In Re Estate of Jewell Turner, Deceased John LeCornu v. Dolores Archie and Frede Clements
This is a will contest. In May 2002, the decedent had a stroke at age ninety-five. She had no children, and the plaintiff nephew and the defendant niece and defendant nephew took over her care. The three parties established a conservatorship, became co-conservators, and placed the decedent in a local nursing home. Later, the parties agreed to move the decedent to a nursing home closer to the defendants. Soon after the move, without informing the plaintiff, the defendants brought a lawyer to the decedent so that she could draft a last will and testament. In October 2003, the decedent died. The decedent’s will left her $550,000 residuary estate to the defendants, and left only two pieces of furniture to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the instant petition to contest the will, alleging that the decedent was unduly influenced by the defendants. After a bench trial, the trial court upheld the will, concluding that the burden of proving undue influence had not been met. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the decedent received independent advice in the drafting of her will. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Larry E. Parrish, et al. v. Robert S. Marquis, et al.
We granted this appeal to determine whether the dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint because it was untimely and for lack of standing constituted a "favorable termination," which is a required element of a malicious prosecution cause of action. The Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim was based on a favorable termination of the legal malpractice action but granted summary judgment to one defendant after determining there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his involvement in the legal malpractice claim. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the plaintiffs' cause of action for malicious prosecution was not based on a favorable termination because the underlying legal malpractice complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds that did not reflect on the merits. Since both defendants were entitled to summary judgment, the Court of Appeals' judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part for the reasons stated in this opinion. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
James O. Martin v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, James O. Martin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Martin is currently serving a twenty-two year sentence as a result of his jury conviction for aggravated arson. On appeal, Martin argues that the trial court erred "by failing to grant post-conviction relief." Specifically, he argues that his conviction was unlawfully obtained as a result of juror misconduct and bias of the juror at his trial. After review of the record, the denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Silcox
The Defendant, Gary Lee Silcox, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault, and theft of property valued over $1000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for criminally negligent homicide; and (2) the trial court improperly ordered that the Defendant's sentences run consecutively. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shannon Wade Jacobs v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shannon Wade Jacobs, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his 2000 jury conviction of second degree murder in the Giles County Circuit Court, for which he received a sentence of 23 years in the Department of Correction. After the post-conviction court appointed counsel for the petitioner and conducted an evidentiary hearing, the court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals. Upon our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Babajide Familoni v. The University of Memphis
This case is about subject matter jurisdiction. A professor employed by the University of Memphis filed a lawsuit in chancery court against the University, alleging claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and failure to execute a settlement agreement on his discrimination claims. The University filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear contract claims against an agency of the State of Tennessee. The trial court granted the motion, finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint. We affirm in part and reverse and remand, finding that the chancery court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Smith
The defendant, Kevin Smith, was convicted of two counts of spousal rape and one count of aggravated assault, both Class C felonies. After merging the aggravated assault conviction with one of the spousal rape convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to six years for each rape conviction, to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twelve years. The issues on appeal are whether the trial court properly concluded that the defense would open the door for the victim to testify about the defendant’s prior bad acts if asked why she did not resist the assault and whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mandell Benton
The defendant, Mandel Benton, who was originally charged with statutory rape, was convicted of attempted statutory rape. The trial court imposed a sentence of one hundred and eighty days to be served in the county jail. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimberly Jeannine Cox
We accepted review of this cause under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11, in order to address a question properly preserved and certified pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 37(b)(2)(i). The question, as certified, is: Whether the consent given to search the defendant's motel room is consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee? Because we hold that during the course of a lawful traffic stop the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of her motel room, we find the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that search. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
Rabia Kafozi, et al.. v. Windward Cove, LLC
Rabia Kafozi and Audry C. Kafozi ("Plaintiffs") signed an installment sales contract to purchase real property from Windward Cove, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs made some, but not all of the payments as scheduled. Defendant declared a default and then sold the real property to another party. Plaintiffs sued Defendant seeking, among other things, either specific performance or the return of payments made by them. The case was tried and the Trial Court held, inter alia, that the installment sales contract did not set a due date and, therefore, Plaintiffs never were in default. Defendant appeals claiming the Trial Court erred in interpreting the installment sales contract. We reverse, and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
John Dolle, et al. v. Marvin Fisher, et al.
