In Re Ezmaie F., et al.
A father and mother appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to their two minor children. The trial court held that the evidence presented supported termination of each parent’s rights based on the statutory grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions which led to removal, severe child abuse, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie Burke v. State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services
This appeal arises from a judgment upholding a decision by the Administrative Procedures Division of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services denying the appellant an award of reasonable expenses after a contested case hearing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-301, et. seq. Upon the appellant seeking judicial review, the trial court affirmed the decision by the Department. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Brant Heath Grimm v. Michelle Lester Grimm
A husband filed for divorce from his wife in 2022. Just before they were set to go to trial in July of 2023, the parties settled their divorce and announced their agreement to the trial court. Before the written consent judgment could be entered, however, the wife filed a notice revoking her consent to the agreement. The trial court entered the judgment regardless, and the wife later filed a motion to set that judgment aside. The trial court denied the wife’s motion, and she appealed to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara J. Todd v. Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
After a hearing before the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission, the appellant homeowner was ordered to remove a covered porch addition that was constructed without a preservation permit, as the Commission determined that the addition did not comply with the applicable design guidelines. The homeowner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the chancery court held a de novo hearing on the matter. After the evidentiary hearing, the chancery court likewise determined that the unpermitted covered porch did not meet the applicable design guidelines, and the court ordered its removal. The homeowner appeals, arguing that her due process rights were violated due to untimely notice of the hearing before the Commission and that the chancery court erred in finding that her covered porch was not in compliance with the guidelines. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
April Hawthorne v. Morgan & Morgan Nashville, PLLC, ET AL.
This is an appeal from a trial court’s decision to grant class action certification. Discerning no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to certify the class at issue, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Codie Lynn Anderson v. Leah Rae Marshall
This appeal concerns the change of custody and the relocation of a parent, as well as an evidentiary issue concerning the denial of the admission of certain psychiatric records. Because the mother failed to provide an offer of proof in connection with the juvenile court’s ruling concerning the inadmissibility of the psychiatric records, we conclude that this evidentiary issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. Regarding the remaining issues, the juvenile court determined that a material change in circumstances had occurred and modified the parenting plan by designating the father as the primary residential parent and providing the father with the majority of the parenting time. Because we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the parenting plan, we affirm the juvenile court’s modification. Furthermore, as discussed herein, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision permitting the father to relocate. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Mallory Sandridge v. Hollywood Henderson, et al.
This case arises from a car wreck. Following the accident, the at-fault driver was issued several citations for various violations of the City of Memphis traffic laws. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Appellee’s lawsuit was not time barred. In so ruling, the trial court held that the citations given to the at-fault driver were criminal in nature and, thus, triggered the filing extension contemplated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-104(a)(2)(A). We granted this interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. Because the citations in this case were civil in nature, we conclude that the two-year statute of limitations is not applicable, and Appellee’s lawsuit is time-barred. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for entry of an order granting Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Teli White v. Shelby County Board of Education
This appeal arises from the termination of a tenured schoolteacher. The trial court determined that the termination constituted an impermissible second punishment for conduct for which the schoolteacher had previously been suspended and ordered his reinstatement. Finding that the termination letter charged the schoolteacher with conduct which was not contemplated in the suspension letter, and with conduct which had not occurred at the time of the suspension, we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rachel Poyner Hight v. Billy Hugh Hight
Mother appeals the trial court’s ruling approving her request to relocate with the parties’ older daughter but denying her request with regard to the parties’ younger son. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Brittni (Gray) Haggard v. Joe Michael Carroll
Appellee filed a petition to modify parenting time and child support, and Appellant filed a countermotion and a Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B motion for recusal of the trial judge. The trial court did not enter an order on Appellant’s motion for recusal, and there was no order transferring the case to another judge by interchange. The new judge made substantive rulings, and Appellant filed a motion to alter or amend asserting that the judge lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rules 11 and 10B were not met. We agree. Vacated and remanded. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Hamilton County and F/U/B of the State of Tennessee Et Al. v. Tax Year 2018 Delinquent Taxpayers Et Al.
