APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant Bruce Goodman ("Husband") filed for divorce from Appellee Judy Goodman ("Wife") after twenty-six years of marriage. The parties entered into a permanent parenting plan and subsequently went to trial seeking a property settlement and a decree on spousal support. The trial court awarded each party approximately $1.4 million from the marital estate and also granted Wife $4,000 per month in alimony in futuro. Husband appeals the alimony award. We affirm.

I concur completely in the majority’s conclusion that “the facts preponderate against the Trial Court’s holding that only $2,000 in fees was a reasonable amount for work performed at the trial court level.” I also agree with the majority’s decision that $6,500 is a reasonable fee for counsel’s work at the trial court level.

This appeal centers around the Trial Court’s award of attorney fees to Plaintiffs in this Tennessee Consumer Protection Act case. Following remand after the first appeal, the Trial Court awarded attorney fees of $2,000 for work performed in preparation for and the jury trial of this case, and an additional $4,500 in attorney fees incurred on the first appeal. Plaintiffs appeal claiming the Trial Court’s award of $2,000 in fees incurred at the trial court level was unreasonably low. Defendant appeals claiming the Trial Court erred in awarding any fees incurred on the appeal. We reverse the award of fees incurred on the appeal, and modify the Trial Court’s judgment to award $6,500 in fees for work performed at the Trial Court level.

Mr. Chatman was a policeman in Chattanooga. He was fired on September 15, 2003 for untruthfulness during an investigation, and for conduct unbecoming a police officer. He appealed to the Chattanooga City Council which upheld his dismissal. His petition for certiorari was denied and he appeals. We affirm.

The trial court modified the parties’ decree of divorce, changing custody of parties’ minor child from joint custody to Father, and transferred control of a custodial account from Mother to Father. The trial court also denied Mother’s petition to set visitation and ordered Mother to have no contact with child. Mother appeals. We vacate the trial court’s order regarding visitation and the award of attorney’s fees and remand on these issues. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

This is a divorce case. Husband appeals the trial court’s division of marital property, award alimony in futuro to Wife, naming of Wife as primary residential parent, and child support order. We affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from failure of the trial court to allow interest on a child support arrearage judgment pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-5-101(A)(5). The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

This appeal involves a motorcycle rider who was seriously injured while crossing two heavy steel plates placed over the surface of a portion of a state highway that was under construction. The rider filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission asserting that the front tire of his motorcycle became lodged in a gap between the two steel plates and that this gap was the dangerous condition that caused his injuries. Following a hearing, a claims commissioner dismissed the claim after concluding (1) that the rider had failed to prove that the State, rather than the highway contractor, was responsible for maintaining the steel plates, (2) that the rider had failed to prove that the State had notice of the gap between the plates, and (3) that the rider’s negligence exceeded that of the State. The motorcycle rider has appealed. We have determined that the claims commissioner erred by concluding that the State was not on notice of the dangerous condition on the highway and that the motorcycle rider’s negligence exceeded the State’s negligence.

This appeal involves a parental dispute over the payment of child support for a fifteen-year-old child. One year following the divorce, the child's father filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Franklin County seeking to modify his $2,100 per month child support obligation because his visitation with his daughter had increased and because his daughter was receiving Social Security benefits as a result of his retirement. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the father was willfully unemployed and declined to lower his child support obligation. However, the court determined that the father was entitled to an offset in the amount of the Social Security benefits that the child was receiving as his dependent. Both the mother and the father take issue with the judgment. The father asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to lower his child support obligation. The mother insists that the court erred by giving the father credit for the Social Security benefits the child was receiving. We affirm the judgment.

In this appeal, we are called upon to evaluate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a premises liability suit. After reviewing the record, we hold that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant owed her a duty of care. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to offer any proof tending to show that the ramp on which she slipped and fell constituted a defective and/or dangerous condition. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant.

Kenny Vaughn and Barbara Vaughn ("Plaintiffs" or "Mr. Vaughn" and "Mrs. Vaughn" as appropriate) sued Notie L. Cunningham and John Doe concerning an automobile accident that occurred in Hamilton County. The case was tried before a jury and the Trial Court entered judgment on the jury's verdict. The jury found John Doe 100% at fault for the accident, but awarded Plaintiffs no damages. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court claiming that the jury verdict is contrary to the evidence because the amount of damages is not within the range of reasonableness, and that the Trial Court erred by not granting a new trial and by awarding court costs against Plaintiffs. We affirm as modified.

