Jason Patrick McCarroll v. Melissa Susan McCarroll
This appeal concerns the trial court’s division of marital debt and award of alimony in a divorce action. After the trial, the court assigned most of the marital assets and debts to the husband and awarded the wife alimony in futuro based on an affidavit that included her “anticipated” expenses. The court also awarded the wife alimony in solido to pay for her attorney’s fees. The husband then filed a motion to alter or amend. While the motion was pending, the net proceeds from the sale of marital real estate were distributed to the parties. In its order on the husband’s motion, the trial court reallocated responsibility for the balance on a credit card account in the husband’s name, and it ordered the balance be paid out of the net proceeds from the real estate sale. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court erred by relying on the wife’s “speculative future needs” rather than her actual expenses at the time of trial when awarding alimony. The husband also argues that the court should have awarded rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro because the wife has several vocational certificates that she could use to obtain a better paying job. And both the husband and the wife contend that the division of marital debt was inequitable. We conclude that the parties have waived their objections to the division of marital debt and the award of alimony in solido by failing to comply with the briefing requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. As for the award of alimony in futuro, we find no error in the trial court’s reliance on evidence of the wife’s “anticipated expenses,” and we find no support in the record for the husband’s assertion that the wife could obtain a better paying job with her vocational certificates. Nonetheless, we find it necessary to modify the portion of the trial court’s order requiring the parties to pay off the credit card with funds from the real estate proceeds because they were previously disbursed. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
Jana Lynn Beck v. Mickey Lewis Beck
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. Having reviewed the petition for recusal on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE MERCURY H.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. In concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, the trial court made specific findings for twelve of the twenty statutory best interest factors but declined to consider eight of the factors based upon a purported pleading deficiency. Mother appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Court of Appeals | ||
IN RE BEAUM.,ET AL.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to visit and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We reverse, holding that the record does not support the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence in support of the alleged statutory ground of termination. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kadence B.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that four statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the minor child: abandonment, persistence of conditions, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and severe child abuse. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Kiner v. Shelby County Government
In this case involving Tennessee’s Public Records Act, the plaintiff requested copies of |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
JRS Development, LLC v. Alaa Jwaad et al.
This appeal involves a breach of contract action for specific performance of a commercial real estate purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff buyer brought suit after the defendant sellers refused to convey the property due to a dispute over a mandatory tax withholding. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the buyer specific performance and attorney’s fees. The trial court found that the sellers were bound by the agreement because, even though their real estate agent had appended their electronic signatures without contemporaneous authorization, they later ratified the transaction. The trial court further concluded that the sellers’ total refusal to close constituted an anticipatory repudiation, thereby excusing the buyer’s lack of formal tender of the purchase price. The sellers appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Charles McDowell II v. Jennifer Leigh McDowell
A mother petitioned to extend child support for her severely disabled child into adulthood. The court granted the petition. In doing so, the court used the child support guidelines to calculate the amount of support. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court should have included the child’s social security income in the calculations, but he did not file a transcript or a statement of the evidence. Because the lack of a transcript or statement of evidence prevents us from reaching the substance of the issue raised by the father, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Russ Harden v. Pricilla Hill Harden
Appellant filed a petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking recusal of the trial judge under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because it appears that a written motion to recuse was only lodged with the trial court and because the trial court never entered an order on the written motion, we dismiss the appeal. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Shawn Edward Sheeks
Shawn Sheeks (“Decedent”) and Paul Slate (“Mr. Slate”) co-owned and managed several business entities. Following Decedent’s untimely death, Mr. Slate, acting on behalf of the businesses they co-owned, filed a Verified Claim against Decedent’s estate in the Chancery Court (Probate Division) for Montgomery County seeking an accounting and damages of $382,207.48. Shortly thereafter, Janet Sheeks (“Ms. Sheeks”), Decedent’s widow and the Administratrix of the Decedent’s estate, filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (hereinafter “the Business Court”) on behalf of herself and Decedent’s estate against Mr. Slate seeking an accounting and to windup and dissolve the business entities. Mr. Slate filed a counterclaim against the estate and Ms. Slate, as well as cross-claims against the business entities, seeking an accounting and payment for debts allegedly owed to him. While the Claim in the Probate Court was held in abeyance, all claims by and among the parties in the Business Court were tried. In a detailed and thorough final order, the Business Court ordered dissolution of the business entities and allocated the distribution of the assets among the parties after applying offsets and credits. No one appealed the judgment from the Business Court. Thereafter, the Administratrix of the Estate filed a motion for summary judgment in this Probate Court proceeding contending the Claim should be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The Probate Court granted the motion and summarily dismissed the Claim on the ground of res judicata finding that the Claim was not a separate and distinct cause of action from the Business Court action, that the underlying facts at issue were the same in both lawsuits, and that the Claim could have, and should have, been litigated in the Business Court action. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Beverly Louise Ingram
In this appeal, the appellants challenge administrative and legal fees the trial court awarded the administrators of the estate and the parties’ respective legal counsel. We have determined that these issues have been waived for a variety of reasons including the appellants’ failure to comply with Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6 and Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We find that the administrator of the estate is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred in defending this appeal. We also find this appeal to be frivolous. We remand for the trial court to award the administrator an appropriate fee and to award damages in favor of the estate against the appellants, Robert Davidson, Sr. and Shuntae Davidson, for fees and expenses the estate incurred in defending this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nicole Marie Beach v. Mark Phillip Beach
Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to recuse the trial judge. Because Appellant did not file a written motion to recuse and because the trial court never entered an order on same, we dismiss the appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Hendry Metal Building Repairs and Services, LLC et al. v. Hellen Michelle Allen
A bookkeeper allegedly made unauthorized payments to herself from company funds. After a bench trial, the court found the bookkeeper breached her duty of loyalty to her employers and unjustly enriched herself. On appeal, the bookkeeper faults the trial court’s evidentiary decisions and contends that the plaintiffs’ claims and the damage award were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Taylor Thornton, III, et al. v. T.M.D. Farms, Incorporated
This appeal involves a complaint to quiet title and for injunctive relief and damages |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
JOHNNY CURTIS SHEPPARD v. KYLA YVETTE SHEPPARD
This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding. Appellant and appellee married in 2007. Appellee filed the current divorce action in the trial court on February 8, 2021. The parties entered into a reconciliation agreement suspending the divorce proceeding on July 24, 2023. The trial court set aside this agreement on July 19, 2024 at appellee’s request. A trial was held on November 4, 2024. The trial court ordered the parties divorced on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct by appellant; divided the marital estate; entered a permanent parenting plan designating appellee as primary residential parent of the parties’ minor children; and awarded appellee child support, transitional alimony, and attorney’s fees. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Springfield Health Servies, LLC v. Sanderling Renal Services-USA, LLC
The parties in the underlying action are a plaintiff hospital, Springfield Health Services, LLC, d/b/a TriStar NorthCrest Medical Center (“NorthCrest”), and defendant dialysis services company, Sanderling Renal Services-USA, LLC (“Sanderling”). Sanderling and NorthCrest executed a contract wherein Sanderling agreed to provide dialysis and telehealth services to patients at NorthCreston a fee schedule. A disagreement arose between the parties over which party was responsible for securing payments from third-party providers, and Sanderling terminated the parties’ agreement as a result. Sanderling then submitted a demand for arbitration to the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”) pursuant to the arbitration provision in the parties’ contract. After the arbitrator delivered an award in favor of NorthCrest, Sanderling filed a notice of appeal pursuant to the JAMS optional appeals procedure, relying on language in the parties’ contract providing that the parties had “reserve[d]the right to contest the arbitrator’s decision and to appeal from any award.” NorthCrest objected to application of the JAMS optional appellate procedures, arguing that the contested phrase was not an agreement to submit to the JAMS appellate process but instead reserved only the parties’ statutory right to judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision. JAMS appointed an appellate arbitration panel, who dismissed the JAMS appeal due to NorthCrest’s objection, noting that the JAMS optional appellate procedures required both parties to agree to the appeal in writing. NorthCrest then filed an application for confirmation of the arbitration award in the trial court, to which Sanderling filed a response in opposition and a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the JAMS appellate procedures. Deferring to the JAMS panel’s decision to dismiss the appeal, the trial court denied Sanderling’s motion to compel appellate arbitration and confirmed the arbitration award in NorthCrest’s favor. Sanderling has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Violet L.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found multiple |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kristyn Elise Turner, deceased, by and through her Natural Parents, Anna Marie Turner et al. v. Charles Brent Boles, M.D.
Parents, on behalf of their deceased child, filed a health care liability action against an obstetrician, alleging that the infant’s death was the result of negligent medical treatment during delivery. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the parents argue that the trial court erred in: (1) limiting the testimony of their causation expert and excluding his exhibits and demonstrative aids; (2) denying a motion in limine to prohibit a line of questioning and argument by the defense; (3) excluding evidence of the suspension of the defendant’s medical license; (4) refusing a request for a special jury instruction on informed consent; and (5) declining to grant a new trial based on misconduct of defense counsel during closing argument. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Andrea Jaye Mosby v. Eric Lee Meachem
Appellant and Appellee agreed ona permanent parenting planthat provided for equal parenting timeof their minorchildafter their divorce.Appellee later sought to relocate with the childto pursue an employment opportunityin Georgia.One hundred four days after Appellee filed a relocation petition, Appellant filedan answer opposing the relocation. Thetrialcourt permitted the relocationand struck Appellant’s opposition because it was filedafter the expiration of the thirty-day period set forth inTennesseeCode Annotated section 36-6-108.The courtamended the parties’ parenting accordingly.Onappeal, Appellantargues the trial court erred in striking his response as untimely.We affirm thejudgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Travis Lynn Rasmussen v. Sasha Nicole Rasmussen
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court found that the husband is |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Southern Auto Source Finance, LLC v. Airways Towing & Recovery, LLC
This extraordinary appeal involves whether a non-attorney individual may file a notice of |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joan Young v. Cottage Grove Condominium Association, Inc.
The appellant filed the instant action seeking a copy of the property management contract between her condominium association and its property management company. The trial court determined that “a contract between a condominium association and its management company would not be included in those records that a condominium association would be required to provide to a unit owner.” The court dismissed the matter with prejudice. The appellant appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
ZACHARY C. CROUCH v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
This matter concerns a plaintiff’s effort to revive a discrimination lawsuit. Having determined that the plaintiff’s principal appellate brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that his issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
CALEB TAYLOR SPEARS v. RUSSELL LEE SCRUGGS ET AL.
This accelerated interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for recusal, which was brought pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2. Because Appellant’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.03, the appeal is dismissed. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Marla Ann Richardson v. Dianne M. Moore
A property owner brought suit against the owner of a neighboring property, seeking either an order awarding her land encompassing a driveway or an easement to use the driveway. The trial court referred the issues to a special master, who made detailed findings regarding the boundary between the properties and as to the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. Following a hearing on objections to the special master’s report, the trial court accepted the special master’s findings and recommendations. The neighbor appealed, raising issues regarding the court’s weighing of the evidence in finding the boundary line and granting of a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. We affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals |
