In Re Paisley B. et al.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Beverly Jean Cullins Pickett v. Garry Lynn Pickett
In this divorce action, a husband challenges the trial court’s finding that the parties’ jointly owned real property transmuted into marital property during a nine-year marriage. The husband also asserts that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of the final decree before the decree became a final order. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court as to the finding that the parties’ home became marital property during the marriage. We reverse, however, the finding of contempt against the husband. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Isabella P.
In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his child, the Cannon County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determined that clear and convincing evidence supported termination as to five statutory grounds: substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan, persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal from the parents’ custody, severe child abuse, incarceration of a parent for more than ten years when the child is under eight years of age, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court further determined that termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The father has appealed. Upon review, we vacate the trial court’s determination concerning the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
Caroline Brown Smithwick v. Fred Barksdale Smithwick, IV
Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee/Father’s post-divorce petitions to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt. The trial court changed the children’s primary residential parent from Mother to Father. Although the trial court made a change in custody, it applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C), which addresses modification of a residential schedule. Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(B), which addresses modifications of custody, is the applicable statute. The trial court also charged Mother with one child’s tuition. In doing so, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the Child Support Guidelines. As such, we vacate the order: (1) modifying the permanent parenting plan; (2) modifying the Child Support Worksheet, and (3) charging Mother with the child’s private school tuition. The trial court also charged Mother with retroactive child support, found her guilty of three counts of civil contempt for alleged violations of the permanent parenting plan, and ordered her to pay Father’s attorney’s fees as punishment for the contempt. Because the record does not support the trial court’s findings of contempt, we reverse the contempt holdings and the award of attorney’s fees to Father. Because there is no basis for an award of retroactive child support, we also reverse that holding. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald McDaniel, et al. v. Edwin Frazier, III, et al.
Appellants purchased a home without first personally viewing the property. Following the sale, Appellants discovered defects that they claim should have been disclosed to them prior to the sale. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the sellers of the house and the licensed home inspector. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
John F. Curran v. Only Motorsports, LLC
The trial court dismissed the appellant’s appeal from general sessions court on the basis that his notice of appeal was untimely. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
THE EDWARD JACKSON YOUNGER FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, BY AND THROUGH ANGELA TRACY YOUNGER, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. EVELYN W. ROSS, PERSONALLY AND INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SETTLOR OF THE EVELYN W. ROSS IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST, ET AL.
In this case involving the sale of a life insurance policy, the trial court conducted a hearing on the same day regarding the four defendants’ various motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Concerning three defendants, including the appellant, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability upon finding that those defendants had failed to respond to the summary judgment motion. Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court found that the defendants had breached an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the life insurance policy directly to the plaintiffs, selling it to a separate trust instead, and that the defendants had done so through a “scheme to defraud” the plaintiffs. Upon the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the trial court also found that the defendants had violated the Tennessee Viatical Settlement Act of 2009, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-50-101, et seq. Finding the defendants to be jointly and severally liable, the trial court awarded to the plaintiffs a judgment in the amount of $418,450.87 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $252,867.19. One of the defendants has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment with the correction of one mathematical error. Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement, we grant the plaintiffs’ request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal. We remand this case to the trial court for enforcement of the modified judgment and for a determination of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Piper DiDomenico v. James Andrew DiDomenico
Husband appeals the trial court’s judgment in his divorce action on the sole issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself because the judge’s comments and conduct at the trial establish that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Applying the objective standard, we find no basis for the trial judge’s recusal and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph R. Blythe v. Trista Tidwell Forsythe
Following an incident in an operating room allegedly involving aggressive actions by a doctor toward a scrub tech, the scrub tech made oral and written statements about the incident to her employer, the police, and a state administrative body. In response, the doctor filed suit for defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship. The scrub tech filed a Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA) petition to dismiss, which the trial court granted after it found that the statements were within the ambit of the TPPA and that the doctor could not establish a prima facie case for all of the essential elements of his claims. The doctor appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Fatima Pajazetovic et al. v. Richard Baker
In this automobile collision case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant challenges several rulings related to the admission and testimony of the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert. Because the defendant failed to file a motion for new trial raising these challenges, we conclude that they are waived, and so we affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Marina Georgopulos v. Zachary Ferrell
Father was held in criminal contempt for willful failure to provide Mother with the current address where he and their child resided. The court fined him $50 and sentenced him to serve 10 days incarcerated, though it suspended the incarceration upon good behavior and continued compliance with court orders. The trial court also granted Mother attorney’s fees related to the prosecution of that count of contempt. Father appeals. We affirm and remand for a determination of Mother’s attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE JAMES S.
The trial court terminated Mother/Appellant’s parental rights on the ground of severe child |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
BENJAMIN MCCURRY v. AGNESS MCCURRY
The appellant has filed a notice of appeal as of right from interlocutory orders entered by the trial court. Due to the lack of a final judgment, this Court does not maintain subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the portion of this Court’s prior order directing that the matter be scheduled for the next oral argument docket is vacated. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Keigan S. et al.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to two of her three children. The juvenile court found that three grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Nina Nowaczyk et al. v. Timothy Daniels et al.
