Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. ORNL Federal Credit Union, et al.
In this appeal, we determine the priority between two recorded deeds of trust. Homeowners entered into a line of credit with a credit union secured by a recorded deed of trust on the homeowners’ home. The homeowners subsequently refinanced their home with a bank. The bank paid off the homeowners’ debt to the credit union, and recorded its own deed of trust securing its loan. At that same time, the loan and deed of trust was assigned to a second bank. Despite the payoff of the homeowners’ debt by the assignor bank, the first deed of trust to the credit union was never released, and the homeowners continued to draw on the line of credit. When the homeowners began having financial problems, the assignee bank discovered that the credit union had never released its deed of trust on the homeowners’ property because of a provision in the deed of trust stating that its release was conditioned upon the borrower requesting the cancellation of the line of credit. When the homeowners defaulted on both loans, the question arose as to which party’s deed of trust had priority. The trial court ruled in favor of the assignee bank on the basis that the credit union was equitably estopped from asserting its deed of trust because, at the time of payoff, the credit union did not follow its self-imposed practice of advising if any action other than payoff was required before release of the deed of trust. After careful review, we reverse because we conclude that the assignor bank had the means of discovering that payoff alone was insufficient to trigger the release of the deed of trust and because, under state statutory law, it had prior notice of all prerequisites to release the deed of trust as a result of the credit union’s registration of such deed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Glenna Robilio
From a trial de novo of an unlawful detainer action in circuit court, the defendant homeowner appeals, pro se, an award of summary judgment in favor of the purchaser at foreclosure. In a filing entered in general sessions – and considered by the circuit court – the defendant homeowner raised the defense of wrongful foreclosure, alleging the lender had failed to notify her of the default, of her opportunity to cure the default, and of the foreclosure sale itself. The plaintiff purchaser failed to address these points on motion for summary judgment, thus leaving open this factual question. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact bearing directly upon the plaintiff purchaser’s right to immediate possession of the property, we reverse the award of summary judgment and remand the matter. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ivan D. Bradley v. Ginger Kaye Bradley
This appeal arises from a divorce action. The trial court named Father primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child, and Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Arista Records, LLC as the successor to Arista Records, Inc. v. Loren L. Chumley, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee
This interlocutory appeal arises from Plaintiff/Taxpayer’s action against the Commissioner of Revenue under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-1-1802 for a refund of taxes. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents sought by Plaintiff in response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss based on the statutory limitations period prescribed in section 67-1-1802. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. v. William C. Kitchens, et al.
This appeal involves the validity of a covenant not to compete. The employee, William C. Kitchens (“Kitchens”), became a certified orthotist after entering into the covenant with his employer Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. (“Hanger”). After the employee quit his job and began providing orthotic services for a competitor, Hanger filed suit. Following a trial, the Trial Court determined that the covenant not to compete was enforceable and that Kitchens had breached the covenant. The Trial Court also determined that Kitchens’ new employer, defendant Choice Medical, Inc. (“Choice Medical”), had induced Kitchens to breach the contract in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. §47-50-109, and that an award of treble damages was appropriate. Judgment was entered against Kitchens and Choice Medical jointly for $240,182.00, and against Choice Medical for an additional $480,364.00. Defendants appeal raising numerous issues. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Flanary, on behalf of Himself and all other similaly situated vs. Carl Gregory Dodge of Johnson City, L.L.C.
This action charged the defendant with engaging in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that he suffered a loss of money or property. On appeal, we affirm the summary judgment. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Bradley County, Tennessee v. #’s Inc. et al.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the purchaser of real property at a delinquent tax sale is entitled to recover delinquent property taxes paid on the property during the redemption period. We hold that funds expended to pay delinquent property taxes during the redemption period are lawful charges to preserve the value of the property pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2704, and therefore, the purchaser is entitled to recover these charges. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re J.M.N. Jerry Clyde Nix ex rel. v. Amy Nix Cantrell
This case involves a non-custodial parent’s attempt to give consent for her fourteen-year-old daughter to get married. After the parties divorced, the father was designated the primary residential parent for the parties’ daughter, and the mother had regular visitation. When the daughter was fourteen years old, the father took her to the mother’s home for visitation. Without telling the father, the mother took the daughter and her eighteen-year-old boyfriend to the juvenile court below to seek permission to get married. At the juvenile court, the mother signed an affidavit consenting to the marriage. Based on the mother’s affidavit, the juvenile court judge signed an order granting the daughter and her boyfriend permission to marry. They immediately obtained a marriage license and got married. After learning of the marriage, the father filed a motion in the juvenile court asking it to set aside its order giving the daughter permission to marry. After a hearing, the juvenile court granted the motion to set aside. It also held that setting aside the prior order rendered the daughter’s marriage void. The mother now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside its order giving the daughter permission to marry. Additionally, we note that the marriage is merely voidable, not void. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Harriett Turner v. Napoleon Bryant
This appeal arises out of a petition for civil contempt based on the failure to pay child support. The state, on behalf of the obligee mother, filed this petition for contempt against the obligor father for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the juvenile court determined that the father was willfully underemployed and in contempt of court. The father filed a petition for a rehearing under the local rules of the juvenile court, seeking to introduce additional evidence on the issue of willful underemployment. The juvenile court treated the father’s petition as a motion to alter or amend under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the father was not entitled to such relief. The father appeals, arguing that he should have been permitted to introduce additional evidence under the applicable juvenile court local rules, and that the juvenile court erred in finding him in contempt. We conclude that the trial court appropriately considered the father’s petition as a motion to alter or amend under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of the father’s petition, and therefore affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Mark Atkins, surviving spouse and next of kin of Victoria H. Atkins, Deceased, and as parent of Lauren Atkins, et al. v. Robert Clive Marks
This is an appeal from a post-judgment collection proceeding in which the judgment creditor sought to subject the assets of three trusts, of which the judgment debtor was a beneficiary and trustee, to satisfy a default judgment. The trial court found that the trusts were passive or dry and that the legal and equitable estates had merged, resulting in the judgment debtor’s holding fee simple title to the trust property. Debtor asserted that he had dissipated the assets of two trusts, but one trust still held income-generating farm land. The trial court ordered the farm land sold and also ordered further discovery to locate the assets of the other two trusts. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Raymond Proctor, et al. v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C., et al.
