Editorial
Front Page - Friday, December 24, 2010
Case Digests: Tennesse Court of Appeals Syllabus
Jennie F. Ingraham vs. Patrick Garrett Ingraham.
Hamilton County – After eighteen years of marriage, Jennie F. Ingraham (“Wife”) sued Patrick Garrett Ingraham (“Husband”) for divorce. After a trial, the trial court entered its Final Judgment on December 7, 2009, inter alia, granting Wife a divorce and dividing the marital property. Husband appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the valuation and distribution of the marital property. Wife raises additional issues concerning the property distribution and attorney fees.
We affirm as to the trial court’s valuation of items of marital property, the determination that the Exxon stock is Husband’s separate property, and the denial of an award to Wife of attorney’s fees. We, however, remand this case for proof on the issue of whether Husband’s combined SEP and IRA fall under the definition contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) pursuant to our Supreme Court’s Opinion in Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2009).
Leta V. Myers vs. Robert A. Myers.
Hamilton County – Leta V. Myers (“Mother”) and Robert A. Myers (“Father”) were divorced in 1999. Approximately ten years later, Father filed a petition seeking to have his child support payment reduced after the oldest of the parties’ four children became emancipated. Mother responded to the petition.
Mother also filed a counter-petition seeking a modification of the parenting plan as well as to have Father found in contempt of court for willfully violating numerous provisions of the final decree. When Father failed to respond timely to the counter-petition, Mother filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion for default.
Approximately three hours after the order granting the default judgment was entered, Father filed a response to the counter-petition. The trial court eventually found Father in contempt of court for numerous violations of the final decree.
After Father’s motion to set aside the default judgment was denied, Father appealed challenging only the initial entry of the default judgment.
We affirm.
Joni Lynn Jennings v. Mark Allan Jennings
Shelby County – After Husband and Wife filed cross petitions for orders of protection, they entered Consent Injunc-tions restricting communications between them. Subsequently, the parties filed competing petitions for contempt, alleging violations of the Consent Injunctions. On appeal, Husband argues that the Consent Injunctions were improperly entered, and therefore, that the trial court’s criminal contempt conviction, which was based upon violations of such injunctions, cannot stand.
We affirm the decision of the chancery court, and finding the appeal frivolous, we remand for a determination of damages.
Sandra Newman, et al. v. Rubye J. Jarrell, et al.
Rutherford County – The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident in which their car collided with a stolen car. They sued the City of Murfreesboro and its police department, arguing that the stolen car was being pursued by the police immediately prior to the accident.
The plaintiffs also sued the person who was using the car with its owner’s permission prior to the theft, arguing that he had acted negligently in leaving the keys in the car. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants.
With respect to the city and its police department, we affirm. With respect to the user of the offending car prior to its theft, we reverse and remand.
Lisdsi Allison Connors vs. Jeremy Phillip Lawson.
Bradley County – Lindsi Allison Connors (“Mother”) and Jeremy Phillip Lawson (“Father”) are the parents of a daughter (the “Child”) who currently is eight years old. Several parenting plans have been entered over the years. Mother eventually moved with the Child to Florida, and thereafter, Father filed a petition claiming there had been a material change in circumstances such that it was in the Child’s best interest for him to be designated the primary residential parent.
Father also sought to have Mother held in contempt of court. Following a hearing, the trial court found Mother in contempt but refused to mete out any punishment for the contemptuous conduct.
The trial court made no mention in its final judgment as to the petition for a change in custody. The trial court then abdicated jurisdiction and instructed the parties to take up any future matters with the Florida courts.
We vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Doyle Sweeney, et al vs. Charles Koehler, et al.
Greene County – This appeal involves a boundary line dispute based on competing surveys. The plaintiffs, Doyle and Gloria Sweeney (“the Sweeneys”), and the defendants, Charles and Valerie Koehler (“the Koehlers”), own adjoining real properties. The Sweeneys brought a declaratory judgment action against the Koehlers, seeking to have the boundary line declared between the parties.
The Koehlers counterclaimed. The trial court found that the statutory bar codified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110 did not apply to the Koehlers and that the Sweeneys were not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of ownership to the disputed land under § 28-2-109 based upon the payment of property taxes on the tract for over 20 years. The trial court determined the common boundary line as contended by the Koehlers. The Sweeneys appealed.
We affirm the decision of the trial court.
|
|