COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

David E. Tate v. Felicia M. Tate
M2022-01438-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement
Trial Court Judge: Judge Darrell Scarlett

This appeal arises from a divorce action following a short-term marriage. There were no children born of the marriage, and the only issue on appeal pertains to the classification of real property. At issue is the Wade Springs property, which the husband purchased using his separate property. He closed on the purchase of the Wade Springs property the day after the parties married, and the property was deeded in the husband’s name only. Because the property was used as the marital residence during the two-year marriage and marital assets were used to maintain the property, the wife contended that the property became marital property by transmutation, commingling, or Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-121. The trial court found that the Wade Springs property was the husband’s separate property at the time of purchase and it remained his separate property. The court further found that the wife’s contributions to the property could easily be extracted and awarded her, inter alia, a cash judgment in the amount of her contributions to the home. Determining that the evidence does not preponderate against these findings, we affirm.

John Huron, Et Al v. Vladimir Kruglyak, Et Al.
E2022-01812-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John S. McLellan, III

In this easement dispute involving a shared driveway between adjoining real property
owners, the petitioners filed an action for declaratory judgment, alleging that the
respondents had interfered with their use of the driveway and requesting that the court
declare the “rights and obligations of the parties.” Acting without benefit of counsel, one
of the two respondents filed a response opposing the petition and subsequently filed a
motion for summary judgment asserting multiple counterclaims. The trial court
dismissed the respondent’s counterclaims in an order not included in the appellate record.
The trial court conducted a bench trial, during which all parties were represented by
counsel. At trial, the petitioners sought an implied easement and an easement by
necessity. The trial court determined, inter alia, that the parties had shared driveway
easements and that the petitioners had carried their burden to prove an implied easement
and an easement by necessity. The court included in its judgment parking limitations on
the parties’ use of the shared driveway. The respondent who initially filed pleadings pro
se has appealed, again acting without benefit of counsel. Discerning no reversible error,
we affirm

In Re Christopher R.
W2023-00082-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Paul B. Conley, III

A woman asserting that she is a child’s great-grandmother filed a petition to establish paternity and for grandparent visitation. On the face of the petition, the purported great-grandmother brought the action both on behalf of herself and, acting with a power of attorney, on behalf of her grandson, the alleged biological father of the child. The parties agree that a power of attorney was never properly executed by the alleged father. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition in full. With regard to the paternity suit, the trial court found that the great-grandmother lacked the authority to file a paternity suit on the alleged biological father’s behalf and did not have standing to bring it on her own behalf, and therefore the paternity action was due to be dismissed. With regard to the grandparent visitation action, the trial court held that without a pending contested paternity suit, the grandmother lacked standing to bring an action for grandparent visitation, and in the alternative, that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action. We affirm.

Keith Lee Lieberman v. Belinda Renee Wilson
E2024-00137-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge Beth Boniface

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Shane Bruce v. Carolyn Jackson Et Al.
E2023-00443-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael Pemberton

In this intrafamily dispute, a son sued his mother and various other family members following the death of his father. The claims included, inter alia, breach of contract, libel and slander, and wrongful death. The defendant family members eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that statutes of limitation barred several of the son’s claims, and that there was no evidence the son could point to in support of his additional
claims. Following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the suit. The son appeals. Having determined that the son’s brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that his issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived and the appeal is dismissed.

Estate of Lloyd Edward Tomlinson v. Melissa Malone, Now King
M2023-00470-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge David D. Wolfe

This appeal arises from a complaint wherein the plaintiff alleged that he had a confidential relationship with his alleged biological daughter and that she induced him, by a promise that she would take care of him, to grant her a remainder interest in his real property. After a bench trial, the trial court found that a confidential relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant and that suspicious circumstances existed to support a finding of undue influence. As such, the trial court entered an order divesting the defendant of any interest that she had in the property and restoring the plaintiff’s interest in the property to be held by his estate. The defendant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In Re Estate of Elga Jean Epley
M2023-00998-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael E. Spitzer

After four creditors filed separate claims against the estate of Elga Jean Epley (“the
estate”), the estate timely filed sworn exceptions to each separate claim. The creditors are
(1) JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (2) Bank of America, N.A., (3) Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd on behalf of Citibank, and (4) Maury Regional Health System (collectively
“the creditors”). Following a hearing on the claims and the exceptions thereto, during
which no testimony was introduced and no representative appeared on behalf of any of the
creditors, the trial court denied the exceptions to each of the claims. This appeal by the
estate followed. None of the creditors have filed a brief. Thus, none of the creditors have
presented arguments in opposition to the issues raised by the estate, as required by
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(b) and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of
Appeals of Tennessee. Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments presented
by the estate, we reverse the judgment of the trial court for the reasons set forth below and
remand with instructions to deny all of the claims asserted by the appellees and to enter
judgment in favor of the estate.

In Re Kamahri W., et al.
M2023-00692-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy K. Barnes

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his three children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (3) the 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 ultimate termination decision.

Haren Construction Company, Inc. v. Olen Ford
E2023-00503-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Richard B. Armstrong

The Chancery Court for Knox County (the “Trial Court”) granted the motion for partial summary judgment filed by Haren Construction Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), concluding that Olen Ford d/b/a Olen Ford Masonry and Construction (“Defendant”) had breached his contract with Plaintiff. The Trial Court awarded a judgment to Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $64,971.40. Defendant has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

J.E.T., Inc., d/b/a UPS Store v. Ron Hasty
M2023-00253-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynne T. Ingram

A tenant sued its landlord for allegedly breaching the parties’ lease agreement. The tenant,
however, failed to comply with the parties’ discovery schedule. After conferring, the
parties established a new discovery deadline, agreed that failure to meet the deadline would
result in dismissal with prejudice, and filed an agreed order to that effect, which was
approved by the trial court. The landlord asserted that the tenant failed to meet the new
deadline and sought dismissal with prejudice. A hearing was scheduled. Before the
hearing, the tenant filed a notice nonsuiting the case, and the trial court granted the tenant
a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The landlord filed a motion to alter or amend,
arguing the dismissal should have been with prejudice. The trial court denied that motion.
The landlord appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Kyuhwan Hwang v. Sania Holt ET AL.
W2023-00627-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rhynette Hurd

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s lawsuit for failure to comply with discovery. Tenn.
R. Civ. P. 37.02(C) and 41.02(1). Because Appellant’s brief fails to comply with the
requirements of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of
Appeals Rule 6, we do not reach Appellant’s issues and dismiss the appeal.

Driftwood Estates Property Owners Association Inc. Et Al. v. John Sweeney Et Al.
E2023-00463-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge David R. Duggan

This case concerns whether a parcel of real property is subject to certain restrictions contained in a previously recorded declaration of restrictive covenants. In the proceedings below, the trial court dismissed a homeowner’s association’s lawsuit which sought to enforce the declaration’s architectural review restrictions against the owners of the property. Upon review, we determine that the declaration did not expressly include the property at issue, nor was the property validly made subject to the restrictions within the declaration. Additionally, we reject the homeowner’s association’s arguments that the property was restricted to the terms of the declaration by way of an implied negative reciprocal easement or by waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Edward Ronny Arnold v. Deborah Malchow, et al.
M2024-00314-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda J. McClendon

Appellant filed this accelerated interlocutory appeal under Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Because the trial court has not entered an order on Appellant’s motion for recusal, there is no order for this Court to review. Appeal dismissed.

In Re Nickolas K. et al.
M2023-00951-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Branden Bellar

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father based on the finding of multiple grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The trial court’s finding of a failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children is vacated for lack of sufficient findings of fact. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order, including both the finding of four grounds of termination against each parent and the finding that termination is in the children’s best interests.

Jose Marcus Perrusquia v. Floyd Bonner, Jr. ET AL.
W2023-00293-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

This case involves a petition for judicial review filed pursuant to the Tennessee Public
Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503, et seq., after the Shelby County Sheriff and the
District Attorney General denied a journalist’s request to inspect surveillance video from
inside a jail facility. The chancery court denied the petition. The journalist appeals. We
affirm.

In Re Kaitlyn D.
M2023-00658-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Philip E. Smith

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one of her children. The trial court found seven grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to support; persistent conditions; severe child abuse; imprisonment for more than two years; failure to visit; failure to manifest an ability or willingness to assume custody; and a risk of substantial harm. The trial court also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother raises procedural and substantive challenges to the trial court’s best interest determination but does not challenge the grounds for termination. Conducting a Carrington review, we conclude the trial court erred in finding some of the aforementioned grounds for termination. Nevertheless, because clear and convincing evidence supports at least one of termination grounds and the conclusion that termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights.

Carter O'Neal Logistics, et al. v. Evans Petree, PC, et al.
W2024-00048-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule
10B from a circuit court judge’s denial of a motion to recuse. The plaintiffs moved for
recusal based primarily on an alleged attorney-client relationship between the judge and
counsel for the defendants. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to recuse.

