Court reviews the trial court's interpretation of the mechanic's and materialmen's liens statutes

TRI AM CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. J & V DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 30, 2011)

This interlocutory appeal stems from a lien enforcement action. Tri Am Construction, Inc. ("Tri Am") filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Rhea County ("the Trial Court") against J & V Development, Inc. ("J & V"), Randall E. Vick, Brenda B. Jung, and Branch Banking and Trust Company ("BB&T") to enforce a lien.

BB&T moved to dismiss Tri Am's complaint, citing alleged fatal procedural defects. The Trial Court denied BB&T's motion to dismiss and allowed Tri Am to amend its complaint to cure the procedural defects. We granted permission for this interlocutory appeal.

We find that the Trial Court did not err in liberally construing the revised mechanic's and materialmen's liens statutes to permit Tri Am to amend its complaint in order to cure the procedural defects. We further find that the Trial Court did not err in declining to hold that BB&T's rights would be retroactively impaired by the liberal application of the revised mechanic's and materialmen's liens statutes. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/triamconstruct_083011.pdf

Court Reviews Whether the Trial Court had Jurisdiction to Confirm an Arbitration Award

LEE BROWN AND GUTTERSHUTTER OF NASHVILLE, LLC v. DAVID STYLES ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 22, 2011)

Appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The principle defense is that the appellant, the party against whom the arbitration award was issued, was never a party to the arbitration agreement at issue and did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award and enrolled a judgment against the appellant in the amount of $78,956.80 plus costs.

We reverse the confirmation of the award against the appellant upon the finding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award. This is because the statute which confers jurisdiction upon the court to confirm arbitration awards, Tenn. Code Ann.section 29-5-302, requires a written arbitration agreement between the parties, and there is no written agreement between the appellant and appellee to arbitrate. Thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award against the appellant.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/brownl_082211.pdf

Court reviews whether a valid contract existed between home buyer and seller for the repair of a drain

DENISE JEREMIAH and TIMOTHY JEREMIAH v. WILLIAM BLALOCK (Tenn. Ct. App. August 1, 2011)

The plaintiff home buyer and defendant home seller entered into an agreement to repair a drain at some future date because it had been improperly piped out of the buyer's house. When the time for performance came, the drain was not moved, resulting in damages to the buyer's home. The buyer sued for breach of contract. The circuit court granted a directed verdict to the defendant on the ground that there was no consideration to support the contract. We find that the mutual promises made by the parties constituted adequate consideration. We accordingly reverse the trial court and remand this case for such further proceedings as necessary.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/jeremiahd_080111.pdf