This appeal arises from an action to recover excess proceeds from the tax sale of a parcel of real property. After the redemption period had ended, the appellants, heirs to the decedent whose property was sold at the tax sale, moved to claim the excess proceeds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-5-2702. The appellee, a company that had held a valid judgment lien against the real property at the time of the tax sale, also moved to claim the excess proceeds, arguing that its lien held priority over the heirs’ claim pursuant to § 67-5-2702(c)(2). The heirs objected, asserting that because the company had allowed its judgment lien to lapse after the tax sale, the company no longer maintained priority to claim the excess proceeds from that sale. The trial court granted the company’s motion, determining that because its judgment lien had been valid and enforceable at the time of the tax sale, the company maintained priority over the heirs to receive the excess proceeds pursuant to § 67-5-2702(c)(2). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Kerry Jordan v. Roxana Bianca Jordan
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed because the petition for recusal appeal was untimely and the time for filing a petition for recusal appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by this court. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.08. We also find that the petition would have to be dismissed due to numerous and substantive failures to comply with Rule 10B § 2.02, including the failure to file a copy of the affidavit in support of the motion for recusal as well as the trial court’s order denying recusal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin Douglas v. Frank Strada, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal stems from an inmate’s lawsuit seeking a transfer to another facility due to a claimed imminent risk of violence from other inmates. Benjamin Douglas (“Plaintiff”) sued Frank Strada, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, and the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Hardeman County (“the Trial Court”), asking for injunctive and declaratory relief based on the safe prisons clause of the Tennessee Constitution. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. The Trial Court found that it lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff appeals. We hold, inter alia, that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not jurisdictional in this case; that the Trial Court abused its discretion in applying the exhaustion doctrine when Defendants failed to properly raise that affirmative defense; and that the Trial Court erred in considering matters outside the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Franklin Community Development v. Darlene Lee
This case involves an unlawful detainer action filed by a community development center against a tenant for failure to pay rent and for unruly conduct. The detainer action ultimately resulted in the tenant’s eviction and a monetary judgment against the tenant for delinquent rent payments. The tenant now appeals the judgment of the trial court. Because the tenant’s appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we hereby dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Josclyn M., et al.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (3) persistence of conditions which led to removal; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Eugene Callaway v. Linda Marie Callaway
In this post-divorce action, the trial court partially granted the husband’s petition to modify or terminate spousal support, reducing the husband’s monthly alimony in futuro obligation to the wife from $1,750.00 to $1,500.00 upon finding that the husband’s retirement constituted a substantial and material change in circumstance warranting the reduction. The husband has appealed, arguing that the court erred by declining to terminate or further reduce his support obligation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Re Land TN II, Inc. v. 840 Development Group, LLC
Appellant appeals the denial of its motion to quash a notice of lien lis pendens. Because the trial court improvidently certified its order as final under Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Robert W. Halliman v. Austin Peay State University
This is an action for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4- 21-101 to -1004 (“THRA”). The plaintiff, an associate professor at a state university, applied for promotion to the rank of full professor. While his application was under review, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge against the university with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). A short time later, the university denied the plaintiff’s promotion based on his alleged lack of high-quality scholarship. The trial court dismissed the action at the summary judgment stage, reasoning that the plaintiff had not produced evidence to rebut the university’s stated reason for denying his promotion. This appeal followed. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because there was evidence that the university’s administration knowingly violated university policy by reevaluating the merits of the plaintiff’s peer-reviewed scholarship. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Axis Dynamics, Inc. Et Al. v. Sonja Hawk Et Al.
The Petitioners seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to recuse. However, because the Petitioners’ filings fail to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Michael Hudson v. Steven Brian Hudson
In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) classification of the marital residence as marital property; (2) decision not to admit Tennessee Rule of Evidence 1006 summaries tendered by Husband; (3) finding of criminal contempt against Husband; (4) award of transitional alimony to Wife; and (5) award of a portion of Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs as alimony in solido. Wife asks for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Traden R., et al.
In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. The trial court found that grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. She appealed, raising several issues. We find that one ground for termination, abandonment for failure to support, was properly pled and proven by clear and convincing evidence; however, we reverse the ruling that the ground of abandonment by failure to visit had been proven. We also vacate the other grounds purportedly found by the trial court because they were not properly pled. We affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Dale Carter v. Jessica Jones Fay
This appeal stems from a long-standing custody dispute between the mother and father of two minor children. The trial court entered a court-ordered parenting plan in February of 2022, but the parties experienced substantial difficulty co-parenting with one another. Numerous pleadings were filed by both parties, including a petition for modification filed by the mother in May of 2022 and motions for civil and criminal contempt filed by the father against the mother. The trial court held a hearing on all of the parties’ pending motions on April 14, 2023, and May 12, 2023. The trial court ultimately determined that no material change in circumstances occurred and left its previously ordered parenting plan and subsequent orders in place. The trial court also found the mother in civil and criminal contempt on eight counts. Further, the trial court declined any further jurisdiction over the case, as the mother and the children had resided in Florida for several years by the time the final order was entered. The father appeals, raising four issues. We affirm the trial court’s decision as to custody and contempt. While the father raises evidentiary issues, we conclude that any error by the trial court was harmless. We vacate and remand the trial court’s judgment as to continuing jurisdiction over the case. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Paul David Rowe Et Al. v. Wellmont Health Systems Et Al.
Paul David Rowe was not informed of a radiology report, which revealed two masses in his kidneys indicative of renal cancer, for five years. Mr. Rowe passed away after suit was filed, but his wife, Sharon K. Rowe, both individually and as the administrator ad litem of his estate, (“Plaintiffs”) maintained a health care liability action against the allegedly negligent parties, Wellmont Health System d/b/a Wellmont Bristol Regional Medical Center (“Wellmont”), Carl W. Harris, Jr., D.O. (“Dr. Harris”), and Northeast Tennessee Emergency Physicians (“NETEP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of repose barred Plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs raised the defense of fraudulent concealment. The Trial Court granted the motions for summary judgment finding that Defendants had no actual knowledge until 2015 that Mr. Rowe had or might have had cancer in 2010, and therefore, had nothing to fraudulently conceal. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Ajalon Elliott, et al. v. Harold Junior Monger, et al.
This appeal arises from an automobile accident. Appellants, one of the drivers and her husband, filed a complaint for negligence against appellees, the other driver and his employer. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that immediately preceding the collision, the appellee-driver experienced a heart attack that left him physically incapacitated and unable to control his vehicle. In granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case, the trial court found that the sudden physical incapacitation doctrine provided appellees with a defense to appellants’ negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dora Rathbone Brown Et Al. v. James H. Fitchorn Et Al.
Pro se appellant appeals from an order to partition real property. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, including the lack of any specific issues for appellate review, we dismiss the appeal. We also conclude the appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals |
