APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff, Deborah H. Steele (“Steele”), brought this action against her former employer, Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc. (“Superior”), and her former supervisor, David Twombley (“Twombley”)1, alleging that she was the victim of, among other things, sexual  harassment, outrageous conduct, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. After various other claims were dismissed by the trial court², the case proceeded to trial before a jury on Steele’s claim of sexual harassment against both Superior and Twombley under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq. (“THRA”), and her claim of outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against Twombley alone. The jury found in favor of Steele on all of the remaining theories of recovery and awarded her $1.2 million in compensatory  damages and $60,000 in punitive damages. The trial court also awarded Steele attorney’s fees and costs against both defendants. After Steele  accepted a remittitur that eliminated the punitive damages award and reduced the compensatory damages award to $850,000, both Superior and Twombley appealed, raising in substance the following issues for our consideration:

1. Did the trial court err in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony from witnesses who did not have first-hand knowledge of the events in question?

2. Did Steele’s counsel make improper and prejudicial statements during closing argument, thus warranting a new trial?

3. Is there material evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict?

4. Did the trial court err in submitting to the jury Steele’s cause of action against Twombley under the THRA?5. Did the trial court err in giving the jury an inaccurate charge, thereby prejudicing its verdict against Twombley?

6. Did the trial court err in not suggesting a further remittitur of the jury’s verdict?

7. Did the trial court err in awarding attorney’s fees against Twombley under the THRA?

The plaintiff sued for injury suffered when she stepped into a hole in the asphalt surface of a parking lot provided for customers of Kroger Company. Kroger was dismissed by nonsuit, and the remaining defendants were dismissed by summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed and presented the following issue:

I. Whether a genuine issue of material fact has been raised by the plaintiff/appellant, so as to warrant this cause to be tried on its merits.

This is a divorce case. The trial court granted Lori Vanhooser Robertson (“Wife”) a divorce on the ground set forth at T.C.A. § 36-4-101(3)1; awarded the parties joint custody of their 16-year-old son; ordered Gary Wayne Robertson (“Husband”) to pay Wife child support of $387 per month plus 21% of part of Husband’s future increases in net income; awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony of $250 per month for 12 months, beginning with the month of October, 1997; divided the parties’ property and debts; denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees; and made other decrees not relevant to a resolution of the issues now before us. Wife appealed, raising issues that present the following questions for our review.

In this divorce case, the defendant husband has appealed from a decree awarding the plaintiff a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences and dividing the marital estate. The husband has presented the issues in the following form:
1. The Trial Court rushed the trial, making it difficult for the defendant/appellant to fully present his case.
2. The Trial Court erred by awarding the plaintiff/appellee an interest in the defendant/appellant’s
separate property.
3. The Trial Court erred in refusing to make any division in marital property that was held solely in the plaintiff/appellee’s name.
4. The Trial Court erred in awarding the divorce to the plaintiff/appellee despite overwhelming grounds in favor of the defendant/appellant.

We granted the Rule 9, T.R.A.P., application of the appellant, Brent D. Laing, M.D. (“Laing”), in order to review the propriety of the trial court’s denial of Laing’s motion to amend his answer filed in litigation instituted against him and others by the appellee, Brenda J. Crowder, M.D. (“Crowder”). In the same order, we consolidated that interlocutory appeal with the appeal of Laing’s separate suit against Crowder, which latter appeal is before us as of right. See Rule 3(a), T.R.A.P. The claims asserted by Laing in the second suit are identical to those in the counterclaim which Laing attempted to pursue, albeit unsuccessfully, in the earlier litigation. We reverse the trial court’s denial of Laing’s motion to amend in the first suit. We dismiss, as moot, the appeal of Laing’s subsequent suit against Crowder.

I concur with the results of this opinion. However, I am filing this separate opinion to clarify my understanding of the significance of the portion of the decision dealing with the need of the parties’ daughter for continuing support past her eighteenth birthday.

In this divorce case, Mary C. Williams, hereafter “wife” has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court awarding her a divorce from Si J. Williams, hereafter “husband,” custody, child support, alimony, insurance, fees and division of property.

I concur with the results of this opinion. However, I am filing this separate
opinion to clarify my understanding of the significance of the portion of the decision
dealing with the need of the parties’ daughter for continuing support past her
eighteenth birthday.

This is a legal malpractice case. The malpractice action arose out of a lender liability lawsuit that was dismissed by the trial court because it had not been filed within the limitations period. Dismissal of the underlying lawsuit was affirmed on appeal by the Middle Section of this Court. Wilkins v. Third National Bank in Nashville, 884 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. App. 1994), cert. denied, (Sept. 26, 1994). While not in the record before us, the facts of the underlying lawsuit contained in the aforementioned decision of the Middle Section will be helpful in understanding the facts of this appeal.

