Warbington Construction, Inc. vs. Franklin Landmark, LLC M2000-00676-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves the vacating of an arbitration award by the court below. The trial court applied nonstatutory grounds to vacate the decision of the arbitrator. Because we decline to adopt the nonstatutory grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, we reverse.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Dale Conrad McQuiston vs. Thomas Ward, Sheriff of Perry County M2001-00201-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
Dale Conrad McQuiston filed a pleading entitled "Writ of Replevin" wherein he sought to recover $1,000 cash and various items of personal property which were alleged to have been seized by the defendant Thomas Ward, Sheriff of Perry County, Tennessee. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm on the basis that Mr. McQuiston's suit was barred by the three year statute of limitations set forth in section 28-3-105 of the Tennessee Code Annotated.
Perry
Court of Appeals
Thomas Fulbright vs. Bevans Fulbright E2000-02040-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
Thomas Fulbright ("Husband") filed for divorce alleging inappropriate marital conduct on the part of Bevans Ramsey Fulbright ("Wife"). Wife filed a counter-claim seeking a divorce on the same basis. The Trial Court granted both parties a divorce, divided the marital property, awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony, and granted primary physical custody of the three minor children to Wife. Husband appeals all of these determinations, and Wife appeals the Trial Court's refusal to award her attorney fees. We affirm as modified.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Patricia Williams vs. Canada Life vs. James Williams/Deborah Elg W2000-03096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
The plaintiff's husband died from a single gunshot wound to his chest which occurred while the two were alone in their home. By whose hand he died was the sole issue at both the trial and on appeal. If the plaintiff's husband shot himself, as she claims, she receives the proceeds from an insurance policy on his life. However, if she shot and killed her husband, as his adult children assert, they receive the insurance proceeds. Following the trial, the chancery court concluded that the death occurred as the result of a suicide. The defendants appealed, arguing that the presumption against suicide compels the conclusion that their father was shot to death by the plaintiff, their stepmother. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court that the death occurred as the result of a suicide.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Gatlinburg Airport Authority, Inc. vs. Ross B. Summitt, et al E2000-02646-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
An electrical transmission line owned and maintained by TVA is located about 1000 feet from the eastern end of the runway at the airport owned and operated by the Gatlinburg Airport Authority [GAA]. The transmission line was constructed before the Airport was established. The two have coexisted without mishap, and no official publication, State or Federal, warns of any danger to aircraft posed by the transmission line. However, because of the transmission line, 360 feet of the runway cannot be used by aircraft landing or taking off. The GAA, after 35 years, concluded that the transmission line was an airport hazard. TVA is immune from suit, but agreed to relocate its transmission line if GAA would acquire the necessary easement over lands of the defendants. The trial court dismissed the eminent domain action, holding that (1) the plaintiffs should seek relief against TVA if the transmission line is hazardous, (2) the line is not hazardous, (3) there is no necessity to remove the line, (4) the attempted condemnation is arbitrary and capricious. The judgment is vacated.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Dennis Plemons, et al vs. Larry Moses, et al E2000-02781-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Dennis Plemons ("Plaintiff") leased the Crossroads Market to Larry Moses ("Defendant") pursuant to a five-year lease. Prior to the expiration of the lease, Plaintiff found new tenants willing to pay significantly more to lease the property. Plaintiff informed Defendant about the new potential tenants and gave Defendant the opportunity to continue leasing the property if he would pay this higher rent. Defendant declined to lease the property for this increased amount. Plaintiff allowed Defendant to continue leasing the property until the new tenants were ready to assume possession of the property. When the new tenants were ready to assume possession, Defendant refused to vacate the premises claiming that he was a holdover tenant and entitled to possession of the property under a year-to-year tenancy after the expiration of the lease. The Circuit Court held that a new month-to- month tenancy had been created and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to possession. We affirm.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
William P. Livingston, Jr. vs. Mike Hayes, et al E2000-01619-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamblen County, the Plaintiff/Appellant, William P. Livingston, Jr., questions whether the Trial Court erred in entering a summary judgment dismissing his action for libel against the Defendants/Appellees, Mike Hayes, et al. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for collection of costs below. We adjudge costs of the appeal against Mr. Livingston and his surety.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
E2000-01823-COA-R3-CV E2000-01823-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John L. Kiener
Washington
Court of Appeals
Karen Garrett Humphries vs. David Alison Humphries E2000-02912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
In this divorce case, the trial court classified the parties' property, following which it divided the marital property, but declined to order spousal support. The husband appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in classifying the increase in value of his separate property as marital property; (2) that the division of the marital property was not equitable; and (3) that the trial court erred in assigning, without classifying, the wife's credit card debt to the husband. By way of a separate issue, the wife argues that she is entitled to an award of alimony. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
David Melvin York, et ux vs. Vulcan Materials CO. vs. Transcontinental Insurance Company E2000-02528-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
Contractor sought recovery from subcontractor's insurance carrier for moneys paid to a third party who had sued contractor and subcontractor in tort. The Trial Court ordered recovery under the policy. Insurance Company appealed. We affirm.
