In Re Estate of Gertrude Bible Link
This is an appeal from a jury trial in a will contest. The jury returned a verdict finding that the contested will was valid. The contestants have appealed, raising numerous issues and arguing that the evidence presented does not support the jury’s verdict. We affirm. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Omar Ahmad v. Ezad Ahmad
Because the order appealed does not comply with Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the order is not a final judgment. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction and this matter must be dismissed. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Delilah G.
This is an appeal from an order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her daughter, of whom the Department of Children’s Services acquired custody following a referral of a drug exposed child and two referrals for medical maltreatment and nutritional neglect. The child’s parents were later adjudicated to have committed severe abuse on the child. The Department subsequently petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents, and the court granted the petition on the ground of severe child abuse and after holding that termination of the parents’ rights was in the best interest of the child. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: John J.
This is an appeal from an order terminating a Mother’s parental rights to her son. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to have the child declared dependent and neglected when he was observed with burn marks on his thigh and fingers. He was adjudicated to be dependent and neglected, and custody was given to the Department. A petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights was subsequently filed and, following a trial, the court held that Mother had abandoned the child by failing to visit him and by engaging in behavior which exhibited a wanton disregard for the child’s welfare; the court also determined that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. Mother appeals, contending that the court erred in holding that termination of her rights was in the child’s best interest. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
City of Church Hill v. Roger Elliott
Because defendant was charged and found guilty of violating a state statute, rather than a municipal ordinance, we conclude that we are without subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Therefore, we must transfer this case to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in accordance with Rule 17 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure for further adjudication. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Pavement Restorations, Inc. v. Thomas E. Ralls, et al.
Employee’s employment was terminated for smoking in a company truck in violation of the employer’s rule. Employee’s initial request for unemployment benefits was denied. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed the denial of benefits, but the Commissioner’s Designee later reversed, finding that employee’s conduct was exempt from the definition of misconduct and concluding that the employee was, therefore, not terminated for workrelated misconduct as defined in the unemployment compensation statutes. On appeal to the chancery court, the trial court concluded that evidence in the record supported the Commissioner’s Designee’s decision. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Linda Jane Parimore v. Gerald David Parimore
Husband appeals: (1) the denial of his Rule 60.02 motion on the basis of fraud; and (2) the grant of attorney’s fees to Wife. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Husband’s Rule 60.02 motion but reverse the grant of attorney’s fees to Wife. We also decline the award of damages to Wife on appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Tanikia Yolanda Hurt v. William George Bulls, III
This case originated when the State, acting on behalf of Tanikia Yolanda Hurt (Mother), filed a petition against William George Bulls, III (Father) seeking to have him held in contempt because of his failure to pay child support. A juvenile court magistrate dismissed the State’s petition, finding that Father had paid all of his arrearage. On the day the court dismissed the petition, Mother filed a new pleading, a motion, again seeking a finding of contempt against Father. She once again alleged unpaid support in addition to other matters. This motion was also dismissed. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Reginald Davis v. City of Memphis, et al.
This appeal involves the termination of a firefighter’s employment with the City of Memphis. The firefighter appealed his termination to the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission. He also filed a lawsuit in federal district court asserting various causes of action against the City of Memphis and other defendants. After a six-day jury trial in federal court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The City of Memphis then sought dismissal of the firefighter’s appeal before the Civil Service Commission based on the principles of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. The Civil Service Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The firefighter then sought review in chancery court, and the chancery court upheld the decision of the Civil Service Commission. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Earsie L. Kirkman
This case involves the disposition of several certificates of deposit that were held in joint tenancy, with right of survivorship, by Decedent and her daughter, Appellee. Appellants, beneficiaries of Decedent’s estate, argued that the certificates of deposit were probate assets. The trial court denied the objection and closed the estate, finding that the certificates of deposit passed to Appellee as the surviving joint tenant. Appellants appeal. Affirmed and remanded. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Madeline Shelton Bewick v. Robert Kent Bewick
This appeal stems from a divorce proceeding where the wife was awarded a divorce on the ground of adultery. The husband appeals and raises several issues related to the trial court’s division of the marital estate. He also challenges the trial court’s award of alimony in solido to the wife. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s division of the marital estate but vacate the award of alimony and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Rush, et al. v. Jackson Surgical Associates PA, et al.
This is a healthcare liability action. After sustaining injuries as a result of alleged surgical error, Appellant filed this action against the surgeon and his medical group. Appellees moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the notice requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Norman Eugene Clark
The State of Tennessee (“the State”) attempted to divest Dateline NBC and NBCUniversal News Group of protection provided under Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-208, the press shield law. The Criminal Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) found and held that the State had failed to meet its burden under Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-208 and denied the State’s motion to divest. The State appeals. We find and hold that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence both that “the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained by alternative means,” and that there is “a compelling and overriding public interest of the people of the state of Tennessee in the information.” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 24-1-208(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C). We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court denying the State’s motion to divest. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
James S. Schrade v. Cassandra Jean Ament Schrade
This appeal concerns an effort to reduce an alimony obligation. James S. Schrade (“Husband”) filed a petition for reduction of alimony in the Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”) against ex-wife Cassandra Jean Ament Schrade (“Wife”). Husband cited changed economic conditions that rendered him unable to meet his alimony obligation without tapping into his separate property. At trial, Husband also presented proof that a rebuttable presumption arose that Wife did not need the alimony as her adult children lived with her. The Trial Court found no material change in circumstances and also declined to find that the rebuttable presumption applied. Husband appeals. Finding the language of the marital dissolution agreement (“the MDA”) unequivocal and as market fluctuations are foreseeable, we affirm the Trial Court in its finding of no material change in circumstances. However, Husband presented sufficient proof to trigger the statutory rebuttable presumption for cohabitation with third parties, and we remand to the Trial Court for a determination on that issue. We affirm, in part, and, vacate, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Rhonda Sue Watkins v. Kenneth Danny Watkins
This is the second appeal of this case. In the first appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of appellee’s petition to modify child custody and child support but vacated the trial court’s judgment with respect to appellant’s petition to modify alimony for lack of findings. On remand, the trial court found that appellant failed to establish a material change in circumstances justifying an increase in the alimony award that she was already receiving. Appellant appeals. Because appellant’s brief failed to comply with the applicable rules, we dismiss her appeal in its entirety. In addition, we deny appellee’s request for attorney’s fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
City of Chattanooga, et al. v. Tax Year 2011 City Delinquent Real Estate Taxpayers
This appeal was filed by a purchaser who bought a parcel of real property in Hamilton County, Tennessee, at a delinquent tax sale. After the sale, the person who had owned the property at the time of the sale conveyed it to a married couple. The title agency, who assisted with the closing, the original owner, and the couple moved to redeem the property upon learning of the tax sale. The trial court granted their request, divested title from the tax sale purchaser, and vested it in the original owner. The tax sale purchaser appeals. We affirm as modified. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Phyllis Arrington, Et Al. v. B.J. Broyles, Et Al.
This appeal involves the plaintiffs’ complaint for breach of common law and statutory warranties, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and promissory estoppel regarding the purchase of drywall that was later found defective . The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claim for breach of common law and statutory warranties, while the seller sought summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial judge recused himself before ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, he entered an order granting partial summary judgment. The new judge then entered a final order of dismissal, confirming the grant of summary judgment and dismissing the case in its entirety. The plaintiffs appeal , claiming that remand is appropriate because not all issues were resolved by the grant of summary judgment . We agree and reverse. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Lynn Hopper v. Anthony Angelo Debboli
Former Husband and Wife owned a business together while they were married. In a post-divorce order, the trial court decreed that the business was to be wrapped up and sold. Former Husband failed to comply with the order and Former Wife filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a petition for civil contempt. The court granted Former Wife a TRO but did not rule on the petition for contempt. Former Wife filed a motion to set a hearing on her petition for contempt two years later, and the trial court dismissed the motion as moot. Former Wife appealed, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment. We conclude that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court failed to resolve all outstanding issues in the case. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Shameka Rushing v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., et al.
This is a premises liability case. Appellant slipped and fell in a clear liquid on the floor of the St. Francis Hospital emergency room and filed suit against the hospital. In its answer, the hospital denied liability and alleged comparative fault on the part of Appellant and its housekeeping management service, Crothall Healthcare, Inc. Appellant amended her complaint to name Crothall as a defendant. Appellees filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted both motions, finding that Appellant had failed to show that Appellees had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mark George v. Shelby County Board of Education
This is a teacher tenure case. Appellant, a tenured teacher employed by Appellee Shelby County Board of Education, was fired for insubordination and conduct unbecoming. Appellant appealed the Shelby County School Board’s decision to the Chancery Court for Shelby County. In a post-trial motion, Appellee petitioned the court to consider an email notification of the board’s decision that was sent to Appellant’s attorney. Specifically, Appellee argued that the email constituted statutory notice to the Appellant so as to start the thirty-day time period for filing an appeal of the board’s decision in the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-513(b). The trial court denied the motion as newly discovered evidence. We conclude that the email goes directly to the question of whether the Appellant’s petition was timely so as to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court erred in treating the motion as one for permission to file “newly discovered evidence.” Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the admissibility of the email evidence and did not address the question of its subject-matter jurisdiction, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In re Colton R.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father to the child. The trial court found that the grounds of (1) abandonment for willful failure to visit as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i), (2) abandonment for willful failure to visit by an incarcerated parent as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), and (3) abandonment based on conduct demonstrating a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. Father appeals. We reverse the trial court’s finding of abandonment by willful failure to visit as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) but affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Braylin D.
Mother, who had been designated as the primary residential parent of her eight-year-old child, appeals an order changing the designation to the child’s Father, contending that the material change of circumstances since the entry of the original parenting plan, as found by the trial court, was not sufficient to justify the modification of custody. We have determined that the evidence does not show that the child’s well-being has been adversely affected by the difficulties the parents have encountered in complying with the parenting plan or that the modification is in the child’s best interest; accordingly, we reverse the order changing the designation of the primary residential parent. We reverse the order denying Mother’s request for attorney’s fees for services incurred in securing a judgment for back child support and remand for a determination of the amount of the award. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tiffine Wendalyn Gail Runions, et al. v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District, et al.
This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In this health care liability action, we must determine whether the plaintiff properly complied with the pre-suit notice requirement found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1). The original defendants in this matter all filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment alleging that they did not provide medical treatment to the plaintiff/appellee. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendants' motion acknowledging that she had mistakenly identified a proper defendant in this suit. The plaintiff also filed a motion to amend her complaint attempting to remedy that mistake by substituting in the proper defendant. After both motions were heard, the trial court denied the original defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff/appellee's motion to amend her complaint. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Tiffine Wendalyn Gail Runions, et al. v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District, et al., Concur in part and Dissent in part
I concur in the majority opinion’s denial of West Tennessee Health Network and West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. Like the majority, I express no opinion whatsoever on whether dismissal of these two parties might be appropriate under other theories. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s holding that pre-suit notice was provided to the District and that amendment of Ms. Runions’ complaint was proper. The majority opinion states: “we cannot ignore the unmistakable acknowledgement from Ms. Zamata’s letter that Ms. Runions did, in fact, provide written notice of a potential claim against the District.” Herein lies my disagreement with the majority opinion. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Cruce v. Memmex Inc. d/b/a Salsa Cocina Mexicana Restaurant
In this premises liability case, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant property owner. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
