APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case arises from the Estate’s suit to recover a debt from defendant Corporation. The parties reached an agreement regarding payment of the debt, and the trial court entered a consent order reflecting the terms of this agreement. Appellant then filed a rule 60.02 motion for relief from the consent order. The lower court denied the motion, finding that Appellant was not a party of record in the suit and, accordingly, had no standing to challenge the judgment. We affirm.
 

This tort action arises out of a two-vehicle accident. At trial, the defendant Ernestine W. Francis admitted liability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Melanie Sue Gibson for property damage in the amount of $6,900; however, the jury declined to award her any damages on her claim for personal injuries. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court did not properly perform its role as thirteenth juror; that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence; and that the trial court erred when it re-instructed the jury in response to a question from that body. We affirm.

Plaintiff brought suit on a defectively executed joint will, arguing that, despite its infirmities as a testamentary instrument, it is still enforceable as a contract for the benefit of a third party. In her suit, Plaintiff sought to recover certain property, purportedly covered by the defective joint will, that Decedent had devised to Defendant in a subsequent will. The lower court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the defective joint will does not constitute an enforceable contract. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Plaintiff, a customer who was injured when assaulted on the premises, brought action for damages against the owners-lessors of the premises and others. The Circuit Court, Campbell County, Conrad Troutman, Judge, dismissed the action as to the owners-lessors for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This case started out as a dispute over the title to a twenty to thirty-five foot wide strip along a state highway. The Chancery Court of Roane County held that the defendant held the title, but that the plaintiff had an access easement over the property. The defendant asserts on appeal that the Court erred because the plaintiff never claimed an easement in its pleadings and that the Court simply created one. The plaintiff asserts that the Court erred in finding that the defendant held the title to the property. We affirm.

Gregor Nadler ("the plaintiff") took a default judgment in the amount of $68,270.98 against Gerald H. Lucas ("Mr. Lucas") in a Florida proceeding. The judgment survived Mr. Lucas's subsequent bankruptcy filing. The plaintiff domesticated his judgment in Tennessee and then filed suit against, inter alia, the Mountain Valley Chapel Business Trust and Mr. Lucas, claiming (1) that Mr. Lucas had engaged in a fraudulent conveyance when he formed the trust and (2) that the trust was his alter ego. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. From this judgment, the plaintiff appeals, challenging the trial court's rulings with respect to his fraudulent conveyance and alter ego claims. In addition, the plaintiff raises an evidentiary issue. We affirm.

Nashville Lodging Company and G.P. Credit Company, LLC appeal the action of the trial court in which the trial judge having previously granted Appellants' motion for summary judgment as to liability in this breach of contract action decided all issues as to damages in favor of Appellees. We affirm the action of the trial court.

Action by corporation for judgment on promissory notes representing loans made to partnership resulted in Judgment against defendant partner for one-half of amount of the loans plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal we affirm.

The plaintiff A.D. Doe for himself and his daughter M.A. Doe sued the Sheriff of Knox County and the County itself for damages when M.A. Doe was allegedly raped by a deputy sheriff. The complaint alleged that the sheriff was liable on his bond and on his oath of office and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-302 imposed liability on the County because the deputy was acting “by virtue of or under color of the office.” The Circuit Court of Knox County dismissed the complaint against the Sheriff and the County for the failure to state a claim. We affirm.

This is a claim for unemployment benefits. The claimant was terminated from her employment at the defendant business. Her separation notice indicated that she was terminated for improper conduct and having a disrespectful attitude. Subsequently, the claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The agency denied benefits. The claimant appealed. The appellate tribunal conducted a telephonic hearing and affirmed the denial of benefits. The claimant filed the instant petition for judicial review, claiming that the administrative proceedings were so fundamentally flawed that her procedural due process rights were violated. The trial court denied the petition and affirmed the denial of benefits. The claimant now appeals. We affirm, finding that the claimant’s due process rights were not violated, and that there is substantial and material  evidence to support the denial of benefits.
 

This is a will contest case. Patricia Henderson Jolley and Howard E. Henderson, Jr. (collectively "the Contestants") appeal the chancery court's judgment that they do not have standing to contest their father's will. The Contestants contend that the chancery court erred in addressing the issue of their standing and in other ways. They argue that their stepmother, Wanda K. Henderson ("the Executrix"), failed to raise the standing issue and, as a consequence, waived it. They also rely on alleged procedural errors and contend that they do have standing. We affirm.

