Longworth v. Nunez
This text of Longworth v. Nunez (Longworth v. Nunez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I N T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S A T K N O X V I L L E
FILED August 31, 1998 M A R Y L O N G W O R T H a n d ) L O U D O N C O U N T Y L U C Y L O N G W O R T H ) 0 3 A 0 1 - 9 7 0 9 - C V - 0 0 3 8 8 Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) Appellate C ourt Clerk P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l a n t s ) ) ) H O N . R U S S E L L E . S I M M O N S , J R . , v . ) J U D G E ) ) S H A R O N A . N U N E Z , a / k / a S H A R O N ) B E N N E T T , J E R R Y B E N N E T T , a n d ) R O C K Y T O P M O T O R S ) ) D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l e e s ) A F F I R M E D A N D R E M A N D E D
J O S E P H B . Y A N C E Y a n d M I C H A E L F . S I M P S O N O F K N O X V I L L E F O R A P P E L L A N T S
S T E P H A N I E A . W A L S H O F K N O X V I L L E F O R A P P E L L E E R O C K Y T O P M O T O R S
O P I N I O N
Goddard, P.J.
I n t h i s a p p e a l P l a i n t i f f s M a r y L o n g w o r t h a n d L u c y
L o n g w o r t h i n s i s t t h e T r i a l C o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y g r a n t e d s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e i r s u i t a g a i n s t R o c k y T o p M o t o r s i n w h i c h
t h e y s o u g h t d a m a g e s f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s a s a r e s u l t o f a n
a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . The predicate for their suit against Rocky Top is that
it was the owner of a vehicle which struck the vehicle in which
they were passengers and that it had negligently entrusted the
automobile to Sharon A. Nunez, wife of Jerry Bennett, an employee
of Rocky Top. The Plaintiffs' appeal insists that, contrary to
the Trial Court's findings, there is a material dispute as to the
ownership of the vehicle operated by Ms. Nunez.
A l t h o u g h t h e P l a i n t i f f s p u r p o r t t o p u r s u e a R u l e 9
a p p e a l , t h e y d i d n o t t a k e p r o p e r s t e p s t o p e r f e c t s u c h a n a p p e a l .
W e h a v e , h o w e v e r , d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u d i c i a l
e c o n o m y i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t t h e c a s e a g a i n s t R o c k y T o p b e
r e s o l v e d a t t h i s t i m e , a n d b e l i e v e i t m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e t o t r e a t
t h i s a s a n a p p e a l u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 5 4 o f t h e
T e n n e s s e e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e .
T h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d o n A p r i l 1 4 , 1 9 9 5 , w h e n t h e
v e h i c l e i n w h i c h t h e P l a i n t i f f s w e r e r i d i n g w e r e s t r u c k b y o n e
b e i n g o p e r a t e d b y S h a r o n A . N u n e z . R o c k y T o p f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w h i c h c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e b e i n g
o p e r a t e d b y M s . N u n e z h a d b e e n s o l d t o h e r h u s b a n d o n t h e
p r e c e d i n g M a r c h 2 4 .
We find no material dispute as to the ownership of the
vehicle on the date of the accident. The testimony of Mr.
Bennett as well as Ronald Carter, Secretary and Treasurer of
Rocky Top, confirmed that the automobile was sold on March 24,
2 1995, to Mr. Bennett. In addition, almost all1 of the
instruments in connection with the sale of the vehicle are dated
March 24. The certificate of title states the date acquired as
March 24, 1995, and the date the title was issued as May 4, 1995.
The vehicle being operated by Ms. Nunez did not have a dealer's
license plate, but a temporary tag2 which is issued when an
automobile is sold to enable the purchaser to operate it until a
permanent license is obtained.
Our review of the record persuades us that this is an
appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial
Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of costs
below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against the Plaintiffs and
their surety.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H o u s t o n M . G o d d a r d , P . J .
1 A r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t c o n t r a c t i n c i d e n t t o t h e s a l e i s d a t e d A p r i l 4 , 1 9 9 5 .
2 T h i s t a g e x p i r e d a f t e r 1 4 d a y s , w h i c h w a s b e f o r e t h e d a t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t . H o w e v e r , w e d o n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s f a c t o f a n y c o n s e q u e n c e .
3 C O N C U R :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H e r s c h e l P . F r a n k s , J .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D o n T . M c M u r r a y , J .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Longworth v. Nunez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longworth-v-nunez-tennctapp-1998.