John and Christina Dolle ("Plaintiffs") entered into a contract with Fisher Builders, Inc., for the construction of a single family residence. Plaintiffs eventually obtained a judgment against Fisher Builders, Inc., for breach of contract and breach of warranty. Plaintiffs' judgment against Fishers Builders, Inc. was for $61,102, plus interest and costs. After the judgment against Fisher Builders, Inc., became final, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Marvin Fisher, the president, secretary, sole director, and sole stockholder of Fisher Builders, Inc. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Fisher Builders, Inc., was a sham corporation, the corporate veil should be pierced, and Fisher should be held personally liable for the judgment against his corporation. The Trial Court agreed and entered a judgment against Fisher personally. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Mold-Tech USA, LLC v. Holley Performance Products, Inc.
Mold-Tech USA, LLC ("the Supplier") brought this action against Holley Performance Products, Inc. ("the Manufacturer") for breach of contract, seeking to recover the cost of component parts purchased by the Supplier in connection with its contract with the Manufacturer. Following a bench trial, the court found that the Manufacturer had breached the contract, and the court awarded the Supplier $79,436.87 in damages. In addition, the court awarded the Supplier prejudgment interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The Manufacturer appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding for the Supplier because the Supplier failed to comply with the pertinent provisions of the Tennessee version of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Manufacturer also contends that the Supplier is not entitled to prejudgment interest. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Michael E Ingle, et al. v. Aaron Lilly Construction, LLC
Michael E. Ingle and his wife, Melissa R. Ingle ("the plaintiffs"), purchased a house from Aaron Lilly Construction, LLC ("the defendant"). The defendant had constructed the residence and the plaintiffs were the initial purchasers. The plaintiffs began to experience problems with their home and filed suit against the defendant on several theories, including a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"). The trial court, following a bench trial, found that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, but not under the TCPA. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. They also claim that the evidence preponderates against the amount of damages found by the trial court. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, challenge the trial court's ruling with respect to their claim under the TCPA. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Allen Franks, II
The defendant, Thomas Allen Franks, II, was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, evading arrest, and resisting arrest. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of ten years for aggravated burglary and six years for aggravated assault. There were concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days each for misdemeanor evading arrest and resisting arrest. The effective sentence is, therefore, sixteen years. In this appeal as of right, the single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by declining to grant a continuance or other relief when the state filed notice of its intent to use impeaching convictions just before the beginning of the trial. The judgments are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carol Bracken Orten v. Thaddeus Charles Orten
Carol Bracken Orten (“Wife”) sued Thaddeus Charles Orten (“Husband”) for a divorce. During the course of discovery, Husband refused to provide certain financial information as he felt the information to be irrelevant. After Husband failed to appear without explanation at the second Trial Management Conference, the Trial Court entered a default judgment against Husband as a sanction for his actions. Husband’s attorney immediately withdrew from the case and the Trial Court then proceeded to distribute the marital property and award Wife alimony and child support based solely on Wife’s uncontested testimony. Husband secured new counsel and filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The Trial Court denied Husband’s motion and this appeal followed. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Carol Bracken Orten v. Thaddeus Charles Orten - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would hold that the trial court erred in not setting aside the entry of the default judgment against Mr. Orten. In my judgment the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Orten did not intentionally fail to appear at the second Trial Management Conference, but simply forgot to appear. Entry of a default judgment against Mr. Orten is too drastic a measure in this case. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortez D. Hubbard
The Appellant, Cortez D. Hubbard, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court which resulted in the imposition of an effective eight-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Hubbard challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Greg Hopper v. Betty J. Moling
The plaintiff, an unlicensed home improvement contractor, entered into an agreement with the defendant/homeowner to make certain improvements to her existing home. Shortly after the plaintiff left the job site, the defendant/homeowner began to experience several problems associated with the plaintiff’s work. The defendant/homeowner paid to have the defects repaired and/or completed. The plaintiff filed a petition against the defendant/homeowner to enforce a materialman’s lien. The defendant/homeowner filed a counter-complaint seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, fraud, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the chancellor held that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to constructive fraud, thereby voiding the contract; the plaintiff was only entitled to recover the cost of his labor and materials under quantum meruit; and the defendant/homeowner was entitled to damages, attorney’s fees, and discretionary costs. The plaintiff appealed to this Court to contest the chancellor’s inclusion of certain costs in the damage award, the limitation of his quantum meruit recovery, the finding of constructive fraud, and the award of attorney’s fees to the defendant/homeowner. The defendant/homeowner appealed the chancellor’s exclusion of certain costs from the damage award and the method used by the chancellor in calculating the damages. We affirm in part and vacate in part. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
James Rimmer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Rimmer, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the issues and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Huan Ouyang v. Xiaohui Chen
This is a divorce case. The parties were declared divorced in February 2003. The divorce decree reserved issues regarding their minor child, property valuation and distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees. After a hearing on the reserved issues, the trial court granted the wife alimony and designated her the primary residential parent of their child, set child support, and distributed the marital property. The husband appealed the trial court’s decision on all of the reserved issues. We affirm the trial court’s decision, with modification on the issue of the husband’s residential parenting time. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Hazlerig v. Millington Telephone Company, Inc.
This case involves the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff telephone customer paid a fee to the defendant telephone company to block calls to 900 numbers from being made from her phone. Despite this, charges for 900 calls continued to appear on the customer’s bill. The customer disputed this, and the telephone company cut off her telephone service. The customer filed a claim against the telephone company in general sessions court for breach of contract and the telephone company filed a counterclaim for the unpaid charges for the 900 number calls. The general sessions court ruled in favor of the telephone company, and the customer appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of the customer. The customer then filed a separate lawsuit against the telephone company in chancery court, seeking injunctive relief to require the telephone company to reinstate her telephone service. The telephone company answered, and later sought to amend its answer to plead the defense of res judicata. The chancery court refused to allow amendment of the answer to assert the defense. The chancery court then ruled in favor of the telephone customer. The telephone company appeals, asserting that the chancery court erred in not allowing amendment of its answer to assert the defense of res judicata. We affirm, finding that the principle of res judicata did not apply and the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in declining to permit amendment of the answer. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy Lee Barnes Williams v. Rodney Lee Williams
Former wife, Cathy Williams, appeals the action of the trial court in reducing the alimony in futuro obligation of former husband, Rodney Williams, from $4,000 per month to $2,000 per month based on a finding that a substantial and material change in circumstances sufficient to justify the decrease had occurred. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Dillihunt
The defendant, John Dillihunt, was convicted of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony, for which he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to eight years in the Department of Correction to be served at 100% and fined $7500. On appeal, although the defendant raises four issues, we believe they can be condensed into one: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Mullins
The defendant, Gregory Mullins, was convicted of two counts of violating the vehicle registration law, two counts of driving on a suspended license, two counts of criminal impersonation, one count of speeding, one count of misdemeanor evading arrest, and one count of felony evading arrest. The trial court imposed a Range III, career offender sentence of six years for the felony evading arrest offense; concurrent terms of forty-five days for each of the driving on a suspended license offenses; eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest offense; and forty-five days for each of the criminal impersonation offenses. In addition, the defendant was fined $50 for each of the vehicle registration offenses; $50 for the speeding offense; $500 for each of the driving on a suspended license offenses; $3,000 for the felony evading arrest offense; $2,500 for the misdemeanor evading arrest offense; $500 for one of the impersonation offenses; and $250 for the remaining impersonation offense. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is not sufficient to support several of his convictions and that the dual convictions for misdemeanor evading arrest and felony evading arrest violate principles of double jeopardy. Because the convictions for felony and misdemeanor evading arrest violate the principles of double jeopardy, the conviction for misdemeanor evading arrest must be merged into the conviction for felony evading arrest. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cumberland County Bank v. Dee Downs Eastman, et al.
The Cumberland County Bank (“the bank”) filed an unlawful detainer action in general sessions court against Dee Downs Eastman. The bank sought to obtain possession of real property conveyed to it following the bank’s foreclosure of deeds of trust securing promissory notes executed by Ms. Eastman. The general sessions court entered judgment for possession “for which a Writ of Possession may issue.” Ms. Eastman appealed to the trial court and, along with the Dee Downs Eastman Revocable Trust (“the trust”), filed in that court a counterclaim that essentially challenged the validity of the foreclosure sale by which the bank acquired its title to the subject property. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment as to all issues. Ms. Eastman and the trust appeal. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals |