APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a dispute over a real estate sales commission and a third party claim for rent due under a commercial lease agreement. The tenant and the owners of the rental property entered into a listing agreement whereby the tenant’s real estate company would broker the sale of the leased property on behalf of the owners. The property in question was two commercial lots. The tenant was able to procure a sale of one of the commercial lots, and upon close of the sale, tenant stopped paying rent to the owners on the remaining commercial lot. Tenant then brought an offer for the sale of the second lot, which the owners rejected and made a counter-offer. No deal was reached, and the owners terminated the tenant’s agency authority. Through another real estate agency, the owners sold the remaining lot. The tenant’s real estate company brought suit, seeking to collect the real estate commission. The owners sought the rent due on the unsold lot for the time remaining under the lease. The trial court found that the tenant was not entitled to a real estate commission, and that the tenant owed the owners rent, but reduced the amount due to the owner’s failure to  mitigate damages. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of Defendant/Appellant’s motion to compel arbitration under an arbitration agreement contained in a nursing home admissions agreement. This is a direct appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-5-319(a)(1). We vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect to the issue of authority.

This appeal is from a jury verdict against an automobile manufacturer for compensatory and punitive damages. The Circuit Court of Shelby County entered judgments against the defendant for $3,450,000 in compensatory and $48,778,000 in punitive damages for the death of the driver, and $1,100,000 in compensatory damages for the death of the front-seat passenger. The manufacturer on appeal asks this Court to reverse the judgment of liability or to grant a new trial on all issues. In the alternative, the defendant argues that the money judgments are excessive. We affirm the findings of liability for compensatory and punitive damages and we affirm the amounts awarded for compensatory damages. We also find that the amount of punitive damages awarded must be reduced to $13,800,000 to comply with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.

This is a negligence action. Appellees filed a complaint against Appellant alleging that its employee negligently drove a company truck into the back of Appellees’ car. Appellant was granted partial summary judgment because a latent mechanical problem caused its truck’s brakes to fail. The trial court then held a bench trial to determine if the employee’s negligent driving was also a cause of the accident. Although it made no findings of fact, the trial court concluded that the employee was negligent, and awarded Appellee, Harry Jacocks $15,350 in damages. Appellant appeals, asserting that the evidence presented does not support the trial court’s judgment. Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. The minor child has been in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services since he was five months old, as the juvenile court found that he was dependent and neglected. Following approximately sixteen months of services and a failed trial home visit, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the ground of “persistence of conditions.” We affirm.

Erica Lin (“Plaintiff”) began working as a teacher for The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Defendant”) in 2002. During her employment, Plaintiff complained of actions which she believed to be discriminatory based on her race and alleged disability. Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter on April 1, 2006, informing her that her employment was being terminated effective May 26, 2006. Plaintiff eventually abandoned her race and disability discrimination claims and proceeded only on a claim for retaliatory discharge. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the undisputed material facts established that Plaintiff was terminated for poor work performance. The Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appeals. We conclude that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment neither negated an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim nor conclusively established an affirmative defense. Therefore, we vacate the order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This is the second appearance of the dispute between these parties in this Court. The current appeal arises from the trial court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff/Appellant Kim Brown (Mr. Brown). Upon motion by Defendant/Appellee William Shappley, M.D. (Dr. Shappley), the trial court dismissed Mr. Brown’s breach of contract action and awarded Dr. Shappley attorney’s fees in the amount of $500 pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm dismissal of Mr. Brown’s action under the doctrine of res judicata, but reverse the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions and the award of attorney’s fees.

The buyers of a home in Nashville sued the sellers for misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of contract. The proof showed the sellers did not acquire the proper permits and inspections required by the applicable building codes and that work on the plumbing, the electrical system, and the heating and air conditioning system was not performed in accordance with the codes. The sellers did not disclose the lack of permits and improper work on the statutorily required disclosure form. The chancellor found for the buyers. The sellers appealed. We affirm.

This case involves the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court entered a pre-trial order requiring the defendant to produce various personal and business records and to compile a list of the assets belonging to the defendant and his businesses. The defendant failed to comply with or object to the order. At a contempt hearing, the defendant’s attorney assured the chancellor that the defendant would comply with the order if the contempt hearing was continued for two more weeks, and the chancellor continued the matter. At the next hearing, the defendant’s attorney stated that his client would not be complying with the order based on Fifth Amendment grounds. The chancellor held the defendant in civil contempt and ordered the defendant’s attorney to pay the opposing party’s attorneys’ fees. The defendant and his attorney appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from a Final Judgment issued by the Chancellor in respect to a Petition for Registration and Modification of Foreign Decree in the Chancery Court of Blount County, Tennessee. The Trial Court ordered the registration of the foreign Judgment, but denied the request for modification. On appeal, we affirm.

Executrix appeals the trial court’s interpretation of language from decedent’s Last Will and Testament. Decedent was a well-known author of science fiction literature and the rights to that literature comprise a significant portion of her estate. Beneficiary under Will sought construction specifically of his bequest granting “the royalties from all posthumous publication of any of my works[.]” The trial court held there was a patent ambiguity in the Will precluding extrinsic evidence of intent. Executrix objected and made an offer of proof of decedent’s intended use and meaning of the terms “copyright,” “royalties,” and “posthumous publication.” The court found decedent used “copyright” and “royalties” interchangeably and intended Beneficiary to have both the copyrights and posthumous royalties from all of her works.

Based on the language in the four corners of the Will, we agree there was an ambiguity in the Will but have determined it was latent, rather than patent, and we reverse the trial court on itsambiguity finding. Accordingly, the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will is permitted and is necessary for the proper administration of the estate. After careful review of the record including Executrix’s proffered evidence of decedent’s intent, we have determined that the decedent intended different meanings of the terms “copyrights” and “royalties” and we reverse the court’s determination that those terms were used interchangeably. In doing so, we award the copyrights not previously bequeathed in the Will to Executrix and the royalties, as defined in this opinion, to Beneficiary. In view of the circumstances of this case, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Executrix should be removed as executrix of the estate and an administrator ad litem appointed. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves the payment of child support in a Title IV-D proceeding. The parents of the minor child were divorced, and the father was ordered to pay child support. In a contempt hearing, the father was found to have a substantial arrearage on his support obligation. Two years later, the State filed a petition on behalf of the mother for contempt and for modification of the child support order. The petition alleged that the father’s arrearage was unchanged. A child support worksheet submitted at the hearing showed the father’s child support obligation. The mother testified, however, that the father had been paying money directly to her for the benefit of the child. Based on the mother’s testimony, the trial court reduced the father’s monthly child support obligation to zero. Both of the parents testified that the father had paid a significant portion of the arrearage directly to the mother. The trial court credited the father for the amount that he had purportedly paid directly to the mother and reduced the remaining arrearage to a judgment. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court was required by statute to have the father pay his current support obligation through the Department of Human Services, rather than directly to the mother, and that the trial court was prohibited from crediting the father for payments on the arrearage made directly to the mother, rather than through DHS. We agree, and reverse the trial court’s order in part and remand the case for further proceedings.

This case requires us to inquire whether the Town of Halls was immune under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) for maintaining a baseball field that the plaintiff alleges is a nuisance because one of many balls that flew over the field’s fence into a residential neighborhood injured him. The trial court held that the Town of Halls was immune from liability because it had engaged in a discretionary function and that the baseball field did not constitute a nuisance. On appeal, we find that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Town of Halls had notice of any dangerous condition of the baseball field in Kevan Ward Park, and, thus, we affirm the trial court on the basis that the Town of Halls was immune from liability pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

This appeal involves alleged discrimination based on religion and national origin. The plaintiff is a native of India and a practitioner of Hinduism, and is employed as an associate professor at the defendant university. The plaintiff applied for a promotion to full professor. His application for promotion was denied, based on his lack of achievement in either academic research or public service activities. The plaintiff professor filed a lawsuit alleging that the university discriminated against him on the basis of national origin and religion. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, proffering the professor’s lack of research and public service as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying his application for promotion. The plaintiff conceded his lack of research and public service, but asserted that he was denied release time from his teaching responsibilities to engage in such activities. The trial court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff professor appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff professor cannot show the denial of his application for promotion was discriminatory because he cannot show that he was qualified for such a promotion. We also find the record insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the denial of release time from the plaintiff’s teaching responsibilities was discriminatory.

This is a contract action wherein the parties dispute which of two versions of a professional services agreement is controlling. The trial court determined that the contract/counter-offer proffered by Defendant buyer was the contract between the parties, and that there had been accord and satisfaction when Plaintiff deposited Defendant’s check for the payment amount asserted by Defendant. We reverse the trial court’s finding of accord and satisfaction. We further hold that the contract found by the trial court to be the applicable contract is unenforceable where the contract price is indefinite and where there was a lack of mutual assent to essential terms. We hold Plaintiff is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for services rendered and remand for further proceedings to determine that amount.

Appellee Bank filed suit against Appellant to collect for charges made to Appellant’s account. The general sessions court entered judgment in favor of Appellee Bank; Appellant, proceeding pro se, appealed that decision to the Circuit Court at Carroll County. The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court and Appellant appeals. In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, the trial court’s factual findings are conclusive on appeal, and we affirm.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate
challenging the result of a prison disciplinary proceeding against him. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not verified and failed to state that it was the first application for the writ as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-106. After careful review, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is a vehicular accident case. The three plaintiffs, a father and two grown sons, were riding in a truck pulling a trailer. An 18-wheeler driven by the individual defendant rear-ended the plaintiffs. In the days after the accident, all three plaintiffs sought medical treatment for back and neck pain. They filed this lawsuit against the defendants for injuries sustained in the accident. In the jury trial, after the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of punitive damages. At the conclusion of the six-day trial, the jury awarded two of the plaintiffs $10,000 each in damages and awarded the other plaintiff $200,000. Fault for the accident was apportioned 70% to the defendant and 30% to the driver of the plaintiffs’ truck, so the plaintiffs’ awards were reduced by 30%. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to for additur or for a new trial. The plaintiffs now appeal, claiming that the issue of punitive damages should have been presented to the jury, that the amount of the jury’s awards were de minimus and outside the realm of reasonableness, and that there was no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm, finding inter alia that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict on the issue of punitive damages, and that material evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.
 

