APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves a dispute over compensation for property taken by eminent domain. The Knoxville Community Development Corporation insisted that the property was worth only $19,500 and deposited that amount into the court. The landowner claimed it was worth much more. Following a trial, the jury found the fair market value of the property to be $25,700. The landowner appeals, contending that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they could consider the tax assessment figures in their valuation of the property. We agree, and we reverse the trial court.

Appellant was held in criminal contempt of court for failure to pay alimony. We affirm the action of the trial court and find the appeal to be frivolous.

The Chancery Court granted Rule 11 sanctions against James Saffles and Connie Saffles (“Plaintiffs”)1 based upon their actions and the resulting delay that occurred after the filing by Roger Watson and Tammy Watson (“Defendants”) of a motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions. We hold that the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions on the grounds relied on by the Chancery Court was error, vacate the grant of Rule 11 sanctions, and remand for a reconsideration of Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions and a determination of whether the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is proper based on the grounds raised in the Rule 11 motion.

The Juvenile Court reduced the monthly amount of child support the father was obligated to pay from $345 to $130. The State of Tennessee, acting under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, appealed the trial court's determination. The State argues that the court should have either maintained the father's support obligation at the presumptive level of $345 or deviated downward from the guidelines in accordance with the method enunciated by this court in the case of Casteel v. Casteel. Although the trial court impermissibly used the mother's income as a factor in calculating support, father was entitled to a downward deviation, and the amount awarded was within guiding legal principles. Accordingly, we affirm.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that Cheryl Smith Graves ("Wife") is not entitled to post-judgment interest on alimony due her under her judgment of divorce from Richard C. Graves, Sr. ("Husband"), which judgment was entered December 3, 2001, nunc pro tunc August 24, 2001. The trial court premised its judgment on its finding that "[Wife] ha[d] been obstructive in the conclusion of this matter." We hold that Wife is entitled to interest on all alimony payments to the extent that those payments were not timely made. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This is a will construction case. The decedent died testate in May 2002. In his will, he left certain properties in trust for the benefit of his spouse during her lifetime. The will detailed how the properties were to be distributed in the event his spouse predeceased him. The will did not state how the remainder interest in the properties was to be distributed in the event his spouse survived him.  The decedent was survived by his spouse. The co-executors filed a declaratory judgment action to interpret the will. The trial court ruled that the decedent died partially intestate, with the remainder interest in the specific properties passing through the laws of intestate succession. The co-executors of the trust appealed, arguing that the there was an error in the drafting of the will and that the decedent would have wanted the properties to be distributed in the same manner, regardless of whether his spouse predeceased him. We affirm, finding that, under these circumstances, the will Ccannot be reformed and the property must pass through the laws of intestate succession.

This appeal involves the ownership of a parcel of real property held by tenants-in-common. After reviewing the trial court’s order and the record, we have determined that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In this appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit to contest a will and contends that the trial court should have held the case in abeyance instead. Upon motions of the Plaintiff, the trial court had continued trial of the will contest on two prior occasions to times requested by the Plaintiff. Given this finding and further findings that the Plaintiff never requested that the case be held in abeyance and that the Plaintiff neither filed a motion that the case be continued from the date of trial nor notified the trial court beforehand that he would not be present at trial, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand.

Two members of a homeowners' association, the governing body of a planned unit development, filed this complaint alleging that the association, a corporation, was in contempt of the court for its refusal to allow the plaintiffs to inspect corporation records. The trial judge declined to find the corporation in contempt. We affirm.

Appellant, a Metropolitan Nashville police officer was seriously injured in an on-duty automobile accident when Defendant's vehicle crashed into the rear of his patrol car. Defendant was uninsured. Metropolitan Nashville was self-insured and did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for its patrol officers. Plaintiff named Nationwide as a defendant in an effort to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy issued to him insuring his personal vehicle. Nationwide defended under a policy exclusion involving non-insured vehicles made available for his regular use. The trial court granted summary judgment to Nationwide, and we affirm the action of the trial court.

This case is about fraud and negligent misrepresentation. In the fall of 2000, the plaintiff employee accepted an offer for employment with the defendant's internet company. Approximately three months after the employee began work, the company became insolvent and closed. The employee sued the defendant owner of the internet company, asserting that the company owner made false statements to him regarding the financial strength of the company. The employee sought damages for breach of contract and for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The employee received a judgment against the company for contract damages related to the employment contract. The company owner then sought summary judgment on the remaining claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted the company owner's motion for summary judgment, finding that the employee could not, as a matter of law, establish that he had relied on the company owner's statements that were the basis for the claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The employee appeals. We reverse, finding that the employee's reasonable or justifiable reliance on the statements was a genuine issue of fact and thus summary judgment was not proper.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit as being time barred. Plaintiff timely filed an action for wrongful discharge of her employment. Summons was issued but never served on Defendant. Plaintiff then took a voluntary dismissal but did not serve, nor attempt to serve, a copy of the notice of voluntary dismissal, the order of dismissal or a copy of the initial complaint on Defendant as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01. Plaintiff filed this action to revive her claim of wrongful discharge within one year of the voluntary dismissal of her first action but more than one year after termination of her employment. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that Plaintiff's claims were time barred, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

Karen Ann Walton ("Mother") and William Arthur Tice ("Father") are the parents of a minor child ("the Child"). Mother and Father never married, but joined in filing a Petition for Legitimation averring that Father was the Child's natural parent. In 1994, the Trial Court entered an order finding the child support guidelines inapplicable due to the extensive amount of co-parenting time the Child spent with each parent. In 2003, Mother filed a petition seeking, in part, to modify Father's child support obligation. The case was tried and the Trial Court entered an order finding inter alia, that Father, although unemployed, "has the ability to earn substantial income in the amount of One Hundred and Sixty-Two Thousand Dollars ($162,000) per year and child support shall be set in the Guidelines amount of Two Thousand and Fifteen Dollars ($2,015.00) per month." Father appeals. We affirm.

Wife appeals a trial court judgment finding that she is not entitled to rehabilitative alimony, back child support, a portion of the husband's "paid time off" accumulated during the marriage and attorney fees. We reverse the trial judge's ruling that the wife is not entitled to rehabilitative alimony and remand the alimony issue to the trial judge to conduct a hearing to ascertain her need for rehabilitation and the husband's ability to pay. We affirm on all other issues.

This case is about termination of parental rights. The father was incarcerated, and the mother lived in a mobile home in abysmal conditions, with no telephone and no transportation. The child was born on the floor of the mobile home and hospitalized shortly thereafter. Due to the poor living conditions, the State took custody of the child. Over the next three years, the mother and father worked with the Department of Children’s Services in an attempt to remedy the conditions that prevented the child’s return. These conditions included alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence. The juvenile court found that the parties continued to engage in physical abuse, and that the mother nevertheless continued to live with the father, creating unsafe living conditions for the child. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding that the conditions that precluded the child’s safe return to the home still persisted after three years and would likely continue. The mother appealed. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding of persistent conditions.

In this post-divorce proceeding, Wife sought an increase in child support based upon Husband's substantial inheritance from his mother. She also sought relief for Husband's alleged breach of the Marital Dissolution Agreement relative to the disposition of property. She further sought child support based upon imputed income of Husband because of voluntary underemployment. Husband appealed the judgment of the trial court. Wife assigned error as to certain findings by the trial court. We affirm as modified herein the judgment of the trial court.

Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association, a statutory agency created to meet certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies relative to workers' compensation, sued Centre Insurance Company seeking exoneration of certain workers' compensation obligations assumed by the agency upon the insolvency of Commercial Compensation Insurance Company. The trial judge granted summary judgment to Centre, and we affirm the action of the trial court.

This case involves the wrongful cutting of timber on the plaintiff’s property. Freddie D. Alley brought this action against McLain’s Inc. Lumber and Construction, which cut and harvested timber from his property after Defendant Stephen Snodgrass falsely represented to McLain’s that he owned the property and wanted to sell the timber. McLain’s filed a counter-complaint and a third-party complaint against the co-owners of the property, alleging their comparative fault in preparing and executing a contract for sale of the real estate to Mr. Snodgrass. The case was tried to a jury, which found the co-owners partially at fault, Mr. Snodgrass partially at fault, and no fault on the part of McLain’s. The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in failing to set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial. We hold that based on stipulations prior to trial, there was no material evidence of negligence on the part of the co-owners. We also hold that the jury verdict is inconsistent. Therefore, we reverse the judgment in part, vacate in part and remand for a new trial.

This is the second appeal in an action to collect attorney’s fees. The plaintiff attorney represented the defendant in her divorce action, which lasted from 1996 to 1999. He billed the defendant approximately $100,000 for his services. Over the course of the divorce action, the defendant paid
the plaintiff about $61,000, and still owed a balance of about $39,000. The attorney filed this lawsuit to recover the balance. After a two-day trial, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff attorney’s fees were fair and reasonable, and that the defendant owed the plaintiff the fees claimed. The
defendant now appeals that decision. We affirm.

Plaintiff/Patient filed a complaint against Defendant/Doctor alleging medical malpractice for failure to obtain her informed consent before operating. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant/Doctor on the basis that Plaintiff/Patient had failed to meet the burden of proof required by T.C.A. §29-26-115 and T.C.A. §29-26-118. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Grantors erected a house and driveway over an easement which was then sold to grantees. Grantees brought an action for damages to encumbered property and the Trial Court awarded grantees damages. We affirm.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly due to defendant's negligence, the Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs had executed a Waiver and Release of Liability which was required by defendant prior to plaintiffs' participation in white water rafting. Plaintiffs have appealed, insisting the Release is void as against the public policy of this State. We affirm.

Petitioners, Mother and her husband, brought a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment. The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence did not support a finding a willful abandonment and dismissed the petition. We affirm.

Following the decedent’s death, his estate was not admitted to probate until well over one year from the date of his death. A creditor filed a claim against the estate over twenty-one months after the decedent’s date of death. The executors filed an exception to the creditor’s claim arguing that it was barred since it was not filed within one year of the decedent’s date of death. The probate court, relying on a previous decision rendered by this Court, held that the creditor’s claim was not barred by the applicable statutes. After reviewing the applicable statutory language and the decisions rendered by this Court interpreting those statutes, we reverse.

This appeal arises out of a divorce between the parties. In its decree, the trial court declared the parties were divorced, divided the marital property and the debts of the parties, ordered the husband to pay the entire balance of the guardian ad litem fees, named the wife the primary residential parent, and ordered the husband to pay wife child support. The husband now appeals to this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.