In this case it is argued that the Trial Court erred in approving the decision of the Appellees, the City of Maryville and the City Council for the City of Maryville, to issue certificates of compliance to three applicants as a precondition to each such applicant securing a license to operate a retail liquor store from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand

This is a an action for damages under FELA wherein the Plaintiff claimed that he was negligently exposed to toxic chemicals in the workplace. The Defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defense of the three-year statute of limitations, to which the discovery rule was applicable. This issue was bifurcated and tried separately, to the same jury, which found in favor of the Plaintiff. On the issues of liability, causation, and damages [the second phase of the trial] the jury found in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that the issue of the statute of limitation should not have been bifurcated, that the court should have directed a verdict for the Plaintiff on account of OSHA violations, and the exclusion-admission of expert testimony. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court granted Mother's petition for conservatorship of the parties' disabled son; enforced MDA provision requiring Father to pay child support beyond child attaining age of majority; increased Father's child support obligation; and ordered Father to continue to maintain life and disability insurance. We affirm.

This case involves the attachment of a mobile home and its subsequent transport to a storage facility. The Appellee sued out an attachment on the Appellants’ mobile home to secure payment of past rent due on a tenancy at Appellee’s trailer park. Appellee had the mobile home transported after it was attached and Appellants sued Appellee for damages to the mobile home. The Shelby County General Sessions Court found in favor of Appellants, and Appellee appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court found in favor of Appellee, and Appellants now appeal to this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
 

Conservator brought action to recover assets for the Estate of Carolyn Brown which had been given to defendant by Brown. The Chancellor invoked the constructive trust doctrine and ordered assets returned to the Estate. On appeal, we affirm.
 

In 2001, the trial court entered an order ("the 2001 order") awarding the State of Tennessee ex rel. Laura Fabrizio ("the State") a child support arrearage of $9,785. Subsequently, the same court, by order entered March 25, 2003, confirmed a referee's "Findings and Recommendations" adding interest of $2,152.70 to the original award. Richard R. Cadmus ("Father") seeks to go behind the 2001 order in an attempt to invalidate it on a number of grounds. The State, on the other hand, complains that the interest calculated by the referee and approved by the trial court is incorrect. We find no basis in the record submitted to us for disturbing the trial court's last order. Accordingly, we affirm.

Stefan Olaru filed an action for malpractice against his former attorney, Steven D. Brown. The trial court dismissed the complaint based upon the defendant's plea of a discharge in bankruptcy. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Trial Court held defendant’s purchase money security interest in cattle had priority over
plaintiffs’ prior security interest. On appeal, we affirm.

The trial court awarded Appellee recision of a contract for purchase of an automobile. We affirm.

This appeal involves an action for breach of an oral contract to pump out a swimming pool. The Circuit Court for Wilson County conducted a bench trial and awarded the plaintiff a judgment against both the owner of the pool and the affiliate real estate broker who requested the work. We have concluded that the evidence does not support the judgment against the property owner but affirm the judgment against the broker.

This cause is a civil suit for damages against Gary and Cynthia Mann resulting from Cynthia Mann's embezzlement of funds totaling $550,000.00 from the law firm of Marks, Shell, and Maness. The trial court found Mr. and Mrs. Mann jointly and severably liable for the loss. Mr. Mann appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

This appeal involves competing claims for breach of contract. J.W. Gibson d/b/a J.W. Gibson Company ("Defendant"), entered into an oral contract with Pratt Masonry Company ("Pratt Masonry") for Pratt Masonry to furnish masonry work on a house. When the work was completed, Defendant refused to pay, claiming the masonry work was so defective that all the bricks had to be removed and replaced. Pratt Masonry filed suit seeking payment for the work performed under the oral contract. Defendant counterclaimed for damages incurred in having to remove and replace the bricks. The Trial Court concluded Pratt Masonry breached the contract by performing  substandard masonry work, but Defendant failed to prove it was necessary to remove and replace all the bricks. Both parties appeal. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the procedures for returning a formerly disabled police officer to work. After the Employee Benefit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County determined that the former officer was no longer disabled, the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department directed him to report to a 13-week training class. Fearing that he could lose both his disability pension and his job if he failed the training class, the officer filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department lacked the authority to require him to complete the training class before returning him to work. The trial court determined that requiring the officer to complete the training class before returning him to active duty was not inconsistent with Nashville's charter or ordinances. The officer perfected this appeal. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the Department has the authority to require the officer to complete the training before returning him to active duty.

This case involves the rights of a survivor in a joint bank account. During her lifetime, the decedent sold certain real property, put the proceeds in a separate bank account, and executed a will leaving half of the proceeds to her niece. The bank account in which the proceeds were deposited was a joint account between the decedent and her brother. The brother had power of attorney over the decedent's affairs and was the named executor in the her will. After the decedent died, the decedent's will was admitted to probate. The brother, as executor, filed a petition asking for instructions as to the proper disposition of the money in the joint bank account. The trial court held that, when the funds were placed in the joint bank account, the bequest to the niece was adeemed and the funds were no longer a part of the decedent's estate. Therefore, the trial court determined that the brother, as the joint account holder with a right of survivorship, was entitled to all of the proceeds. The named beneficiary now appeals. We reverse, concluding that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the bank account was a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship.