Ronald Loines vs. Kimberly Loines
E2003-00526-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
In this divorce case, the trial court awarded Ronald Keith Loines, Jr. ("Husband") a divorce from Kimberly Loines ("Wife") by judgment entered January 14, 2003. Wife filed her notice of appeal on February 25, 2003. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment of divorce, we are without jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Wife. Accordingly, Wife's appeal is dismissed.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
In Re: Estate of Carl Myers & Commercial Bank
E2002-01154-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
The Trial Court voided agreements with Bank by Decedent creating survivorship accounts with his daughter on grounds of incompetency. On appeal, we affirm.
The appellant, Angelee Prater, was convicted by a jury of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony and fined $25,000. As a result of the conviction, the trial court sentenced her to twenty-one years and six months incarceration as a Range I, standard offender and classified her release eligibility at 100% as a violent offender. After the trial court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial, she appealed. The appellant argues on appeal that the aggravated child abuse statutes, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-15-401 and -402 are unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct and that the evidence was not sufficient to support a verdict of guilt. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the statutes in question are constitutional and that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of guilt. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Rhea
Court of Criminal Appeals
Louis Laurent vs. Suntrust Bank
E2003-01408-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Louis A. Laurent and Barbara Laurent ("Plaintiffs") sued SunTrust Bank ("Defendant") for alleged defamatory statements made by Defendant's attorney in a separate lawsuit. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
E2003-00501-COA-R3-JV
E2003-00501-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Children's Services, vs. SJMW, In The Matter of: DJL
E2003-00519-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
The mother's parental rights were terminated by the Trial Judge. Mother has appealed. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Hitchock Metal Sources vs. John D. Mulford
E2003-00738-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
Diane Hitchcock ("Mrs. Hitchcock") and Hitchcock Metal Sources, Inc. ("HMS") sued John D. Mulford, Jr. ("Mulford") and Mulford Enterprises, Inc. ("the defendant corporation") for breach of an oral contract between Mulford and Mrs. Hitchcock's deceased husband, James H. Hitchcock ("Mr. Hitchcock"). Mulford and the defendant corporation responded by filing a counterclaim against Mrs. Hitchcock and HMS, asserting, inter alia, breach of contract. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the court found in favor of Mrs. Hitchcock, awarding her damages of $87,896.74 jointly and severally against Mulford and the defendant corporation, and an additional amount of $8,855.93 against the defendant corporation. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim of Mulford and the defendant corporation, as well as the original claim of HMS. Mulford and the defendant corporation appeal the trial court's dual determinations that the parties' oral agreement did not prohibit either party from pursuing other business opportunities and that the defendant corporation converted Mrs. Hitchcock's steel by selling it without her knowledge or consent. In addition, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to reform the parties' contract and in its calculation of damages. By way of a separate issue, Mrs. Hitchcock asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court's judgment in toto.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Monte Bounds vs. Zella Cupp
E2003-00692-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
The appellees filed suit against the appellant, alleging that the appellees, Lawrence R. Bozeman and wife, Imogene Bozeman ("the appellees Bozeman"), owned a 12-foot wide easement accross the property of the appellant. The appellant filed an answer, relying upon "the affirmative defense of abandonment plus adverse possession by the [appellant]." Following a plenary trial, the court below found that the appellees Bozeman had an express easement across the property of the appellant and that they "ha[d] not taken action of clear and unmistakable character indicating an abandonment of the easement." The appellant contends on this appeal that the trial court erred in failing to find abandonment of the easement. Since there is no transcript or statement of the evidence in the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Mary Ann Gurganus Eure v. Barry Lynn Eure
E2003-00745-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
This is a post-divorce modification case involving the custody of, and support for, the parties' minor child, Matthew Chandler Eure (DOB: July 22, 1996) ("the child"). Mary Ann Gurganus Eure ("Mother") filed a complaint seeking custody of the child. Barry Lynn Eure ("Father"), the child's custodian, answered and filed a counterclaim seeking an increase in Mother's weekly child support obligation. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Mother's complaint. The court subsequently increased Mother's support obligation to $113 per week. Mother appeals, arguing, in so many words, that the evidence preponderates against both of the trial court's rulings. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Arthur Creech vs. Robert R. Addington
E2003-00842-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The plaintiffs leased land in Mississippi from D.C. Parker and Richard B. Flowers ("Defendants") for the purpose of building motels on the land. Plaintiffs claim they were told by Defendants' agent that financing was in place to build immediately and that this representation induced them to enter into the leases. Financing never materialized and the motels never were built. Plaintiffs sued Defendants, the parties expected to provide financing, and others. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appeal. We vacate and remand.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
In Re: Estate of Gloria Eleanor Franklin vs. W. Jess Waltman
E2003-00926-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
The Trial Court following an evidentiary hearing, held decedent's holographic will to be conditional and inoperative. On appeal, we reverse.
Defendant, Charles R. Palmquist, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to DUI first offense and reserved a certified question of law for appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). After a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to the sale of under .5 grams of cocaine and agreed to a seven-year sentence. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined at a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the entire sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction, because the defendant had not demonstrated the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. We find no error in the sentence and, therefore, affirm.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
W2002-01540-COA-R3-CV
W2002-01540-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
Shelby
Court of Appeals
W2002-02534-COA-R3-CV
W2002-02534-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
The Defendant, Roger L. Smith, pled guilty to three counts of child rape in 1998. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief and for DNA testing. The trial court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition on the grounds that it is time-barred. The trial court further summarily denied the Defendant's request for DNA testing. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's claim for post-conviction relief, but reverse and remand for further proceedings the trial court's dismissal of the Defendant's request for DNA testing.
Greene
Court of Criminal Appeals
Carl A. Lindblad v. Parkridge Health System
E2003-00221-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
The plaintiff resigned his position as Director of the hospital's emergency services. Parkridge Health System, Inc. d/b/a East Ridge Hospital, [hereafter "the hospital" or "Defendant"] accepted his resignation and terminated his staff privileges in accordance with an employment Agreement. The hospital's bylaws required notice and hearing, which were not followed. The plaintiff filed this action asserting that in failing to observe its bylaws the hospital breached its contract with him since the bylaws were an integral part of the contract. The Chancellor granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Agreement, which provided for termination of staff privileges controlled the issue. We affirm.
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
The Trial Judge held the minor child was dependent and neglected and that the mother had committed severe child abuse against her child. Custody was awarded to DCS who was relieved of making reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and child. The mother appealed, insisting there is no evidence to support the Trial Court's findings. We affirm the Trial Court.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Shawn Vineyard vs. Bill Varner D/B/A Fountain City Auto
E2003-00436-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
Shawn T. Vineyard ("the plaintiff") purchased a 1991 Nissan automobile from Bill Varner, doing business as Fountain City Auto Sales ("the defendant"). Later, the plaintiff sued the defendant alleging a fraudulent misrepresentation and a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA") in connection with the sale. In addition to other relief, the plaintiff sought compensatory damages; in the alternative, he asked for rescission of the sale agreement. After the trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, this matter proceeded to trial before a jury. The jury, in response to interrogatories, found the defendant guilty of violating the TCPA, but found no damages. The jury also found that the defendant had committed a fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of the automobile and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $2,100. In response to post-trial motions, the trial court decreed rescission and awarded the plaintiff the purchase price of $2,100. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion for summary judgment; (2) in decreeing rescission and otherwise modifying the jury's verdict; and (3) in awarding attorney's fees of $12,000 to the plaintiff. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Kathy Gardenhire vs. Real Estate Inspection Service
E2002-02214-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
Todd Gardenhire and his wife, Kathy Gardenhire ("the plaintiffs"), own a residence and lot on Signal Mountain. In 1995, they contracted with Real Estate Inspection Service, Inc. and Stephen Eady, doing business as Stephen Eady Company (collectively "the defendants"), for the construction of a sunroom addition, a swimming pool, and other work at their residence. Later that same year, the plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging that the defendants had failed to complete the work and that "much of the work" was not accomplished according to the parties' agreement. The defendants answered and filed a counterclaim seeking money allegedly due them for work performed in connection with the contract. Following a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs $35,000 and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants appeal. We affirm the judgment in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Robert Carrier vs. Speedway Motorsports
E2002-02724-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
This case involves a dispute as to exactly what property was leased to the plaintiff, Robert L. "Larry" Carrier. In January, 1996, the plaintiff and his family sold their 100% stock ownership interest in National Raceways, Inc., to the defendant, Speedway Motorsports, Inc. ("SMI"). National Raceways, Inc., operated the well-known Bristol Motor Speedway ("the Speedway"). In conjunction with the sale, the parties executed a lease agreement, wherein SMI leased back a portion of the Speedway's property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit against SMI and Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc., the new corporate name of National Raceways, Inc., claiming that the defendants had breached the lease by interfering with the plaintiff's leasehold interest. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the lease covers a 15.54 acre parcel of land lying adjacent to the grandstand at the racetrack. The defendants answered, denying that they had breached the lease and asserting that the subject matter of the lease is limited to three buildings on the 15.54 acre tract rather than to the entire tract. The defendants also filed a counterclaim for an unpaid debt. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the lease involves the entire parcel of land rather than just the three buildings. It ultimately awarded the plaintiff damages of $2,401,728. The trial court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. From this judgment, both sides appeal. We affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim, but reverse the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the original complaint. That complaint is dismissed at the plaintiff's costs.
