Editorial
Front Page - Friday, February 19, 2010
Case Digests - Tennessee court of appeals syllabus
Corporacion Euanitos, S.A., et al v. Montlake Properties, Inc. et al
Hamilton County – Corporacion Euanitos, S.A. (“Plaintiff”) sued Montlake Properties, Inc.; Montlake Property Owners Association, Inc.; and Luken Properties, LLC seeking, in part, a restraining order and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from pumping water from a lake, Montlake, located in Hamilton County. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, “[t]hat Luken Properties, LLC, has an easement right to withdraw water from Montlake.” Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm.
Katherine Dodge Gribben Warwick v. Edward Joseph Warwick, Sr.
Hamilton County – After ten years of marriage, Katherine Dodge Gribben Warwick (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce against her spouse, Edward Joseph Warwick, Sr. (“Husband”). Pursuant to the parties’ pre-trial stipulation, the court granted Husband a divorce; incorporated the parties’ agreed permanent parenting plan; and distributed some of the parties’ personal property. Following a bench trial, the court classified, valued, and distributed the balance of the parties’ property. Husband appeals, challenging (1) the court’s decree as to how Wife was to receive her equity in the marital home, (2) the classification and allocation of certain debts, and (3) the overall property division. We affirm.
Nancy Chandler Small v. Daniel Wallace Small, Jr.
Davidson County – In this divorce action, Husband appeals numerous holdings of the trial court, including: the ground upon which the divorce was granted; the nature and amount of spousal support; the determination of the amount of marital property and the division of marital assets and liabilities; certain aspects of the parenting plan ordered by the court; and the entry of the final decree of divorce retroactive to the date the court entered its findings and conclusions. Finding that the trial court erred in the amount of earning capacity imputed to each party, the awards of spousal and child support are reversed and remanded for redetermination. Finding that the trial court erred in the determination of the marital assets, the division of marital property is reversed and remanded for reconsideration. Finding that the trial court erred in imposing a restriction on Husband’s visitation and in setting the parenting schedule, those matters are reversed. Finding that the court did not err in ordering Husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the child, entering the final decree nunc pro tunc, and in its credibility determination regarding Husband, those judgments are affirmed. Husband’s appeal of the trial court’s grounds for divorce is determined to be moot. The court’s determination to award counsel fees to Wife is affirmed and the issue remanded for redetermination of the amount to be awarded; Wife’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal is granted and the matter remanded to the trial court for a determination of the amount to be awarded.
Jeffrey Wayne Cansler v. Karen Louise Kirk Cansler
Hamblen County – Jeffrey Wayne Cansler (“Father”) and Karen Louise Kirk Cansler (“Mother”) were divorced in 2005. Since that time, the parties have continued to disagree about almost everything and have filed numerous petitions for contempt. In this appeal, Father claims the Trial Court erred when it: (1) denied his motion for relief from the judgment; (2) distributed the marital property; (3) entered two judgments nunc pro tunc, (4) offset two findings of civil contempt against Mother with two findings of civil contempt against Father; and (5) sentenced Mother to community service for two remaining counts of civil contempt that were not offset. We affirm the Trial Court except as to the six findings of civil contempt as we hold the alleged contempts were criminal rather than civil in nature. Those six findings of civil contempt are vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
George T. Haynie, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
TN Claims Commission- Plaintiff, an inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a claim for damages with the Division of Claims Administration alleging that he was arrested and unlawfully detained for weeks due to the erroneous actions of a state probation officer, who requested that a warrant for probation violation be issued against Plaintiff, and the judge of the criminal court who signed the warrant. He admits he was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to ten years; however, he contends he was not put on probation, and the State is liable pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 for his arrest for an alleged probation violation. The Claims Commissioner dismissed the claim upon the State’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion upon findings that the claim did not constitute a cause of action for which relief could be granted against the State of Tennessee and the fact that the judge and probation officer had immunity for their actions. We affirm.
Dana Foust Bochette v. Michael Louis Bochette
Wilson County- In this divorce case, the Trial Court awarded the wife the divorce, and awarded her alimony in solido. One-half of the equity in the home was awarded to the wife, and other one-half of the equity in the home was awarded to the wife as alimony in solido. The Court also awarded the wife one-half of the workers’ compensation settlement proceeds obtained by the husband during the marriage. On appeal, the husband questioned the distribution of the marital property and the Trial Court’s ruling that the workers’ compensation award was also marital property. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
|
|