Let Them Eat Cake

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and remanded with instructions in a complicated case involving the transfer of controlling interest in a law firm

This is an appeal arising from allegations of fraud and breach of contract in a dispute surrounding a stock transfer agreement that, among other things, provided for the transfer of controlling interest in a law firm from attorney Robert Hill to attorney Ricky Boren. Whereas many claims were resolved at summary judgment, others were tried before a jury and resolved in the Plaintiffs’ favor. The parties present a plethora of issues for our consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

In dispute

The record reveals there to be a morass of filings in the case, including requests for recusal of the trial court judge, efforts to seek interlocutory appeals, a motion for referral of alleged perjury to law enforcement authorities, and, of course, the assertion of various claims by the parties involved in the proceedings. Rather than attempt to chronicle every aspect of the litigation, including prior appeals, we find it most helpful to initially provide a basic sketch of the background of the case and summarize the procedural events that gave rise to our present review.

The aforementioned agreement between Mr. Hill and Mr. Boren, hereinafter frequently referred to as the stock transfer agreement, was entered into in 2012 in connection with Mr. Hill’s desire to reduce his professional responsibilities and retire from the active practice of law.

One issue involved alleged ex parte contacts between the judge and jury

Here, the Principal Brief specifically complains of an instance in which the trial judge was photographed with the jury and a cake. When the trial judge responded to a complaint raised about this incident in the trial court, he noted as follows:

It is true that one of the jurors baked a cake for the Court after the Court explained that it would miss its anniversary with his wife because of the trial. The Court did not ask the juror to bake a cake, but it certainly was appreciative, thanked all the jurors, and had a piece of cake, which by the way was delicious. At no time did the Court ever discuss with any member of the jury any issue involving the facts of the case. There is no nexus between being cordial to the jury and Mr. Hill’s allegation of bias or lack of impartiality towards him. Frankly, this allegation smacks of desperation.

Having considered this issue, we discern no reversible error here. There is no indication whatsoever that any matters concerning the case were discussed during the complained-of ex parte communication. 

(Mike Frisch)