Simmons v. Hitt

10 Citing cases

  1. Roberts v. the Baylor School

    No. E2007-00266-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Because noncompliance results in a forfeiture of the gift, the conditions must be created by express terms or by clear implication and are construed strictly. Southwestern Presbyterian Univ. v. City of Clarksville, 149 Tenn. at 282, 259 S.W. at 558; Hooton v. Nacarato GMC Truck, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989); Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1976). United Daughters, 174 S.W. 3d at 114-115.

  2. Musto v. American General Corp.

    615 F. Supp. 1483 (M.D. Tenn. 1985)   Cited 14 times

    The creation of a binding contract requires an offer and acceptance, both of which are supported by adequate consideration. Similarly, the modification of a contract requires a bargained-for exchange supported by consideration. In Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Tenn.App. 1976), the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that unfunded pension and retirement plans are not merely gratuities offered by the employer, but created legal rights upon the employees' notice that such benefits are being offered and the employees' performance of the terms necessary for acceptance. The Simmons court stated:

  3. Adcock v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co.

    616 F. Supp. 409 (M.D. Tenn. 1985)   Cited 10 times

    In Hamby v. Genesco, Inc., 627 S.W.2d at 375-76, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's determination that provisions contained within the Genesco employee handbook constituted an offer that was accepted by the employees' continued employment with the firm and, as such, became a binding term of the employer/employee contractual agreement. Similarly, in Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Tenn.App.), cert. denied, (Tenn. 1976), the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that unfunded pension and retirement plans are not merely gratuities offered by the employer, but created legal rights upon the employees' notice that such benefits are being offered and the employees' performance of the terms necessary for acceptance. The Simmons court stated:

  4. Baumgartner v. Tenn. Consol. Ret. Sys.

    No. M2017-01715-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2018)

    See, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-37-208 ("Every member shall be deemed to consent and agree to the deductions herein provided as a condition of membership."); Hogan v. U.S., 513 F.2d 170, 171, 175 (6th Cir. 1975) (discussing a federal statute providing that federal employees were "deemed to consent and agree" to deductions from pay for a retirement fund, which "appear[ed] in form to create an irrebuttable presumption that each employee has consented to the deductions" and effectively made employee participation "a mandatory condition of employment"); Miller v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 144 F.2d 287, 288-89 (4th Cir. 1944) (considering a federal act providing that every employee "shall be deemed to consent and agree" to salary deductions for retirement and concluding that the employee accepted employment subject to the condition that he was deemed to consent and agree to the deduction). A somewhat analogous pension forfeiture provision was considered by this Court in Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976). In that case, electric company employees were participants in a pension plan that provided that they would forfeit their interest in the plan if discharged for dishonesty or disloyalty.

  5. 1963 Jackson, Inc. v. De Vos

    436 S.W.3d 278 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that a notice letter sent to a lessee was legally insufficient to permit forfeiture of the lease because it did not put lessee on notice that waste was a default event that could result in termination of the lease

    Though forfeiture of a contract will be enforced where equity demands it, the law does not favor forfeitures and they are strictly construed by this Court. Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn.Ct.App.1976). “Before a court will enforce a forfeiture, there must be clear proof of the right to the forfeiture and the grounds on which the forfeiture is allowed must be well established.”

  6. 1963 Jackson, Inc. v. De Vos

    No. W2012-02212-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2013)

    Though forfeiture of a contract will be enforced where equity demands it, the law does not favor forfeitures and they are strictly construed by this Court. Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976). "Before a court will enforce a forfeiture, there must be clear proof of the right to the forfeiture and the grounds on which the forfeiture is allowed must be well established."

  7. Tennessee U.D.C. v. Vanderbilt University

    174 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that by complying with the terms of a contract when a condition precedent to that contract has not been met, a party waives its right to enforcement of that condition precedent

    Because noncompliance results in a forfeiture of the gift, the conditions must be created by express terms or by clear implication and are construed strictly. Southwestern Presbyterian Univ. v. City of Clarksville, 149 Tenn. at 282, 259 S.W. at 558; Hooton v. Nacarato GMC Truck, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989); Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1976). In order to identify the conditions attached to the gift from the Tennessee U.D.C. to Peabody College, we must first determine which contract or contracts govern the gift.

  8. Neblette v. Fire Police

    C/A No. 03A01-9511-CH-00418 (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 22, 1996)

    a non-contributory pension and profit sharing plan is not a gratuity but is an offer of additional deferred compensation and the offer is accepted by the employee remaining in the employment of the employer which is sufficient consideration to support the employer's promise to pay the benefits and is, therefore, a contract enforceable by the employee.Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn. App. 1976). We examine the terms of the earlier ordinance to determine if Neblette complied with the conditions precedent to her entitlement to disability benefits prior to the enactment of the new plan.

  9. Kendrick v. Kendrick

    902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 64 times
    In Kendrick, this Court first discussed "whether nonvested pension rights are marital property" and "the manner in which [such] pension rights should be valued and distributed if [they] are marital property."

    Pension rights are property because they are a form of deferred compensation for work already performed. Batson v. Batson, 769 S.W.2d 849, 857 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988); Hunley v. Hunley, App. No. 88-206-II, slip op. at 7, 13 T.A.M. 52-4, 3 T.F.L.L. 3-20, 1988 WL 123956 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1988); Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976). Accordingly, an overwhelming majority of state courts now treat pension rights as marital property.

  10. Hooton v. Nacarato GMC Truck, Inc.

    772 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 13 times

    However, the law does not favor forfeitures and they will be strictly construed. Simmons v. Hitt, 546 S.W.2d 587, 591 (Tenn. App. 1976) (citation omitted). Forfeitures will be enforced only within the letter and spirit of the law.