APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal from a declaratory judgment action requires us to determine whether term limits imposed on Shelby County Commissioners by the 1994 amendments to the Shelby County Charter, Article II, section 2.03(G), are permissible under Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-210 and, if so, whether § 5-1-210 is unconstitutional under the Tennessee Constitution, Article VII, Section 1. We hold that term limits are permitted as “qualifications” under Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-210(4). We further hold that Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-210(4), insofar as it permits county charters to prescribe the qualifications of members of the county legislative body, is void as unconstitutional under Article VII, Section 1, of the Tennessee Constitution. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the trial court, award summary judgment to Plaintiffs/Appellants, and enjoin enforcement of section 2.03(G) of the Shelby County Charter.

This case involves an intrafamily transaction in real property. A now-deceased owner of a piece of commercial property held by tenancy by the entireties agreed to sell it to his nephew in a handshake transaction. The nephew made a $10,000 down payment, began paying off the balance in monthly installments, and made improvements to the property. After the seller died, his widow filed a complaint for declaratory judgment asking the court to declare the rights of the parties with regard to the real property. Although the trial court found there was indeed an agreement between the uncle and the nephew to sell the land to the nephew, the court declined to require the widow to effectuate the contract, not because she had not agreed to the sale, but because she offered to reimburse the nephew for all his out-of-pocket costs. Because we conclude the widow should be estopped from asserting the statute of frauds to avoid the sale, and because her offer cannot limit the buyer’s remedies, we reverse.

This appeal involves interpretation of a warranty contract for used cars. Since the contract provided no exclusion for an inaccurate odometer, we affirm the trial court's enforcement of the warranty.

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County appeals the summary dismissal of an action against Cigna Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc. The claims are a result of Cigna's failure to purchase a performance bond in assurance of Cigna's fulfillment of its obligation to Metro employees. Metro circulated a Request for Proposal to provide health insurance services for Metro employees for a four-year period which required the successful bidder to purchase a performance bond. Cigna was a successful bidder and fully performed all obligations, with the exception of the performance bond. As the term neared expiration, Metro discovered Cigna had not provided the bond and, moreover, that the parties had failed to execute a written agreement. After negotiations to execute a written agreement failed, Metro filed this action contending Cigna was unjustly enriched by failing to provide the performance bond and, alternatively, that Cigna was in breach of contract by failing to provide the bond. Cigna denied liability and moved for summary judgment. The trial court summarily dismissed the unjust enrichment claim finding Cigna had not charged Metro for the cost of a performance bond, thus it was not unjustly enriched. The trial court also dismissed the breach of contract claim finding Metro had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to recover on the claim. Metro appeals contending material facts are in dispute. We affirm the dismissal of both claims.

The unsuccessful plaintiff brings this appeal from the trial court's summary judgment dismissing his malpractice claim. Because the plaintiff did not respond to the defendant's properly supported Motion for Summary Judgment, we affirm.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal by the trial court of his action under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act challenging the calculation of his prison sentence. Holding that his petition to review in the Chancery Court of Davidson County was untimely under Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(b)(1), the trial court dismissed the action. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal involves an action brought by Lieutenant Stace Thompson of the City of LaVergne Police Department under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Lt. Thompson alleged he was demoted as a result of investigating the alleged sexual harassment of a police officer within the department by the administrative assistant to the Chief of Police. After a trial by jury, judgment was rendered in favor of Lt. Thompson in the amount of $300,000.00 for embarrassment and humiliation and $4,000.00 for loss of benefits. The City of LaVergne has appealed. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The Sheriff of Lawrence County filed an application in the circuit court pursuant to section 8-20-101 et seq. of the Tennessee Code seeking, among other things, funding for new vehicles, an additional administrative assistant for his investigators, two additional corrections officers for his jail, and increased salaries for his employees. The trial court granted the sheriff additional funding for these items. Regarding the salary increases, the trial court ordered that they be retroactive to the beginning of the prior fiscal year. The county appealed the trial court's decision regarding the aforementioned items to this Court. We reverse in part and affirm in part the decisions of the trial court.

The Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure appeals from the decision of the ChanceryCourt to set aside its disciplinary ruling revoking a licensed clinical social worker’s license for two years for engaging in a dual relationship with a client. The Chancellor set aside the Board’s ruling on the grounds the sanctions constituted an abuse of discretion and were arbitrary and capricious. We reverse the decision of the Chancery Court and reinstate the Board’s order of revocation.

There is no question the Board could sanction Ms. Robertson for her undisputed violation of the ethical rules of conduct. While the severity of the sanction may appear disproportionate to the violation itself in view of all the circumstances, courts will generally refrain from reviewing the relation of a sanction to the violation, as long as it is within the range of authorized sanctions.

In this action against the County, which sold plaintiff’s properties at a back tax sale, plaintiff charges sheriff failed to comply with process statutes before returning the process “not to be found” and county improperly relied on publication to give notice to plaintiff. The Trial Court held sheriff exercised due diligence and constructive notice was proper. On appeal, we reverse.

The Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the grant as to defendants Blue and Vista Radiology, arguing the Trial Court erred in granting judgment on grounds that the statute of limitation had run. We vacate and remand.

This is a mother's appeal of the termination of her parental rights to her three children. Mother suffers from a cocaine addiction. She has had numerous opportunities for rehabilitation but failed to stay drug-free. At the time of trial, the children had been in foster care for two years during which time Mother only exercised token visitation. The juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment, persistence of conditions, and substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan. We affirm.

