Editorial
Front Page - Friday, December 10, 2010
Case Digests: Tennesse Court of Appeals Syllabus
Dillard Construction, Inc. vs. Haron Contracting Corp.
Hamilton County – The only parties left litigating in what started out as a complex construction dispute are, on one side, Dillard Construction, Inc., and, on the other, Dillard’s demolition subcon-
tractor, Havron Contracting Corp.
After a bench trial and several post-trial motions, the court held that (1) Dillard, while not having a contract with Havron, was required by quantum meruit to pay Havron $91,100 for work performed by Havron’s subcontractors; (2) Dillard was not entitled to an offset against that judgment for damage done to electrical equipment by Havron’s subcontractor; (3) Havron was entitled to recover from Dillard, under a “passthrough” indemnity theory, the attorney’s fees awarded against Havron and in favor of its subcontractor; and (4) Havron was not entitled to recover the attorney’s fees that it, Havron, incurred in defending against the claims of its subcontractor.
Dillard appeals challenging both the quantum meruit award and the denial of an offset. Havron challenges the trial court’s denial of indemnification for attorney’s fees Havron incurred in defending the claims of its subcontractor. We affirm.
Brenda Carrol Bivens vs. Donald Eugene Bivens
Hamilton County – Brenda Carrol Bivens (“Wife”) filed this divorce action against Donald Eugene Bivens (“Husband”) in the Hamilton County Circuit Court in the Eleventh Judicial District. At the time of the parties’ separation, they lived in Grundy County in the Twelfth Judicial District. Husband has lived in Grundy County his entire adult life.
Husband filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue which he claims was granted orally by the trial court. No order dismissing the case ever was entered.
The trial court later entered a final decree and marital dissolution agreement submitted by Wife and signed by Husband. Husband filed a motion to set aside the final decree. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that Husband had waived any objection to venue and refused to set aside the final decree. Husband appeals.
We conclude that Husband did not waive his objections to venue and that the proper venue in this case never has been Hamilton County. Accordingly, we vacate entry of the final decree and remand this case to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County with instructions to transfer this case to an appropriate court in Grundy County.
Amy Cardwell vs. Donald Christopher Hutchinson
Knox County – Amy E. Cardwell (“Petitioner”) was sexually abused by Donald Christopher Hutchinson (“Respondent”), who was the Youth Leader at petitioner’s church. Petitioner, who is mentally disabled, filed for and obtained an order of protection prohibiting respondent from having any contact with petitioner. Respondent also was prohibited from attending the church where he abused petitioner so long as petitioner continued to attend that church.
The order of protection expired in one year, at which time both petitioner and respondent agreed to extend it for another one year period. At the expiration of the second one year term, petitioner filed a motion seeking another one year extension. Respondent opposed the second extension. Following a hearing, the trial court extended the order of protection for another year. Respondent appeals, and we affirm.
Richard L. Holllow, Trustee, et al vs. Michael L. Ingram, et al
Knox County – The parties, owners of a tract of land, ultimately agreed to the sale of the property by a Special Master appointed by the Court. The sale was held and the Master ultimately reported the purchase and asked that the sale be confirmed. Before the Court acted on the Master’s Report, the plaintiff moved for a dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 41, which the Trial Court granted and dismissed the case.
On appeal, we hold that the Trial Court was required to act on the Master’s Report before entertaining any motion to dismiss the case, and reinstate the action and remand for further proceedings.
Katrina Martins, et al. v. Williamson Medical Center
Williamson County –Katrina B. Martins and her husband filed suit against Williamson Medical Center for injuries sustained when Ms. Martins fell in her hospital room. The trial court held that the complaint stated a claim based on medical malpractice and dismissed the lawsuit for failure to comply with the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. Plaintiffs appeal, asserting that the complaint sounded in common law negligence. We affirm.
Limmie R. Walls v. Bobby G. Hopkins
Sumner County - This tort action arises out of a two-vehicle accident. Plaintiff sued defendant under a negligence theory and sought damages.
After a jury trial, the jury equally allocated fault between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the jury’s verdict is not supported by material evidence and that the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding plaintiff’s intention to use a shortcut. We affirm.
Tom Agnew vs. Meritan,e t al
Sullivan County – In this matter, the plaintiff appeals the decision of the Board of Review of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-301, as a result of his failure to establish that he had covered wages not provided by an unemployment workrelief program financed by a federal agency under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-207(c)(5)(G).
The trial court upheld the decision of the Board of Review. We affirm.
|
|