CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. W1999-00445-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2000

Johnna Hayes v. Jeff Hayes

This appeal concerns a dispute over child support obligations and the enforcement of a promissory note between Johnna Lea Hayes (Beuerlein) and Jeff C. Hayes. The trial court made several findings, including Mr. Hayes' annual income, child support obligation, arrearage, and Ms. Beuerlein's debt under a promissory note. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to apply child support retroactively but reversed its calculation of Mr. Hayes' income by excluding certain business expenses. It also reversed the trial court's decision to set off Mr. Hayes' child support obligation against Ms. Beuerlein's debt from the promissory note, stating that Mr. Hayes should be granted a judgment for the full amount. The case is remanded for recalculation of income, child support, and a determination of attorney's fees for Mr. Hayes related to the promissory note.

child supportpromissory notemarital dissolution agreementincome calculationretroactive child supportset-offattorney's feesappellate reviewchancery courtTennessee law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobs v. Cohen

This case involves an action by the president of the Protective Coat Tailors and Pressers’ Union, Local No. 55, against Morris Cohen, Louis Cohen (comprising M. Cohen & Son), and Samuel Nelson, concerning a promissory note. The note was collateral for an agreement compelling the firm to exclusively employ union members and discharge non-members. The court deemed this agreement unlawful and contrary to public policy, referencing *Curran v. Galen* and distinguishing it from *National Protective Assn. v. Cumming*. The decision reversed an interlocutory judgment and overruled a demurrer, validating the defense that the promissory note secured an illegal covenant.

Labor Union ContractPublic PolicyUnlawful AgreementPromissory NoteRestraint of TradeFreedom of EmploymentMonopolyCoercionDemurrerAppeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kryder v. Estate

Patricia Porter Kryder filed a declaratory judgment action against James Kemmler Rogers, later substituted by his estate administrator, Jennifer Rogers-Etcheverry, concerning the enforceability of a Promissory Note. Kryder asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, accounting, and declaratory judgment. Etcheverry counterclaimed for breach of contract based on the Promissory Note, unjust enrichment, and sought an equitable lien. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Etcheverry on all of Kryder's claims, citing Kryder's failure to properly substitute Etcheverry as a defendant, the applicability of Tennessee's Dead Man's Statute, and the statute of limitations for certain claims. Additionally, the court granted Etcheverry's motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim for breach of contract due to Kryder's failure to make interest payments and to secure the note with a Deed of Trust, and also granted the request for an equitable lien on Kryder's property. However, Etcheverry's counterclaim for unjust enrichment was denied due to factual disputes regarding additional funds advanced.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentDead Man's StatuteStatute of LimitationsEquitable LienUnjust EnrichmentDiversity JurisdictionEstate Law
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frame v. Frame

The case concerns an appeal by Mrs. Fannie S. Frame, the widow of David A. Frame, against the executor of his estate. She sought to enforce a $5,000 promissory note issued by her deceased husband, conditional on her care during his lifetime. The executor filed a cross-action to recover funds withdrawn by the widow from a joint bank account post-mortem. The trial court allowed offsets for the widow's maintenance and funeral expenses. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, affirming the validity of the promissory note and rendering judgment in favor of the appellant.

Promissory NoteConditional NoteEstateWidowExecutorSeparate EstateCommunity PropertyMarital ContractsTexas LawContractual Validity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spiller v. Spiller

Hugh Bob Spiller appealed a 1993 judgment regarding the interpretation of a 1984 judgment. The appeal challenged the trial court's calculations of interest on a promissory note and judgment awards, its failure to apply rental payments as an offset, and the award of attorney's fees. The court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding simple interest on the promissory note and denying credit for rent checks due to res judicata. However, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in compounding interest on rental payments and improvement awards. Consequently, the judgment was modified to apply simple interest to these amounts, and affirmed in all other respects, including the award of attorney's fees to Hugh M. Spiller.

Promissory NoteInterest CalculationSimple InterestCompound InterestJudgment InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAttorney's FeesAppellate Fees
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vince Poscente International, Inc., Vince Poscente, and Michelle Poscente v. Compass Bank

This case is an appeal following a summary judgment granted in favor of Compass Bank against Vince Poscente International, Inc., Vince Poscente, and Michelle Poscente (the Poscentes). Previously, a summary judgment for Compass was reversed due to an insufficient affidavit. On remand, Compass presented new affidavits to establish the outstanding debt on a promissory note and guaranties. The Poscentes appealed, raising five issues including disputes over the amount owed, the lack of an original promissory note, alleged lack of evidentiary support for Compass's claims, the enforceability of guaranties with homestead waiver provisions, and conflicting choice of law clauses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding the Poscentes' arguments lacked merit, concluding that the homestead waiver was severable and no conflict of laws issue was properly raised.

Summary JudgmentPromissory NoteGuaranty AgreementAffidavit SufficiencyLaw of the CaseSeverability ClauseHomestead WaiverChoice of LawTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. 08-18-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2023

TVO Cobblestone, LLC, Windy Cities Cobblestone, LLC, KLV Trust and Wayne Vandenburg v. ASI Capital, LLC

Appellants (TVO Cobblestone, LLC; Windy Cities Cobblestone, LLC; KLV Trust; and Wayne Vandenburg) appealed the trial court’s entry of default judgment against Windy Cities, KLV, and Wayne Vandenburg, as well as its order granting Appellee ASI Capital, LLC’s summary judgment against TVO. The original lawsuit by ASI Capital, LLC involved claims related to a $375,000 promissory note, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy against various entities and individuals. Appellants contended that the default judgment was granted without proper notice and that the denial of their motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion, satisfying the Craddock test elements. The appellate court found that Appellants’ failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent and that they presented meritorious defenses. Additionally, the court determined that TVO raised a fact issue regarding the authority of Russell Vandenburg to bind TVO to the promissory note and whether TVO received the loaned funds. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed both the default judgment and the summary judgment orders, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Default JudgmentSummary JudgmentCraddock TestMeritorious DefenseAgency LawApparent AuthorityBreach of ContractFraudConspiracyFraudulent Transfer
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alamo Bank of Texas v. Palacios

Alamo Bank of Texas sued Oscar Palacios to collect on a promissory note after Ponciano Garcia, represented by Palacios, forged checks and cashed them at the bank. Palacios had co-signed a renewal note, anticipating Garcia's worker's compensation claim would cover the bank's losses from the forged checks. The bank confronted Garcia and, according to Palacios, agreed not to prosecute if he signed the note. However, the bank had already filed a report with the FBI. The trial court found that the bank concealed this material fact from Palacios and was therefore equitably estopped from collecting on the note. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the equitable estoppel defense, thus making it unnecessary to rule on other points of error.

Promissory NoteEquitable EstoppelConditional DeliveryFraudParol Evidence RulePleading AmendmentAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceContract LawBanking Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. (Motel) sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. (USRP) and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of contract. The dispute stemmed from a 'put option' agreement where USRP was obligated to purchase a promissory note from Motel, contingent on Bar S Restaurants, Inc. not being in uncured material default of a lease agreement. USRP refused to buy the note, claiming Bar S was in default, but a jury found in favor of Motel, awarding $550,000. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on liability and damages, but modified the judgment to mandate Motel's transfer of the note to USRP. The case was also remanded to the trial court for a recalculation of prejudgment interest, acknowledging that Bar S had continued interest payments on the note.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,846 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational