Randall E. Pearson, M.D. et al. v. Paul Koczera et al.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s determination that it was without jurisdiction, following a prior appeal in the same matter, to act upon a motion seeking to alter or vacate an order entered after remand. The administrator ad litem for the third-party plaintiff has appealed from the trial court’s order determining that it lacked jurisdiction to act on her motion following remand. We determine that the trial court did possess jurisdiction to act on pending motions following the remand from the appellate courts. We therefore vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case for further proceedings. We also vacate the trial court’s order granting sanctions against the administrator ad litem for filing her motion to alter or vacate. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
In re Jasmine B., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two minor children on the statutory grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, Tenn. Code Ann §§36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); (2) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans, Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(2); and (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal from Appellant’s home, Tenn. Code Ann.§36-1-113(g)(3). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Stewart | Court of Appeals | |
In re Envy J., et al.
Mother appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights. The trial court terminated her parental rights on the grounds that the children were victims of severe abuse and that mother had failed to financially support the children. The trial court also concluded that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was not clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by willful failure to support. But, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence of severe abuse and that termination was in the best interest of the children. Consequently, we affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In re C.C. et al.
The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking, on the basis of four grounds, to terminate the parental rights of H.C. (Mother) to her four children, C.C., D.C., A.D., and S.D. (collectively the Children). In the same petition, DCS also sought to terminate, on three grounds, the parental rights of B.D., Mother’s long-time boyfriend and father of two of the Children, i.e., A.D. and S.D. (collectively the twins).The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, three grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights and three grounds to terminate B.D.’s parental rights. By the same quantum of proof, the court found that termination is in the Children’s best interest. Mother and B.D. (collectively the parties) appeal. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Stephny Denise Young, et al. v. Richard Jordan, MD, et al.
This is a healthcare liability case. Appellees, patient and her husband, filed suit against Appellants, physician and employer. Appellants raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault based on the fact that Appellee/patient had been non-compliant with medical advice. Appellees moved for partial summary judgment on the affirmative defense of comparative fault. The trial court granted the motion, and Appellants appeal. Because expert testimony adduced during discovery creates a dispute of material fact as to the question of Appellees’ non-compliance with medical advice and the effect of such non-compliance on Appellees’ injury, the grant of summary judgment was error. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa E. Burris v. James Morton Burris
Appellant appeals from the denial of her motion to alter or amend the trial court’s judgment finding her guilty of thirty-seven counts of criminal contempt and sentencing her to 403 days incarceration. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s post-trial motion on the ground that the trial court erred in finding her non-payment of child support willful. We also affirm the denial of Appellant’s post-trial motion based upon evidence that Appellant obtained a loan to pay her support obligation after the contempt hearing. We vacate the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s post-trial motion, however, on the ground that trial court failed to consider whether Appellant’s sentence was excessive. We therefore remand to the trial court to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its ruling and to consider whether Appellant’s sentence is excessive. Affirmed in part; vacated in part and remanded. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Hitachi Capital America Corp v. Community Trust & Banking Company, et al.
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the intervening plaintiff sought to establish priority lien status over the original plaintiff as well as a Rule 19 defendant. We affirm the decision of the Chancery Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Scott B. Peatross, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Dora Birk v. Graceland Nursing Center, LLC, et al.
This is a health care liability action. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants concerning the inadequate care and treatment received by the decedent. He then amended his complaint to add the defendant hospital as a party after the defendants alleged comparative fault. The defendant hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that the failure to attach a certificate of good faith applicable to it required dismissal. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, citing this court’s opinion in Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt University, 469 S.W.3d 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Trevor Travis v. Cookeville Regional Medical Center, et al.
In this health care liability case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, part of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. Specifically, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to provide a statement in the pleadings that he complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a), failed to file, with the complaint, documentation demonstrating compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a), failed to file, with the complaint, an affidavit of the person who mailed pre-suit notice to the defendants, and failed to provide a HIPAA compliant medical authorization form. The trial court dismissed the case. We have reviewed the record and find that the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(b). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Samuel D., et al.
This appeal arises from a finding of dependency and neglect. Ashley D. (“Mother”) and Matthew M. (“Father”) are the parents of Samuel D. and Uriah D. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought a finding of dependency and neglect regarding Samuel and Uriah stemming from the alleged sexual abuse by Father of their older half-siblings, Gage and Gracie, with Mother’s knowledge. The Circuit Court for Knox County, Fourth Circuit (“the Trial Court”) adjudicated Samuel and Uriah dependent and neglected. Mother and Father appeal. DCS concedes one of Father’s issues, which we reverse. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court finding Samuel and Uriah dependent and neglected. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Mickia J.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the sole ground of persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(3). As a threshold requirement, in order for the persistence of conditions ground to apply in termination of parental rights proceedings, there must be a prior order adjudicating the child to be dependent and neglected. No such order is included in the appellate record. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Appellant was incarcerated at the time the child was removed from the home. Removal of the child from the parent’s home is a threshold requirement for applicability of the persistence of conditions ground. Because there is no order on dependency and neglect and because the child was not removed from Appellant’s custody or home, we conclude that the threshold requirements for applicability of the persistence of conditions ground are not met in this case. Reversed and remanded. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Lowe v. John Smith, et al.
Plaintiff seller filed suit against defendant buyers after buyers stopped paying interest on a line of credit under the terms of a contract for the sale of a convenience store. The trial court concluded that both sides breached the contract. As a result, the trial court ordered that buyers were required to pay the seller the contracted amount, less $16,000.00 resulting from buyer’s breach. Buyers appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Sharper Impressions Painting Co., et al v. Dan Yoder
This interlocutory appeal involves the failure of an Ohio corporation to obtain authorization to transact business in Tennessee prior to filing suit. The Ohio corporation filed this action against a former employee, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The former employee moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the Ohio corporation had not obtained a certificate of authority from the Tennessee Secretary of State, as required by law, and thus was barred from maintaining an action in Tennessee court. The trial court granted the motion but allowed the Ohio corporation thirty days to obtain the certificate. After obtaining the certificate, the Ohio corporation filed a motion to reinstate its claims against the former employee. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the certificate of authority only allowed the Ohio corporation to maintain an action on claims that arose after the date the certificate of authority was issued. We granted the Ohio corporation’s application for an interlocutory appeal. We conclude, based on the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-25-102, that a foreign corporation who has filed an action in a Tennessee court without a certificate of authority may obtain a certificate during the pendency of the case and then prosecute the action. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stratford Hall Home Owners' Association v. Roger G. Haley
Homeowners’ association brought suit against homeowner who refused to paint his home as requested. After a bench trial, the court determined that the board of the homeowners’ association had properly exercised its discretion and ordered homeowner to paint his house. Homeowner appeals, contending that the appearance of his home was consistent with the appearance of homes and the common areas of the subdivision. Upon our de novo review, we have determined that the board had authority under the bylaws governing the association and the subdivision’s covenants to require the homeowner to paint his home, and that the board’s action was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Groves, et al v. Ernst-Western Corporation
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of a recusal motion. Having reviewed the trial court’s ruling on the motion pursuant to the de novo standard of review required by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Stormie M., et al.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights with respect to three minor children. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistent conditions, and severe child abuse. The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the putative father of one of the minor children. On appeal, we conclude that considerations of fundamental due process require us to vacate that portion of the trial court’s final decree terminating the putative father’s parental rights. Concerning Mother’s parental rights, we reverse the trial court’s determination that Mother abandoned the children by willfully failing to support them in the four months preceding the filing of the termination petition. We also reverse the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence established the ground of persistent conditions. However, because clear and evidencing evidence supports at least one ground for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interests, we ultimately affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Kenneth G.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of his rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to visit and to support the child. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We affirm. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Paul D. Kennamer, Sr. Et Al. v. Bethany E. Chaffin et al.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the claims made by the appellant, Paul D. Kennamer, Sr., against the appellees, Bethany E. Chaffin and Maria Kishimoto. Because the claims raised by Dorothy Kennamer in the Amended Complaint remain pending against the appellees, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Crye-Leike Property Management, et al. v. Nedra Drayton
This is a forcible entry and detainer warrant case. The General Sessions Court for Shelby County entered a default judgment against the Appellant/tenant and granted an order for immediate possession in favor of the property manager and the landlord, Appellees. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Circuit Court for Shelby County, using a pauper's oath in lieu of an appeal bond. The Circuit Court for Shelby County dismissed the appeal, finding that Appellant failed to perfect the appeal because she did not post a possession bond although she retained possession of the property. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Slavko v. Scott Slavko
This post-divorce appeal concerns the mother’s notice of intent to relocate to Pennsylvania with the parties’ minor children. The father responded by filing a petition in opposition to the requested relocation. The trial court granted the father’s petition. The mother appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Gail Bowman v. Mounir Benouttas, et al.
At issue in this case is whether a defendant, which claims to be merely the broker of a shipment that was being delivered, may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the delivery driver. This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer that was owned and operated by Mounir Benouttas. At the time of the accident, Mr. Benouttas was delivering a shipment pursuant to a contractual arrangement with MGR Freight Systems, Inc. In addition to suing Mr. Benouttas and MGR, Plaintiff sued AllStates Trucking, Inc., which had contracted with MGR to deliver the shipment to AllStates’ customer. Plaintiff claimed AllStates was vicariously liable under the doctrines of respondeat superior and joint venture. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to include the additional theory of implied partnership. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against AllStates because Plaintiff could not establish an agency relationship, joint venture, or implied partnership. Plaintiff appeals contending summary judgment was inappropriate because material facts are at issue. Plaintiff also challenges the trial court’s decision to consider only the legal theories Plaintiff explicitly stated in her complaint, the court’s partial denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, denial of her motion for summary judgment, and its decision to allow AllStates to rely on untimely filings. Finding no error with the trial court’s decisions, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Zachariah G.
This appeal concerns a termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Rutherford County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Brooke G. (“Mother”) to the minor child Zachariah G. (“the Child”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding the grounds of severe abuse and abandonment by wanton disregard by clear and convincing evidence and finding also that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
John Christopher Gibbs v. Lisa Stacy Gibbs
This appeal involves a post-divorce civil contempt petition. Approximately three years after the parties’ divorce, the former wife filed a petition in the trial court seeking to hold the former husband in civil contempt for willfully breaching provisions of their property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the divorce decree that required him to pay certain debts and transfer certain real and personal property to her. The husband did not attend the contempt hearing, and the trial court found that he willfully violated the divorce decree based on the wife’s testimony. The trial court ordered that the husband be incarcerated and fined $50 per day until such time as he came into compliance with the divorce decree. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court lacked the authority to enforce the property settlement agreement by contempt and that his failure to comply was not willful. We hold that contempt is a proper remedy for the breach of a property settlement agreement that has been incorporated into the divorce decree. Additionally, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the husband’s failure to comply with the divorce decree was willful. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified in this opinion. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Braxton R.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his nearly three-year-old child. In 2014, the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected due to his parents’ substance abuse, including the fact that the child was born with illegal drugs and non-prescribed medication in his system. In 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking to terminate the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse. The juvenile court found that the grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse were proved by clear and convincing evidence and also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of father’s rights was in the child’s best interests. The father appeals. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Efrian F.
Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and this matter must be dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
