• Biological Daughter tells her Elderly Father that she’ll take care of him in his old age, convinces him to transfer her his assets and grant her a remainder interest in his property.  Oh no!  After he does so, she takes a bunch of his money but doesn’t take care of him.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: It turns out there is an entire body of law regarding “confidential relationships,” “suspicious circumstances,” and “undue influence,” and the evidence demonstrated that all of those things existed here.  So the trial court’s order divesting Biological Daughter of any interest she has in Elderly Father’s property is affirmed.  And even though that relief was not spelled out in Elderly Father’s Complaint, it was fine to order because Biological Daughter was on notice of it and the issue was tried by implied consent.
• Contractor contracts with Subcontractor to do some masonry work.  Subcontractor barely starts the work before abandoning the project, so Contractor contracts with Different-But-More-Expensive Subcontractor to do the work instead and sues Subcontractor for the difference.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: In response to Contractor’s motion for summary judgment, Subcontractor “did not provide citations to the record for any fact he disputed.”  Further, “[a]lthough he filed an affidavit, he did not cite to the affidavit as support for his disputed facts,” so the trial court was not required to consider it.  Thus, Contractor’s asserted facts are deemed undisputed, and we think it would be “absurd” to allow Subcontractor to deny that a valid contract existed under the facts here, anyway.  So the trial court’s order granting Contractor summary judgment is affirmed.
• Tenant sues Landlord for alleged breach of a lease agreement.  After some discovery noncompliance by Tenant, the parties enter an agreed scheduling order stating that “If [Tenant] has not served [Landlord] with responses and responsive documents by or before November 1, 2022, the Court will enter an order dismissing [Tenant’s] Complaint with prejudice.”  After that deadline expires (allegedly without compliance), Landlord moves to dismiss with prejudice for violation of the scheduling order.  Four days before the hearing, though, Tenant nonsuits, so trial court enters a dismissal without prejudice.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Reversed!  Agreed scheduling orders are akin to contracts and create vested rights, so if Tenant violated the order, then Landlord “has a vested right barring [Tenant] from obtaining a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.”  So the case is remanded to the trial court to “make a finding as to whether [Tenant] complied with the terms of the parties’ agreement as set forth in the Agreed Order.”

Firm Highlights

Congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Joseph Webster!  A few years ago, Mr. Webster was exonerated and freed from a life sentence for a murder he didn’t commit.  Last week, the Tennessean ran a feel-good story on his new ice cream shop.  Read all about it here: https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2024/03/12/nashville-family-opens-cream-and-bean-ice-cream-build-future/72689957007/