Doll v. Tressler

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

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN RE § 08-25-00147-CV RITA ELIZABETH JONES, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ESTELA TIBUNI § IN MANDAMUS ROMANO, DECEASED, A/K/ ESTELLA TIBUNI ROMANO, STELLA TIBUNI § ROMANO § Relator. JUDGMENT The Court has considered this cause on the motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We further order Relator to pay all costs of this appeal and this decision to be certified below for observance. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June 2025. MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret) Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN RE § 08-25-00148-CV RITA ELIZABETH JONES, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ESTELA TIBUNI § IN MANDAMUS ROMANO, DECEASED, A/K/ ESTELLA TIBUNI ROMANO, STELLA TIBUNI § ROMANO § Relator. MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Elizabeth Rita Jones 1 has filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this original proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1) (governing voluntary dismissals). The motion is granted, and this original proceeding is dismissed. The temporary administrative stay issued on May 21, 2025 is lifted and all pending motions are denied as moot. Further, we deny the request made by the Real Party in Interest for sanctions pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 52.11. Court costs are assessed against Relator. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d) (court to tax costs against relator absent agreement of the parties). MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice June 17, 2025 Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret) Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment) 1 Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Estela Tibuni Romano, Deceased, a/k/ Estella Tibuni Romano, Stella Tibuni Romano.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A24-1820 VH-Minneapolis South Inc, Respondent, vs. TGI Friday’s Inc., Defendant, Akaashaman LLC, Appellant. Filed August 11, 2025 Affirmed Reyes, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-20-12600 Patrick J. Rooney, Anna M. Swiecichowski, Fafinski Mark & Johnson, PA, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (for respondent) Jeffrey M. Markowitz, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Adam L. Massaro (pro hac vice), Reed Smith, Denver, Colorado (for appellant) Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Schmidt, Judge.  NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION REYES, Judge Appellant-easement holder challenges the district court’s award of monetary damages to respondent-property owner for nonpayment of easement expenses, arguing that respondent did not properly furnish expense invoices and failed to provide notice of default as required by the easement agreement. We affirm. FACTS This case arises from the nonpayment of expenses associated with a parking-lot easement. Appellant Akaashaman LLC owns a TGI Friday’s restaurant in Bloomington, and respondent VH-Minneapolis South (VH) owns a neighboring DoubleTree by Hilton hotel. VH’s property includes the parking lot immediately surrounding Akaashaman’s restaurant (the common area). Without an easement, Akaashaman would lack access to the parking lot. The Easement The prior owners of the properties entered into an easement agreement in 1989. The agreement grants the restaurant owner an easement that gives its guests and employees access to the entirety of the parking lot owned by the hotel owner. The easement is perpetual and nonexclusive, runs with the land, and is binding upon successors in interest. Under the agreement, the hotel owner is responsible for maintaining the common area, which includes keeping it safe, landscaped, insured, properly surfaced, adequately lit, and clean. In exchange, the restaurant owner must reimburse the hotel owner a pro rata share of approximately 16% of the costs “reasonably and directly expended” by the hotel 2 owner. To be reimbursed, the hotel owner “shall furnish . . . a statement” detailing the common-area expenses within 45 days of the end of “each one-half calendar period.” The hotel owner must keep records of the common-area expenses for at least 12 months following the delivery of each invoice. The restaurant owner, “subject to the right of reasonable verification,” is required to “pay the invoice within twenty . . . days of receipt.” Under paragraph seven of the agreement, a party is in default under the agreement if it fails to comply with “any of its obligations under [the] [a]greement,” provided that the noncompliance “continues for ten days after such party’s receipt of notice of default pursuant to paragraph 14.” Paragraph 14 states that “[n]otice may be given by . . . depositing written notice in the United States mail, certified mail” at the listed addresses “or such other address as may be designated from time to time by any party for itself.” (Emphasis added.) Initial Payment of Costs When Akaashaman, owned by Anil Yadav, purchased the restaurant property in December 2015, Bloomington Hotel Investors LLC (BHI) owned the hotel property. BHI’s director of finance, Russell Huhner, would send the biannual invoices to individuals associated with Yadav, including Tejal Chokshi, Kevin Kevorkian, and Terry Sayles. Chokshi is the controller and chief financial officer for Yadav Enterprises, owned by Anil Yadav. Kevorkian is counsel for Yadav. Sayles is an employee of Yadav Enterprises and the director of operations for a subsidiary of the company. Akaashaman initially made all payments required under the agreement. 3 Nonpayment Akaashaman failed to pay the common-area expenses for the first half of 2019 and failed to make any additional payments. In August 2019, Huhner sent an invoice for the first half of the year to Chokshi, Kevorkian, and Sayles. Huhner met with Sayles and Stacy Franklin, an employee of Yadav Enterprises, t

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00239-CV ___________________________ IN RE MORNINGSTAR OIL & GAS, LLC, TXO PARTNERS GP, LLC AND TXO PARTNERS, L.P., Relators Original Proceeding 352nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 352-353631-24 Before Bassel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion  MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, real party in interest’s response, and relators’ reply and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Per Curiam Delivered: June 17, 2025 2