Plaintiff Lanny McCormack appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court in this dissolution of partnership case. In its final judgment, the trial court ordered Defendant/Appellee Zollie McCormack to pay Lanny McCormack $137,453 for all of the latter’s right, title, and interest in the McCormack Farms partnership. On appeal, Lanny McCormack has raised only one issue for this court’s review: whether the trial court, which previously had adopted a special master’s report, erred when it ruled that Lanny’s interest in the partnership would be resolved in a manner which was not one of three options set forth in the special master’s report. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Following an in camera proceeding, the trial court declared the parties divorced, and awarded the real property at issue to the husband. The wife filed a Motion to Alter and Amend, which resulted in a new hearing, and a new decree whereby the real property was equally divided between the parties. The husband claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in re-opening the case after his initial decree. We affirm the trial court, but we amend its final order to make sure there is no doubt that the parties have been legally divorced.

The Hickman County Road Superintendent filed a declaratory judgment action to ascertain if an old cemetery road across the defendants’ property was a public road. The Chancery Court of Hickman County ruled that the road was not a public road but that the defendants’ property was subject to an easement created in a deed in their chain of title. Since the court granted relief that no one had sought, to individuals not parties to the action, we reverse.

The trial court granted the parties a divorce, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife permanent alimony. On appeal, the husband contends that the court should have adjusted the property settlement to take the wife’s post-separation dissipation of marital assets into account, and that it should have placed some limitations on the alimony award. We agree, and we modify the decree to incorporate the necessary changes.

Following an in camera proceeding, the trial court declared the parties divorced, and awarded the real property at issue to the husband. The wife filed a Motion to Alter and Amend, which resulted in a new hearing, and a new decree whereby the real property was equally divided between the parties. The husband claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in re-opening the case after his initial decree. We affirm the trial court, but we amend its final order to make sure there is no doubt that the parties have been legally divorced.

Defendant Charles E. Campbell (Husband) appeals the final decree of divorce entered by the trial court which distributed the parties’ property and ordered Husband to pay child support and alimony to Plaintiff/Appellee Brenda S. Cunningham Campbell (Wife). On appeal from the final decree, Husband contends that the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in imputing income of $2,000 per month to Husband for purposes of calculating his child support obligation; (2) in allocating to Husband a $2,600 debt with the Hardin County Bank; (3) in awarding Wife the marital home valued at $44,000; and (4) in awarding Wife $150 per month and other amounts as alimony. We affirm.

This case involves restrictive employment covenants. The plaintiff and the defendant are both private security companies. The trial court granted the plaintiff a restraining order enjoining the defendant from inducing former employees to breach the restrictive covenants in other states, from misrepresenting facts concerning the enforceability of the covenants, or from litigating or assisting others in litigating in other states regarding the enforceability of the restrictive covenants. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

This appeal involves a motion to modify an alimony award. Appellant, Thomas Henry Campbell (Husband), appeals from the Chancellor’s order denying his motion to modify alim

This appeal involves a petition for grandparent visitation filed by plaintiff, Regina Ellison, paternal grandmother of Garrett Ellison and Ethan Wayne Ellison, minor children of defendant, Cherri Ellison, and Terry Ellison, deceased. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial 2 court granted visitation. Cherri Ellison (Mother) has appealed and presents the following issues for review as stated in her brief:
1. Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306 is unconstitutional because it authorizes courts to order grandparent visitation upon a finding that such visitation is in the “best interest” of the child without first requiring the finding of a danger of substantial harm to the child.
2. Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s award of visitation rights to the appellee.

This case involves the efforts of the State of Tennessee on relation of Deborah D. Willis, former wife of Cecil Willis, Jr., to obtain the revocation of a surrender executed by him surrendering his three children, Deborah May, Pamela R. and Andrew V. for adoption. The Juvenile Judge, who witnessed the surrenders, later entertained the petition to revoke and ordered the surrenders to be revoked. The respondent, Cecil Willis, Jr., has appealed to this Court, presenting the following issue: I. Whether a Trial Court has authority to revoke a “surrender of Child” by the natural father directly to the natural mother and stepfather almost four (4) years after its execution. Furthermore, whether a surrender simply becomes void after the passing of 120 days when an adoption has not yet occurred.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Plaintiff Virginia Lynn Woolsey appeals the trial court’s order removing Jennifer McPherson from her custody and placing the child in the custody of Defendant Douglas Harmon McPherson. McPherson appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay the $15,000 fee of the Guardian ad Litem. We affirm in all respects.