Eastman Chemical Company ("Eastman") and Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc. ("Cryotech") entered into an agreement whereby Cryotech would purchase non-food grade feedgas from Eastman which was roughly 78% carbon dioxide ("CO2"). Cryotech then would purify the feedgas and sell it as food grade CO2. Messer Griesheim Industries, Inc. ("Messer") purchased the CO2 from Cryotech. Messer in turn sold the CO2 to soft drink manufacturers. The CO2 sold to Messer was contaminated with cyanide and resulted in property damage to Messer and Messer's customers. In the third appeal arising from this litigation, we must determine whether the Trial Court correctly granted summary judgment to Eastman on Messer's claims for breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence, and whether the Trial Court properly refused to allow Messer to amend its complaint to assert a claim for negligence per se. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves the enforceability of the parties' oral settlement agreement. The parties, who were next-door neighbors, were involved in a lawsuit over their common boundary line. The parties appeared for depositions, but before depositions commenced, they allegedly reached a settlement and cancelled the depositions. A dispute later arose as to whether there had been a settlement of all issues in the case; the Defendants filed a motion seeking to enforce the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs responded that there was no enforceable contract because there had been an agreement as to some, but not all, of the issues in the case. The trial court determined that there had been a settlement agreement as to all issues and ordered enforcement of the agreement. After careful review of the record, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's determination that the parties had an enforceable agreement to settle all claims. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the circuit court erred when it granted a defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff asserts, as she did at trial, that there was a genuine issue of material fact, rendering summary judgment inappropriate. The plaintiff filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm.

This case arises from alleged defamatory statements made by Defendants David Smith, Vanessa Smith, and Charles Pagett, Jr. against Plaintiff Dempsey Ausley. The alleged statements were made subsequent to Ausley's termination as Pastor of Parker's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church in Portland, Tennessee. Plaintiff sued the three Defendants asserting claims of slander. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's claims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1) after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims because they were too closely entangled with Plaintiff's termination as pastor, which is an ecclesiastical matter of the church. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse and remand.

Plaintiff Gloria Mastilir filed a tort action against Defendant The New Shelby Dodge arising from the Defendant’s alleged faulty repair of Plaintiff’s motor home. Plaintiff subsequently took a voluntary non-suit and later failed to refile her action within the one-year savings statute under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105. As a result, the general sessions court and circuit court held that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals arguing that the lower courts erred in  not finding that Defendant was equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitation defense and also asserts that Defendant revived Plaintiff’s suit by promising to repair or pay for repairs to Plaintiffs vehicle. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute between the surviving spouses of five disabled city employees and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County over the amount of life insurance benefits payable after the employees died. The surviving spouses filed three separate lawsuits asserting that the city had breached their spouses' employment contracts as well as its fiduciary duty and had committed fraud by concealing information and by knowingly providing false information regarding a waiver of premium benefit that would have greatly increased their death benefits. These suits were consolidated in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing all the surviving spouses' intentional tort claims because they were barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The remaining breach of contract claims of three of the surviving spouses were tried to a jury, and the trial court directed a verdict for the city at the close of the plaintiffs' proof. Thereafter, the trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims of the other two surviving spouses. All the surviving spouses have appealed. We affirm the summary judgment orders dismissing the surviving spouses' intentional tort claims and the breach of contract claim of one surviving spouse. We reverse the directed verdict with regard to three of the remaining surviving spouses' breach of contract claims, as well as the summary judgment dismissing the other surviving spouse's breach of contract claim.

The Memphis Alcohol Commission denied Plaintiffs/Appellees’ Kardoush’s application for a certificate of compliance over 80 days after the application was filed, and Kardoush appealed to the chancery court. The trial court determined that, under Tennessee Code Annotated 57-3-208(e), the Memphis Alcohol Commission would have been deemed to have granted the application where the Commission had failed to either grant or deny the application within 60 days of submission. Thus, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 57-3-208(f), Kardoush was not required to submit a certificate of compliance with its application to the Tennessee Alcohol and Beverage Commission. We affirm.

This case involves a dispute over whether Tennessee courts have personal jurisdiction over two Michigan corporations regarding an alleged violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  The trial court found that Tennessee had personal jurisdiction over the Michigan corporations and the corporations filed an interlocutory appeal. We find that the Tennessee Long Arm Statute provides Tennessee with personal jurisdiction over the corporations and that the decision comports with the requirements of due process; therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In July of 2002, Miracle Kaa Nichols ("Wife") sued James Virgil Nichols, Jr. ("Husband") for divorce. The case was tried and a Final Decree was entered in September of 2004 awarding, inter alia, Wife a divorce, and finding and holding that the real property located at 24766 Martel Road in Lenoir City, Tennessee ("the Farm") was marital property and should be divided with each party to receive "one-half the value of the land and mobile home." Husband appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in classifying the Farm as marital property, or, in the alternative, that the Trial Court erred by failing to divide the marital estate equitably. Wife also appeals the marital property division. We affirm.

This is a mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights to her oldest son and daughter.  Because we find that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s termination on three (3) alternative grounds and that termination is in the children’s best interest, we affirm.

This appeal involves post-divorce criminal contempt sanctions. The former wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to hold her former husband in contempt for failing to pay spousal support and to maintain a life insurance policy and a club membership. The trial court determined that the former husband was guilty of eighteen separate acts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 180 days in jail. After the former husband appealed the contempt sanction, the trial court stayed its order pending appeal. We have determined that the former wife failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her former husband had willfully failed to pay spousal support or to discharge his other financial obligations.

The trial court denied the State’s petition for child support and retroactive child support for Respondent/Father’s two minor children. We reverse.