Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A married couple owned all shares of a corporation that operated a boat dealership and served as an authorized dealer for a boat manufacturer. After the manufacturer ended its relationship with the dealership, the business failed, leading to foreclosure on its property and the couple’s personal bankruptcies. The couple then sued the manufacturer for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and promissory fraud, alleging that the manufacturer’s conduct caused the loss of their business and personal assets. A jury awarded them $900,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of equity in the dealership’s real property.Following the verdict, the manufacturer filed post-trial motions and, for the first time at the hearing, challenged the couple’s standing, arguing that the damages related to property owned by the corporation, not the individuals, and that any claims should have been brought derivatively on behalf of the corporation. The Circuit Court for Loudon County agreed, finding the couple lacked “statutory standing” and dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed, holding that shareholder standing limitations are not jurisdictional and can be waived, and that the manufacturer had forfeited its challenge by raising it too late.The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that the couple had constitutional standing to bring their claims, as they alleged injury to their legal rights as shareholders. The Court further held that the trial court erred in applying statutory standing principles, since the claims were not brought as a derivative action. Instead, the issue implicated shareholder standing, which is non-jurisdictional and subject to forfeiture if not timely raised. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Houghton v. Malibu Boats, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner Dudley King and eight other individuals consigned their recreational vehicles (RVs) to Music City RV, LLC (MCRV), an RV dealer, for sale. On August 28, 2008, an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition was filed against MCRV in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The issue before the bankruptcy court was whether the consigned RVs were part of the bankruptcy estate. The parties stipulated that MCRV was not primarily engaged in selling consigned vehicles, was a merchant under UCC § 9-102(20), and performed the services of a consignee. None of the consignors filed a UCC-1 financing statement.The Bankruptcy Trustee argued that the consigned RVs were governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and were subordinate to the rights of perfected lien creditors, including the Trustee. Mr. King contended that the consignment was a true consignment of "consumer goods" and not a sale, thus not covered by the UCC, and the RVs should not be part of the estate. The bankruptcy court certified a question to the Supreme Court of Tennessee regarding whether such a consignment is covered under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-2-326.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the statutory language and the Official Comments to the UCC. The court concluded that the 2001 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-2-326 removed consignment transactions from the scope of Article 2. The court held that the consignment of an RV by a consumer to a Tennessee RV dealer for the purpose of selling the RV to a third person is not covered under section 47-2-326 of the UCC as adopted in Tennessee. The court assessed the costs of the appeal to the respondent, Robert H. Waldschmidt, Trustee. View "State of Tennessee v. Brown" on Justia Law

Charles Youree, Jr. filed a lawsuit against two business entities, Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC and RHT Holdings, LLC, seeking to hold them liable for a judgment he previously obtained against another entity, Recovery Solutions Network, LLC (RSN), by piercing the corporate veil. When the defendants did not respond, a default judgment was entered against them. The defendants moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing that the complaint did not plead the necessary elements for piercing the corporate veil and that their failure to respond was due to excusable neglect, though they later withdrew the excusable neglect argument. The trial court denied the motion to vacate, finding that the complaint stated a claim under the Allen factors.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the correct standard for piercing the corporate veil was the three-element test from Continental Bankers Life Insurance Co. of the South v. Bank of Alamo, rather than the Allen factors. The appellate court found that the complaint failed to plead the necessary elements under the Continental Bankers standard and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the Continental Bankers elements are the correct framework for piercing the corporate veil in all cases, whether involving a parent-subsidiary relationship or a corporation-shareholder relationship. The court found that the plaintiff's complaint did not sufficiently allege the elements required under the Continental Bankers standard, specifically the elements of control used to commit fraud or wrong and causation of injury. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Youree v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals as to the applicability of the economic loss doctrine in this case, holding that the economic loss doctrine applies only in products liability cases and should not be expanded to apply outside the products liability context.In the underlying suit brought by a drywall subcontractor against a general contractor under theories of breach of contract and tort a jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the subcontractor. The court of appeals affirmed in part the award of compensatory damages for breach of contract, dismissed the tort claim, and reversed the award for punitive damages, holding that the economic loss doctrine applied outside the products liability context when the contract was negotiated between sophisticated commercial entities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the economic loss doctrine only applies in products liability cases and should not be extended to other claims; and (2) the economic loss doctrine did not bar the subcontractor's recovery of compensatory and punitive damages based on its tort claim. View "Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question of law certified by the district court in the negative, holding that two video streaming services - Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC - did not provide "video service" within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. 7-59-303(19) and thus did not qualify as "video service providers" required to pay franchise fees to localities under section 7-59-303(20).The City of Knoxville brought this action asserting that Netflix and Hulu were required to pay franchise fees because they used public rights-of-way to provide video service. Specifically, Knoxville argued that Netflix and Hulu were "video service providers" as defined in the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 7-59-301 to -318, and were thus required to apply for a franchise and pay franchise fees to Knoxville. The district court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that Netflix and Hulu did not provide a "video service" within the meaning of section -303(19) and thus did not qualify as "video service providers" under section -303(20). View "City of Knoxville, Tenn. v. Netflix, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts in this appeal addressing mootness when a law challenged in the trial court is altered or amended after the trial court issued its final judgment and while the appeal is pending, holding that remand was required in this case.Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) challenging an ordinance prohibiting them from having clients in their home-based businesses. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Metro. While Plaintiffs' appeal was pending, Metro repealed the ordinance at issue and enacted a new ordinance allowing limited client visits to home-based businesses. The court of appeals determined that Plaintiffs' case was moot. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments below and remanded the case to give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings to address any claims asserted under the new ordinance, holding that, based on the current record, it could not be determined whether Plaintiffs would suffer ongoing harm from the new ordinance, how the change could affect their claims, and whether they retained a residual claim under the new ordinance. View "Shaw v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville" on Justia Law

At issue in this dissenters’ rights case was the methods by which a trial court may determine the “fair value” of shares of a dissenting shareholder under Tennessee’s dissenters’ rights statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. 48-23-101, et seq.The Supreme Court overruled Blasingame v. American Materials, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 659 (Tenn. 1983), to the extent Blasingame implicitly mandates use of the Delaware Block method for determining the fair value of a dissenting shareholder’s stock and adopted the more open approach set forth in Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 712-13 (Del. 1983), which departs from the Delaware Block method and permits fair value to be determined by using any technique or method that is generally acceptable in the financial community and admissible in court.Defendant minority shareholders were forced out of a corporation as a result of a merger. The corporation sought a determination as to the fair value of the minority shareholders’ stock. The trial court may have based its decision to discredit the testimony of the dissenting shareholders’ expert on the basis that Blasingame compelled use of the Delaware Block method to determine stock value. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider its valuation determination in light of this decision to partially overrule Blasingame. View "Athlon Sports Communications, Inc. v. Duggan" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the standard for determining whether a shareholder’s claim is a direct claim or a derivative claim. This case arose from a dispute among siblings who were shareholders in a closely-held family corporation. The conflict resulted in dissolution of the original family corporation, the formation of two new corporations, and a lawsuit. In the suit, one group of shareholder siblings asserted claims against the other group of shareholder siblings. The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff shareholder siblings. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the plaintiff shareholder siblings did not have standing because their claims were derivative in nature and belonged to their new corporation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the traditional approach for determining whether a shareholder claim is direct or derivative described in Hadden v. City of Gatlinburg is hereby set aside; (2) the framework set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. is hereby adopted; and (3) under the Tooley framework, the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert some claims but had standing as to other claims. View "Keller v. Estate of Edward Stephen McRedmond" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in California state court for business-related torts. Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed his complaint and re-filed his action in the federal district court, alleging several federal securities law violations. The federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. Thereafter, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint and filed the present action in a Tennessee state court, pleading three of the state-law claims that formed the basis for his two previously dismissed lawsuits. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff's claims were barred by Plaintiff's second voluntary dismissal in federal court. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff's second voluntary dismissal of supplemental state-law claims filed in federal court does not preclude the plaintiff from later re-filing an action based on the same claims in Tennessee state court. Remanded. View "Cooper v. Glasser" on Justia Law

In a two-year period, more than eleven million cigarettes manufactured by an Indonesian cigarette manufacturer were sold in Tennessee. After the manufacturer withdrew its cigarettes from the United States market, the State suit the manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer had failed to pay into the Tobacco Manufacturers' Escrow Fund as required by Tenn. Code Ann. 47-31-101 to -103. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer. The court of appeals reversed. At issue on appeal was whether Tennessee courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Indonesian manufacturer where the manufacturer's cigarettes were sold in the State through the marketing efforts of a Florida entrepreneur who purchased the cigarettes from an independent foreign distributor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Tennessee courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer because the State failed to establish that the manufacturer purposely availed itself of the privilege of doing business in Tennessee. View "State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co." on Justia Law