R.S. Brandt, K.M. Lundin, M.I. Lundin, N.B. Lundin, and A.T. Wiltshire, Jr. v. BIB Enterprises, LTD., A Tennessee Limited Partnership, and Gregory Smith, Individually, and Virginia Abernethy
This cases involves a d ispute over a limited partnership. BIB Enterprises, Ltd. (“BIB”) was formed on December 30, 1982 for the stated purpose of acquiring real estate, equipment and other personal property of a Bonanza Restaurant in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Defendant-appellant Greg Smith was named General Partner. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Hoscheit v. Johanna G. Hoscheit
This action began with a complaint filed by the appellee, Jon Hoscheit, (husband) seeking an absolute divorce from the appellant, Johanna G. Hoscheit (wife). After a bench trial, the court entered a final judgment granting an absolute divorce, custody of the parties' minor child to the father, dividing the marital estate and awarding alimony to the wife. From the judgment of the trial court the wife has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Brookridge Apartments., Ltd. v. Universal Constructors, Inc., et al. - Concurring
Plaintiff appeals to this Court on the refusal by the Trial Judge to grant plaintiff relief pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Procedure, 60.02(1). The underlying action was dismissed on July 23, 1996 by the Trial Judge “for want of prosecution.” On July 18, 1997, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60, T.R.C.P. on the ground the judgment was entered because of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. The motion explained that the plaintiffs “former counsel William J. Hart, did not receive notice from the Court that the case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to local Rule 37.02.” |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy Renee Miglin v. Daniel Walter Miglin - Concurring
The husband in this divorce case challenged almost every aspect of the trial court’s orders, including child custody, alimony, the division of marital property and the terms of an injunction imposed to prevent him from interfering with the wife’s authority over the children. We modify the injunction because we believe that its provisions are overbroad. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Yvette Porter Caira v. Ronald Stephen Caira
This case is before us on appeal from the trial court’s decree of divorce and grant of child custody and support to the Appellee, Ronald Steven Caira. In bringing this appeal, Appellant raises two issues for consideration. 1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to award primary custody of the minor children of this marriage with Defendant/Appellee. 2. Whether the trial court made an equitable property distribution of the debts, assets and retirement proceeds of this marriage. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Marvin E. Alexander, D/B/A Alexander Auctions & Real Estate Sales, v. John Hopkins and Rhonda Hopkins, Individually and D/B/A Richland Creek Sod Farm
A licensed auctioneer and real estate broker filed suit against the defendant landowners for breach of an auction contract, because the defendants sold their land prior to the scheduled auction without his participation. The trial court held that the auctioneer was entitled to the anticipated commission amount. We affirm the trial court’s holding that the property owners are liable, but we modify the amount of damages. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
John Anderson Kinard v. Linda Kinard
This appeal involves a divorce ending a long-term marriage. The husband filed suit to divorce his wife of thirty years in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, and the wife counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, declared the parties divorced, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony for three years. The wife takes issue on this appeal with the decision to declare the parties divorced, the division of marital property, and the failure to award her long-term spousal support and attorney’s fees. She also insists that the trial judge should have recused himself because of his prior professional association with the husband’s lawyer. We conclude that the trial judge was not disqualified from hearing this case. While we also find that declaring the parties divorced was proper, we have determined that the division of marital property and the spousal support award should be modified but that the wife should not receive an additional award for her legal expenses. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller - Concurring/Dissenting
This is a divorce case. The parties, Granville Harvey Miller1 (Husband) and Linda Janiece Wright-Miller (Wife), were married for approximately 5 years before a final decree of divorce was entered in August 1997.2 During the marriage, the parties resided at a home located at 2166 Aztec Drive. On appeal, Husband challenges the correctness of the trial court’s classification of this property as marital as well as its determination that the asset is unencumbered. Husband contends that the true owner of the property is Heartland Investments, Inc. (Heartland), a corporation that he founded prior to the parties’ marriage and of which he is president and sole shareholder or, alternatively, that the parties own the property encumbered by a mortgage executed in favor of the corporation. Wife has also raised an issue with respect to the trial court’s finding that there was no increase in value of Heartland stock during the marriage. After review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We set forth our reasons below. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Alicia Roach Thomson v. Patrick James Thomson - Concurring
This is an appeal from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the appellant sought a change in custody of the parties minor child on the grounds that there had been a material change of circumstances justifying such a change. The trial court dismissed the complaint and this appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
Jason Rains, Crystal L. Carney, and Kathy Carney v. Edwin Scott Sussdorff,III, a/k/a/ Ed Sussdorff, Vicky R. Sussdorff, E. Scott Sussdorff and Allstate Insurance Company - Concurring
While riding as passengers in an automobile owned by defendant and driven by a close friend of defendant’s son, the intervening plaintiff was seriously injured in a one-car accident when the driver apparently fell asleep at the wheel. The passenger intervened in the driver’s petition and alleged that the vehicle had been driven with the express or implied permission of its owner and sought a declaratory judgment that his insurer was therefore liable for her injuries. The trial court found the driver did not have such permission and dismissed intervenor’s petition, and she appeals. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Edward Traughber, et al. vs. Kelly A. Kress, et al.
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Davis vs. Sumner County Sheriff, J. D. Vandercook, et al.
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Ashe vs. Radiation Oncology Associates
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ashe vs. Radiation Oncology Associates
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Donald Zseltvay vs. Metropolitan Government
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hartsville Hospital, Inc. vs. The National Bank & Trust Co.
|
Trousdale | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Hogan vs. Rex Reese and Sonya M. Reese
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Concrete Spaces, Inc., et al. vs. Henry Sender, et al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The CIT Group/Sales Financing vs. Leslie Williams
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9708-CV-0365
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Renaissance vs. Billbury
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Allstate vs. Daniel
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Pigeon vs. Maples
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Henry Andrews vs. Lubricon, et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
