VH-Minneapolis South Inc v. TGI Friday's Inc., Akaashaman LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MERVINA KAUKINI MAMO CASH-KAEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY K. BARRETT; RONETTE BARRETT, Defendants-Appellants, DUSTIN K. BARRETT; SHEENA ANN BARRETT; RICHARD BARRETT; LEZLEY K. BARRETT aka LEZLEY BRADBURY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAI‘ANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Guy K. Barrett and Ronette Barrett (collectively, the Barretts) appeal from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court)1 May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. They raise three points of error, contending that the district court abused its discretion when: 1 The Honorable Darolyn H. Lendio entered the Judgment for Possession. The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided over the April 26, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff-Appellee Mervina Kaukini Mamo Cash-Kaeo's (Cash- Kaeo) motion for summary judgment (MSJ).  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1) "it defaulted [the Barretts] for [their] non[-]appearance [at the MSJ hearing] where the facts show [the Barretts had] defended themselves in this action by retaining counsel" who "made eight court appearances at hearings in defense of [the Barretts]"; (2) "it applied the extreme sanctions methodology" by entering default judgment against the Barretts "for the failure of their counsel to appear at the hearing on [Cash- Kaeo's] [MSJ]"; and (3) "it allowed the hearing on [Cash-Kaeo's] [MSJ] to proceed without first addressing [counsel's] non[- ]appearance at this hearing." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the Barretts' appeal as follows. The Barretts contend that the district court entered default judgment against them pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55. The record reflects, however, that the district court entered the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession against the Barretts because Cash-Kaeo demonstrated she was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under DCRCP Rule 56. Pursuant to DCRCP Rule 56(c), a motion for summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Kanahele v. State, 154 Hawaiʻi 190, 201, 549 P.3d 275, 286 (2024). The Barretts point to no evidence in the record indicating a genuine issue of material fact disputing that Cash- Kaeo is the sole surviving lessee of the subject property, and that Cash-Kaeo is therefore entitled to judgment of possession against the Barretts as a matter of law. The Barretts also cite no authority indicating the district court was required to address their counsel's non-appearance at the MSJ hearing before it could grant the MSJ. Even if the district court was required to do so, the Barretts fail to identify any legal theory or issue of fact that could have or would have been presented in opposition to the MSJ to defeat the motion. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the MSJ, and affirm the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 20, 2025. On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Jay T. Suemori, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

No. 549 June 18, 2025 363 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, deceased. Barbi M. DOLL, Appellant, v. Donald Lee TRESSLER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court 21PB05510; A180067 Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Submitted May 20, 2025. Jennifer J. Martin, Kevin O’Connell, and Law Offices of O’Connell Hval & Martin filed the briefs for appellant. Heather Cavanaugh, Julie R. Vacura, and Larkins Vacura Kayser, LLP, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. 364 Doll v. Tressler ORTEGA, P. J. Petitioner Barbi Doll seeks reversal of an opinion and order concluding that decedent Wilbert Tressler lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will in 2020, which made her the primary beneficiary of his estate and which also concluded that the will was the result of undue influence by petitioner. She seeks reversal of that opinion and order, which invalidated the 2020 will, and the findings and conclusions supporting it. We affirm. Petitioner has not asked this court to try the cause anew on the record under ORAP 5.40(8), and this is not an “exceptional case” warranting such review. ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact that are supported by any evidence in the record and review the court’s dispositional conclusions for errors of law. See Williamson v. Zielinski, 326 Or App 648, 649, 532 P3d 1257 (2023). The trial court’s findings of historical fact are sup- ported by evidence in the record and are bolstered by its credibility findings. Those findings provide ample legal sup- port for its dispositional conclusions. We therefore conclude that petitioner has failed to show any basis for reversal of the opinion and order. Affirmed.

