Kelly Colvard Parsons v. Richard Jearl Parsons
This is a post-divorce matter in which Ms. Parsons filed a petition for civil and criminal contempt against her former husband, Mr. Parsons. Ms. Parsons argues that Mr. Parsons unilaterally modified the terms of their divorce by failing to compensate her for what she alleges to be a vested interest in his federal retirement benefits. At the conclusion of Ms. Parsons’ direct examination, Mr. Parsons moved for dismissal on the ground that Ms. Parsons did not elect whether she was seeking civil or criminal contempt at the outset of the proceedings. The trial court dismissed Ms. Parsons’ petition for contempt, finding that she did not prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence. Because the trial court used the wrong legal standard and did not allow Ms. Parsons to complete her proof, we vacate and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Smith v. Randal Rhea
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his suit for lack of prosecution, asserting that the trial court failed to rule on several dispositive motions. Upon a review of the record, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case for a hearing on the pending motions. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Sophia P.
This case involves a petition to terminate parental rights and to adopt filed by the child’s grandparents. The trial court found that no ground for termination was proven by clear and convincing evidence and therefore denied the petition. The grandparents appeal. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: B.T.
On October 3, 2015, the Jefferson County Sheriff filed a petition in the Jefferson County Juvenile Court requesting the court to “make inquiry into” an alleged violation of the adult crime of first degree murder by B.T., an eleven-year-old boy. The juvenile court initially set an adjudicatory hearing for October 28, 2015, but the court later granted two continuances at the request of the State. B.T. filed a petition for writ of certiorari and motion to dismiss in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County seeking dismissal of the petition against him on the basis that the juvenile court erred in granting the continuances. On January 6, 2016, the circuit court held a hearing on the respondent’s filings. The court took the matter under advisement pending the juvenile court’s adjudicatory hearing scheduled for January 22, 2016. B.T. appeals. We affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Lane, et al v. Estate of Gary K. Leggett
This appeal arises from an action to recover for emotional injuries allegedly sustained when the decedent/defendant’s automobile drove into Plaintiff’s business, struck a gas meter, and started a fire, which destroyed the business. The Plaintiff filed suit alleging causes of action for negligence and negligence per se and sought damages for emotional distress. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Tennessee law does not recognize a cause of action for emotional injuries arising out of damage to or loss of property. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, finding that Plaintiff did not establish that the injury was the proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendant’s negligence. The court dismissed the remaining claim on the basis of the prior suit pending doctrine due to a pending interpleader action filed by Defendant’s liability insurer. Plaintiff appeals; we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
George Campbell, Jr. v. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
This appeal involves an inmate/Appellant’s petition for the release of public records under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Appellant sought the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s (“TBI”) records concerning a criminal investigation. Citing the exemption for TBI investigative records under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 10-7-504(a)(2)(A), the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed his Tennessee Public Records Act petition. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Sinan Gider v. Lydia Hubbell
This case involves the modification of an agreed parenting plan under which the child’s mother was the primary residential parent. After the father obtained an injunction to prevent Mother from homeschooling the child, the mother sought to obtain sole decision-making authority. The father then filed a petition seeking to be named primary residential parent and sole decision maker. The juvenile court granted both of the father’s requests and denied the mother’s request. The court also placed several limitations on the mother’s visitation and enjoined her use of social media and from making disparaging remarks about the father to the child or in the child’s presence. We conclude that certain of the restrictions placed on Mother’s communications were overly broad or vague. Accordingly, we modify the injunction the juvenile court placed on Mother’s communications. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jane Bingham Street v. Ed Street
In this divorce case, Ed Street (Husband) appeals the trial court’s division of property, arguing that he should not have been assigned all of the debt associated with the business assets awarded to him. Husband also asserts that the trial court erred in granting Jane Bingham Street (Wife) an award of monthly alimony in futuro of $2,000. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jalen O-H.
Father appeals an order of the trial court setting current child support, awarding retroactive child support, and changing the child’s last name to a hyphenated name comprised of Father and Mother’s surnames. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Akilah Louise Wofford, et al. v. M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises from the certification of a class. Numerous individuals (“Plaintiffs”), some next of kin and some who had contracted for funerals of loved ones, filed suit against certain funeral homes (“Defendants”) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiffs alleged that the funeral homes abandoned human remains to an unlicensed cemetery, Galilee Memorial Gardens (“Galilee”), where the remains were disposed of improperly. Plaintiffs sought to bring their claims, which include breach of contract and a request for equitable relief, as a class. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted class certification. Defendants appeal to this Court. We find and hold, inter alia, that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion, and we find no error by the Trial Court in granting class certification. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ja'Miya T.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Appellant/Father’s parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to support; and (2) persistence of conditions. Because the grounds for termination of Father’s parental rights are met by clear and convincing evidence, and there is also clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald G. Freeze, et al. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Ronald G. Freeze and Carla R. Freeze (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the order of the Circuit Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) granting summary judgment to Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“Tennessee Farmers”). The Trial Court found and held that material misrepresentations made by Plaintiffs on their application for property owner’s insurance increased the risk of loss thereby causing the insurance policy to be void pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-103. We find and hold that Tennessee Farmers made a properly supported motion for summary judgment showing that Plaintiffs could not establish an essential element of their claim for insurance benefits, and that Plaintiffs failed to show that there were genuine disputed issues of material fact. We, therefore, affirm the grant of summary judgment to Tennessee Farmers. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby Murray, et al. v. Dennis Miracle, et al.
This is the third appeal in this suit; on remand from the prior appeal the court considered whether a discovery sanction previously imposed upon Plaintiffs was reasonable and the amount of damages to be awarded Defendants for defending the previous appeal, which was deemed frivolous. The trial court upheld the discovery sanction and awarded Defendants $8,488.50 in damages for the prior appeal. Plaintiffs appeal, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in affirming the prior sanction and in making the award for the frivolous appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court; we declare this appeal frivolous and remand the case for a determination of damages. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Proceeding To Enforce Judgment Against National Partitions, Inc.
American Plastics Technologies, Inc. (APT) and RAO Design, International, Inc. (RDI) (collectively the Plaintiffs) brought this action in the trial court seeking to enroll an Illinois judgment against National Partitions (NP). The judgment had been awarded by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. NP filed an answer questioning the jurisdiction of the Illinois court. NP coupled its answer with a counterclaim asserting that the Plaintiffs had been guilty of the initial breach of the contract. Following a hearing, the trial court decreed registration of the Illinois judgment and ultimately dismissed NP‘s counterclaim. NP appeals. We affirm |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Kevin Medley, et al
Appellants appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to recuse on the ground that the trial court conducted an impermissible ex parte communication with counsel for the opposing party. The dispute in this case stems from Appellants’ pursuit of several documents that the opposing party claimed were privileged. In the course of hearing proof on the claimed privilege, the trial court announced its intention to conduct an ex parte hearing concerning the documents with only the opposing party present. Appellants did not object to the hearing. After the hearing was conducted, however, Appellants moved to recuse the trial judge on the basis that he had engaged in prohibited ex parte communications. The trial court promptly denied the recusal motion. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Charles A.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of abandonment and persistence of conditions. Because the record does not contain an adjudicatory order of dependency and neglect, we reverse the ground of persistence of conditions. We affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment and on the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
James R. Goan et al. v. Billy B. Mills
Plaintiff James R. Goan’s mail delivery vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Billy B. Mills as Plaintiff was delivering mail. The Plaintiff and his wife, Judy Goan, sued Mills. During settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs offered to settle for $100,000, the limits of Defendant’s insurance policy. Defendant accepted the offer on December 4, 2013. Over a year later, Defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that there had been no meeting of the minds and no enforceable agreement. The trial court enforced the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Mrs. Bobby Patterson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the dismissal of a complaint filed in the Tennessee Claims Commission. Because the record does not support the Claims Commission’s grounds for dismissing the case, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Lukis B.
The father appeals the circuit court’s adjudication that his child is dependent and neglected due to the father’s mental illness and paranoid behavior, which make the father unfit to properly care for his child. The father contends the circuit court erred in determining that, at the time of trial, his child was dependent and neglected. Finding the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the circuit court’s ruling, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Hailey O., et al.
The father of two children appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit them within the four month period preceding his incarceration and by engaging in conduct prior to his incarceration that exhibits a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Associates Asset Management, LLC v. Angela Blackburn
This is a breach of contract case. After Appellant purchased a package of default loans, which contained Appellee’s second mortgage note, Appellant waited almost four years to file suit against Appellee for breach of contract. Appellee raised laches as an affirmative defense. The trial court held that gross laches applied to bar Appellant’s lawsuit. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in applying gross laches to bar Appellant’s claim in that Appellee’s injuries were only economic, and Appellee failed to pursue her claims for predatory lending, misrepresentation, and/or lender misconduct. Reversed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Patton Rogers, et al. v. Bradley Dean Hadju, et al.
Appellants filed this lawsuit against Appellees for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of Appellees’ subcontractor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, ruling that they could not be vicariously liable for the subcontractor’s negligence because the uncontroverted facts conclusively established that the subcontractor was an independent contractor. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ashton V.
This appeal arises from a juvenile court’s modification of a primary residential parent designation. The mother appeals the juvenile court’s findings that a material change in circumstance had occurred and that a change in the primary residential parent was in the child’s best interest. The mother also challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her Rule 60.01 motion. Upon review, we conclude that the juvenile court erred in relying on a report that was not entered into evidence at the hearing, but the error was harmless. Even excluding the report, the evidence does not preponderate against the juvenile court’s findings that a material change in circumstance had occurred and that modification of the primary residential parent designation was in the child’s best interest. We further conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s Rule 60.01 motion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Yen v. University of Tennessee Knoxville
This is an appeal of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville’s termination of a tenured faculty member. After the University terminated Appellant, he appealed the validity of his termination to an administrative hearing officer pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Following a contested hearing, the hearing officer upheld the University’s termination of Appellant. Appellant then petitioned the chancery court to reverse the decision of the hearing officer. The chancery court held that there was substantial and material evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s decision to affirm the termination of Appellant’s employment and tenure. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Clayton Eddy Powers v. A&W Supply, Inc.
This appeal arose from a contract dispute between the plaintiff employee and the defendant corporation regarding shares of corporate stock. The parties signed an agreement in June 1993, which provided that the plaintiff would become vested with the right to receive two and one-half percent of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the corporation’s capital stock so long as the plaintiff remained an employee in good standing with the corporation from the date of said agreement until the vesting date of December 31, 2001. It is undisputed that the plaintiff remained an employee in good standing with the corporation on the vesting date. Following the vesting date, the corporation never delivered stock certificates to the plaintiff or recognized the plaintiff as a shareholder within the company. The corporation terminated the plaintiff’s employment in October 2014, and in November 2014, the plaintiff made his first inquiry about his ownership interest in the stock to which he was entitled under the agreement. The defendant company denied that the plaintiff owned any stock in the company. The plaintiff thereafter filed an action against the corporation, seeking specific performance, declaratory judgment, and damages resulting from breach of contract. The plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting a determination that the plaintiff was automatically vested in two and one-half percent of the total number of shares of the corporation’s capital stock. The defendant also filed a motion for summary judgment, averring that because the corporation never took action to transfer the shares of capital stock to the plaintiff on the vesting date, the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in 2001, rendering the plaintiff’s present action time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court determined that the plaintiff was vested with ownership of the shares on the vesting date and that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
