Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog

The recent case of In re Estate of Drewry E. Haskins, Jr. from the Eastern Section of the Court of Appeals deals with the requirements for a verbal contract under Tennessee law, but the interesting part of the case focuses on the credibility of witnesses. In Haskins, the case was tried before a special master in 1999, with the special master finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an oral contract.  More than four years later, and after being instructed to do so by the Chancellor, the special master amended his report to consider the testimony of several additional witnesses. The master found the testimony of each of these witnesses “not to be credible in this action as a result of her affect and her interest," and again found no oral contract existed. 

The plaintiff appealled, arguing that “the Special Master made a determination of credibility of multiple witnesses...fifty-six months after hearing."  The plaintiff further argued that "no finder of fact can make any appropriate finding of credibility more than four and one-half years after the hearing in
question.” The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's argument outright, noting that credibility is determined during the trial even if recorded in an order or report years later.  Moreover, even with the passage of time the trial court remains better equipped to judge the credibility of witnesses than an appellate court reviewing the transcript alone.

One final important point made by the Court of Appeals is that a trial court need not accept as true a witness's testimony merely because it is not directly contradicted, impeached, or discredited. In other words, a witness's testimony that the sky is yellow and the sun is blue need not be accepted as fact merely because it is not attacked on cross-examination. 

The Tennessee Supreme Court decided on Friday "that a plaintiff who establishes a violation of one or more of the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees generated during appeal(s) of the matter." In Killingsworth v. Ted Russel Ford, Inc., the Court specified that any request for attorneys fees incurred on appeal "must set forth his or her intention to do so in his or her appellate pleadings." The Court held that mention of a request for attorneys' fees in the complaint at the trial court level is not enough.