APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiff’s residential property in Hamilton County was sold for delinquent property taxes after default judgment was entered against Plaintiff, the property owner. Plaintiff brought suit against the subsequent tax sale purchaser, and others, to set aside the default judgment and sale, asserting process had not been served properly on him in the delinquent tax suit. The Trial Court found that certified mail return receipts signed by Plaintiff’s wife were sufficient proof of service under T.R.C.P. 4.04(10) and T.C.A. § 67-5-2415(e)(1), and granted summary judgment to the tax sale purchaser of the property and the other Defendants. Plaintiff argues on appeal that he was not served properly with process, first arguing that he was not served at all and then arguing that the statutory service procedure relied upon by the Trial Court violates due process. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. 

Following entry of judgment on a jury verdict, the Trial Court granted Defendants a new trial based upon allegations in the affidavit of one of the jurors. Plaintiff was granted interlocutory appeal limited to whether or not the Trial Court erred in granting Defendants’ Motion For New Trial based
on the information contained in the juror’s affidavit submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion For New Trial. Because the affidavit does not fall under any of the three exceptions to exclusion of juror testimony found in T.R.E. 606(b), the Trial Court erred in accepting the affidavit
into evidence on the issue of a new trial. No other evidence supported Defendants’ motion for new trial. Because no admissible evidence was properly before the Court, the Order for new trial is reversed and this lawsuit remanded for enforcement of the judgment previously entered on the verdict of the jury. 

The plaintiff, a mid-level executive of the Town of Oliver Springs, “borrowed” various sums of money from a citizen of the Town over a three-year period which she repaid with sexual favors. When this activity came to light she was fired by the Mayor and City Administrator. Her suit, claiming breach of contract and discriminatory employment practices, was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed
 

Judge Franks.
The majority affirms the Trial Judge’s summary dismissal of plaintiff’s action, and
I concur in the affirmance of the dismissal on the basis that plaintiff was either estopped or has
waived her right to maintain this action.

This appeal arises from a dispute over whether Defendant Robert Shropshire personally guaranteed the debts of Defendant Inn-Way, Inc., to Plaintiff Custom Interiors & Supply Company, Inc. Custom Interiors sued Inn-Way to recover the sum of $54,537.30 for orders placed by Inn-Way after October 1996. Custom Interiors also sued Inn-Way’s president and owner, Robert Shropshire, contending that Shropshire had personally guaranteed Inn-Way’s debts to Custom Interiors. After Inn-Way filed for bankruptcy protection, Custom Interiors proceeded to trial against Shropshire. The trial court entered a judgment finding that Custom Interiors had failed to carry its burden of proof and that Shropshire was not a personal guarantor of Inn-Way’s debts to Custom Interiors. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against these findings. 

This appeal arises from a dispute over whether a commercial lease was renewed. After lessors notified lessee that the lease had not been renewed, lessee filed for declaratory judgment on the issue of whether renewal notice was given timely, asserting an alternative ground of equitable relief from performance under the “special circumstances” doctrine. Lessors asserted the equitable maxim of unclean hands, averring that lessee created false evidence to attempt to establish timely compliance with the lease renewal requirement. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the Chancellor entered judgment for lessee based upon the finding of “special circumstances” to excuse untimely performance by lessee, noting that issues of material fact exist as to timely notice. On this appeal, lessors allege error by the Chancellor’s award of equitable relief without resolving the unclean hands issue, along with error in the finding of “special circumstances,” and error in denying lessors’ counterclaim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Because resolution of the issue of whether or not renewal notice was given timely is both necessary and dispostive of all other issues raised in this lawsuit, the order of the Chancellor awarding summary judgment to lessee is reversed, and this lawsuit remanded for trial.