Hamilton Herald Masthead

Editorial


Front Page - Friday, March 25, 2011

Case Digests: Tennesse Court of Appeals Syllabus




Wise Construction, LLC, et al v. Thomas Boyd, et al.

Hamilton County – This appeal involves a home construction dispute between an LLC contractor and the homeowners. The contractor entered into a written contract with the homeowners for the construction of a 6,000 square foot home. Upon the relationship between the parties becoming strained, the homeowners claim the contractor told them to find another builder. The contractor contends it was fired from the project. The instant action was commenced by the contractor to enforce a lien.

The trial court found in favor of the contractor. The homeowners appeal. We affirm.

Lucas F. McCombs v. Anna M. Davidson.

Roane County – This appeal is from the General Sessions Court of Roane County. It is the opinion of this Court that the appeal is premature as there is no final judgment as provided in the applicable rules.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged by this Court that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs on appeal are taxed to the Appellant, Brett D. Stokes, and his surety, for which execution may issue, if necessary.

Martha Duke, as next of kin of William Jerry Duke, Deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of William Jerry Duike v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., et al.

Carroll County – This appeal involves an arbitration agreement that was executed when a patient was admitted to a nursing home. The arbitration agreement was signed by the patient’s sister, who had presented a power of attorney document to the admissions staff that designated her as the patient’s attorney-in-fact.

The patient’s representative in this lawsuit contends that the patient was incompetent when he executed the power of attorney document, and therefore, the sister lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement on his behalf.

The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the patient was incompetent when he signed the document and denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. We affirm and remand.

Michael Adler v. Double Eagle Properties Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Airways Commons, LLC.

Shelby County – In this declaratory judgment action, the parties sought interpretation of a real estate purchase contract. The contract between the buyer and the seller provided for the assignment of all leases on the property and proration of rents to the buyer. The parties disputed whether these provisions contemplated a separate agreement between the seller and a third party. At the behest of the parties, the trial court construed both agreements and granted summary judgment to the buyer. On appeal, we raise, sua sponte, the question of whether all necessary parties were before the trial court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19. After concluding that all necessary parties were not included in this action, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Rocky Glen Ross v. Donna Angela Ross.

Morgan County – The order from which the appellant Donna Angela Ross seeks to appeal was entered on Monday, August 2, 2010. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Friday, September 3, 2010, the 32nd day following the entry of the trial court’s order.

Because the notice of appeal was not filed timely, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Helen M. Land v. Jack Casteel.

McMinn County – The appellant appeals the trial court’s issuance of orders of protection against him. The appellant’s sister and brother-in-law filed petitions for ex parte orders of protection and alleged that on two separate occasions, the appellant fired shots toward their home. The appellant denies the allegations.

After a hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that entry of the orders of protection was necessary. We affirm.

Elma Lou Hale v. Gerald D. Hale, et al.

Van Buren County – This is the second appeal of an action to partition 74 acres. Plaintiff is a widow who owns a one-half interest in the land as a tenant in common with Defendants, Plaintiff’s stepson and his wife. Plaintiff filed this action in 2008 to partition the property by sale. Defendants opposed a sale and sought partition in kind. The trial court ordered the property sold upon findings that a partition in kind was impractical and that the two tracts were more valuable if sold together.

Defendants appealed, and we affirmed with instructions that the property be sold on remand. Before the sale, a survey was conducted which revealed that Defendants’ home, located on a one-acre tract owned separately by Defendants, encroached on the property held by the parties as tenants in common. In order to resolve the encroachment issue, the trial court ordered Plaintiff to quitclaim a mere 0.168 acres to Defendants and ordered

Defendants to quitclaim a like-sized portion of the property of equal value to Plaintiff. Although this remedy was favorable to Defendants, they nonetheless appealed, claiming the trial court had no legal authority to order them to quitclaim any property to Plaintiff. We have determined the trial court is authorized to partition a portion of the property in kind, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-27-104, and to order that the remaining property be partitioned by sale. Thus, we affirm.