Robin L. Duffer v. Marc N. Duffer
M2021-00923-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonita J. Atwood

After seven years of marriage, a wife filed a complaint for divorce against her husband. The primary issues before the trial court pertained to the classification of the marital residence and custody of the parties’ child. After a hearing on those issues, the trial court determined that the marital residence had once been the husband’s separate property but had transmuted into marital property. The court then ordered the property sold and the proceeds distributed equally between the parties. Regarding custody, the court designated the wife as primary residential parent and severely restricted the husband’s parenting time. Discerning that the trial court erred in its valuation of the marital residence, we modify the court’s order to reflect the amount submitted by the husband. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Kisha Dean Trezevant v. Stanley H. Trezevant, III
W2023-00682-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary L. Wagner

In this post-divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s order holding him in
criminal contempt. Due to the deficiencies in Husband’s brief, we do not reach the
substantive issues. Appeal dismissed.

Crystal N. Howard Elser v. Curtis M. Elser
E2023-00628-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jace Cochran

A husband challenges the issuance of an order of protection prohibiting him from contacting his wife. Finding that the evidence supports the issuance of an order of protection and that the husband has waived any objection to improper venue, we affirm.

Stacy Jacobson v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services
M2022-01610-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal

This appeal arises from a Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”) petition to access a Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) case file regarding its investigation into the fatality of a fourteen-year-old boy. The petition also sought disclosure of the investigation into the child’s death, as well as four prior investigations related to the same child, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-5-107. Prior to the filing of the petition, the petitioner, Stacy Jacobson (“Ms. Jacobson”), submitted a written request to obtain the unredacted version of the deceased child’s case file, along with the records from four prior DCS investigations related to the child. DCS denied the requests, citing several legal bases, including Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-5-124, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 37-1-409 and 612, Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-5-107, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 (“Rule 16”), and the 2013 Davidson County Chancery Court order requiring that DCS redact all such records to eliminate information made confidential under state law. Thereafter, Ms. Jacobson filed a petition in the Chancery Court of Davidson County to obtain access to the unredacted public records, the four related investigative files, and for her attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court denied the petition, finding that, under “the state law exception” to the TPRA, which encompasses Rule 16, the redacted portions of the case file and the four related investigative files are exempt from disclosure because they are relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution of the deceased child’s family members who are alleged to be responsible for his abuse and death. Ms. Jacobson subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, arguing that the trial court had failed to consider whether the DCS records from the prior investigations involving the deceased child were part of the child’s “full case file.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that a ruling on this issue would constitute an advisory opinion. Ms. Jacobson appeals the trial court’s denial of her requests. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Monoleto Delshone Green v. State of Tennessee et al.
M2024-00322-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: PER CURIAM
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

This is an appeal from an Order Granting Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss and Denying Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus. Because the appellant did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Catherine Wolte Pallekonda v. Vinay Anand Raj Pallenkonda
W2023-00574-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Steven W. Maroney

In this divorce action, the husband appeals the trial court’s division of the marital estate,
its determination that he was underemployed, and the wife’s awards of alimony. For the
reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tricap Cross Creek Associates LLC v. Gabriel Corzo Et Al.
E2023-00635-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kyle E. Hedrick

This appeal concerns a landlord/tenant dispute. Tricap Cross Creek Associates, LLC (“Plaintiff”), the landlord, filed a detainer action against Gabriel Corzo (“Defendant”), the tenant, in the General Sessions Court for Hamilton County. Judgment was entered for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Defendant appeals, arguing that genuine issues of material fact exist. Plaintiff asks, pursuant to the lease, for an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. As Defendant never responded to Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed material facts, he failed to show a genuine issue of material fact existed. We affirm. On remand, the Trial Court is to determine and award to Plaintiff its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal.

Cassandra Burks v. Gregory B. Burks
E2022-00776-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Don R. Ash

This is a divorce proceeding in which the wife filed a divorce complaint against the husband on the grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct. While the action was pending, Husband drafted a handwritten reconciliation document in which he promised that the marital residence would become the wife’s separate property if he ever “cheated” on her again, “in consideration of her reconciling with [him] (also dropping the
divorce lawsuit currently filed).” Although the wife took no action to “drop” or dismiss the divorce complaint, the trial court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. Upon learning that the husband’s infidelity had resumed, the wife successfully motioned to set aside the order of dismissal, and the case went to trial. In its final order, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct due to the husband’s infidelity. Because the wife took no action to enforce the purported reconciliation agreement, the court classified the marital residence as marital property, not the wife’s separate property. The court awarded the wife approximately $3.9 million in marital assets, of which $1.3 million was liquid assets, representing 60% of the marital estate. The court further awarded the wife $13,000 per month in transitional alimony for eight years and $229,000 in alimony in solido, but declined to award her alimony in futuro. The court also denied the wife’s request to recover her attorney’s fees and expenses. The wife appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to classify the marital residence as her separate property and in failing to award her alimony in futuro as well as her attorney’s fees. We affirm.