Kelly Williams v. The Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corporation, d/b/a WTCI-TV Channel 45.
Hamilton County – The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on plaintiffs’ causes of action, alleging discrimination by their employer and termination by the employer because of their age, or that they suffered a retaliatory discharge.
Upon review of the record, we conclude there is disputed material evidence as to the claims of each plaintiff, and reverse the summary judgment and remand to the trial court.
Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III, Indivudually; William H. Smythe, IV, Trust U/A/DTD 12/29/87, William H. Smythe, III, Trustee; and Smythe Children’s Trust #2 FBO Katherine S. Thinnes, U/A/DTD 12/29/87.
Shelby County – This appeal addresses appellate jurisdiction to review a trial court’s order on an arbitration award. The parties engaged in arbitration over a dispute in which the respondent investors asserted that the petitioner investment company mismanaged their funds. The investors prevailed and received a substantial arbitration award against the investment company. The investment company filed a petition in the trial court to vacate the arbitration award, alleging partiality and bias on the part of two members of the arbitration panel.
After a hearing, the trial court held in favor of the investment company. The trial court entered an order vacating the arbitration award and remanding the matter to the regulatory authority for a rehearing before another panel of arbitrators. The respondent investors now appeal. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Annotated § 29-5-319(a), we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Associated Shopping Center Properties, LTD. v. Edward H. Hodge, et al.
Sumner County – The issue in this commercial real estate lease dispute is whether the individual defendants are additional lessees and, thus, personally liable under the lease. Plaintiff, the lessor of retail space, filed this action against the three defendants when the limited liability company, Décor Fabrics, LLC, a lessee, breached the lease by failing to pay rent for the term of the lease. The individual defendants denied liability, asserting that Décor Fabrics, LLC, was the only lessee.
The trial court found that the lease unambiguously identifies each of the individual defendants as additional lessees and assessed damages against them for breach of the lease, including the plaintiff’s attorneys fees. Only one of the defendants appealed. He asserts that the trial court erred by finding the lease unambiguous as to the identify of the lessee(s) and by failing to consider the parties’ conduct to conclude that Décor Fabrics, LLC, was the only lessee. We affirm.
David Bates d/b/a David Bates Construction Co. v. Caroline Benedetti.
Knox County – David Bates d/b/a David Bates Construction Co. (“Plaintiff”) sued Caroline Benedetti (“Defendant”) for breach of a construction contract involving demolition of an existing residential garage and construction of a new one. Defendant answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim.
After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, (1) that Plaintiff had not proven damages, (2) that Defendant had failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-36-103 with regard to her counterclaim and, therefore, pursuant to the statute her counterclaim should be abated, and (3) that Defendant also had failed to give notice and an opportunity to cure pursuant to the common law and that her counterclaim should be dismissed for that reason as well. Defendant appeals the abatement and dismissal of her counterclaim. We find that Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-36-103 does not apply to the case at hand, but that the Trial Court correctly dismissed Defendant’s counterclaim. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s order.
Ronnie Gale Gill v. Nancy Jane Gill.
Obion County – This is a post-divorce case. The husband sought to have his alimony in futuro obligation reduced or eliminated, asserting that his income had substantially decreased and the wife’s income had increased.
The trial court found a material change in circumstances, and reduced the husband’s alimony in futuro obligation but did not eliminate it, finding that the wife still needed support. The husband appeals. We affirm.
Marilyn Powell v. Kevin Sheppard.
Blount County – This is a consolidated appeal from the grant of Defendants/Appellees’ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motions to dismiss. We are asked on appeal to determine whether each of Plaintiff/Appellant’s complaints states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
We conclude that they do. Reversed and remanded.