Editorial
Front Page - Friday, August 14, 2009
Case Digests - Tennessee court of appeals syllabus
Timmy Sykes, et al vs. Chattanooga Housing Authority, et al
Hamilton County - This opinion replaces one filed on March 31, 2009, which opinion was withdrawn by us “and held for naught” by order of April 21, 2009. The joint complaint filed by the plaintiffs, Timmy Sykes and Curtis Greene, who are African-Americans, actually involves the independent claims of the two plaintiffs against their former employer, the Chattanooga Housing Authority (“the CHA” or “CHA”), and the plaintiffs’ supervisor in that employment, Jeff Hazelwood, Chief of the CHA’s Public Safety Department, for wrongful termination of their employment and other claims. Sykes, who was a CHA criminal investigator, was terminated by the CHA on September 30, 2004, and Greene, also a criminal investigator, was terminated on January 19, 2005. They each seek damages for wrongful termination, asserting two theories of recovery. Sykes also seeks damages from Chief Hazelwood for alleged defamatory statements made by him and both plaintiffs sue Hazelwood for interfering with their CHA employment. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted as to all claims. The plaintiffs appeal. They raise three issues in common and Sykes complains of the trial court’s judgment with respect to his defamation claim. We affirm in part and vacate in part.
East Ridge Dental Center, Inc., and Drew Shabo, DDS., vs. Joseph D. Prince, DDS.
Hamilton County - Plaintiffs sued the defendant, alleging breach by defendant of the contract with defendant to purchase his dental practice. Included in the agreement was a restrictive covenant not to compete. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial Court held that the $75,000 that was paid for the restrictive covenant should be returned to the plaintiffs under the theory of unjust enrichment, because the covenant was not enforceable. On appeal, we hold that defendant abided by the terms of the restrictive covenant for five of the seven years that the covenant covered and, as a matter of equity, the Judgment of the trial court should be reduced proportionately.
Bobby J. Collins vs. Lynda C. Fugate
Loudon County - This appeal arises out of litigation in the trial court pertaining to a disputed interest in the use of a boat dock. Bobby J. Collins filed suit against Lynda C. Fugate seeking compensation for labor expended and materials used in the construction of a boat dock. He claimed that, some ten years before filing suit, he helped build the dock on lakeside property owned by Ms. Fugate. The plaintiff contended that, in exchange for building the dock, the defendant gave him a “lifetime dowry” to use her property and dock his houseboat. The defendant acknowledged an agreement between the parties, but contended that it ended by its own terms before she revoked her permission for the defendant’s continued use of the property. Following a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff had a revocable personal license to use the defendant’s property that was terminated when and by virtue of the fact he had sold his boat. The complaint was dismissed. We affirm.
Rodney Marra v. Bank of New York, Trustee, and Philip M. Kleinsmith, Trustee
Fayette County - This appeal involves a court clerk’s fee for facilitating a foreclosure sale. The defendant bank held a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s home without giving the plaintiff proper notice. The plaintiff then filed this action and the sale was set aside. The trial court ordered that the property be re-auctioned and appointed the clerk and master of the chancery court as a special commissioner to facilitate the sale. At the second sale, the plaintiff purchased the property. The trial court ordered that the clerk be awarded 5% of the purchase price as his fee for services rendered in connection with the sale. The bank objected, arguing that the clerk’s fee was excessive. The trial court conducted a hearing and held that the fee to the clerk was reasonable. The bank appealed, naming the court clerk as an appellee in the notice of appeal, but failing to file a motion to add him as a party. The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order. On remand, the court clerk filed a motion asking the trial court to confirm that he was immune from suit and that disbursement of his fee was proper. The clerk also sought Rule 11 sanctions in the form of appellate attorney’s fees against the bank’s attorney for naming him as a party in the notice of appeal without properly adding him. The bank filed two cross-motions for sanctions. The trial court held that the clerk was immune from suit and that disbursement of the fee to the clerk was proper. The clerk’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and the bank’s two cross-motions for sanctions were denied. The bank and its attorney now appeal. We hold that the statement of the evidence filed by the appellants and not objected to by the appellees or ruled on by the trial court is deemed approved under T.R.A.P. 24. Addressing the merits, we reverse the trial court’s award of appellate attorney’s fees as sanctions under Rule 11. All other decisions by the trial court are affirmed.
|
|