Tom R. Smith v. Thomas Harding Potter
Appellant and Appellee are both licensed attorneys practicing in the State of Tennessee. This appeal arises from Appellant's efforts to recover money owed by Appellee on two promissory notes. The trial court found that the promissory notes were executed in recognition of Appellee's debt under two lease agreements. The court concluded that the lease agreements called for fee-splitting between attorneys in violation of Rule 1.5(e) of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. We do not address the merits of the trial court's conclusion on this question. Instead, we find that no final judgment exists in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pugh's Lawn Landscape Company, Inc. v. Jaycon Development Corporation
This is an appeal of the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of Appellee. The arbitration agreement entered between Appellant and Appellee permitted either party to appeal the arbitrator’s decision directly to this Court. The agreement specified that this Court would conduct a de novo review of the arbitrator’s decision as if it had been reached by the trial court. We find that Tennessee’s arbitration statutes do not permit the parties to expand the scope of judicial review. Accordingly, we apply the standard of review specified in the statute and affirm the trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Coleman Management, Inc v. David Meyer, James W. Rayner, Richard D. Baker, Rose McKee, and NCF Associates
This is an action to recover a real estate commission. The defendants are the general partners of a partnership that owned a single asset, an apartment complex. In 1992, the partnership filed a reorganization petition in bankruptcy. The partnership hired the plaintiff real estate agency to sell the apartment complex while it was in bankruptcy. After a hearing to establish the value of the property, the bankruptcy court permitted the partnership to buy back the property for $9.8 million. Soon after the bankruptcy plan was confirmed, however, the partnership, through the plaintiff real estate agency, contracted to sell the property to a third party for $12.5 million. Upon discovering this, the bankruptcy court permitted the sale to the third party to take place for $12.5 million, but it ordered that the excess proceeds of the sale be placed in escrow. When the escrow funds were released, the plaintiff real estate agency did not receive its commission on the sale of the property. Consequently, the real estate agency filed this lawsuit against the general partners to recover its commission. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations and on the equitable doctrine of “unclean hands.” The trial court denied the motion and awarded the plaintiff real estate agency the commission sought plus prejudgment interest. The defendants now appeal. We affirm, finding that the lawsuit was timely filed, that the trial court did not err in declining to apply the unclean hands doctrine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Leann Smith v. Leona M. Pratt, Executrix of The Estate of Stephen M. Pratt, M.D., Deceased, and HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc. d/b/a Centennial Medical Center
Patient sued her surgeon for malpractice and the hospital for allowing the surgeon to practice in its facilities. The trial court ruled that the hospital was not eligible for the qualified immunity provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d)(1). We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Leann Smith v. Leona M. Pratt, Executrix of The Estate of Stephen M. Pratt, M.D., Deceased, and HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc. /d/b/a Centennial Medical Center - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Sanders v. Henry County, Tennessee
This appeal involves a statutory retaliatory discharge claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the employee failed to establish that he had refused to participate in or remain silent about “illegal activities,” within the meaning of the statute. The employee appeals. We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel E. Gremillion, M.D. v. Nashville Gastrointestenal Specialists, Inc.
This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a buy-out provision. One of the four physicians in a medical practice retired and requested a repurchase of his stock. The physicians had previously adopted a formula for the valuation of stock in such situations, but when it came time to apply the agreement, they could not agree as to the meaning of several phrases within the agreement. The trial court heard testimony regarding the parties’ intentions as to the agreement and testimony from two accountants regarding their interpretations of the agreement. After interpreting the various phrases of the agreement, the trial court valued the physician’s stock and awarded prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent since the date of the physician’s retirement. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to the meaning of the agreement and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Bryant v. Henry Klein
Personal injury plaintiffs filed suit against defendant motorist, who died prior to the filing of the suit, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. By special appearance, the deceased tortfeasor’s estate filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs had not properly instituted the action against the decedent in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-103 prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, but granted the estate a direct appeal to this Court. Finding error in the judgment below, we reverse and remand the case. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Richard V. Fuller, et al. v. John Dennie Crabtree, Jr., M.D.
