Court Rulings

CONTRACTS - public contracts, prevailing wage rates although federal prevailing wage rate was the proper rate, county's architect specified the wrong (state prevailing wage) rate when preparing the contract documents change order was issued to correct the contract documents to make them comply with Davis-Bacon Act change order was ambiguous on issue of its retroactivity, thus precluding summary judgment in favor of county.

The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals did not err in affirming the final determination of the Tax Commissioner of Ohio denying appellant's request for property tax exemption pursuant to R.C. 5709.12. The record supports the Board of Tax Appeals' findings that appellant is not a charitable institution and that the property at issue was not used exclusively for charitable purposes. Decision affirmed.

Decision of the unemployment compensation review commission that appellant was terminated for just cause was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant was a sales representative who failed to meet his required sales quotas.

The lower court, in an R.C. 119.12 administrative appeal, affirmed a county sheriff's denial of Plaintiff-appellant's application for a concealed handgun license under R.C. 2923.125. The sheriff's decision was based upon Plaintiff-appellant's Georgia misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana. The lower court, based upon R.C. 2923.125(D)(1)(e), concluded that the Georgia conviction disqualified Plaintiff-appellant from obtaining a concealed handgun license. In Ohio, Plaintiff-appellant's offense, given the amount of marijuana involved, would have been a minor misdemeanor. We conclude, since, under R.C. 2923.125(D)(5), a minor misdemeanor conviction cannot be considered when making a concealed handgun licensure determination, that the lower court erred in concluding that Plaintiff-appellant's Georgia conviction acted to disqualify him from obtaining a concealed handgun license. Judgment reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Shay and Brian Simpson ("the Simpsons," collectively, or "Ms." or "Mr. Simpson," respectively) against defendants National Fitness Center, Inc. and National Fitness Center, LLC ("National Fitness," collectively). Ms. Simpson and National Fitness orally contracted to allow the Simpsons "a couple of weeks" additional time to consider whether to cancel their club membership. After more than two weeks elapsed, the Simpsons elected to cancel but National Fitness refused to accept the cancellation. This case was tried before the Circuit Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court"). The Trial Court found that National Fitness breached the contract and committed a deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Trial Court ordered "a return of all monies paid [by the Simpsons] to [National Fitness] . . ." and awarded attorney's fees to the Simpsons. National Fitness appealed to this Court. We affirm the Trial Court in its determination that the Simpsons effectively exercised their right to cancel and that they were entitled to a refund of any monies paid. However, we reverse the Trial Court in its determination that National Fitness violated the TCPA. We, therefore, reverse the award of attorney's fees. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

This is Father's second appeal of the termination of his parental rights to the two children he had with his former wife ("Mother"). Father and Mother separated in 2008 when she moved from Alaska to Tennessee with the children, and they were granted a divorce in 2009. Father has not seen nor spoken with the children since 2008, and has not provided any financial support since November 2009. The petition to terminate Father's parental rights was filed by Mother and her husband in 2012. In Father's first appeal, we remanded the case in order to obtain a sufficient record for this court to review on appeal. In re Ian B., No. M2015-01079-COA-R3-PT, 2016 WL 2865875 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016). On remand, the trial court found that the petitioners had proven grounds of abandonment for failure to visit and support and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children. This appeal followed. Having determined that the record in this second appeal is sufficient for this court to conduct a proper review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

wrongful discharge, public policy, R.C. 4112.14, age discrimination, Civ.R. 56, visiting judge

David C. Jayne ("Jayne") appeals the trial court's entry of a judgment against him for breach of contract for failure to pay Bass Annie Cosmetic Boat Repair ("Bass Annie") for repairs made to his boat. Jayne entered into a contract with Bass Annie for the repair of his damaged boat. Before the agreed-upon repairs were completed, Jayne went to Bass Annie to check on the boat. After inspecting the boat, Jayne instructed Bass Annie to stop the repairs and return the boat to him. An argument ensued, and Jayne alleges he was assaulted by a Bass Annie employee. Both parties filed claims in the general sessions court which were subsequently appealed to circuit court. Following a de novo trial in the circuit court, the trial court dismissed Jayne's claims and awarded Bass Annie damages for breach of contract for the work completed on the boat. Jayne appeals. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.