Today's News

• Legal News (8)
• Upcoming (2)
• Passages (1)
• BPR Actions (3)
• TBA CLE (1)
• TBA Member Advantages (1)

Today's Opinions

• TN Court of Appeals (3)
• TN Court of Criminal Appeals (4)
• 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions) (2)

BRADLEY SANDERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF DECEDENT, KELLY DUGGAN v. NOAH HIGGINS ET AL.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Laura B. Baker, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellants, Charley Duggan and Sarah Duggan, as Co-Trustees of the Maggie Duggan Trust and the Julia Jane Duggan Trust, and Samantha Douglas.

Rebecca C. Blair, Brentwood, Tennessee, as Administrator Ad Litem for the appellant, the Estate of Kelly Rebecca Duggan.

C.J. Gideon, Jr.; Steven A. Riley; and Jared A. Hagler, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Bradley Sanders.

Judge(s): FRIERSON

This appeal involves the disbursement of settlement proceeds proffered by an insurance company in resolution of a claim against it. The plaintiff is the surviving spouse of the decedent, who was killed when she was struck by a vehicle while riding her bicycle. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the vehicle’s driver and the driver’s parents, all of whom were subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit following a settlement unrelated to this appeal. Within the same action, the plaintiff asserted a claim against his and the decedent’s insurer for negligent misrepresentation and negligent failure to procure insurance. The insurer had previously paid a pre-suit settlement to the plaintiff related to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the insurer had misrepresented additional coverage under an “umbrella policy,” leading the plaintiff and decedent to believe they were covered while failing to actually reinstate the umbrella policy when it had been temporarily cancelled months before the decedent’s death. The plaintiff and the insurer eventually reached a confidential settlement. To facilitate the release of claims by both the plaintiff and the decedent’s estate and upon the estate’s motion, the trial court entered an agreed order allowing the estate to intervene. The plaintiff then filed a motion to disburse the settlement proceeds to him, and the estate filed an intervening complaint and opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, asserting that the estate was entitled to one hundred percent of the settlement proceeds related to the umbrella policy claim. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s motion to disburse the settlement proceeds to him upon finding that the cause of action against the insurer had not vested in the decedent prior to her death. The court subsequently denied the estate’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The estate has appealed. Determining that the cause of action against the insurer was based in tort, rather than wrongful death, and accrued to the decedent at the time of her fatal injuries, we conclude that the right to the resulting settlement proceeds belongs to the decedent’s estate. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order granting disbursal of the settlement funds to the estate.

sandersb_082923.pdf

CLARENCE MITCHELL, ET AL. v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Webb A. Brewer, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Clarence Mitchell and Leslie Mitchell.

Bret J. Chaness and Patricia Whitehead, Peachtree Corners, Georgia, for the appellee, Select Portfolio Services, Inc.

Judge(s): USMAN

Plaintiffs brought suit alleging breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the mortgage servicer of their loan. The mortgage servicer sought summary judgment on two grounds: (1) an absence of privity and (2) its actions did not violate any provision of the contract. The Plaintiffs conceded that the mortgage servicer’s actions did not violate any specific term of the contract and indicated their suit exclusively relied on a claim predicated upon breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the mortgage servicer. The trial court acknowledged but declined to rule upon the mortgage servicer’s privity argument and instead granted summary judgment based on its conclusion that a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot occur in the absence of a breach of a specific term of the contract. The Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiffs and the mortgage servicer.

mitchellc_082923.pdf

STUART RICHARD JAMES, III v. STEPHANIE LYNNE JAMES

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Laurie Winstead Hall and Donielle M. Beaty, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Stephanie Lynne James.

Sarah Johnson Carter, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Stuart Richard James, III.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

This is a post-divorce dispute. Two primary issues are presented, whether the trial court erred by (1) holding the mother in civil contempt for violating the Permanent Parenting Plan and the Parental Rights Statute and (2) reversing the Shelby County Divorce Referee’s ruling regarding the father’s child support obligations. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the findings of contempt as well as the ruling setting aside the Divorce Referee’s ruling and remand with instructions to reinstate the Order Confirming the Divorce Referee’s Ruling.

jamess_082923.pdf

BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

J. Collin Morris, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Billie Joe Chapman.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jody S. Pickens, District Attorney General; and Al Earls, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): AYERS

Petitioner, Billie Joe Chapman, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

chapmanb_082923.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DEMARCUS TAIWAN RUSSELL, JR.

Head Comment: GREENHOLTZ filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Joseph O. McAfee, Greeneville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal), for the appellant, Demarcus Taiwan Russell, Jr.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglass, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dan E. Armstrong, District Attorney General; and Ritchie D. Collins, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): CAMPBELL

The Defendant, Demarcus Taiwan Russell, Jr., was convicted by a Greene County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence (“DUI”), simple possession of marijuana, driving on a suspended license, and speeding. He was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of 11 months, 29 days, suspended to supervised probation after service of two days in the county jail. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his DUI conviction and argues that the State made an improper closing argument. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

russelld_082923.pdf

russelld_CON_082923.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CARL PAIGE

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Tony N. Brayton, Assistant Public Defender (on appeal); Phyllis Aluko, District Public Defender, and Phoebe Gille, Assistant District Public Defender (at hearing), for the appellant, Carl Paige.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald L. Coleman, Assistant Attorney General; Steven J. Mulroy, District Attorney General, and Julie Cardillo, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILSON

Defendant, Carl Paige, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder and agreed to an eight-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to a term of eight years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request to suspend his sentence to probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

paigec_082923.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARK DAVID BOND

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney General; Robert J. Nash, District Attorney General; and Kayla McBride, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Chason T. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Mark David Bond.

Judge(s): WITT

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion of the defendant, Mark David Bond, to suppress evidence seized during the search of his vehicle after a drug detection canine indicated the presence of narcotics during a sweep around the perimeter of the vehicle. The State challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the canine’s reaction was unreliable due to the canine’s inability to distinguish between the odor of illegal marijuana and the odor of legal hemp. After review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, reinstate the indictment against the defendant, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

bondm_082923.pdf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. T’SHAUN OMAR JONES

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys:

ARGUED: Amanda Bashi, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant in case 22-1280.

ARGUED and ON BRIEF: Mark Chasteen, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee in case 22-1280.

ON BRIEF: Benton C. Martin, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant in case 22-1280.

ON BRIEF: Meghan Sweeney Bean, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee in case 22-1281.

Judge(s): COOK, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Officers arrested T’Shaun Jones, who had been on supervised release, after he fired shots outside his house and fled inside. Under a plea agreement, the district court imposed the agreed-upon ten-year sentence, which was above the Guidelines range. Separately, Jones faced resentencing on his supervised release because the firearm offense violated his supervised-release conditions. A different district court imposed a 24-month sentence for this violation—half to run concurrently with his firearm conviction and half to run consecutively.

Jones challenges both the ten-year firearm sentence and the 24-month supervised-release sentence. Because the district courts properly calculated Jones’s Guidelines range for the firearm offense and imposed a reasonable sentence for the supervised-release violation, we AFFIRM.

jonest_082923.pdf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SYLVIA HOFSTETTER (20-6245); HOLLI WOMACK (20-6426); CYNTHIA CLEMONS (20-6427); COURTNEY NEWMAN (20-6428)

Head Comment: COLE delivered a separate concurring opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys:

ARGUED and ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Loretta G. Cravens, CRAVENS LEGAL, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant in 20-6245.

ARGUED: Karen Savir, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant in 20-6426.

ARGUED and ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Randall E. Reagan, THE LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL E. REAGAN, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant in 20-6427.

ARGUED and ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Christopher J. Oldham, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant in 20-6428.

ARGUED: Brian Samuelson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Kevin M. Schad, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant in 20-6426.

ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Brian Samuelson, Tracy L. Stone, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SILER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville

SILER, Circuit Judge. This matter comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. All four Defendants were found guilty of maintaining a drug-involved premises. Sylvia Hofstetter was also found guilty of conspiring to distribute controlled substances, distributing controlled substances, and money laundering.

After we affirmed the convictions, the Supreme Court decided Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370, 2375 (2022), clarifying the applicable mens rea for an unlawful distribution charge, and remanded the case. Defendants now argue that the district court erred regarding the jury instructions for the maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises charge, and Hofstetter further argues the district court erred as to the instructions for her distribution-of-a-controlled-substance and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense-controlled-substances charges.

Defendants’ arguments are unavailing. The district court’s instructions were not plainly erroneous regarding the maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense-controlled-substances charges. Moreover, Hofstetter’s argument regarding the instruction for the distribution-of-a-controlled-substance charge is foreclosed by United States v. Anderson, 67 F.4th 755 (6th Cir. 2023) (per curiam). We affirm.

hofstetters_082923.pdf