Ray A. Wilson, et al. v. Robert J. Schwind, M.D., et al.
In this medical malpractice action, Ray A. Wilson and his wife, Beverly Wilson, (the “Plaintiffs”) sued the anesthesiologist and medical group responsible for administering anesthesia for Mr. Wilson’s cataract surgery. Plaintiffs allege that the improper administration of anesthetic resulted in permanent blindness in Mr. Wilson’s right eye. The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and attached an affidavit and deposition of an expert witness. At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, the Trial Court granted Plaintiffs’ oral motion to take a voluntary dismissal of their case without prejudice. The defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the order of dismissal so as to be “with prejudice,” and the Trial Court granted the defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a rehearing. At the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, the Trial Court set aside its order amending the dismissal to be with prejudice and allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to file an expert witness affidavit in response to the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs attempted to fax file an affidavit in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. A few months later, Plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit in the same court against the same parties, alleging the same malpractice that was the basis of the first lawsuit. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second lawsuit. Following a hearing on both cases, the Trial Court found that fax filing an affidavit was not permitted by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore, Plaintiffs had not responded to the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Consequently, the Trial Court granted summary judgment to the defendants in the first case. The Trial Court dismissed the second lawsuit upon finding that the first case was pending when the second case was filed and when the Motion to Dismiss was heard. Plaintiffs appeal. We find no error in the Trial Court’s rulings, and we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
J & B Investments, LLC v. Tarun N. Surti, et al
Three guarantors of a promissory note appeal the Chancery Court’s decision to hold them liable for the deficiency owing on the note, including interest at the default rate of 24%, following the discharge in bankruptcy of the original debtor. After the debtor defaulted on the $1,500,000 promissory note, the debtor filed for Petition for Relief under Chapter 11 in Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court approved the debtor’s plan of reorganization after declaring that the Allowed Claim Amount would be based upon the original interest rate of 8.5%, not the default rate of 24%. In the interim, the holder of the promissory note filed this action to collect a deficiency on the indebtedness, specifically the difference between the default rate of 24% and the original interest rate of 8.5%. The Chancellor ruled by summary judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to collect the deficiency on the indebtedness against the Guarantors, the deficiency being the difference in the interest rates. Following the debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy, the guarantors filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(4) motion contending the indebtedness owing to the plaintiff was satisfied pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization. The Chancellor denied the motion and awarded the holder of the note prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the default rate of 24%, and attorney fees incurred in this and a separate action. The guarantors appealed contending the Chancellor erred in denying their Rule 60 motion, finding the default rate of 24% to be legal, and awarding interest at the default rate prior to notice of default. The guarantors also contended it was error to award the plaintiff attorney fees for services rendered in a separate action. We have determined the debtor’s bankruptcy does not affect the liability of the guarantors and thus does not impair the plaintiff’s right to recover the deficiency. We have also determined the default rate of 24% was not usurious, and the holder of the note was not required to give notice of default to invoke the default rate. Further, we have determined the holder of the note was only entitled to recover attorney fees incurred to enforce the Guaranty Agreements, not to defend related actions that do not pertain to the Guaranty Agreements. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Henry Atlas Qualls Amos E. Qualls v. H. J. Q. Klutts, Executrix
This is the second appeal by the appellant who again has asked this court to review the Probate Court of Perry County’s denial of his petition. In that petition, the appellant contested the manner in which the Executrix of his late father’s estate administered the estate. We have determined the issue is res judicata and thereby affirm the trial court. We have also determined the appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, the Executrix is entitled to recover her reasonable expenses incurred on appeal. |
Perry | Court of Appeals | |
Chattanooga Fire Fighters Association Local 820 and Tara Weaver, v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Chattanooga City Council, and Chattanooga Fire Department
Petitioner was disciplined by the Chattanooga Fire Department, which discipline was approved by the City Council. She then petitioned the Chancery Court for a Writ of Certiorari, and the Chancellor, upon conducting a hearing, held that the discipline exceeded that allowed by the City Code, in that the Department had forced her to take leave time against her accrued leave for the days in excess of the 30 days allowed. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re T.C.D.
