John N. Moffitt v. State of Tennessee
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for restoration of citizenship rights under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-29-105. Appellant contends that the trial court’s decision violates ex post facto protections by imposing a harsher sentence than that available at the time of his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re R. L. Et Al.
In this dependency and neglect case, the juvenile court adjudicated father’s (E.L.) six children dependent and neglected and one of the female children (R.L.) a victim of severe abuse perpetrated by father. Father appealed to the circuit court. After a de novo hearing, the circuit court entered an order holding that clear and convincing evidence exists to demonstrate that R.L. was sexually abused by father and as such was a dependent and neglected and severely abused child. The court similarly found clear and convincing evidence that father’s additional children were also dependent and neglected. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Hamilton County Et Al. v. Tax Year 2011 Delinquent Taxpayers Et Al.
This case involves the right of redemption after a tax sale. REO Holdings, LLC (REO), purchased a parcel of real property at a delinquent tax sale. After the sale, the original property owners quitclaimed their remaining interest in the property to Basswood Revocable Land Trust (the Trust). The Trust filed a motion to redeem the property, which the trial court granted. REO appeals. We reverse. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
City of Chattanooga, Tennessee v. Basil Marceaux
The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed with the Appellate Court Clerk on May 7, 2018, more than thirty (30) days after the April 4, 2018 date of entry of the only order in the record from which the appellant could be appealing. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
City of Soddy Daisy, Tennessee v. Basil Marceaux
The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed with the Appellate Court Clerk on June 7, 2018, more than thirty (30) days after the April 4, 2018 date of entry of the only order in the record from which the appellant could be appealing. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Mary L. Miller v. Brenda S. Maples, Et Al.
Following settlor’s death, settlor’s daughters, the beneficiaries of the settlor’s trust, engaged in mediation, which resulted in a settlement agreement concerning the distribution of the trust’s assets. Before the settlement was approved by the trial court under the Tennessee Uniform Trust Act (“TUTA”), one of the daughters died, and her estate was substituted in the lawsuit. The surviving siblings then joined in an amended complaint seeking a determination concerning whether the terms of the settlement agreement violated a material purpose of the trust so as to be unenforceable under the TUTA. The deceased daughter’s estate argued for enforcement of the settlement agreement such that the estate would receive the deceased daughter’s share of the trust. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the estate, holding that the settlement was enforceable under the TUTA. The trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the estate under the terms of the settlement. We affirm the trial court’s enforcement of the settlement but reverse its award of attorney’s fees and costs to the estate. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Caitlin J. Groves, Et Al. v. Tennessee Department of Safety And Homeland Security
After his vehicle was seized, the owner filed a claim and request for hearing. After the passage of thirty days following the filing of his claim, the owner moved to dismiss the forfeiture, arguing that the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security had failed to timely set his claim for a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge took the motion to dismiss under advisement, but declined to set a hearing on the merits of the forfeiture. The owner sought interlocutory review of the decision not to set a hearing on the merits, which the Commissioner ultimately denied. Shortly before the Commissioner’s decision on the interlocutory appeal, the ALJ granted the owner’s motion to dismiss and ordered the vehicle returned. The ALJ also denied the owner’s request for attorney’s fees. The owner petitioned for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision and later amended the petition to include a request for declaratory relief. The chancery court dismissed the owner’s petition for judicial review as moot. The court also dismissed the declaratory judgment action for improper joinder of an original action with an administrative appeal. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Alexis S. Et Al.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving the parental rights of the mother, Lequita S. (“Mother”), to her minor children, Alexis S., Jaxon S., and Jasmine S. (collectively, “the Children”). The Children were born in 2011, 2014, and 2017, respectively, to Mother and Jerry S. (“Father”). In November 2016, the Overton County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) entered an order removing Alexis and Jaxon from the parents’ custody and placing the two children into the temporary legal custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). These children were immediately placed in foster care, where they remained at the time of trial. The trial court subsequently entered an order on February 15, 2017, wherein the trial court found that Alexis and Jaxon were dependent and neglected due to the parents’ drug abuse and unsuitable home. Jasmine was placed into the same foster home as her siblings following her birth in June 2017, and the trial court entered an order on October 4, 2017, finding Jasmine to be dependent and neglected. On October 19, 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Children. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Mother had abandoned the Children by failing to provide a suitable home for them, (2) Mother had abandoned the Children by her willful failure to visit them, (3) Mother had demonstrated substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, (4) Mother had committed severe child abuse against Jasmine, (5) Mother had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of or financial responsibility for the Children, and (6) the conditions leading to removal still persisted and a return of custody would in all probability cause the Children to be subjected to further abuse and neglect. The trial court further found clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Children. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
Brianna Danielle King v. Aaron Jefferson Daily
This appeal arises from a divorce action involving two minor children. Mother filed a complaint for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Father filed an answer and counter complaint based on Mother’s inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. As to the minor children, Father wanted to have the children vaccinated, and Mother opposed vaccinations on religious grounds. The trial court awarded the divorce to Father based on Mother’s inappropriate marital conduct and adultery. The court also designated Father as the primary residential parent and gave him sole decision-making authority for non-emergency medical decisions, which included vaccinations. On appeal, Mother contends that the court interfered with her right to exercise a religious exemption from vaccines. Mother also takes issue with the court’s decision to award the divorce to Father based on Mother’s adultery. She argues that because she had sexual relationships with other men after the parties separated, her acts do not constitute adultery. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C. v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc., et al.
This interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-125 follows the trial court’s denial of a motion for class action certification. The proposed class consists of various physicians and health care professionals who are participating providers in the Defendants’ insurance networks and who provide medical services in the emergency departments of hospitals. The central contention is that the class members’ contracts with the Defendants were breached when the fee for certain services was capped at a $50.00 rate. The trial court ultimately concluded that certification of the class was improper and held, among other things, that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that common issues in the case predominated over individual ones. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, we affirm the trial court’s denial of class certification. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C. v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc., et al.- Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. I disagree with the majority’s assertion that “the argument that diagnosis codes cannot be the standard upon which an emergency is determined for purposes of payment does not somehow make common issues predominate regarding the claims for which a $50.00 cap provision is operative.” I would reverse the trial court as I believe that common issue predominates over all individual issues in this case. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jeromia W.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to support and wanton disregard for the child’s welfare; substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume responsibility for the child. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Susan R.Templeton v. Macon County, Tennessee, Board of Education
A 62-year-old former employee of the Macon County School System sued the Board of Education on the grounds of age discrimination and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. She alleged that her supervisor, the school principal, made age related discriminatory remarks and demoted her after she complained about a co worker’s repeated, sexually explicit comments. In its answer, the Board of Education contended that the re-assignment was a lateral transfer and was justified by nondiscriminatory reasons. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination or retaliation, and that the Board produced undisputed evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for transferring Plaintiff. We respectfully disagree, having concluded that Plaintiff identified and produced evidence to establish a prima facie case for both claims and to create a genuine issue of fact concerning whether the Board’s stated reasons are pretexts for discriminatory or retaliatory animus. For these reasons, the Board was not entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
State, ex rel., Shem Peter Malmquist v. Danielle Nicolosi Malmquist
In this post-divorce dispute, the mother, a California resident, asked the court to modify a Tennessee child support order. At the hearing before the magistrate, the mother agreed to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. But later she asked the juvenile court for a rehearing. At the request of both parties, the juvenile court then directed the magistrate to hold another hearing on the mother’s motion. At the new hearing, the magistrate denied the mother’s request to testify by telephone. And, because no one present was ready to proceed, the magistrate also dismissed the notice of rehearing. On appeal, the mother argues that she was entitled to testify by telephone under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We conclude that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act did not apply to her request to modify a Tennessee child support order. We further conclude that the record does not support her claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. So we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Blount Memorial Hospital v. Eric Glasgow
The Notice of Appeal in this case indicates that the appellant, Eric Glasgow, is appealing from a final judgment entered on June 8, 2018. However, the order entered on June 8, 2018, simply removes the case from the Trial Court’s active trial docket, subject to being re-activated to the active docket upon proper petition and/or application by any interested party. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Parks v. Rebecca A. Walker, M.D. et al.
This is a health care liability action. Plaintiff gave written pre-suit notice of her claim to potential defendants. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) (2018). She then filed her complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. After a hearing, the trial court held that plaintiff failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the notice statute by failing to provide a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). It entered an order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Parks v. Rebecca A. Walker, M.D. et al. - dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. I disagree with the majority’s holding “that the medical authorizations in this case do not substantially comply with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121.” I would reverse the Trial Court as I believe the medical authorizations do substantially comply. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Hartford Caualty Insurance Company v. Comanche Construction, Inc., et al. v. Andrea Blackwell, et al.
This case involves a dispute between workers’ compensation insurance carriers concerning liability for benefits paid to an injured employee. The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking indemnity for benefits voluntarily paid to the employee on the theory that the employee was actually a loaned servant, which shifted liability to the defendant borrowing employer. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the undisputed facts could not establish a claim for implied indemnity. We granted this Rule 9 interlocutory appeal to consider whether the trial court improperly denied the motion. After our thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Owens v. Hamilton County, Tennessee, Et Al.
Taxpayer brought action against the county and the purchaser at the delinquent tax sale alleging the sale of her property was void due to the lack of notice of the delinquent tax sale proceeding. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the taxpayer and dismissed taxpayer’s complaint in its entirety. