Jonathan Garrett Grace et al. v. Elizabeth Ann Baker Grace
This is a post-divorce parent relocation dispute. After the mother relocated out of state with the child without notice, the father filed a petition objecting to her relocation, a petition for criminal contempt on multiple grounds, and a petition to modify the parenting plan. The mother then filed a petition to approve her relocation and a petition challenging the child support calculations in the court’s November 6, 2023 order. After conducting a best-interest analysis, the court adopted the mother’s proposed parenting plan with modifications that removed the father’s supervision requirement, required the mother to bear transportation costs, and required the mother to give the father notice of the child’s school and extracurricular activities, among other modifications. The trial court also granted the father’s first amended petition for three counts of criminal contempt, imposing a sentence of 30 days, with 10 days suspended, “based upon Mother’s full and complete compliance, during the next five (5) years, with the terms set forth within this judgment.” Father appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by applying an improper legal standard in respect to the notice requirements of the parent relocation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-108. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting a best-interest analysis, affirm the trial court’s determination that the relocation was in the best interest of the child, and affirm the trial court’s adoption of the mother’s parenting plan with modifications. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Elmore v. Travis L. Mills, CRNA, ET Al.
Lonnie Elmore (“Decedent”) died on July 5, 2020, a few weeks after being treated by Angelo J. Sorce, M.D., (“Sorce”), an employee of Tennessee Valley Orthopaedics, LLC (“TVO”), (collectively “Defendants”) and Travis Mills, CRNA, (“Mills”) an employee of Lakeway Regional Anesthesia Services, PLLC (“Lakeway”). On July 2, 2021, Robert Elmore, as Executor of the Estate of Lonnie Elmore, (“Plaintiff”) sent pre-suit notice to Defendants. Relying on the 120-day extension provided for by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26- 121(c), Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging wrongful death on November 1, 2021, in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), claiming that the accrual of Plaintiff’s cause of action arose no later than June 21, 2020, meaning Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice past the one-year statute of limitations, rendering his complaint untimely. Defendants also argued that Plaintiff failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a). The Trial Court disagreed and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, followed. We reverse. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Christopher L. Wiesmueller v. Corrine Nichole Oliver
A mother and father filed competing petitions to modify their parenting plan. The Father also sought to modify his child support obligation. In furtherance of these goals, he asked the court to admit evidence of events occurring before the denial of his previous petition to modify the parenting plan. He also moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem and for an order requiring his past Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35 examinations to be destroyed. The court denied each of Father’s pretrial requests. It found that no material change in circumstance had occurred and that modification of the parenting plan was not in the children’s best interests. Because the trial court erred in its application of the child support guidelines, we vacate part of the child support award and remand for recalculation of Father’s obligation. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Rebecca Prince v. A&W Construction and Property Management, LLC et al.
A property owner filed a complaint against her neighbor and the municipality seeking to enforce a local zoning ordinance. The trial court dismissed the property owner’s claims against the municipality. Among other things, the court ruled that mandamus was not available because the property owner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. It also determined that the municipality retained immunity for the tortious acts alleged in the complaint. On appeal, the property owner argues that (1) Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2) authorized her to bring a mandamus action to abate the zoning violation without exercising administrative remedies and (2) the complaint contained sufficient allegations of negligent supervision to withstand a motion to dismiss. Upon review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey Tebeau v. Millerwood Investments, LLC ET AL.
This is a premises liability case. While attending a gathering at the appellees’ apartment, the appellant fell from a second-floor balcony, sustaining multiple injuries. The appellant sued the owner of the apartment and each of the tenants/appellees for negligence. This appeal concerns the tenants/appellees only. The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe the appellant a duty of care because: (1) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and the appellant’s accident was not reasonably foreseeable; (2) the appellees did not have superior control over the apartment such that they could remedy the allegedly dangerous condition; and (3) in his deposition, the appellant was unable to articulate what steps the appellees could have taken to prevent his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment on its conclusion that: (1) the tenants had no control over the apartment to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition; and (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious. We affirm, although on different grounds. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mandi Gregory, et al. v. Peachtree Settlement a/k/a Settlement Funding, LLC, et al.
In this conservatorship action, we address whether subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward’s assets remains with the court appointing the conservator. Here, the conservatorship was opened in Madison County. Appellee and the ward’s conservator agreed to transfer some of the ward’s rights to payments from a structured settlement, the ward’s sole asset, to Appellee. Appellee filed a petition for approval of the transfer in Anderson County, where none of the parties resided, and the Anderson County court approved the transfer. A second conservator was appointed for the limited purpose of challenging the Anderson County order, and the instant lawsuit was filed to set aside the Anderson County order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court initially held that Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but on Appellee’s motion to alter or amend, reversed itself. Appellant appeals. Because subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward and her property remained with the conservatorship court, Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and its order allowing the transfer of the asset was void ab initio. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders finding otherwise and affirm and reinstate its initial order finding no subject-jurisdiction in Anderson County. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Diana Sofia Acevedo v. Daniel Jose Acevedo
This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because the order denying recusal conflicts with the trial court’s previously entered standing order of recusal regarding all cases involving Appellant’s attorney, we vacate the trial court’s order denying recusal and remand for resolution of the conflicting orders. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jacob J.
After this Court dismissed the appellant’s first appeal as untimely, he filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion for relief in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Raidyn C.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. 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 support and (2) the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the termination decision. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
John Byron Mejia v. Jenna Michelle Leone
This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a permanent parenting plan involving one minor child. The trial court named the father the primary residential parent, entered a parenting plan awarding the father the majority of parenting time during the school year, and gave the father authority over the child’s education. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Brandy Leigh Frame Taylor (now Tipper) v. Joseph Daniel Taylor
This post-divorce appeal arises from competing petitions to modify a parenting plan and a petition for criminal contempt. At the time of the divorce, Brandy Leigh Frame Taylor2 (“Mother”) and Joseph Daniel Taylor (“Father”) adopted a parenting plan naming Mother the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and awarding Father visitation. The child was four years old at the time of the divorce. Five years later, the then nine-year-old child purportedly began refusing to visit Father. Thereafter, Mother petitioned the trial court to modify the parenting plan to, inter alia, stop all visitation with Father. Father filed a counter-petition to modify the parenting plan to, inter alia, name him the primary residential parent. Father also filed a contempt petition alleging, in relevant part, that Mother intentionally and repeatedly obstructed his visitation and coached the child to refuse to visit Father. After a two-day hearing in which the trial court found Father was a credible witness and Mother was not credible, the court determined that a material change in circumstances had occurred due to Mother’s severe alienation of the child from Father and that a drastic modification of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. The court’s modifications of the parenting plan included designating Father as the primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority, reducing Mother’s parenting time to what Father had been awarded in the previous order, and restricting Mother to supervised visitation pending a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35 psychological evaluation. In a separate order, the court found Mother guilty of seventy-one counts of criminal contempt for willfully violating the parties’ visitation schedule and sentenced Mother to serve concurrent ten-day terms in jail for six of the seventy-one acts of contempt but suspended the sixty-day sentence except for the service of three weekends on the condition that Mother strictly adhere to the court’s orders going forward. Mother appeals the modification of the parenting plan and the trial court’s seventy-one criminal contempt findings. Both parties challenge the sentence imposed for Mother’s criminal contempt. We affirm. Father also requests his attorney’s fees on appeal. We find Father’s request to be well taken and remand for a determination of Father’s reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
First South Financial Credit Union v. Collierville 385 Motors, LLC
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Radonda Vaught v. Tennessee Board of Nursing
This is an appeal arising from a decision by the Tennessee Board of Nursing (“the Board”) |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joe H. Edwards v. Angela L. Underwood
Property owners retained a licensed engineer to develop subdivision lots. As partial compensation for his services, the engineer agreed to accept a 6% share of the gross proceeds when the lots were sold. The agreement was to be binding on the property owners’ heirs and assigns. After both owners died, ownership of the remaining unsold lots passed to a daughter through probate. She sold some of the lots without payment of the engineer’s 6% share. The engineer sued the daughter for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Among other things, the daughter argued that the engineer’s action was barred by the probate statutes. The trial court held that the engineer’s 6% share was secured by a statutory lien on the real property and its proceeds and that such lien was not subject to any affirmative defenses. After careful review, we reverse. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Emmeline C.
In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her daughter, the trial court found that three statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Ann Wallace v. First Cash Inc.
The appellant filed a civil summons in the general sessions court, asserting that items she had pawned at one of the appellee’s locations were returned to her damaged. After the appellant failed to appear at the initial hearing, the matter was dismissed. The appellant appealed the dismissal to the circuit court, which found that the appeal was not timely filed and dismissed the appeal. On appeal in this Court, we have determined that the appellant’s brief is deficient under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and dismiss the appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Rose, Et Al v. Lakeway Medical Property Partnership, Et Al
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in the petition, the appeal is hereby dismissed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Judd et al. v. Kaylee Powell et al.
This appeal arises out of a petition filed by Roger and Regina Judd (collectively, “Appellants”) seeking grandparent visitation with three minor children, Appellants’ grandchildren. Kaylee and Spencer Powell (collectively, “Appellees”) filed their answer to the petition, claiming that Appellants lacked standing to bring their request. The Putnam County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”) dismissed Appellants’ petition for failure to state a claim based on lack of standing. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Kendin L.
Rhonda L. (“Mother”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for the City of Bristol (“the Juvenile Court”) to modify a parenting plan granting Mark K. (“Father”) sole custody of Kendin L. (“the Child”) and Mother at least four days of parenting time each month.1 Father filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking the suspension of Mother’s parenting time based upon Mother’s persistent inappropriate behavior and psychological evaluation results. The Juvenile Court entered an ex parte order granting the motion for injunctive relief. After trial, the Juvenile Court dismissed Mother’s petition for her failure to prosecute and ordered that the suspension of Mother’s parenting time remain in full effect until Mother engaged in therapy and treatment for her personality disorder. Mother appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Gabriel T.
This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Humphreys County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Tabitha P. (“Mother”) and Cody T. (“Father”) to their minor child Gabriel T. (“the Child”). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on several grounds. Mother and Father appeal, arguing mainly that DCS failed to assist or communicate with them. The Juvenile Court determined that Mother and Father were not credible witnesses, a determination we leave undisturbed. We find that each ground for termination found by the Juvenile Court was proven by clear and convincing evidence. We find further by clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
Deena Brell v. Deniece Thomas, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development et al.
This is an appeal of a denial of unemployment benefits. The issue presented is whether, under Tennessee’s unemployment statutes, an employee who gives her employer notice of her resignation as of a certain date and is terminated by the employer prior to the effective resignation date is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits on the ground that the employee voluntarily quit. The trial court affirmed the agency’s decision denying benefits. Based upon the plain language of the relevant statutory provision, we conclude that the employee’s actions do not constitute a voluntary decision to quit. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Mahdieh Shabanian v. Seyed Mohammad Hadi Hosseini
We do not reach the substantive issues because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. Vacated and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Wayne Long v. Candice O'Brien Beasley et al.
This is a defamation action filed by a plaintiff police officer against two defendants concerning allegedly defamatory comments the defendants posted on Facebook about the officer. The defendants, citizens of Ashland City, where the plaintiff had served as a police officer for several years, filed a petition to dismiss the defamation action pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”). The trial court denied the petition, determining that the officer had successfully established a prima facie case of defamation against each defendant and that the defendants had not met their burden to establish a valid defense. The defendants appealed the denial, arguing that the officer, a public official, had not met the heightened standard of proof necessary to establish that either of them had acted with actual malice when posting their comments to Facebook. During the pendency of this appeal, the officer attempted to nonsuit the underlying defamation lawsuit and moved to dismiss this appeal as moot. Upon review, we determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the officer’s voluntary nonsuit, and therefore we deny the motion to dismiss this appeal. We further determine, upon our de novo review of the record, that the trial court should have granted the defendants’ TPPA petition and dismissed the defamation lawsuit, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 17-20-105(b), because the officer failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that either defendant had acted with actual malice when posting the Facebook comments. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Stevy Ellis, et al. v. Snookums Steakhouse, LLC, et al.
The patron of a restaurant sued the business and its owner when she was injured attempting to sit on a bench outside the business. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the patron failed to demonstrate the existence of a dangerous or defective condition. We affirm. |
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Manoucheka Thermitus v. Schiller Jerome
Appellant, Schiller Jerome, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered on September 3, 2024. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
