Today's News

• Legal News (4)
• Congressional News (1)
• General Assembly News (1)
• Upcoming (1)
• Passages (2)
• BPR Actions (1)
• TBA Member Advantages (1)

Today's Opinions

• TN Court of Appeals (3)
• TN Court of Criminal Appeals (2)

LEXINGTON CHARTER, LP, ET AL. v. FBT OF TENNESSEE INC.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Henry Clay Shelton, III, and Annabelle P. Harris, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, RB Affordable Housing, and Regions Bank.

Robert L. Spence, Jr., and Kristina A. Woo, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lexington Charter, LP.

Judge(s): ARMSTRONG

This appeal arises from a dispute between a partnership and its limited partners concerning the payment of attorney’s fees under the parties’ limited liability agreement. The trial court held that the attorney’s fees were payable from the proceeds of the sale of the partnership’s property, and the limited partners appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm.

charterl_91624.pdf

SHELBY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY ET AL v. GREG GRANT D/B/A GREATER MEMPHIS DEMOCRATIC CLUB, INC.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Linda Nettles Harris, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Gregory Grant and Greater Memphis Democratic Club, Inc.

Judge(s): GOLDIN

In response to a petition alleging the violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-19- 116, a statute that prescribes a criminal penalty and that this Court has held does not provide for a private right of action, the trial court entered an injunction. The trial court thereafter found that the appellant was in criminal contempt of the injunction and sentenced him to ten days in the county jail. The appellant appeals, arguing, among other things, that the order that he was held in contempt of was not lawful. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the contempt judgment should be reversed.

grantg_091624.pdf

AMY LEANNE WILHITE v. SETH EVAN WILHITE

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Lindsey A. Ralston and M. Allen Ehmling, Gallatin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Amy Leanne Wilhite.

Heather G. Parker, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Seth Evan Wilhite.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

This post-divorce action concerns the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the parties’ former marital residence as specified in their marital dissolution agreement. The husband claimed a right under the MDA to, inter alia, one-half of the net proceeds, but the wife asserted that the MDA limited the husband’s equity interest to $40,000. The parties also disputed who was liable for income taxes, including interest and penalties, incurred and accruing after 2019, when the parties entered the MDA. Each party also asserted claims and entitlements to various credits and/or offsets resulting from the delay in the sale of the marital residence. The trial court held that the MDA limited the husband’s interest to $40,000. The court assessed $29,368.52 in post-divorce income taxes, including penalties and interest, against the husband. The court also ordered him to pay $20,543.10 for the wife’s attorney’s fees per the MDA’s fee-shifting provision. But the court granted the husband’s request for reimbursement for the cost of repairs to the property and awarded the husband credit for one-half of the utilities that he paid pending the sale of the property. The husband appeals, raising several issues. We respectfully disagree with the trial court’s finding that the MDA limited the husband’s equity interest to $40,000. We also conclude that the MDA obligated Husband to pay for all utilities and other expenses pending the sale of the property. For this reason, we reverse the trial court’s finding that Husband was entitled to a credit of one–half of those payments. Thus, we vacate the monetary awards that were based, in part, on these decisions, and remand with instructions to recalculate the parties’ respective entitlements to “the net proceeds.” We affirm the trial court in all other respects. We also find that the wife has a right to recover her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal under § 15 of the MDA and remand with instructions for the trial court to make the appropriate award.

wilhitea_091624.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID ANTHONY AVERY

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

David Anthony Avery, Henning, Tennessee, pro se.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Megan King, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): HOLLOWAY

Petitioner, David Anthony Avery, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 claiming that his sentences were illegal because his criminal case was a civil matter, that the United States District Court had original jurisdiction over all civil cases, and that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose the sentences. We determine that the motion failed to state a colorable claim and affirm summary dismissal of the motion by the trial court.

averyd_091624.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LANDON ALLEN TURNER

Head Comment: CORRECTION: In the second paragraph on page 11, the State v. Adkisson citation was changed from “no perm. app. filed” to “perm. app. filed (Tenn. May 20, 2024)”

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

M. Keith Davis (on appeal and at trial), Dunlap, Tennessee; Ted Engel, District Public Defender; and Norman Lipton (at juvenile transfer hearing), Assistant Public Defender, Jasper, Tennessee, for the appellant, Landon Allen Turner

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Courtney Lynch, District Attorney General; and Steven H. Strain and Sherry D. Shelton (at trial), and Julia Veal (at juvenile transfer hearing), Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Court Appealed: EASTER

A Marion County jury convicted Landon Allen Turner, Defendant, of reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse for the death of Z.H.,1 Defendant’s girlfriend’s two-year-old son. He argues on appeal that: (1) the juvenile court erred in transferring his case to circuit court; (2) the State violated its Brady obligations by failing to provide defense counsel with a copy of Defendant’s statements prior to the juvenile transfer hearing; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his conviction for aggravated child abuse should be barred under the doctrine of “mutually exclusive verdicts”; and (5) his sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the judgments.

turnerl_corrected_091624.pdf