this problem was a degenerative process in a person of the plaintiff's age. He was of the opinion the plaintiff's work did not cause the problem. 1 The plaintiff also sued for carpal tunnel syndrome and was found to be entitled to compensation. That matter is not raised in this appeal. 2

State vs. Phillip Todd Swords
03C01-9807-CR-00239

State vs. Sharon Marie Shell
03C01-9803-CR-00119
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Bobby Dale Franklin, Sr.
03C01-9804-CR-00129
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Elipidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
02A01-9803-CV-00065
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Janice Leslie vs. Charles/Patricia Caldwell
02A01-9807-CV-00179
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

State vs. Anthony Bonam
02C01-9804-CR-00109

State vs. John Greer
02C01-9806-CR-00167

State vs. Jamell Richmond
02C01-9806-CR-00198
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

Lovell Lightner vs. State
03C01-9808-CR-00277

King vs. State
03S01-9801-CR-00001

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081

State vs. Harris
02S01-9806-CC-00053

State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
02S01-9806-CC-00053
Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

State vs. Small
03S01-9804-CR-00038

Conister Trust v. Boating Corp. of America & Villas-Afloat
M1998-00949-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
The buyer of three boats that were to be built pursuant to specific instructions defaulted on payment for the second and third boats by failing to pay the entire purchase price of the boats. The seller resold the two boats and recovered its damages caused by the buyer's breach. A creditor of the buyer, who furnished funds for the purchase of the first two boats, sought the excess proceeds from the sale of the second boat asserting that it had an unperfected security interest. Because the buyer did not attain rights in the collateral sufficient to meet the requirements for attachment of a security interest, the creditor is not entitled to distribution of the proceeds under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Instead, the rights of the buyer and seller are governed by Article 2. The creditor was entitled to assert the buyer's right to restitution of partial payments, and the seller was entitled to recover its damages from the resale of the two boats. The seller also had a right of setoff which it exercised to recover losses on the third boat from moneys realized in the sale of the second boat. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

Harold David Jones vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9805-CC-00222
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

Petitioner, Harold David Jones, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Robertson County. Previously, he entered a nolo contendere plea to second degree murder and received a Range II sentence of 35 years. The following issues are presented for our review:

1. whether the petition was filed within the applicable statute oflimitations; and

2. whether the nolo contendere plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We find no reversible error and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

Paula H. Chaffin, Manny Formigo, and Brenda Thurman, et al., v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd, A/K/A Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., A/K/A Norwegian Cruise Lines, et al.
02A01-9803-CH-00080
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. Steven Stafford

Paula Chaffin, Manny Formigo, Brenda Thurman, Brent Mezzacasa, Maria 3 Rodriguez, Robert Kirk, Lloyd Ramer, Jerry Knott, and Mike Freeman (“Plaintiffs”), who were appointed by the trial court as class representatives in this conditionally certified class action, appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against four separate cruise line businesses, which included: (1) Norwegian Cruise Line Limited f/k/a Kloster Cruise Limited (“Norwegian”); (2) Carnival Corporation and/or Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Carnival”); (3) Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (“Royal Caribbean”); and (4) Princess Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Princess”). Plaintiffs’ claims were based upon alleged Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations and upon alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based upon forum selection clauses contained in written cruise contracts. Based upon the following, we find that the subject forum selection clauses are neither invalid based upon fraud nor unenforceable based upon unreasonableness. Moreover, we find that the subject forum selection clauses do not contravene a strong Tennessee public policy. Accordingly, we find that the forum selection clauses are enforceable and that the trial court’s dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm.

Doyle Shirt Manufacturing Corporation, v. T. Michael O'Mara, et al.
01A01-9711-CH-00670
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Vernon Neal

This appeal involves the requirement of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.01 that pleadings be signed by an attorney or by a party if that party is not represented by an attorney. Finding that the plaintiff did not comply with Rule 11 within the statutory period of limitations, the Putnam County Chancery Court granted summary judgment to the defendant. We affirm the decision of the trial court.