Brian Wesley Davis (“Father”) filed a petition to modify a Final Parenting Plan that, with respect to the parties’ child, granted primary residential parent status to Christine A. Williamson (now Stevens) (“Mother”). Father sought exclusive custody of the child or, alternatively, equal co-parenting time with him. Following a bench trial, the court held in favor of Mother, determining that Father had failed to show a material change in circumstances. Father appeals. We have determined that Father has provided sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances and has demonstrated that the best interest of the child requires a modification of the existing parenting plan. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and designate Father as the child’s primary residential parent. We remand for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Ingle, D/B/A Ingle's Sawmill & Log Co. v. Christopher W. Head and Wife, Bernadine L. Head
This appeal involves a motion to set aside an execution on a vehicle. The plaintiff received a |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
U.S. Bank, N.A., as Servicer for the Tennessee Housing Development Agency, v. Tennessee Farmenrs Mutual Insurance Company
This is an insurance case. The plaintiff bank made a home loan to the homeowner and took a deed of trust as security. Under the loan agreement, the homeowner was required to obtain a fire insurance policy on the premises. The defendant insurance company issued a fire insurance policy covering the house. The policy contained a standard mortgage clause requiring the insurance company to protect the bank’s interest and, in turn, requiring the bank to notify the insurance company of any increases in hazard. The homeowner fell behind on her monthly mortgage payments, so the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. The bank sent a letter to the homeowner stating that it had begun foreclosure proceedings; it did not notify the insurance company of these proceedings. Before the foreclosure process was complete, the homeowner and her husband filed for bankruptcy, which stayed the foreclosure proceedings. Soon after that, the house was destroyed by a fire. The bank notified the insurance company of the loss. The insurance company refused to pay, asserting that the foreclosure proceedings constituted an increase in hazard of which the bank was required to notify the insurance company, and that the bank’s failure to provide such notice constituted a breach of the mortgage clause in the fire insurance policy. The bank then sued the insurance company for breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The bank later filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that T.C.A. § 56-7-804 indicated that the bank was not required to provide notice to the insurance company of foreclosure proceedings. The insurance company filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that such notice was required under the policy or, in the alternative, under the statute. The trial court denied the insurance company’s summary judgment motion but granted summary judgment to the bank. The insurance company appeals. We reverse, finding that the commencement of foreclosure proceedings constituted an “increase in hazard” under the standard mortgage clause in the insurance policy and an “increase of hazard” under T.C.A. § 56-7-804. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Eva Hendrix, et al. v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., et al.
In this wrongful death case, Eva Hendrix (“Daughter”), acting individually and as administratrix of the estate of her mother, the decedent Edith Beck (“Mother”), sued Life Center Centers of America, Inc. (“Nursing Home”) among others. Nursing Home filed a “Motion to Compel Arbitration” based upon an arbitration clause signed by Daughter when Mother was admitted to Nursing Home’s facility approximately four months before her death. Daughter responds that she was not actually authorized to act as Mother’s attorney-in-fact at that time because Mother was still able to make her own medical decisions and therefore the power of attorney never became effective. The trial court agreed. Nursing Home appeals, arguing that Daughter’s power of attorney was effective when she signed the arbitration clause, and that, in any event, an actual or apparent agency relationship existed between Mother and Daughter, and Mother and Daughter “treated the [power of attorney] document as though it was effective.” We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s conclusion that the power of attorney was not in effect when Daughter signed the various documents handed to her by Nursing Home. We further hold that Nursing Home’s alternative theories must fail as a matter of law. We therefore affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Joseph Ziobrowski v. Marcy Hays Ziobrowski - Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of the 1995 final decree of divorce to award only $338.30 per month out of the monthly retirement benefit to Ms. Ziobrowski. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Joseph Ziobrowski v. Marcy Hays Ziobrowski
This appeal involves a final decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties’ marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Miller and wife, Janice Miller, each individually, and as surviving parents and next of kin of the minor, William J. Miller, deceased v. Beaty Lumber, Inc.
This is a negligence case that resulted in a directed verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s minor son was killed when the truck he was riding in collided with a logging truck pulling the defendant’s load of logs. All parties involved in the accident died, and there were no eyewitnesses. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant on behalf of their deceased son. At trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the court granted. The plaintiffs now appeal, alleging that the trial court applied the wrong standard when it granted the directed verdict. Next, the plaintiffs argue that the court should have applied the theory of joint and several liability because the case involved concurrent negligence resulting in an indivisible harm. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the court erred by excluding evidence relating to the defendant’s liability insurance. We affirm. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Joseph Mullins v. Bobby Redmon, et al
Plaintiff/Appellant, a student of McNairy County School District, filed a complaint for negligence against the Defendant/Appellee School District for injuries arising from an accident that occurred while the student was engaged in a work-based learning program. Finding that the actions of the School District did not cause the accident, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the School District. The student appeals. We affirm and remand. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Francoeur and Heather Hall v. State of Tennessee
This appeal involves a motorcycle rider and his passenger who were injured in an accident when they hit a large pothole on a state route highway. The rider and the passenger each filed claims with the Tennessee Claims Commission asserting that the State of Tennessee had failed to maintain the highway in a safe and proper condition. A Claims Commissioner determined that the pothole did constitute a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), but she determined that the State was not liable under that subsection because there was no proof that it had notice of existence of the pothole. The Commissioner then found that the State was negligent in maintaining the highway under Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(I), and therefore it was liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. The State appeals. We reverse. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anthony Dean v. Glen Turner, Warden, et al.
This is appeal involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner. The appellant prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in chancery court. The chancery court denied the prisoner’s habeas petition. The prisoner appealed. We vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition, finding that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Roysden v. Glen Turner, Warden
This is an appeal of a habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner. The appellant prisoner filed a petition for writ of a habeas corpus in the chancery court. The chancery court denied the prisoner’s habeas petition. The prisoner appealed. We vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition, finding that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Derek Davis v. Mark Luttrell, et al.
The Shelby County Sheriff’s Department terminated the employment of deputy Derek Davis based on a random drug screening. The Civil Service Merit Board affirmed the Department’s decision. Mr. Davis appealed to the Chancery Court for Shelby County, which affirmed. Mr. Davis filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court, asserting the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial material evidence. We reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Diana S. Lowry v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services
This appeal involves the lower court’s dismissal of a case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Department of Children’s Services fired the petitioner, and she requested an administrative hearing. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the termination, and the petitioner appealed to the chancery court in Shelby County. Pursuant to statute, the case was transferred to Davidson County. After one year, the chancellor entered an order that the petitioner schedule the case for a final hearing. The parties set a hearing date, but in violation of local rules the petitioner failed to submit a trial brief. The petitioner’s counsel twice requested a continuance, which was denied each time. The petitioner’s counsel withdrew, and the petitioner decided to proceed pro se. The petitioner was not on time for the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 5, 2006. She called the court, notifying all parties that she would be twenty minutes late. The judge waited until 9:40 and called the case, but the petitioner was not present. The judge then sua sponte dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The petitioner submitted a hand-written letter to the court with an explanation for her tardiness. The court treated the letter as a motion to alter or amend, and denied the motion. The petitioner appeals. We reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Jenkins et al. v. Chase Brown et al.
