Court Rulings

This appeal involves an arbitration agreement executed in connection with a patient's admission to a nursing home. The arbitration agreement was executed by the patient's brother, who had been designated as the patient's attorney-in-fact for health care pursuant to a durable power of attorney for health care executed by the patient several years earlier. When the patient's brother filed this wrongful death suit in circuit court, the nursing home defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. The patient's brother then asserted that he did not have authority to bind the patient to the arbitration agreement because the patient had been mentally incompetent when he executed the durable power of attorney for health care years earlier. The defendants argued that the trial court was not permitted to "look beyond" the durable power of attorney for health care to determine the competency of the patient at the time of its execution. The trial court ruled that it would "look beyond" the power of attorney for health care in order to consider the patient's competency and allowed the parties to engage in discovery related to the issue of incompetence. Discovery ensued, and the parties submitted additional evidence regarding the patient's competency. The trial court then found by clear and convincing evidence that the patient was incompetent at the time the durable power of attorney for health care was executed. As a result, the trial court concluded that the patient's brother lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement as attorney-in-fact for health care. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the defendants appealed. Pursuant to the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Owens v. National Health Corp., 263 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2007), we hold that the trial court erred in looking beyond the durable power of attorney for health care to examine the patient's competency at the time it was executed. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for

A minority shareholder in a close corporation brought a shareholder oppression claim. The trial court heard the claim in two phases. After the first phase, the trial court found that there was shareholder oppression by the majority shareholder and determined that redemption of the minority shareholder's shares was the appropriate remedy. After the second, the court found the fair value of the minority shareholder's shares. The court later awarded attorney's fees to the minority shareholder, but it failed to award fees associated with the second phase of trial. The court also denied the minority shareholder's request for prejudgment interest and dismissed an unjust enrichment claim. On appeal, the minority shareholder takes issue with the court's fair-value determination. He also claims that he was entitled to prejudgment interest, as well as attorney's fees for both phases of trial. And he argues that the court erred in dismissing his unjust enrichment claim. We affirm.