A doctor who earlier submitted an affidavit in this medical malpractice action and who also participated in the peer review process at the defendant doctor’s hospital entered an appearance as plaintiffs’ counsel. The trial court declined the defendant doctor’s request to have the physician/attorney disqualified as plaintiffs’ counsel. After considering the issue on interlocutory appeal, we reverse and find that the physician/attorney is disqualified and may not represent plaintiffs. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Harold R. Gunn and Patsy R. Gunn
This is an appeal from the grant of a voluntary dismissal. The plaintiff homeowners’ association sued the defendants in general sessions court for dues owed. The homeowners’ association was awarded a judgment. The defendants appealed to the circuit court below, seeking a de novo hearing. For several years, the appeal remained pending with no activity. In the meantime, the defendants sold the subject property. The judgment due to the homeowners’ association was paid by the purchaser of the subject property to remove any cloud on the title. Having been paid, the homeowners’ association filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment in the circuit court. The defendants filed a motion to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. The circuit court entered an order dismissing the defendants’ appeal. The circuit court later denied the defendants’ motion to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. From that order, the defendants now appeal. We find that the circuit court order is not final and appealable. Therefore, we dismiss the defendants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Brennon Harville and Jimmy Harville, Sr.
The State filed this action to terminate the parental rights of both parents to their three minor children. Upon hearing the evidence, the Trial Judge terminated the parental rights of both parents on several grounds. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Jackie Jackson, Administrator of the Estate of Karon Jackson v. Johnny Joyner, M.D., et al.
The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude portions of Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition testimony and awarded Defendants summary judgment. We vacate the award of summary judgment, reverse the trial court’s order excluding testimony of the expert witness, and remand for further proceedings. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Cortney Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner filed a Petition styled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” which the trial court treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. We affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the petition, but on the basis that the petition was not supported by oath or affirmation nor does it state that it is the first application for a writ. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: B.L.S.C., D.L.S., & D.J.C.
Mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her three children based upon four separate grounds. Finding clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s determinations on the grounds of mental incompetence and persistence of conditions, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Seramur vs. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, brought this action to enforce an employment contract for benefits allegedly due under the contract. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that a provision in the employment contract to which the parties originally agreed to, was an unenforceable contract, as the provision amounted to an agreement to agree and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Gerry Gallimore, et al. v. Reba Gallimore
This case involves a dispute between a decedent’s ex-wife and the decedent’s heirs. When the decedent and the ex-wife divorced, their marital dissolution agreement provided that the decedent would receive certain real property. When the decedent died four years later, the ex-wife had not executed a quitclaim deed conveying her interest in the property to the decedent. Therefore, the heirs filed this action to quiet title. The ex-wife claimed that the decedent wanted her to retain her interest in the property, and she claimed that the heirs were barred from seeking relief under the doctrines of laches and waiver. The trial court found in favor of the heirs, and the ex-wife appeals. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Mendy Joan Hagler v. Joel Scott Hagler
In this divorce case the Trial Judge granted the parties a divorce and divided the marital estate. The husband appealed on the grounds that a house awarded to the wife was not a marital asset, and otherwise questioned the property and division of the indebtedness of the marital estate. On appeal we affirm, as modified, the modification being that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Judge finding that the father had awarded his son a collection of firearms. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Sameh Akladyous, et al. v. GTech Corporation, et al.
This is an appeal from the granting of a summary judgment to Gtech Corporation and Specialized Communications Companies, Inc., relating to the installation of a satellite antenna on the roof of A&S Market located in Davidson County, Tennessee. The market burned and the owners brought suit alleging that the negligent installation of the satellite antenna caused the fire. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground the negligence alleged by the market owners was not the legal cause of the fire. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: D.C.A.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of the father of an eleven year old boy on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay child support. The father admitted that he did not pay the child support ordered by the court, but claimed that his failure was not willful. He argued that his record as a convicted felon prevented him from finding and holding steady employment, thus rendering him unable to pay any support at all. However, the record shows that Father was able-bodied and did in fact work at a number of jobs after his felony conviction. We accordingly affirm the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Edwina Montgomery ex rel. Thomas M. Montgomery v. Kali Orexi, LLC, et al.
In this wrongful death action, Edwina Montgomery (“the Plaintiff”), individually and as the surviving spouse of Thomas M. Montgomery (“the Deceased”), brought suit under the Tennessee Dram Shop Act (“the Dram Shop Act” or “the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 57-10-101 and 102 (2002). The Plaintiff also sued for negligence and negligence per se.1 The Plaintiff sued Kali Orexi, LLC, which operates under the trade name of Gondolier Italian Restaurant and Pizza (“Gondolier”). Gondolier moved for summary judgment, which was granted as to all theories of recovery. We affirm the summary judgment on what appears to be an issue of first impression. We hold that Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 57-10-101 and 102 (2002) apply to third parties and do not authorize an action against a seller of an “alcoholic beverage or beer” by or on behalf of the supplied, or “first” party. Since the Dram Shop Act does not address first parties, its enactment leaves the law as to first parties as it existed before the Act’s enactment. In addition, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court correctly held that the injuries to the Deceased were not foreseeable; thus, Gondolier owed the Deceased no duty. Furthermore, even if a duty were owed, it was not breached. The question whether the actions of the Deceased and a taxi driver, who was paid by Gondolier to take the intoxicated Deceased home, were intervening and superseding causes that relieve Gondolier of liability are not addressed since we hold that the Plaintiff had no cause of action under the Dram Shop Act or for common law negligence. Accordingly, we affirm.2 |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Lynn Simmons v. Richard Lee Simmons
Husband appeals two convictions of contempt of court and sentence of two days incarceration for each finding of contempt. Finding no error on the part of the trial court, we affirm the convictions. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re S.R.M.
This appeal involves a petition filed by the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services, to terminate the parental rights of a biological father to his now ten-year-old daughter. The Juvenile Court granted the petition and the father has appealed. After carefully reviewing the record and relevant legal authority, we affirm the Juvenile Court’s finding of abandonment and the judgment terminating the father’s parental rights. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Richmond and wife, Darlene Richmond v. HSBC Bank, USA, as trustee
Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin enforcement of a detainer judgment and to nullify a foreclosure on their home on the basis that defendant failed to offer the property for sale at the courthouse door, in accordance with the notice of foreclosure. The Trial Court held plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations and found the foreclosure sale was properly held. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Ron Henry, et al. v. Cherokee Construction & Supply Company, Inc.
Ron Henry and Linda Henry (“Plaintiffs”) sued Cherokee Construction and Supply Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging damages sustained when a wall in the home that Defendant constructed for Plaintiffs collapsed. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court entered an order finding and holding that Plaintiffs’ claim was barred by the four year statute of repose contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-201, et seq., and granting Defendant summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Billie Gail Hall, as Surviving Spouse of Billy R. Hall v. Douglas B. Haynes, JR., M.D. and Medsouth Healthcare, P.C.
This appeal involves authority to accept service of process. The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant corporation and its employee, the defendant physician. The plaintiffs attempted to serve process in person on both the corporation and the physician at the corporation’s business address. Service was accepted on behalf of the physician by a co-worker, who was not specifically authorized to accept service for him. Service was accepted on behalf of the corporation by an employee of the corporation who was not an officer, managing agent, or chief agent, and who was not specifically authorized to accept service for the corporation. Both defendants received a copy of the summons and complaint. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint and attempted to serve both defendants via certified mail. The return receipts for both defendants were signed by an employee of the corporation who was not an officer, managing agent, or chief agent of the corporation, and was not specifically authorized to accept service of process on behalf of either the physician or the corporation. The employee who signed the return receipts was, however, authorized to sign for certified mail. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based in part on insufficiency of service of process. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, relying on this Court’s decision in Boles v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., No. M1999-00727-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1030837 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2000). The defendants were granted permission for interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the defendant physician argues that service on him was not effective because he was not personally served and because the persons who accepted service on his behalf were not authorized to do so. The defendant corporation argues that service on it was not effective because neither the corporation’s registered agent nor its administrator were served and the persons who accepted service on the corporation’s behalf were not authorized to do so. After reconsidering the analysis in Boles, we reverse the trial court’s decision, finding that service was not effective on either defendant and the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals |
