§23.1 Generally
1. Jenkins v. Brown, No. M2005-02022-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal involves a dispute regarding the liability for the structural defects in a four-year-old house in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. Shortly after purchasing the house from its original owners, the property owners discovered that the house had been constructed on improperly compacted fill and other debris. When additional structural problems manifested themselves, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the contractor who built the house and his wife, the original owners, the original owners’ real estate agent and broker, their own real estate agent and broker, and their home inspector. Following an eight-day trial, the jury determined that the contractor and the original owners had engaged in intentional and reckless misrepresentation by concealing the house’s structural problems. The jury also determined that both real estate agents and the developer of the subdivision were at fault. The jury awarded the property owners $58,720.80 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the parties at fault. The jury also awarded the property owners $20,000 in punitive damages against one of the original owners and $50,000 in punitive damages against the contractor. The trial court reduced the punitive damage award against the original property owner to $14,000, and granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two real estate agents with regard to the property owners’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. On this appeal, the property owners take issue with the dismissal of their claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on their use of an outdated and incomplete real property disclosure form. The contractor also takes issue with the judgments awarded against him for compensatory and punitive damages. We have determined that the trial court did not err by dismissing the property owners’ claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on the use of the incomplete and outdated disclosure form. We have also concluded that the property owners presented insufficient evidence to establish their common-law fraud claim against the contractor who built the house. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring the contractor to pay compensatory and punitive damages."
View opinion.
2. Bogdan Rentea v. Ben M. Rose, C. Bennett Harrison, Jr. and Cornelius & Collins, LLP, M2006-02076-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal of summary judgment in a lawsuit that arose from a heated discovery dispute. Plaintiff-attorney appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on claims of abuse of process, fraudulent concealment, and outrageous conduct against the attorneys and law firm representing the plaintiff-attorney’s former corporate client in a separate lawsuit. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. View opinion.
3. Davis v. McGuigan, No. M2007-02242-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Homeowners filed suit against Appraiser for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Appraiser moved for summary judgment on all claims. The trial court denied Appraiser’s motion on the negligent misrepresentation claim, but dismissed the intentional misrepresentation claim and the Tennessee Consumer Act claim. During the course of the proceedings, the trial court also excluded certain witnesses who were tendered as
experts. Both parties appeal. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on both claims, and decline to address the remaining issues for lack of justiciability."
View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal involves a dispute regarding the liability for the structural defects in a four-year-old house in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. Shortly after purchasing the house from its original owners, the property owners discovered that the house had been constructed on improperly compacted fill and other debris. When additional structural problems manifested themselves, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the contractor who built the house and his wife, the original owners, the original owners’ real estate agent and broker, their own real estate agent and broker, and their home inspector. Following an eight-day trial, the jury determined that the contractor and the original owners had engaged in intentional and reckless misrepresentation by concealing the house’s structural problems. The jury also determined that both real estate agents and the developer of the subdivision were at fault. The jury awarded the property owners $58,720.80 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the parties at fault. The jury also awarded the property owners $20,000 in punitive damages against one of the original owners and $50,000 in punitive damages against the contractor. The trial court reduced the punitive damage award against the original property owner to $14,000, and granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two real estate agents with regard to the property owners’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. On this appeal, the property owners take issue with the dismissal of their claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on their use of an outdated and incomplete real property disclosure form. The contractor also takes issue with the judgments awarded against him for compensatory and punitive damages. We have determined that the trial court did not err by dismissing the property owners’ claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on the use of the incomplete and outdated disclosure form. We have also concluded that the property owners presented insufficient evidence to establish their common-law fraud claim against the contractor who built the house. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring the contractor to pay compensatory and punitive damages."
View opinion.
2. Bogdan Rentea v. Ben M. Rose, C. Bennett Harrison, Jr. and Cornelius & Collins, LLP, M2006-02076-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal of summary judgment in a lawsuit that arose from a heated discovery dispute. Plaintiff-attorney appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on claims of abuse of process, fraudulent concealment, and outrageous conduct against the attorneys and law firm representing the plaintiff-attorney’s former corporate client in a separate lawsuit. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. View opinion.
3. Davis v. McGuigan, No. M2007-02242-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Homeowners filed suit against Appraiser for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Appraiser moved for summary judgment on all claims. The trial court denied Appraiser’s motion on the negligent misrepresentation claim, but dismissed the intentional misrepresentation claim and the Tennessee Consumer Act claim. During the course of the proceedings, the trial court also excluded certain witnesses who were tendered as
experts. Both parties appeal. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on both claims, and decline to address the remaining issues for lack of justiciability."
View opinion.