Ford vs. Humphres M1999-00423-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
This appeal involves a dispute over the estate of Ms. Thelma Humphres, who was found by the trial court to have died intestate owning a one-half interest in her home and the approximately twenty acres on which it was locataed. She also owned some personal items which sold for $1,355.50. Appellant, Joy Ford, one of Ms. Humphres eight children, believed that Ms. Humphres had executed a will leaving her mother's entire one-half interest in the home and property to her. Ms. Ford objected to the administration of her mother's estate by her brother, Appellee, Danny Humphres, and attempted to prove a lost will. Ms. Ford failed to prove a lost will, and the property was subsequently sold to pay the estate's debts. As Ms. Ford owned the other one-half interest in her mother's property, she objected to the sale of this property. She also objected to the allocation of costs and fees related to the sale and the general administration of her mother's estate. All of her objections were overruled. She now appeals the trial court's actions in these matters. We affirm the trial court.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Charles Rooker v. Donal Campbell M1999-01657-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 Department of Correction over his release eligibility date. Dissatisfied with the response to his petition for a declaratory order, the prisoner filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, asserting that the extension of his release eligibility date violated the Department's policy regarding punishment for escape and the terms of his plea agreement. He also claimed that the Department had wrongfully deprived him of sentence reduction credits. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the prisoner has appealed. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
William Fox vs. Marcella Fox M1999-01720-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
In this divorce case ending an eighteen year marriage, the trial court awarded as separate property only the items owned by each party at the time of the marriage. The court awarded the marital home to both parties as tenants in common, allowing Wife to retain possession while the children were minors but requiring her to make the mortgage payments. Upon the sale of the property, the parties were to divide the proceeds of the sale, after costs and encumbrances were paid, with Wife receiving 60% and Husband receiving 40%. Wife appeals, contending that the court was required to classify the gifts during the marriage as separate property, and that the court's distribution of the marital property was not equitable. She also argues that the trial court violated federal law by awarding Husband a percentage of the real property and by ordering her to pay the mortgage, claiming the source of the equity in the property and of her income is her disability benefits, and those funds are exempt from "attachment, levy, or seizure." The evidence does not preponderate against the court's classification of property, and we find the division to be equitable. We find no violation of federal law in the award of the real property or in the requirement that Wife pay the mortgage so long as she occupies the premises.
Franklin
Court of Appeals
Thomas Joiner vs. Dora Taylor Joiner M1999-01721-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
Wife appeals the conversion from a divorce from bed and board (now known as a "legal separation") to an absolute divorce, claiming the trial court was required to hold another evidentiary hearing concerning the support and property rights of the parties. The parties had ostensibly agreed to a final division of property at the time of the divorce from bed and board, and the trial court had held a later hearing regarding the fairness of the division and Wife's capacity to make such an agreement. Because we find that the trial court made "a final and complete adjudication of the support and property rights of the parties," as required by statute, when it incorporated the agreement of the parties at the time of the divorce from bed and board, we affirm the trial court.
Stewart
Court of Appeals
Marion Co. Bd. of Education vs. Marion Co. Education Assoc. M1999-00213-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffery Stewart
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action on behalf of the Marion County School Board seeking a determination as to whether or not the decision by the director of schools to transfer a principal to a teaching position was subject to binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement in effect between the school board and the Marion County Education Association. A cross-claim was filed by the Association requesting an injunction to force the Board to arbitration, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Association's motion for summary judgment and mandated the Board to go to final and binding arbitration under the agreement. We reverse the decision of the trial court and hold that the statutory authority of the director of schools to hire and select principals may not be limited by a collective bargaining agreement and that such an agreement cannot authorize an arbitrator to determine who will be principal at a particular school.
Marion
Court of Appeals
Douglas DuBois vs. Rosemary DuBois M1999-00330-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
Plaintiff/Appellant, Douglas Robert DuBois, and Defendant/Appellee, Rosemary Ann DuBois, are parents of two minor children, Caitlin Michel DuBois and Thomas Jackson DuBois. The Decree of Divorce was entered on November 5, 1998, following two days of trial that occurred on the 8th and 9th of October 1998. Both parties filed T.R.C.P. Rule 59 motions to alter or amend the final decree which, in effect, sought a redetermination by the trial judge of almost everything in issue. All of these motions were heard on May 12, 1999, after which, on June 15, 1999, the trial judge entered an order determinative of these Rule 59 motions. From this order, Plaintiff, Douglas Robert DuBois, appeals. We affirm the trial judge.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Sammartano vs. Sammartano M1999-00415-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
In this divorce case, the defendant/wife appeals complaining of an inequitable division of marital assets, an inadequate award of rehabilitative alimony and the denial of attorney fees. As modified herein, we affirm the decision of the trial court
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Estate of John Acuff, Sr., et al vs. Brenda O'Linger M1999-00680-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
The singular dispositive question on this appeal is whether or not two deeds, purportedly executed by the late John E. Acuff, Sr., conveying certain property to Brenda O'Linger, bear the forged signature of John E. Acuff, Sr. An advisory chancery jury, acting under "preponderance of the evidence" instructions, held that the signatures were forged thereby voiding the two deeds. The chancellor adopted, without comment, the findings of the advisory jury and entered judgment for the plaintiffs voiding the two deeds. Defendant appeals and upon consideration of the record we reverse the chancellor.