Rhonda Lowrimore vs. Certified Industries, Inc. M1998-00938-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves an award of front pay damages in a retaliatory discharge case. An employee who had been injured on the job five times in less than two years filed a retaliatory discharge suit in the Circuit Court for Lewis County alleging that her employer had discharged her in retaliation for her workers' compensation claims. A jury awarded the employee $10,390 in back pay and $20,000 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the trial court determined that reinstatement was not feasible and awarded the employee an additional $36,327 in front pay. On this appeal, the employer challenges the front pay award on two grounds. First, it asserts that the employee was not entitled to front pay. Second, it asserts that if the employee is entitled to front pay, the amount of front pay awarded by the trial court is too high. We have determined that the trial court correctly determined that the employee is entitled to front pay. However, we have also determined that front pay award must be reduced to $25,429 because of an error in the trial court's computations.
Lewis
Court of Appeals
Rachel Rice vs. Lee Rice M1998-00973-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves the dissolution of a four-year marriage. Both parties requested the Circuit Court for Davidson County to grant them a divorce. On the day of trial, the parties stipulated that they should be declared divorced and agreed upon the division of their modest marital estate. Accordingly, the trial court heard proof regarding child custody and child support as well as the wife's request for rehabilitative spousal support. The trial court gave sole custody of the parties' child to the wife and directed the husband to pay $570 per month in child support, as well as all the child's healthcare expenses not covered by insurance. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay the wife $250 per month in rehabilitative support for twenty-four months. On this appeal, the husband takes issue with the trial court's decisions to grant the wife sole custody of the parties' child, to require him to pay the child's medical expenses not covered by insurance, and to pay the wife $250 per month in spousal support for twenty-four months. We have determined that the trial court's decisions are amply supported by the record, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Plaintiff, Sheila Faye Hagen McCall Barnett (Wife), and defendant, Ronald Edward Barnett, Sr. (Husband), were divorced by decree entered January 9, 1997. Husband appeals and presents issues concerning property division, alimony, and attorney’s fees.
Brian Bottoms, Sr., and Amy Bottoms have appealed from the judgment of the Juvenile Court, terminating their parental rights in respect to Brian Scott Bottoms, aged 7, Israel Vaughn Bottoms, aged 5, and Elijah Keane Bottoms, aged 2, and placing them in the legal guardianship of AGAPE with the right to place them for adoption.
The captioned executors filed this suit to recover damages for the wrongful death of 88 year old Leslie H. Little, deceased, who lost his life in a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of North Main Street and Colloredo Boulevard in Shelbyville, Bedford County, Tennessee. Movement of traffic through the intersection was controlled by the multicolored lights of an ordinary traffic control signal. Several
I concur in the conclusion that paragraph 17 of the lease was not triggered by the sale from the lessors to MDHA. I am also of the opinion that the critical sentence beginning with “All damages awarded for such taking . . .” refers to a partial taking, because the damages are described later in the sentence as “compensation for diminution in value to the leasehold or to the fee of the property herein leased.” A taking of the whole would not diminish the value of the leasehold or the fee; it would extinguish the leasehold and the fee and replace them with a monetary award.
This is a post-divorce custody proceeding. Jean Kelly Fisher Wallace (“mother”) was granted a divorce in the Chancery Court of Shelby County from Richard Edward Wallace (“father”) in May, 1992. Mother was awarded custody of the parties’ minor child, Caroline. In April, 1995, father filed a petition to change legal custody from mother to father. Following a bench trial, the court denied the relief sought by father and permitted custody to remain with mother. The court delayed its decision for six months, principally to allow mother the opportunity to make changes in two aspects of her life: (1) the neighborhood in which she and the minor child had been living for slightly over a year and (2) her ongoing association and relationship with her boyfriend. The trial court felt both aspects were detrimental to the welfare of the parties’ child.
Defendant First Capital Home Improvements appeals the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees Sara J. Malone and Jerry H. Malone in this breach of contract action. We affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Barbara Korthoff vs. Herbert Korthoff W2001-01712-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
In this pending divorce action, the trial court ordered Husband to transfer $300,000.00 to Wife as a partial distribution of the marital estate. Husband filed an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 Tenn. R. App. P. which this Court granted. Husband contends that the trial court is without authority to make a partial distribution of marital funds during the pendency of the divorce action. Furthermore, if the court had such authority, it could not do so absent an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the property was marital or separate. The application was granted and the order of the trial court reversed.
We concur with the results of the presiding judge’s opinion because we believe that the holding of Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. 575, 292 S.W.2d 777 (1956) controls the outcome of this case. The Harpeth Valley Utility District has been operating since 1959 under the aegis of the Utilities Law of 1937 [Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-82-101, -804 (1992 & Supp. 1997)] providing water and sewerage disposal services to areas of Davidson, Williamson, and Cheatham Counties. As such, it is a governmental entity. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-82-301(a)(1) (Supp. 1997); First Suburban Util. Dist. v. McCanless, 177 Tenn. 128, 132-34, 146 S.W.2d 948, 950 (1941). Unless specifically provided otherwise, a city’s zoning power does not extend to state government instrumentalities located within its borders. See Davidson County v. Harmon, 200 Tenn. at 583-84, 292 S.W.2d at 780-81.
This appeal involves the forfeiture under the Tennessee Drug Control Act of $4,710.75 in cash, twenty-two pistols, rifles and shotguns, a video camera, silver bars, and assorted gold and silver coins during a search of a residence in Waynesboro. The Commissioner of Safety ordered the currency and personal property forfeited despite the family’s contention that an initial search of their home and property without a warrant was illegal. The family filed a petition for judicial review in the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The trial court found the personal property was lawfully seized after the officers obtained a search warrant and affirmed the forfeiture order. The family perfected this appeal. We have determined that there is substantial and material evidence to support the commissioner’s decision.
James Ray vs. Thomas Richards M2000-01808-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for personal injuries resulting from an alleged assault which occurred on October 20, 1998. The jury found for Defendant. Plaintiff appeals raising two issues: (1) Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of Plaintiff's character, reputation, conduct, and criminal records, and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the neighbor's petition describing Plaintiff as a public nuisance into evidence. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Connie McGahey vs. James Wilson M2000-01931-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Upon divorce, the parties entered into an agreement that provided the parties would retain ownership as the marital residence as tenants in common, but could not sell the property without mutual consent. Mrs. McGahey now desires to partition the property over her former husband's objection. The special master found that the contract provision barring partition was unenforceable. The chancellor found the provision enforceable but only for a reasonable period of time (sixteen years). Mr. Wilson now appeals the trial court's judgment ordering partition by sale. Resolution of this appeal requires us to examine the effect of a contract barring partition between tenants in common when no time limitation or purpose for the restriction against sale was stated in the agreement. We hold the contract provision to be unenforceable.