In this custody dispute between parents, the Trial Judge awarded the mother attorney’s fees against the father. On appeal, we affirm.

Mother of minor child appeals a juvenile court order rejecting her challenge to the validity of a 2004 order awarding custody of the child to maternal grandparents. Mother argues that the 2004 order is void because she did not receive notice of the proceedings and the order does not contain necessary findings. Mother further argues that the juvenile court erred in failing to give her a full hearing. We have determined that the appealed order arose out of dependency and neglect proceedings and, therefore, must be appealed to the circuit court.

This is a negligence action. Burse filed a complaint against Appellant alleging that Appellant had negligently injured him in an automobile accident. Appellant answered the complaint, in part, by alleging that the accident was caused by the negligence of Appellee. At the time of the accident, Appellee and Burse were standing next to each other while preparing for a Christmas parade. Appellee moved for summary judgment alleging that he owed no duty to Burse and that he was not the cause of the accident. The trial court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment.

This case arose from the sexual abuse of a minor by a Catholic priest. The plaintiff, the victim, claimed the defendant, the priest’s employer, knew of and concealed the priest’s propensity to commit sex crimes against adolescent boys. Approximately thirty (30) years after the abuse, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that such actions constituted outrageous conduct and negligence by the defendant leading to the plaintiff’s abuse. The defendant moved for dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the statute of limitations bars such actions brought more than one year after the minor reaches the age of majority. The plaintiff argued the defendant’s fraudulent concealment of plaintiff’s cause of action tolled the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover his cause of action against the defendant before the statute of limitations expired. We affirm.

The State of Tennessee, proceeding on relation of six individuals and one entity (who, for ease of reference, will collectively be referred to as “the plaintiffs”), sought mandamus in 2002 to force the City of Church Hill (“the City”) to extend a sewer line to the individuals’ homes. The individuals are residents of a neighborhood in Hawkins County that was annexed by the City in 1988. They claim that the City failed to adhere to the plan of services adopted as part of the annexation process, and that the plaintiffs are therefore entitled to mandamus under Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-108 (2005). The plan of services adopted in 1988 states that “[a] sanitary sewer system will be provided as soon as economically feasible.” The trial court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment, finding that the long delay in installing a sewer system, which continued at the time of trial, was unreasonable, and that there were no disputed issues of material fact preventing the court from granting mandamus under § 6-51-108. However, the court ordered a trial on the issue of how quickly the City could reasonably install the sewer line. At the conclusion of this limited-purpose trial, the court ordered the City to extend sewer service to the plaintiffs within 16 months. The City appeals. We vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This is the second appearance of the dispute between these parties in this Court. This lawsuit has its genesis in a 1995 general sessions court action wherein Plaintiff/Appellee Allied Business Brokers, Inc. (“Allied’) sought damages for breach of contract. The facts and procedural history of the breach of contract action are recited in Allied Business Brokers, Inc. v. Abraham Musa, et al., No. W1999-00378-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 33191373 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2000) (perm. app. denied May 14, 2001), and we find it unnecessary to repeat them here. In Allied Business, we held Defendant Abed Amro (Mr. Amro) was bound by the terms of a brokerage contract that he had signed on behalf of his friend, Defendant Abraham Musa. We remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of a judgment in favor of Allied. Id. at *4. In the meantime, in 1997 Mr. Amro conveyed certain real property to his wife, Nida Amro (Ms. Amro).
In August 2005, Allied filed a complaint styled “Complaint to set aside fraudulent conveyance and to impose a constructive trust” against Mr. Amro and Ms. Amro (“the Amros”) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County. In its complaint, Allied alleged that it was a judgment creditor and that the 1997 conveyance was fraudulent. Allied prayed that the conveyance be set aside and for the imposition of a constructive trust and/or equitable lien in the amount of $17,346.00, plus interest in the amount of $10,407.60. The Amros moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-3-310. In October 2007, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Allied setting aside the conveyance as fraudulent. Following denial of the Amros’ motions to reconsider, the trial court entered its last judgment in the matter in January 2008.2 This appeal ensued.

The trial court granted the Board of Education’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing a cheerleader’s two claims for personal injury under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 et seq. We affirm the judgment as to the claim that the Board negligently hired the sponsor of the cheerleading squad. Finding, however, that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the cheerleading squad sponsor’s negligence, we reverse that portion  of the judgment.