This case involves issues arising out of the parties’ divorce. The chancery court designated and divided the parties’ assets and placed an equitable lien on the separate property of the husband. The chancery court did not award alimony or attorney’s fees and discretionary costs to the wife. We affirm in part, vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Further, we decline to award attorney’s fees and costs on appeal

The divorced father was found to be in willful criminal contempt of a previous court order by the trial court and sentenced to 10 days in the Williamson County jail for not paying his child support in June 2006, 10 days for not paying his child support in November 2006, 10 days for not paying his child support in December 2006, and 10 days for not paying his share of the medical bills of his minor children. The father appealed. We affirm.

This is an action to recover on a surety bond. The plaintiff automobile wholesaler sold vehicles to the third-party defendant automobile retailer. The retailer gave thewholesaler the certificates of title for the vehicles as security, pending the retailer’s payment in full for the vehicles. Subsequently, the retailer sold the vehicles to third parties, but did not pay the wholesaler. The wholesaler, therefore, retained the certificates of title. Consequently, the retailer was unable to transfer the certificates of title to the third-party purchasers when they bought the vehicles. Later, in a separate lawsuit, the wholesaler obtained a judgment against the retailer for breach of contract. The wholesaler then filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant surety company on the retailer’s automobile dealership surety bond, claiming that it was damaged by the retailer’s failure to transfer the certificates of title to the purchasers of the vehicles. The surety company filed a third-party complaint against the retailer, asserting that the retailer was required to indemnify the surety company for its attorney’s fees expended in defending the underlying lawsuit. The surety company filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the surety company against both the wholesaler and the retailer. The wholesaler and the retailer now appeal. We affirm.

Plaintiff inmate filed a petition with the Tennessee Department of Corrections for a declaratory ruling that he was entitled to a parole hearing. Upon denial of his petition, Plaintiff inmate filed an action against two Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole employees, seeking judicial review of the denial of his petition. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff inmate appeals and we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is an action to recover damages for the alleged improper disposition of funds in a conservatorship account, conspiracy, and false advertising. The plaintiff’s mother was placed under a conservatorship, and the conservator opened an account at the defendant bank for the conservatorship. After the plaintiff’s mother died, the account was settled and the accounting was approved by the Gibson County Chancery Court. The plaintiff sought to recover funds from the account, but was informed that the account was settled. The plaintiff sued the bank and its branch manager for conspiracy, false advertising, and disappearing funds. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

This is an action to enforce a commercial guaranty. The defendants were both 25% shareholders in the plaintiff corporation. They each signed a guaranty on a $70,000 line of credit issued to the corporation. Subsequently, two other shareholders of the corporation drew down $50,000 from the line of credit without notifying the defendant guarantors or the corporation’s board of directors. Two days later, the guarantors resigned from the corporation. Within weeks, the two other shareholders who drew the money from the line of credit caused the corporation to default on its obligation.  These two shareholders then purchased the corporation’s debt from the bank in the name of the plaintiff corporation and demanded payment from the guarantors under their guaranties. The guarantors refused to make the requested payments. The plaintiff corporation then sued the guarantors pursuant to the guaranties. The guarantors filed an answer asserting the affirmative defenses of fraud and fraud in the inducement of the guaranties. The plaintiff corporation filed a motion for summary judgment, citing the broad “waiver of defenses” provision in the guaranties.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff corporation, concluding that the defenses asserted by the guarantors were waived under the general waiver-of-defenses provision. From that order, the guarantors now appeal. We reverse, concluding that the defenses of fraud and fraud in the inducement were not waived in the general waiver-of-defenses provisions in the guaranties at issue.

An unsuccessful party to an arbitration proceeding appeals the trial court's confirmation of the arbitration decision. The challenge is based on alleged ambiguities in the agreement to arbitrate and alleged failure by the arbitrator to disclose potential conflicts. We affirm the trial court's confirmation.

This appeal involves three cases consolidated for oral argument. Because of the duplication of the major issues in the cases, we consolidate the cases into one opinion. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions, acting on statutory authority, took emergency possession of a Tennessee trust company, filing due notice of such action in the Chancery Court of Lewis County. Subsequently, the Commissioner gave notice, as required by statute, of the liquidation of the company, which was commenced in the Chancery Court of Lewis County. The company filed a petition for writ of certiorari and supersedeas in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The court denied the petition for supersedeas and dismissed the writ of certiorari.  Appellants appeal. We affirm. In the Lewis County Chancery Court proceeding, the court approved the transfer by the Commissioner of the various fiduciary accounts administered by the company and other assets of the company, and the appellants appeal. We affirm. Included in the disposition of the property was real estate located in Bellevue, and the Commissioner filed a motion in the Lewis County Chancery Court for approval of the sale of this real estate. Objections were filed to the Bellevue sale motion. The court, after hearing proof, approved the sale. Appellants filed separate appeals. We affirm.

This is a suit for collection of a credit card debt. AmSouth Bank ("AmSouth") filed a complaint on a sworn account seeking a judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Soltis for the unpaid balance on three credit card accounts. Mr. and Mrs. Soltis answered and denied AmSouth was entitled to any relief. AmSouth filed a motion for summary judgment. Mr. and Mrs. Soltis responded by filing three documents entitled "Verified Application to Confirm and Enforce Arbitration Award" and three "Award" documents indicating that AmSouth Bank owed Mr. and Mrs. Soltis money. The parties had not agreed to arbitration and had not participated in arbitration. The trial court granted AmSouth's motion for summary judgment and Mr. and Mrs. Soltis appealed. The issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting AmSouth's motion for summary judgment and in entering judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Soltis. After careful review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an action for conversion involving two ex-spouses. The wife was the lone signatory on two trust accounts for their daughters. Without authorization from the wife, the defendant bank transferred all of the funds in both trust accounts to the husband’s account. The wife then filed this lawsuit for conversion, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the bank, the bank employee who transferred the funds, and the husband. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. As part of the plaintiff wife’s response, she admitted that she originally put the money into the trust accounts in order to defraud creditors during their divorce. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, based in part on the doctrine of unclean hands. The plaintiff wife appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of unclean hands.

This is a child support case. Custody of the minor children was removed from the biological father, and he was convicted of and incarcerated for aggravated sexual battery of his child and the manufacture of methamphetamine. The custodians of the children petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights, adopt the children, and obtain back child support from the father. The father owned 1500 acres of farmland. The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights, assessed back child support against him, found him voluntarily underemployed and, based on the incomeproducing farmland, imputed an earning potential of $45,000. The custodians appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by not imputing a higher earning capacity to the biological father. We affirm.

Plaintiff homeowner filed a cause of action against Defendant builder alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of good workmanship, misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleged damages in the amount of $15,000 and “other damages,” and also sought punitive damages. The trial court found no violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $11,103 for the cost of repairs.  Plaintiff appeals and Defendant cross-appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Mother appeals custody order of the Juvenile Court of Williamson County relative to her oldest child who had been previously determined by that Court to be a dependent and neglected child. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter of jurisdiction and the case remanded to the Williamson County Juvenile Court.

The wife died in 1998, and her holographic will was admitted to probate and the estate closed. In 2002, the husband died, and his formally executed will was admitted to probate. Thereafter, his executrix determined that a question existed concerning the ownership interest in the marital residence held by the husband at his death. As a result, the executrix filed a declaratory judgment action in the probate court to construe the wife’s holographic will. At trial, the wife’s daughter by a previous marriage attempted to prove that the wife’s holographic will was a forgery. The trial court determined that the daughter’s proof was not credible, and the court ruled that the wife’s holographic will vested fee simple title of the marital residence in the husband following her death. The wife’s daughter filed a motion for a new trial. While the motion was pending, the daughter filed an action in the chancery court against the husband’s children from a previous marriage asserting, in essence, the same allegations she raised in the probate court action. The probate court subsequently denied the daughter’s motion for a new trial. In turn, the chancery court transferred the complaint to the probate court, and the probate court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The daughter filed an appeal to this Court raising numerous issues related to the declaratory judgment action and the compliant filed in chancery court. As for the declaratory judgment action, we are without jurisdiction to entertain issues related to that case since the daughter failed to file a timely appeal.
As for the complaint the daughter filed in chancery court, we find that it is, in essence, an action to contest the validity of the holographic will of her mother. As such, it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, the probate court was correct in dismissing the complaint.  Moreover, we remand this case to the trial court for the entry of an award of damages to the Appellees for the Appellant’s filing of a frivolous appeal.