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the liability for the structural defects in a four-year-old house in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. Shortly after purchasing the house from its original owners, the property owners discovered that the house had been constructed on improperly compacted fill and other debris. When additional structural problems manifested themselves, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the contractor who built the house and his wife, the original owners, the original owners’ real estate agent and broker, their own real estate agent and broker, and their home inspector. Following an eight-day trial, the jury determined that the contractor and the original owners had engaged in intentional and reckless misrepresentation by concealing the house’s structural problems. The jury also determined that both real estate agents and the developer of the subdivision were at fault. The jury awarded the property owners $58,720.80 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the parties at fault. The jury also awarded the property owners $20,000 in punitive damages against one of the original owners and $50,000 in punitive damages against the contractor. The trial court reduced the punitive damage award against the original property owner to $14,000, and granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two real estate agents with regard to the property owners’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. On this appeal, the property owners take issue with the dismissal of their claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on their use of an outdated and incomplete real property disclosure form. The contractor also takes issue with the judgments awarded against him for compensatory and punitive damages. We have determined that the trial court did not err by dismissing the property owners’ claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on the use of the incomplete and outdated disclosure form. We have also concluded that the property owners presented insufficient evidence to establish their common-law fraud claim against the contractor who built the house. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring the contractor to pay compensatory and punitive damages. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Bundy v. First Tennessee Bank National Association D/B/A First Tennessee Equity Lending
This is an age and sex discrimination case. The fifty-nine-year old male plaintiff worked for the defendant bank as a loan officer. In April 2003, he attempted to process a loan for a customer and did not disclose to the bank underwriting department documents he had received from the customer. When this was discovered, the plaintiff was placed under investigation. His employment was ultimately terminated for violating bank policy. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging age and sex discrimination. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, or that the bank’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating him was pretextual. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish the fourth element of his prima facie case, that he was either replaced by an employee outside the protected class, or that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside the protected class. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Helen M. Borner, et al. v. Danny R. Autry
This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal from the Order of the trial court striking medical bills attached to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ complaint pursuant to T.C.A. § 24-5-113. The trial court specifically held that, because Plaintiffs/Appellants incurred total medical expenses in excess |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Helem M. Borner, et al. v. Danny R. Autry - Concurring
I concur fully with the result reached by the majority in this case. Respectfully, I file this separate concurrence in order to state my disagreement with dicta in the majority opinion. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A. R. and J. R.
Both parents appeal the termination of their parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and failure to remedy persistent conditions. The dispositive issue is whether the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family. The reasonableness of the Department’s efforts to reunite a family is dependent upon whether the services rendered were adequate to meet the needs of the family. In this case, the Department knew both parents needed significant psychological services to afford them the reasonable opportunity to meet the goals of the permanency plans and to remedy persistent conditions. The Department knew this because the psychologist who performed the mental health assessment of each parent at the direction of the Department issued a report recommending that both parents receive specific and significant mental health counseling. The record fails to establish that the Department provided the essential psychological services, without which the other services provided by the Department could not meet the needs of either parent or the family. Accordingly, we vacate the order terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Fowler D/B/A Med-State EMS v. Warren County
A private ambulance service provider challenged the fees established in the Warren County ambulance regulations created pursuant to state law. The trial court found the fees were constitutionally permissible. We affirm, finding that the fees were true fees, not taxes, and that the fees were reasonable. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan Ford, et al. v. Steve Corbin, et al.
This interlocutory appeal concerns the liability of a municipality. Pursuant to the municipality’s ordinances, a municipal inspector inspected a church building. The inspector sent a letter to the owners of the building notifying them that, due to the dilapidated condition of the building, they were in violation of a city ordinance. Over a year later, the building collapsed, killing four people, including three children, and injuring a fifth. The plaintiffs filed suit against the municipality for negligence based on the initial inspection and the municipality’s failure to take appropriate action after the initial inspection. Three separate lawsuits were consolidated into this action. The municipality filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability. The motion was denied. The municipality was then granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. On appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the defendant municipality may not be immune from liability for some claims under the facts presented in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Darrell Sparks, et al.
This appeal arises out of an action for declaratory judgment brought by an insurer. The insurer asked the court to determine whether its homeowners’ and personal liability umbrella policies afforded coverage and required defense of a tort action filed against its insured. The tort action involved an accident that occurred at the site of an oil well, which was owned and operated by a partnership in which the insured parties were partners. The insureds’ insurance policies excluded coverage for losses arising out of their “business pursuits.” The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the insureds and ordered the insurer to defend and indemnify the insureds in the underlying tort action. For the following reasons, we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
