Monday, December 28, 2009

Court reviews enforceability of non-compete provision of employment agreement

DAREL L. JONES, ET AL. v. UNITED PROPANE GAS, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2009)

Darel L. Jones, Donald A. Maples, Jr., and Heritage Operating, L.P., dba Hydratane of Athens (collectively "the Plaintiffs") commenced this litigation originally against United Propane Gas, Inc. ("UPG"), with a petition seeking a declaration that the Pricing, Confidentiality and Post- Employment Activities Agreement (referred to as "the Agreement," "the Jones Agreement," or "the Maples Agreement" as the context requires) signed by Jones and Maples in favor of their past employer, Ocoee River Propane Gas, Inc. ("ORP"), was unenforceable and that their new employer, Hydratane, had no liability for hiring them. The Plaintiffs later amended their petition to add ORP as a defendant. UPG and ORP (collectively "the Gas Companies") filed an answer asserting, among other things, (1) that they were independent entities and (2) that Jones and Maples were not UPG employees. ORP filed a counterclaim against Maples asking that he be held in breach of contract and enjoined from violating the Agreement as well as a counterclaim against Hydratane for tortuous interference with the Agreement.

After a bench trial, the court announced its findings in favor of the Plaintiffs from the bench and later signed and entered an order submitted by the Gas Companies that limited the effect of the court's ruling to "the non-compete provision" of the Agreement. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend which the trial court granted, the effect of which was to hold that the Agreement in its entirety, rather than just the non-compete provision, was unenforceable. The Gas Companies appeal. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/jonesd_122809.pdf

Friday, December 18, 2009

Court reviews denial of motion to amend and dismissal of the complaint.

T.O.T.S. (TEMP. OWNED TEMPORARY SERVICE) v. WHIRLPOOL (Tenn. Ct. App. December 18, 2009)

This appeal involves a complaint for breach of contract filed by a corporation that had been administratively dissolved prior to the date of the contract. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiff-corporation lacked capacity and/or standing to bring the suit. The plaintiff then filed a motion to amend, seeking to have the corporation's founder substituted as the party plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion to amend and dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/tots_121809.pdf

Court reviews whether a property conveyance was fraudulent.

BRENDA STONE, individually and derivatively in her capacity as a director of Appalachian Caverns Foundation v. SCOTT SMILE, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 18, 2009)

The plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of a foundation of which she was formerly a director. She sought to reinstate a deed of trust securing a note belonging to the foundation and to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of the property that was subject to the deed of trust. The trial court found that the release of the deed of trust was improper and that the conveyance was fraudulent and, thus, reinstated the deed of trust and set aside the conveyance of the property. We affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/stoneappalachiancaverns_121809.pdf

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Court reviews whether an award of prejudgment interest was proper in a breach of partnership agreement case

GREGORY B. WOOTEN v. KENNETH BLACK (Tenn. Ct. App. December 16, 2009)

Plaintiff filed this action against his former partner alleging breach of their partnership agreement. The Special Master found that the defendant misappropriated profits of the partnership. Thereafter, the parties entered into an Agreed Order wherein the plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $38,750.00 against the defendant. The Agreed Order expressly reserved the issue of prejudgment interest for the trial court's determination. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest. Defendant appealed the award of prejudgment interest. Finding no error, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/wooteng_121609.pdf

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Court reviews whether the trial court properly ordered enforcement of a subpoena to provide information to the Assessor of Property

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY by and through THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR OF PROPERTY v. LAMAR TENNESSEE, LLC d/b/a LAMAR ADVERTISING OF NASHVILLE (Tenn. Ct. App. December 9, 2009)

This case involves a subpoena issued by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, on behalf of the Davidson County Assessor of Property, which required the appellant to provide information regarding its business operations. When the appellant did not comply with the subpoena, Metro filed a complaint seeking to enforce it. The trial court ruled that the appellant must provide the requested information. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/lamar_120909.pdf