Marion
Court of Appeals
Daniel White vs. State ex rel Brenda Armstrong M1999-00713-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Betty Adams Green
This appeal involves the State's liability to repay child support payments made by a man who had voluntarily legitimated a child he believed to be his own. After this court directed the Davidson County Juvenile Court to grant him prospective relief from the legitimation order in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(4), the man requested the juvenile court to order the State and the child's biological mother to reimburse him for the child support payments he had made following the entry of the legitimation order. The juvenile court denied the request on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the State to reimburse "overpaid child support." We have determined that the juvenile court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims and, therefore, affirm the juvenile court's order.
This extraordinary appeal involves an automobile collision. The driver of the automobile that was struck from behind and her husband filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County against the driver and record owner of the automobile that struck her. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the driver’s liability. The defendants applied for an extraordinary appeal after the trial court declined to grant them an interlocutory appeal. We have determined this is a proper case for an extraordinary appeal and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a partial summary judgment because of the existence of material factual disputes regarding liability. Accordingly, pursuant to Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b),1 we reverse the partial summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed.
This appeal involves a suit to recover money advanced by a construction lender to a building supply company to pay for building supplies which the bank mistakenly thought had been delivered to the bank’s debtor. Plaintiff, Farmers & Merchants Bank (Bank) sued defendant, Midway Supply Company, Inc., (Midway) to recover the sums advanced after Midway failed to deliver the supplies and applied the advanced funds to pay other accounts of the Bank’s debtor. From the judgment of the Circuit Court awarding judgment to Bank for the advanced funds less certain credit, Midway has appealed.
This appeal involves a dispute over a sizeable estate. After learning that they had been excluded from their relative’s will, thirteen of the testatrix’s heirs challenged the will in the Chancery Court for Sumner County on the grounds of improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence. The proponents of the will asserted that the contestants lacked standing because their challenge, even if successful, would only revive an earlier will from which they had likewise been excluded. The trial court found that the contestants had standing but, following a bench trial, determined that the contestants had failed to prove their improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, or undue influence claims. On this appeal, the contestants take issue with the decision to uphold the will; while the proponents take issue with the conclusion that the contestants had standing to challenge the will. We have determined that the contestants had standing to challenge the will and that the trial court properly determined that the will should be admitted to probate in solemn form. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded.
This appeal involves a custody dispute over twin daughters born after their parents separated following a brief marriage. The father filed for divorce in the Putnam County General Sessions Court shortly after learning that the mother was pregnant, and the mother counterclaimed for divorce and for sole custody of the unborn children. Following a bench trial, the general sessions court granted the father a divorce based on the mother’s inappropriate marital conduct, awarded the father sole custody of the children, and directed the mother to pay child support. On this appeal, the mother asserts that the general sessions court’s decision interferes with her constitutional right to make primary care-taking decisions for her children, that she is comparatively more fit than the father to be the custodial parent, and that the general sessions court should have awarded joint custody. We have determined that the custody arrangement does not impermissibly interfere with the mother’s parental rights and that the evidence fully supports the general sessions court’s custody decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment awarding sole custody to the children’s father. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the General Sessions Court Affirmed and Remanded
I concur with the results reached by the majority in this case. With respect to the issue of counseling, I agree with the majority that the statute has become inapplicable in the present case due to the child having reached majority. I write separately because of my concern that the majority opinion might be interpreted as limiting a trial court’s discretion to order counseling to that specifically set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-101(e)(1), the text of which is set forth in the majority opinion. I interpret the statute to be permissive rather than prohibitive. For example, I can envision a trial court ordering a non-custodial parent to undergo counseling for anger management as a condition of exercising visitation rights. I do not believe the aforementioned statute prohibits this.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Basily vs. Rain, Inc., et al M1998-00917-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jean Straub vs. Jason Roberts W1998-00854-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Louise Holder vs. First TN Bank W1998-00890-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Benham
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Peggy Shephard vs. Wal-Mart W1998-00903-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
Henry
Court of Appeals
W1999-00247-COA-R3-CV W1999-00247-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
Benton
Court of Appeals
Robbie Allen vs. Piggly Wiggly w1999-00478-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
Deborah Ann Holland vs. Jason Keith Holland E1999-00586-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
In Re: Estate of Homer Haskell Mills, deceased Ronald Dean Mills vs. Peggy Sue Posey, et al
