SUSAN DANIEL V. BRITTANY SMITH
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Henry S. Queener, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Susan Daniel

Gerald L. Ewell, Jr., Tullahoma, Tennessee, for the appellee, Brittany Smith

Judge: BENNETT

In this negligence case, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of the plaintiff’s medical evaluation and treatment immediately following the accident as well as pain and suffering. We find material evidence to support the verdict and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

.PDF Version of the Case

Comment on this Article

W. STANFORD BLALOCK v. PRESTON LAW GROUP, P.C., ET AL.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Robert L. Delaney, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, W. Stanford Blalock.

Winston S. Evans, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Preston Law Group, P.C. and G. Kline Preston, IV.

Judge: COTTRELL

A plastic surgeon entered into a five year lease on office space, and defaulted on the lease after the first month. The landlord’s attorney filed separate lawsuits in general sessions court for breach of the lease contracts against the lessee, who had personally guaranteed the lease, and against the lessee’s personal corporation. The landlord obtained duplicate judgments for unpaid rent as well as for attorney fees. The general sessions judge informed the landlord that he was only entitled to collect one judgment. The lessee appealed to the circuit court, but paid the general sessions judgment in full while the circuit court action was still pending. The landlord’s attorney then filed a “partial satisfaction of judgment” and another complaint for attorney fees in general sessions court, followed by another complaint in circuit court, alleging that additional rents had accrued while the litigation continued. The lessee responded by filing a complaint for abuse of process against the landlord’s attorney, alleging that the attorney filed meritless complaints in order to drive up the fees he could collect. The landlord’s attorney filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations for abuse of process had passed, and that in any case no abuse of process could be shown. The trial court granted the motion. We affirm.

.PDF Version of the Case

Comment on this Article

TINA MARIE HODGE v. CHADWICK CRAIG
Court: TN Supreme Court

Attorneys:

J. Russell Parkes, Wesley Mack Bryant, and Charles M. Molder, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chadwick Craig.

L. Samuel Patterson, Jr., Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tina Marie Hodge.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal requires the Court to determine whether current Tennessee law permits the former husband of a child’s mother to pursue a claim against his former spouse for intentional or negligent misrepresentation regarding the identity of the child’s biological father. Following the dissolution of their nine-year marriage, the former husband of the child’s mother discovered that he was not the child’s biological father. He filed suit against the child’s mother in the Chancery Court for Maury County, alleging that she had intentionally misled him into believing that he was the child’s biological father. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the mother’s former husband had proved that his former wife had intentionally misrepresented the parentage of the child and awarded him $134,877.90 in compensatory damages for the child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums he had paid following the divorce, emotional distress, and attorney’s fees. The child’s mother appealed. Even though the Court of Appeals determined that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the child’s mother had intentionally misrepresented the identity of the child’s biological father, it (1) reversed the damage award based on the post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance expenses on the ground that these damages amounted to a prohibited retroactive modification of a child support order, (2) reversed the damage award for emotional distress, and (3) reversed the award for attorney’s fees. Hodge v. Craig, No. M2009-00930-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4024990, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010). The former husband filed an application for permission to appeal arguing that Tennessee should permit recovery in cases of this sort for intentional or negligent misrepresentation of a child’s paternity. We have determined that the existing common-law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial court’s damage award based on the former husband’s post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums is not an improper retroactive modification of the former husband’s child support obligation.

.PDF Version of the Case

Comment on this Article

GERALD FARRAR v. MICHAEL E. DYER ET AL.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Samuel F. Robinson III, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Gerald Farrar.

Michael R. Campbell and Lauren M. Rutherford, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellees, Michael E. Dyer and Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.

Judge: SUSANO

Gerald Farrar (“the Claimant”) submitted a claim under his homeowner’s insurance policy after his house was badly damaged by fire. His insurer, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“the Company”) denied coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action. The Company alleged that the Claimant had made a misrepresentation on his application – one that increased the Company’s risk of loss. The Claimant filed a counterclaim in which he alleged that the Company’s agent, Michael E. Dyer (“the Agent”), misled him about the meaning of question 13 on the application, the answer to which contains the alleged misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of the Company and dismissed the Claimant’s counterclaim predicated on the Claimant’s failure to carry the burden of proof. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farrar, 337 S.W.3d 829 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (“Farrar I”). The Claimant then filed this action against the Agent alleging that the Agent made a misrepresentation about the meaning of question 13 that caused him to give an incorrect answer on the application. The complaint also named the Company as a defendant “principal” responsible for the Agent’s actions. The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, holding that Farrar I is a bar to this second action. The Claimant appeals. We affirm.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on this Article

GEORGE WOODSON and FLORA WOODSON v. MEG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Stephen C. Barton, Edd Peyton, LaKeisha Sisco-Beck, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, George Woodson and Flora Woodson

Stephen C. Barton, Edd Peyton, LaKeisha Sisco-Beck, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, George Woodson and Flora Woodson

Judge: HIGHERS

Plaintiff was seriously injured during a dog attack by his neighbors’ two dogs. Plaintiff sued, among others, the neighbors’ landlord and an employee of the landlord. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining that although the defendants retained sufficient control over the leased property, they lacked notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We find a question of fact exists regarding defendants’ notice or knowledge of the dogs’ vicious propensities. We affirm in part and reverse in part and we remand for further proceedings.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on this Article

RONDAL AKERS ET AL. v. PRIME SUCCESSION OF TENNESSEE, INC. ET AL.
Court: TN Supreme Court

Attorneys:

William J. Brown, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the appellants, Rondal Akers, Jr. and Lucinda Akers.

Stuart F. James, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, T. Ray Brent Marsh.

Judge: LEE

Dr. Rondal D. Akers, Jr. and Lucinda Akers sued T. Ray Brent Marsh for the alleged mishandling of their deceased son’s body, which had been sent to Mr. Marsh’s crematorium for cremation. Following a jury verdict for the Akerses, the trial court entered judgment against Mr. Marsh based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but granted his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the Akerses’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and bailment claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold the trial court did not err in (1) holding Mr. Marsh liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the amount of the jury verdict; (2) instructing the jury that they were permitted to draw a negative inference resulting from Mr. Marsh’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege during questioning; and (3) dismissing the TCPA and bailment claims. The judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on this Article

AMANDA SMITH v. WILLIAM R. WALKER ET AL.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Floyd Don Davis and Norris Arthur Kessler, III, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellant, Amanda Smith.

S. Todd Bobo, Shelbyville, Tennessee, for the appellee, William R. Walker.

Gerald L. Ewell, Jr., Tullahoma, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jimmy F. Maloy.

Judge: BENNETT

In this negligence action, the jury awarded the plaintiff a verdict against one of the two defendants. We find no error in the judgment regarding liability, but we must vacate and remand as to damages because the trial court erred in excluding testimony and evidence regarding the plaintiff’s medical expenses.
 

PDF Version of Article

Comment on Article

TRACI JONES v. BERNICE JONES ET AL.
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Mark Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Traci Jones.

Bruce Timothy Pirtle, McMinnville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Bernice Jones, Cynthia Gribble, and Jimmie Gribble.

Judge: BENNETT

This matter arose from a car accident between Traci Jones and Bernice Jones. At trial, the jury found Bernice Jones 100% at fault and awarded Traci Jones a portion of her requested relief. On appeal, Traci Jones argues that the trial court erred by reversing its pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine, denying her motion for mistrial, and denying her motion for directed verdict. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on Article

MISTY PHILLIPS, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON JACOB GENTRY v. ROBERTSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Michael P. Mills, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robertson County Board of Education.

Jonathan A. Street, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Misty Phillips on behalf of her minor son, Jacob Gentry.

Judge: BENNETT

County appeals the trial court’s decision finding the County liable for injuries sustained by a student with Asperger’s syndrome in an altercation with another student. Finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination, we affirm.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on Article

JUDY KYLE v. CITY OF JACKSON, TENNESSEE
Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Spencer R. Barnes, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Judy Kyle.

Robert O. Binkley, Jr. and James V. Thompson, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of Jackson, Tennessee.

Judge: STAFFORD

This is a Governmental Tort Liability Case. The trial court determined that Appellant was at least 50% at fault for the injuries she sustained when she fell from an elevated stage at an event held at a building, which is owned and operated by Appellee City of Jackson. Discerning no error, we affirm.

.PDF Version of Case

Comment on this Article