Johnna Hayes vs. Jeff Hayes W1999-00445-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This appeal arises from a dispute between Plaintiff Johnna Lea Hayes (Beuerlein) and Defendant Jeff C. Hayes regarding the amount of Mr. Hayes' child support obligation and the enforcement of a promissory note executed by Ms. Beuerlein in conjunction with the parties' divorce. The trial court found (1) that Mr. Hayes has an annual income of $64,139.00, (2) that Mr. Hayes' child support obligation is $1,221.00 per month but that this amount should be reduced to $621.00 per month until Ms. Beuerlein's debt under the promissory note is satisfied, (3) that Mr. Hayes' child support arrearage is equal to $14,940.00, (4) that Ms. Beuerlein's debt under the promissory note is equal to $39,569.85, (5) that, subtracting Mr. Hayes' child support arrearage from Ms. Beuerlein's debt under the promissory note, the net amount that Ms. Beuerlein owes to Mr. Hayes is $24,665.85 plus ten percent (10%) interest, and (6) that each party shall pay his or her own attorney's fees. For the reasons set forth below, the ruling of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
Talmage Crump vs. Kimberly Bell W1999-00673-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff filed a complaint and issued summons, which was returned "not to be found." Plaintiff issued an alias summons which was also returned "not to be found." Plaintiff issued pluries summons more than one year after the return of the alias summons. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's case for failure to comply Rule 3, Tenn.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff asserts that defendant is equitably estopped from relying upon Tenn.R.Civ.P. 3, because of action of defendant's liability insurance carrier leading him to believe that the defense would not be raised upon which he relied to his detriment. The trial court found no estoppel, and plaintiff has appealed.
Hudgens vs. Rogers M2000-00239-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Arthur E. Mcclellan
The mother of four minor children appealed the trial court's decision to change custody from Mother to Father based on a material change in circumstances. Prior to the entry of that order, it had been determined that an agreement, originally announced to the court which awarded custody of the children to Mother, had been set aside due to the court's finding that there had been no meeting of the minds of the parties as several critical issues had been left unresolved. We have determined that the court was correct in that decision. Therefore, the standard which the trial court should have applied was one of comparative fitness and best interest of the children rather than a material change of circumstances. This matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Jeremy Tompkins vs. Mary Rainey W1999-01218-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: A. V. Mcdowell
In this action to establish parentage, Jeremy Earl Tompkins (Father) appeals the trial court's final judgment awarding Mary Helen Rainey (Mother) custody of the parties' infant son. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Beavers vs. The Lebanon Democrat Newspaper M1999-02401-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal arises from an action initiated by Plaintiffs, Mae and Jerry Beavers, against the Defendant newspaper, the Lebanon Democrat, for libel and slander. The Beavers' claim arises out of two separate articles published by the newspaper. The trial court granted the newspaper's motion for summary judgment, holding that the first article was substantially true and the second article was a non-actionable opinion. The Beavers appeal.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Inscoe, et al vs. Kemper, et al M1999-00741-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal arises from a suit filed by Inscoe seeking the return of earnest money held in escrow for the purchase of Kemper's residence. When Inscoe decided not to purchase the residence, Kemper refused to return the earnest money. The trial court found in favor of Inscoe and ordered the return of the earnest money. In making its finding, the court stated that Inscoe's promise to buy was illusory and there was no meeting of the minds, thus the contract was void and unenforceable. Kemper appeals.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Merritt vs. Yates M1999-00775-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a dispute between Plaintiff June Yates Merritt ("Ms. Merritt") and Defendants Aileen Biron Yates ("Mrs. Yates") and Claire Biron ("Mr. Biron") regarding the proper interpretation or construction of mutual wills executed in April of 1985 by Mrs. Yates and her husband Thomas Harry Yates ("Mr. Yates"), who was the father of Ms. Merritt. After the death of Mr. Yates in December of 1985, Mrs. Yates deeded certain real property to Mr. Biron, gifted certain personal property to Mr. Biron, and established a revocable trust using money received as a result of her husband's death. In an action filed by Ms. Merritt challenging these transactions, the trial court determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and entered a judgment in favor of Ms. Merritt. Additionally, the court denied Ms. Merritt's motion for discretionary costs. Mrs. Yates appeals the court's order granting a judgment in favor of Ms. Merritt and Ms. Merritt appeals the court's ruling regarding her motion for discretionary costs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In Re: S.D., M.D., Sh.D., & Ma.S. M2003-02672-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Barry R. Brown
This case comes before the Court on appeal from the Sumner County Juvenile Court's termination of Appellant's parental rights as to four children. Each parent raises separate issues on appeal. We affirm the action of the trial court in all respects.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
John Watson vs. Mike Young W1999-00683-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by an inmate at the Northwest Correctional Complex. The complaint sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an electrical shock allegedly caused by the Defendant's inactions. The Lake County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint finding that the plaintiff's claim sounded in negligence and the defendants, as state employees, enjoyed absolute immunity from negligence claims.
Lake
Court of Appeals
James Powell vs. M.P. Gurkin W1999-00827-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a personal injury action arising out of a slip-and-fall accident which occurred at a laundromat owned by the Gurkin Defendants. The fall was allegedly caused by a hole in the floor of the laundromat which was created by the Defendant Hardin in attempting to locate and repair a water leak in the laundromat. The Plaintiff fell while walking into the laundromat carrying his laundry basket. He brought the present suit claiming that the Defendants were negligent in failing to repair the hole or providing adequate warning of the dangerous condition. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that the Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in confronting a known risk. After arguments of counsel, the trial court granted both Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.
This is a medical malpractice case. The paintiff’s husband died of a cardiac rupture while in the care of the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit, asserting medical malpractice in the care of her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors, finding that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony failed to show that a breach of the standard of care by the defendants caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff did not present evidence that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a breach of the standard of care by the defendants caused the death of the decedent. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the trial court is affirmed
A divorce decree was filed in 1993 with the marital assets being divided by agreement of these parties. The decree awarded Husband’s military retirement benefits to Wife “as a division of marital property.” The decree also provided that inasmuch as Wife was to receive that pension, she should be responsible for the support of the parties’ two minor children. In 1999, after the children reached majority, Husband filed this “Petition to Discontinue Child Support and Modify Final Judgment by Restoring Retirement Benefits.” The Trial Court held that the divorce decree ordered Husband to pay Wife his military pension as a division of marital property, not child support, and therefore declined to modify the original decree. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that there is no basis for invalidating the 1993 award to Wife of Husband’s Air Force retirement -- an award made by the trial court “as a division of marital property.” As a part of an unappealed-from final judgment, the trial court’s division-ofproperty award is not subject to challenge in this proceeding, see Vanatta v. Vanatta, 701 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), in the absence of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 basis for relief, and I find no such basis in the meager record before us.
William Garrett v. Board of Paroles M2000-00219-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Board of Paroles regarding the Board's decision to schedule his next consideration for parole in September 2003. Believing that his current sentence will expire in May 2002, the prisoner filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Board had acted illegally by deferring its next consideration of his parole until after the expiration of his sentence. He also asserted that the Board had misunderstood the evidence presented at his 1998 parole hearing and that the Board improperly denied him parole because of the seriousness of his offense. After the trial court dismissed his petition, Mr. Garrett appealed to this court. We have determined that the prisoner sued the wrong party with regard to the sentence expiration date claim and that his remaining claims do not entitle him to the relief available in a certiorari proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the prisoner's petition.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Terry Howard vs. Jack Morgan, et al M2000-00548-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
In this case, a prisoner appeals from dismissal of his lawsuit on the basis that the allegation of poverty in his affidavit of indigency was false. Because the record includes a certified copy of the prisoner's trust account statement showing a balance from $1,100 to over $1,200, we affirm.
Hickman
Court of Appeals
Jones vs. H.G. Hill Realty Co. M1999-00633-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Whiteaker vs. City of Cookeville M1999-00732-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
