Editorial
Front Page - Friday, July 3, 2009
Case Digests - Tennessee court of appeals syllabus
Cherie Lynn Dennis vs. George Emmett Dennis,III
Hamilton County - Cherie Lynn Dennis (“Wife”) sued George Emmett Dennis, III (“Husband”) for divorce. After a trial, the Trial Court entered a Final Judgment that, inter alia, declared the parties divorced, distributed the marital property, named Wife the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child with Husband to have visitation, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees. Husband appeals only the award to Wife of attorney’s fees. We affirm.
Ronald Timmons v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee,
Davidson County - Plaintiff filed this Governmental Tort Liability Act action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest for driving under the influence following a vehicular accident. Plaintiff contends the police officers who arrested him were negligent in failing to recognize that he was not intoxicated but in diabetic shock, in failing to recognize that he could be restrained and handcuffed while standing, instead of in the prone position, and that he sustained a spiral, comminuted fracture of the humerus while an officer was pulling his right arm behind his back in an effort to cuff his hands. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the officers were negligent in the manner in which they assessed the threat posed by Plaintiff and were negligent in the decision to handcuff him in the prone position, which caused his injuries. The trial court, therefore, held the Metropolitan Government liable for the officers’ negligence, assessed 100 percent of the fault to the officers, and awarded Plaintiff $140,000 in damages. On appeal, the Metropolitan Government insists it is immune from liability because the officers’ actions were not the result of negligence but, it contends, the officers’ consciously and volitionally used an excessive amount of force that constituted the intentional tort of battery. Alternatively, the Government contends, if it is liable under a negligence theory, the trial court erred by apportioning no fault to Plaintiff. We have determined the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the officers’ negligent acts and omissions, that the Metropolitan Government is liable for the officers’ negligence, that Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in the amount of $140,000. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects.
George A. Herbison v. Michelle Dawn (Fuqua) Herbison
Humphreys County - This is a divorce case involving the distribution of marital property. Prior to the parties’ marriage, the husband owned and operated a medical supply business, and continued to operate the business after they were married. The business experienced some increase in value during the marriage. After the parties separated, the business’ increase in value was very substantial. The husband filed for divorce. Subsequently, he filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court declared the parties divorced and adopted the consent permanent parenting plan, reserving for trial issues relating to child support and the division of the marital estate. After the trial, the trial court found that the wife had not substantially contributed to the increase in value of the husband’s business and that it remained the husband’s separate property. The trial court then divided the marital property. The wife appeals, arguing that the increase in value of the husband’s business is marital property and that the distribution of the marital estate was inequitable. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding that the increase in the value of the company is the husband’s separate property and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s distribution of the marital estate.
Kenneth Melvin Hommerding v. Julie Ann Hommerding
Coffee County - This dispute arises from the parties’ post-divorce contempt petitions. Julie Ann Hommerding (“Wife”) argues that her ex-husband, Kenneth Melvin Hommerding (“Husband”) should be held in contempt for violating their divorce decree. She claims that Husband failed to give her property awarded to her in the divorce and that Husband violated the trial court’s order not to have overnight visitors of the opposite sex when the children were present. Both parties argue that the trial court erred in calculating Wife’s income and setting her child support obligation. In addition, Wife claims that the trial court erred by denying her post-judgment interest on the money awarded to her in the divorce. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Drexel Chemical Company, Inc. v. Gerald McDill
Shelby County - This breach of contract action arises from the parties’ employment agreement. Employer agreed to pay Employee $10,000 to relocate to the city where Employer’s plant was located. Employee moved to the local area without his family and Employer paid him $10,000. After Employee terminated his employment, Employer sued to recover the $10,000 because it claims that Employee failed to satisfy the relocation requirement because he did not move his family with him to the local area. The trial court held that Employee satisfied the relocation requirement. We affirm.
|
|