Roberto Carlos Urtuzuast-egui a/k/a Jose M. Carrion-Casillas v. George D. Kirkland, et al.
Shelby County – This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees and from the trial court’s grant of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) motion for involuntary dismissal in favor of Appellees. The trial court granted both motions upon its finding that Appellant had committed fraud upon the court in filing his complaint under an assumed name.
Specifically, the court granted the motion for summary judgment finding that the statute of limitations had expired because the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint, which the court determined was a nullity ab initio. The Rule 41.02 motion was granted based upon the court’s finding that the Appellant had perpetrated a fraud upon the court in filing the complaint under an assumed name.
Concluding that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Appellant committed fraud and, specifically, as to whether Appellant’s alleged mental incapacity negates a finding of fraud, we reverse both the order on the motion for summary judgment and the order granting the Rule 41.02 motion. We remand for further hearing on the issues of fraud and mental incapacity. Reversed and remanded.
Robert Shrout, et al v. Hall Construction, et al.
Claiborne County – This case arose over the construction of a home for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the construction company and a bank and several individuals. The Trial Court resolved the issues as to defendants, except Mark Rodriguez, prior to trial.
The plaintiffs’ case against Rodriguez was tried by the Trial Court who directed a verdict at the end of plaintiffs’ proof. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court. Plaintiffs insisted that material evidence established a violation of the Consumer Protection Act by defendant, and the directed verdict should be reversed.
Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the Trial Judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and we affirm the Trial Court’s Judgment.
Anthony F. Stiel, Jr. v. Susan M. Stiel.
Williamson County – This post divorce appeal arises from the lack of symmetry between the parties’ 1995 Final Divorce Decree and a 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree.
The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits.
For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband’s retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects.
Jeffrey Paul Roller v. Anna Marie Roller.
Anderson County – The order from which the appellant Anna Marie Roller seeks to appeal was entered on Wednesday, December 15, 2010. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, the 34th day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
Accordingly, the motion of the appellee to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed.
Guy Alexander, Jr., as surviving spouse of Julie Anne Alexander, deceased v. City of Murfreesboro.
Rutherford County – Julie Alexander died in an automobile accident on South Rutherford Boulevard in Murfreesboro. Her husband sued the city, claiming that the road was unsafe or dangerous and that the city had notice of the condition of the road.
After a trial, the trial court found that the city did not have notice and that the road was not unsafe or dangerous. Ms. Alexander’s husband appealed.
We affirm the trial court’s decision that the city had no notice of the condition.
Jan Oglesby and John Oglesby v. Edwin T. Riggins.
Shelby County – This case arises from a car accident in which Appellant was injured when her vehicle was struck by Appellee’s vehicle. Following a jury trial, the jury awarded Appellant damages, including $100,000 for Appellant’s loss of earning capacity claims. Acting as the thirteenth juror, and based upon its finding that Appellant had failed to meet her burden to show loss of earning capacity, the trial court suggested remittitur of the entire $100,000 loss of earning capacity award. Appellant appeals.
Discerning no error, we affirm.
In the Matter of: Dylan M. J.
Marshall County – The mother and stepfather of a nine year old boy filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the boy’s father, who was incarcerated at the time the petition was filed. The sole ground alleged in the petition was abandonment by failure to pay child support.
After a hearing, the trial court terminated the father’s rights. The court ruled that the ground of abandonment had been proved because there was clear and convincing evidence that the father had failed to support the mother during her pregnancy, and that the father had subsequently shown wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to his incarceration.
The court also found that termination of the father’s rights was in the child’s best interest. We reverse.