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DESIREE DURGA and JUSTIN DURGA, UNPUBLISHED August 13, 2025 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 9:04 AM v No. 371891 Benzie Circuit Court MEMBERSELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 23-012025-CZ Defendant-Appellant. Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and BOONSTRA and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in June 2023, when plaintiff Desiree Durga was driving a Chevrolet Silverado that was involved in a collision with another motor vehicle. This accident resulted in extensive damage to the Silverado, which was insured by defendant MemberSelect Insurance Company (MemberSelect). Plaintiffs alleged that defendant breached their automobile insurance contract when it rescinded their policy based upon an allegation that Desiree Durga made a fraudulent misrepresentation in the application process. The trial court entered a July 2, 2024 amended order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition on their breach of contract claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) and denying defendant’s cross-motion for summary disposition in which it had argued that it was entitled to rescind the policy. On July 9, 2024, the court entered an order of judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $82,476.04, and this appeal of right by defendant followed. We affirm. I. FACTS As a result of plaintiff Justin Durga having two or more substance abuse convictions in seven years, his Michigan operator’s license was mandatorily revoked from June 9, 2007 “until requirements have been met.” MCL 257.303(2)(c). -1-  In June 2012, plaintiff Justin Durga’s wife, Desiree, applied to obtain automobile insurance from defendant MemberSelect for a Jeep Grand Cherokee that she owned.1 According to plaintiff Desiree Durga, “[a]t that time I fully disclosed to AAA that my husband, Justin Durga, did not have a valid driver’s license.”2 Defendant’s insurance records reflect that plaintiffs have been “AAA Insured” since June 29, 2012. While defendant MemberSelect claims that Desiree Durga’s application for insurance contained a material misrepresentation, it has not produced a copy of her June 2012 application in this case. In response to a request for production of documents seeking to have defendant “[p]roduce the application for insurance that Plaintiff(s) filed with Defendants for the Policy,” defendant responded “This application for insurance no longer exists.” In the lower court, MemberSelect relied upon two documents, a “New Declaration Certificate” (certificate), and an “Automobile Application Addendum and Authorization” (addendum), the latter of which was only signed by AAA sales representative, Jeanine Michalski, at 9:53AM on February 25, 2013. Under a line item labeled “Driver Type,” the certificate states that Desiree Durga is “ASSIGNED”3 and Justin Durga is “NOT LICENSED”; and under another line item labeled “Years Licensed” it states “7” for Desiree Durga and “0” for Justin Durga. Contrarily, in the addendum, next to a line asking “Do all drivers have a valid driver’s license including drivers 16 years of age with a graduated license?” the box marked “Yes” is checked. Again, the addendum reflects a signature by Jeanine Michalski on the “Sales Representative” line, but the “Signature of Applicant” line above it is blank. In her affidavit, Desiree Durga’s avers that “I never stated that Justin Durga had a valid driver’s license, nor did I ever prepare or sign this Addendum.” The addendum indicates that the Durgas carried automobile insurance with Farmers Insurance Exchange through March 15, 2013, and consistent with the certificate, it appears MemberSelect first insured Desiree Durga’s Jeep for the February 25, 2013-August 25, 2013 policy term. This policy was renewed and continued for ten years through the February 25, 2023- August 25, 2023 term at issue in this litigation. Desiree Durga’s affidavit also avers that “every renewal from AAA or MemberSelect continued to state that Justin Durga was not licensed—as 1 The policy of insurance that was in effect on the date of the accident was issued by defendant MemberSelect. In various documents prepared by defendant in this matter, including documents sent to plaintiffs, it refers to itself as “MemberSelect Insurance Company,” “AAA In

30 June 4, 2025 No. 484 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Richard GRIFFITH and Reta Griffith, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Respondents, v. PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant, and ALPINE ABATEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant. Wallowa County Circuit Court 22CV10452; A181951 Wes Williams, Judge. On appellants’ petition for reconsideration filed March 28, 2025, and respondent’s response filed April 2, 2025. Opinion filed March 19, 2025. 339 Or App 40, 566 P3d 1235 (2025). Kelly Vance for petition. Thomas M. Christ and Sussman Shank LLP for response. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. Cite as 341 Or App 30 (2025) 31 TOOKEY, P. J. Plaintiffs petition for reconsideration of our deci- sion in Griffith v. Property and Casualty Ins. Co. of Hartford, 339 Or App 40, 566 P3d 1235 (2025), asserting, among other reasons that we should reconsider our decision, that we “committed factual error in opining that all plaintiffs’ counsel did was file a complaint, which was contrary to the evidence.” Plaintiffs assert that “the trial court file shows far more activity than is depicted by the panel’s opinion.” We grant reconsideration, modify our previous opinion in two respects, and adhere to it as modified. First, in our opinion, we stated, “The complaint and Hartford’s answer were the only filings relating to Hartford in plaintiffs’ civil action. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs and Hartford executed a ‘Release and Settlement Agreement,’ under which the parties settled plaintiffs’ insurance and breach of contract claims ‘and all related controversies.’ ” Id. at 42. We modify those sentences to read, “After Vance filed the civil action, plaintiffs and Hartford executed a ‘Release and Settlement Agreement,’ under which the parties settled plaintiffs’ insurance and breach of contract claims ‘and all related controversies.’ ” Second, in our opinion, we stated, “Prior to the par- ties’ settlement and release, there was minimal litigation by plaintiffs’ counsel (the filing of a complaint) with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against Hartford.” Id. at 48. We mod- ify that sentence so that it reads, “Prior to the parties’ set- tlement and release, litigation by plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against Hartford included fil- ing a complaint and amended complaint, filing a reply to Hartford’s affirmative defenses, filings related to summary judgment, and oral argument before the court.” We have also considered the other reasons that plaintiffs assert that we should reconsider our opinion and have determined that reconsideration is not warranted. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

08/08/2025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 23, 2025 Session SHIRLEY JEAN CUPPLES BLANKENSHIP v. CHARLES GARY BLANKENSHIP SR. AND CHARLES GARY BLANKENSHIP II v. SHIRLEY JEAN CUPPLES BLANKENSHIP Appeal from the Chancery Court for Gibson County No. H6329, H6634 Michael Mansfield, Chancellor ___________________________________ No. W2024-01248-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ This appeal arises from the death of the husband during a divorce proceeding. While the divorce was pending, the spouses sold real property they owned as tenants by the entirety and deposited the proceeds with the clerk of the court pursuant to an agreed order. Subsequently, the husband died and the wife filed a motion to dismiss the case and to distribute the proceeds. The chancery court determined that the husband’s death abated the divorce proceedings and that the proceeds had been owned by the spouses as tenants by the entirety. Thus, the court granted the motion to dismiss and determined that the wife was entitled to distribution of the proceeds as the surviving tenant by the entirety. The spouses’ son, acting as administrator of the husband’s estate, appeals. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed. CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KENNY W. ARMSTRONG and VALERIE L. SMITH, JJ., joined. Michael R. Flynn, Germantown, Tennessee, for the appellants, Charles Gary Blankenship II and Probate Advance, LLC. Jonathan O. Steen, Nicholas B. Latimer, and Sara E. Barnett, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Shirley Jean Cupples Blankenship. OPINION I. Facts and Procedural History Charles Gary Blankenship Sr. (“Husband”) and Shirley Jean Cupples Blankenship (“Wife”) were married on August 22, 1981, in Jackson, Tennessee. One child was born of the marriage, Charles Gary Blankenship II (“Son”). Son is serving as the administrator of Husband’s estate and is one of the appellants in this matter. During the marriage, the spouses obtained the following pieces of real property in Humboldt, Tennessee: 157 Pleasant Hill Road, 3855 East End Drive, and a lot adjacent to the 3855 East End Drive property (collectively “the Properties”). The spouses owned the Properties as tenants by the entirety. On March 6, 2020, Wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Madison County Chancery Court. The spouses later agreed for the case to be transferred to the Gibson County Chancery Court. Litigation ensued, and on September 30, 2022, Husband filed a motion requesting that a guardian ad litem be appointed on his behalf. The motion was granted by order entered on January 20, 2023. The guardian ad litem subsequently submitted a report explaining that Husband had experienced several health issues and recommended that Son be appointed as conservator over Husband’s person and that a certified public accountant be appointed as conservator over his property. On January 5, 2023, an “Agreed Order” was entered in which the spouses agreed that the proceeds derived from the sale of any marital property would be paid to the Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court of Gibson County. Although it is unclear from the record when this occurred, the spouses subsequently sold the Properties. The proceeds derived from the sale of the Properties were deposited with the Gibson County Clerk and Master. On August 15, 2023, Husband died prior to a final decree of divorce having been entered. Wife filed a “Motion to Dismiss and for Distribution of Funds” on September 8, 2023, in which she asserted that Husband’s death abated the divorce proceedings. Wife also claimed that the proceeds derived from the sale of the Properties had been owned by the spouses as tenants by the entirety and thus the proceeds had “vested” in her upon Husband’s death as the surviving tenant by the entirety. Meanwhile, on October 27, 2023, Son filed a verified complaint in his capacity as the administrator of Husband’s estate in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee.1 The complaint alleged that the funds being held by the Gibson County Clerk and Master were assets of Husband’s estate. Son further sought an order enjoining Wife from obtaining the funds pending resolution of the complaint. This case was eventually transferred to the Gibson County Chancery Court. Subsequently, the court entered an order consolidating the divorce proceeding, the above- described action filed by Son, and a “Probate Action” Son had also filed in the Hamilton County Chancery Court. The court determined that all three cases were predicated on the disposal of a single issue: “who is entitled to receive disburse