Jesse Raymond Proctor and Janie Kay Proctor (“Plaintiffs”), husband and wife, sued Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group, P.C. and Center for Sports Medicine & Orthopaedics, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq., concerning certain business practices of Defendants related to surgery performed on Mr. Proctor. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claim sounded in alleged deceptive business practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977; that the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; that defendants’ affirmative defenses contending that Plaintiffs’ claims sound in medical malpractice should be denied; and that Plaintiffs were barred from amending their pleadings to raise medical malpractice claims. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We reverse and hold that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 can apply to the entrepreneurial, commercial, or business aspects of a medical practice, and since Plaintiffs’ complaint sounds in alleged deceptive business practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Captain Louis J. Gillespie, Jr., et al. v. City of Memphis
The charter and code of ordinances of the City of Memphis set out certain specific provisions, including civil service protections, concerning the organization and operation of the City’s police department. This appeal arises from a suit brought by several high ranking members of the police force who allege that the City created a de facto rank in conflict with the City’s charter and ordinances. The trial court held that the City had impermissibly created a new rank and granted relief in the form of an injunction and a declaratory judgment. It, however, denied claims for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an implied right of action under the City’s civil service rules. We find that the question regarding the appropriateness of the trial court’s awarding injunctive and declaratory relief is now moot and accordingly vacate that part of its decision. We affirm the trial court’s decision that monetary damages are not available. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Mary A. Grass
Probate Court did not have jurisdiction to extend the statute of limitations to elect against the will and that the Agreed Order extending the statute of limitations was not effective. The appellant also claims that the surviving spouse cannot elect against the will because he waived his right to elect by signing a waiver and accepting the benefits of the bequests to him under the will. Finally, the appellant claims that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, homestead exemption, and elective share. Finding that the Probate Court did not err in extending the statute of limitations, that the surviving spouse did not waive his right to elect against the will and that the Probate Court correctly awarded the homestead exemption, but finding that the Probate Court erred in calculating the award of exempt property, year’s support, and the surviving spouse’s elective share, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the Probate Court to make recalculations. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Parsons v. Jeff Huffman, et al.
This appeal involves an election contest filed by a losing candidate for county executive. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the county election commission provided the minimum number of voting machines required by state law. However, the plaintiff alleged that the commission should have provided more voting machines because long lines at some voting locations caused many people to leave without voting. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, among other things. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Charlie Robertson v. Tracy Mayes
This appeal involves a petition for custody of two minor children. The juvenile court named the father primary residential parent and the mother alternate residential parent. The mother appeals; we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James B. Thomas, Jr., ex rel., Karen G. Thomas v. Elizabeth Oldfield, M.D., et al.
The issue on appeal in this medical malpractice action is whether the hospital is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of an emergency room physician. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the hospital finding that it was not vicariously liable for the conduct of the emergency room physician because he was neither its actual or apparent agent. We find the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the hospital on the issue of actual agency because there are no material facts in dispute and the hospital is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of actual agency as a matter of law. We, however, find that material facts are in dispute concerning whether the hospital held itself out to the public as providing medical services; whether the plaintiff looked to the hospital rather than to the individual physician to perform those services; whether the patient accepted those services in the reasonable belief that the services were provided by the hospital or a hospital employee; and, if so, whether the hospital provided meaningful notice to the plaintiff at the time of admission that the emergency room physician was not its agent. Accordingly, we have determined the hospital was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of apparent agency. Therefore, we remand to the trial court the issue of apparent agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy Cagle Davis v. Robert F. Davis
After more than eighteen years of marriage, Stacy Cagle Davis (“Wife”) sued Robert F. Davis (“Husband”) for divorce. The case was tried and the Trial Court entered a Final Decree declaring the parties divorced, approving the parenting plan submitted with regard to the parties’ minor child, ordering Husband to pay child support, dividing the marital property and marital debts, and denying Husband’s request for alimony. Husband appeals the denial of his request for alimony to this Court. We reverse the denial of alimony to Husband, award Husband rehabilitative alimony of $800 per month for 36 months, award Husband attorneys’ fees at trial and on appeal, and remand to the Trial Court for a determination of the proper amount of attorneys’ fees. The remainder of the Trial Court’s Final Decree is affirmed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Sherrie Engler, et al. v. Karnes Legal Services
This appeal involves the Tennessee saving statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute when their attorney failed to appear at a hearing. Three months after the dismissal, the plaintiffs’ attorney filed a motion seeking relief from the order of dismissal, citing the saving statute, along with an amended complaint. The trial court considered the motion under Rule 60 but did not address the applicability of the saving statute. The court refused to set aside the order of dismissal upon finding that the attorney’s failure to attend the hearing did not constitute excusable neglect. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Joey Conner v. Carmen Conner
This appeal arises from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the minor child’s mother, contending that there had been a material change in circumstances, sought a change of custody. After several days of hearings, the trial court transferred custody from the father to the mother. We find that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and also find that the final hearing below was prematurely terminated. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Phillips v. Tenneseee Board of Probation and Parole
This appeal involves the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The appellant prisoner was denied a hearing in front of the appellee board of probation and parole. The prisoner thereafter filed a petition with the chancery court, seeking review of the board’s decision. The chancery court entered an order stating that, in order to avoid dismissal of his petition, the prisoner was required to file, among other documents, a summons for each defendant, with a copy of the petition for each summons to be issued. The prisoner failed to file the summonses, and the chancery court dismissed the petition without prejudice. The prisoner appeals the dismissal, alleging numerous federal constitutional violations. We affirm, finding that the chancery court properly dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to file a summons. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Ann Harley v. Geary Falk
A former husband appeals issuance of a restraining order in a proceeding on a petition for a protective order arguing that the trial court awarded unrequested relief. The appellant failed to provide a record of the hearing before the trial court. Absent a record, since we must assume the record would support the trial court, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph P. Rusnak, et al. v. Gail Phebus
The daughter of a nursing home resident used a power of attorney granted by her mother to sell the mother a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in a condominium the daughter owned, with the intention of spending down the mother’s liquid assets so she could qualify for Medicaid. A conservator was subsequently appointed to protect the mother’s interests, and he filed suit for the partition and sale of the condominium property. The mother died shortly thereafter. The court granted the request for partition, but stayed the sale of the property pending this interlocutory appeal. The daughter argues on appeal that Tennessee should follow the general rule which provides that the death of a joint tenant with right of survivorship extinguishes a pending suit for partition. We agree, and we reverse the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Brim Holding Company, Inc. v. Province Healthcare Company
The issue on appeal in this contract dispute is whether the defendant breached its indemnification obligations under the terms of a stock purchase agreement. The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed for payment of a claim specifically identified under the indemnification provisions of a stock purchase agreement. Significantly, the trial court found that the indemnity provisions in the stock purchase agreement anticipate the specific loss and assure that it will be paid by the defendant. The defendant contends that the plaintiff has already received reimbursement for that payment through the post-closing working capital adjustment and the plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to reimbursement under the indemnification provisions. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Madison County, Tennessee v. Tennessee State Board Of Equalization
Several taxpayers appealed Madison County’s valuation of the taxpayers’ limited partnership property to the Tennessee State Board of Equalization. The administrative law judge scheduled a pre-hearing conference, with notice being sent to the taxpayers and Madison County. Some confusion arose, and no representative for Madison County attended the conference. The administrative law judge entered a default judgment against Madison County, and Madison County timely filed a petition to reconsider with the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge took no action on the petition, and after twenty days, the petition was deemed denied by operation of law. Madison County then failed to appeal the administrative law judge’s denial of the petition to reconsider within thirty days to the Assessment Appeals Commission. The Assessment Appeals Commission thereafter issued the Official Certificates of Assessment. Madison County filed a motion to reconsider the Official Certificates with both the administrative law judge and the Board of Equalization, seeking relief under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The administrative law judge denied the motion, but the Board of Equalization granted relief and remanded the matter to the administrative law judge. The taxpayer defendants then filed a petition with the Board of Equalization, challenging the Board’s order setting aside the default judgment. The taxpayers filed a petition for review in chancery court in Madison County. Thereafter, the Board held a hearing, reversed its prior order, and reinstated the default judgment against Madison County. Madison County filed a petition for review in chancery court in Madison County pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322, seeking review of the Board’s reinstatement of the default judgment. The chancery court granted the taxpayers’ motion for summary judgment. Madison County appeals, and we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
City of Jackson, Tennessee, ex rel. v. State of Tennessee, ex rel.
The City of Jackson appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its action against the Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance seeking reimbursement for building demolition expenses under Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-102-122. Finding that sovereign immunity prohibits monetary claims against the state when brought seeking a declaratory order under either the Declaratory Judgment Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-101 et seq., or the Administrative Procedures Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §4-5-225, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
