Editorial
Front Page - Friday, June 26, 2009
Case Digests - Tennessee court of appeals syllabus
Metro Construction Co., LLC v. Sim Attractions, LLC, et al.
Shelby County - This case originated with a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien asserted by Plaintiff Metro Construction against commercial real property owned by Defendant/Cross Plaintiff Peabody Place Center in Memphis. It arises from improvements made by Metro Construction to a leasehold held by Defendant Sim Attractions. Sim Attractions abandoned the leasehold without compensating Metro Construction for the improvements, which included the installation of a several-ton race car simulator that remained in the abandoned leasehold. Defendant Fitraco claimed the simulator was its property under the terms of a lease agreement between Fitraco and Sim Attractions. It alternatively asserted a superior security interest. The trial court found that the simulator was personal property and determined that that the agreement between Sim Attractions and Fitraco was not a lease but an unperfected, disguised security agreement. The trial court attached the simulator to secure judgment in favor of Metro Construction. It also awarded Metro Construction discovery sanctions against Fitraco. The trial court awarded Peabody Place damages for lost rent. Fitraco appeals, asserting it had leased the simulator to Sim Attractions or, in the alternative, that it had properly perfected its security interest prior to judicial attachment by the trial court. It further asserts the damages claimed by Peabody Place were speculative. We reverse the judgment in favor of Metro Construction and affirm the judgment in favor of Peabody Place.
Keith Ramsey and Cassandra Ramsey v. Mr. T’s Auto Detail & Sales, Inc., and Professional Financial Services of Tennessee, LLC
Rutherford County - Plaintiffs accepted an offer of judgment in this case, which offer provided that the defendant would pay $750.00 to plaintiffs for any expenses or alleged damages. Plaintiffs then moved for attorney’s fees, asserting they were the prevailing party and that under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, they were entitled to attorney’s fees. The Trial Court overruled the motion and on appeal, we affirm.
Glenda Ann Smith vs. Laddie Walter Smith,
Cumberland County - In this divorce case, both Glenda Ann Smith (“Wife”) and Laddie Walter Smith (“Husband”) owned real property prior to their marriage. The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement providing that each party would retain their separate real property if the marriage ended. During the marriage, Wife executed a deed on her separate property and created a tenancy by the entireties between her and Husband.
The “sole” purpose for executing this deed was so Wife’s property could be used as collateral for a loan on a mobile home that both parties purchased and which was placed on Husband’s separate real property. The Trial Court determined that Wife was entitled to the property that was her separate property prior to the marriage, and Husband was entitled to the property that was his separate property prior to the marriage as well as the mobile home. Husband appeals arguing that he should have been awarded an interest in the property that he and Wife held as tenants by the entireties. We affirm.
Wesley Roberts v. William D. Vaughn
Madison County - This appeal involves the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff and the defendant had several business dealings, including loans, a marketing consultant agreement, and a lease agreement. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in general sessions court to recover monies allegedly owed under the marketing consultant agreement. The defendant failed to answer or appear.
The general sessions court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed the instant lawsuit against the same defendant in circuit court. In the circuit court lawsuit, the plaintiff sought to recover monies that the defendant allegedly owed from all of the parties’ financial dealings, including the marketing consultant agreement that was the subject of the previous general sessions judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on res judicata. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm as to the claims in circuit court based on the marketing consultant agreement. As to the remaining claims, we reverse, finding that the defendant failed to establish that they are part of the cause of action that was adjudicated in the general sessions court.
Russell Cope v. Tennessee Civil Service Commission
Davidson County - An employee of the Tennessee Highway Patrol was terminated based on the employee’s handling of a traffic stop five and a half years prior. The employee received written notice that his superiors were recommending his termination and a pre-termination opportunity to respond to the charges against him; the Commissioner of the Department of Safety agreed with the recommendation and terminated the employee’s employment.
The employee filed a post-termination grievance and received a hearing before the Commissioner in which the employee’s termination was upheld. The employee appealed to the Tennessee Civil Service Commission and a contested case hearing was held before an administrative law judge sitting for the Commission.
The administrative law judge upheld the termination and the employee filed a petition for judicial review. The trial court affirmed the decision of the Commission and the employee appeals. The employee’s central challenge is that the nearly six year delay between the incident and the disciplinary action taken by the Department violated his due process rights. Finding no error, we affirm.
|
|