Editorial
Front Page - Friday, January 21, 2011
Case Digests: Tennesse Court of Appeals Syllabus
Teresa J. Allen v. Randy C. Allen
Henry County – In this divorce case, Plaintiff and her counsel failed to appear in court on the scheduled date of trial. The trial court held the hearing ex parte in their absence. Plaintiff hired new counsel and filed a “Motion to Set Aside Judgment,” which we discern to be a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59. The trial court held a hearing on the motion; however, Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence explaining her failure to appear on the scheduled trial date. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
Calvin Wilhite v. Tennessee Board of Parole
Davidson County – Appel-lant filed this petition for common law writ of certiorari when the Board of Probation and Parole denied him parole. He contends the Board’s decision was illegal, arbitrary, fraudulent, and in excess of its jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari. We affirm the trial court.
Tyrone W. Vanlier v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board, et al.
Hickman County – An in-
mate at the Turney Center Industrial Complex filed this petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the ruling of the Turney Center Disciplinary Board that he failed to report for work, imposed a fine, and placed him on probation. After the Board’s ruling was affirmed by the Warden and Commissioner of Correction, this petition was filed. The chancellor dismissed the writ. We affirm the ruling of the chancellor.
Michael B. Woods v. Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
Davidson County – The petitioner, a former property manager for the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency, was fired amid allegations that he had sexually harassed tenants and neglected his official duties by failing to properly prepare monthly reports. He appealed the termination of his employment to the Board of Commissioners of MDHA. The Board appointed a hearing officer who conducted a two-day hearing, following which the hearing officer found that the proof was insufficient to support a finding of sexual harassment and recommended that Petitioner be reinstated but demoted due to his failure to provide the required monthly reports.
The Board subsequently rejected the recommendation and affirmed Petitioner’s termination based on the risk of future negligent retention sexual harassment suits and the fact he was an at-will employee who could be fired without cause. Petitioner then filed this petition for a common law writ of certiorari, contending MDHA acted arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally because it did not have just cause to fire him and because the decision to terminate him was due to his refusal to waive his right to appeal.
The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or illegally because Petitioner was an employee-at-will who could be fired without just cause. We affirm.
In Re: Conservatorship of Goldie Childs
Davidson County – Two of
the daughters of an eighty-two year old woman filed a petition to be named as their mother’s Conservator. The trial court found that the mother did indeed need a Conservator, but because of family disagreements it appointed a third party to perform that role. Seven months later, the same daughters filed a petition to remove the incumbent Conservator and to be named as Co-Conservators to replace her. The mother died after proceedings on the second petition began, but before the trial court could rule on its merits. The Conservator subsequently moved the court for payment of her fees. The court found that some of those fees were incurred as a direct result of the uncooperative acts of the two daughters. Since the decedent’s estate was indigent, the court entered two money judgments for costs against the daughters. We reverse the judgment that was assessed against one of the daughters for failing to return her mother to the nursing home in a timely way, because although her actions led to additional costs, no legal basis for the
judgment appears in the record.
We vacate the judgment based
on the unsuccessful petition to remove the conservator and we remand the case for further
proceedings, because although
Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-114
does allow an assessment of
costs against such petitioners, it is unclear how much of the court’s judgment falls within the parameters of that statute.
|
|