Appellants filed a motion to recuse the trial judge on the basis that the judge lives in the same neighborhood as a possible expert witness. The trial judge denied the motion. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Renee' Niter-Martin A/K/A Renee' Niter as Next of Kin of Rosie Niter v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals D/B/A Methodist University Hospital ET AL.
Appellee filed this action, as next of kin of Decedent, against Appellant nursing facility alleging that Appellant was negligent in its care of Decedent. Appellee also asserted a wrongful death claim. Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration on its allegation that Decedent signed a binding arbitration agreement before being admitted into its facility. The trial court found that Appellant failed to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement and concluded that there was no evidence of a binding arbitration agreement between Appellant and Decedent. As such, the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
DAVID MARTIN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST OF CLAUDE S. JERNIGAN AND JO ANN JERNIGAN v. TREVOR D. HILL
A grandmother made a series of loans to her grandson totaling $147,000 to help with his |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. v. Regions Morgan Keegan Trust et al.
This appeal arises from the alleged mismanagement of two dissolved trusts established for the benefit of Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendant-trustees violated the trusts’ terms by regularly encroaching on the trusts’ corpus for unauthorized purposes, thereby exhausting the trusts’ assets. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the applicable statutes of limitations, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Pirtle d/b/a Third Coast Builders v. The Tunney Group, LLC et al.
A general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform plumbing work on a condominium construction project. After completing the first phase of the work, the general contractor paid a portion of the total contract amount to the subcontractor. The general contractor then separately hired the subcontractor to do some excavation work on the project, though no contract was created for this aspect of the work, and no payment amount was discussed. After completion of the excavation work, a dispute arose over the amount charged to the general contractor by the subcontractor. The general contractor refused to pay what it believed to be too high a fee. The subcontractor insisted that the amount charged was reasonable. The general contractor then asserted that the subcontractor had materially breached the plumbing contract during the first phase. The general contractor eventually terminated the contract. The subcontractor filed suit. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the general contractor breached the parties’ contract, awarding lost profits and attorney’s fees to the subcontractor pursuant to the plumbing contract. The trial court also awarded damages to the subcontractor for the excavation work under a quantum meruit theory. The general contractor appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
FRENCH BROAD UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ET AL. V. HOLSTON ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL.
This appeal involves a dispute between a local church and a denominational organization regarding the ownership of church property. We have concluded that the trial court did not err in denying the local church’s motion to recuse and, further, that the trial court properly dismissed all of the local church’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
JUSTIN ROUSE v. EMILY SULLIVAN
A mother appealed a juvenile court’s modification of the permanent parenting plan for her daughter. Once briefing was complete and the case was submitted for decision, the mother voluntarily dismissed her appeal, leaving only the father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). We grant the father’s request and remand for a determination of the amount of reasonable fees incurred. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Naqusha L. Metcalf v. Darnell Woodard, et al.
This appeal arises from a personal injury action following a motor vehicle collision in Shelby County, Tennessee. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining negligence claim after concluding that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence as to breach of duty and causation. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
ROBERT C. SIMMONS v. MICHAEL D. BLACK, ET AL.
In the Chancery Court for Bledsoe County (“the Trial Court”), Robert Simmons (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against his neighbors, Michael and Anna Marie Black (“Defendants”) to establish the correct common boundary line between their two properties. Two competing surveys were presented to the Trial Court, but only one surveyor testified. The Trial Court found Plaintiff’s surveyor, the testifying surveyor, credible and established the common boundary line in accordance with Plaintiff’s survey. Defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
PHILIP J. BRYCE ET AL. v. NATHAN PARTIN ET AL.
This case concerns a ground lease for real property upon which a business maintained a billboard. After the landowner sent a letter to the business purporting to terminate the lease, the business sought a declaratory judgment that the lease remained valid and requested damages. The landowner filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the lease was void or had been breached by the business. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that the lease had expired and awarded the landowner the rental income from the billboard minus the business’s expenses. On appeal, the business asserts that the trial court erred by denying its equitable defenses and in its award of damages. We conclude that several of these defenses were waived in the trial court and that the business failed to prove the remaining defenses. However, we also conclude that the trial court erred in its award of the rental income and vacate this portion of the order. Because the record does not contain sufficient evidence for this Court to determine the proper distribution of the rental income, we remand the matter for further proceedings. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Deshields
A Henderson County jury convicted the Defendant, Darryl Deshields, of evading arrest, reckless endangerment, reckless driving, and speeding, and the trial court imposed an effective three-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. He also asserts that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in approving the verdict as thirteenth juror. Finally, the Defendant contends that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence regarding the tip that led investigators to his whereabouts. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals |
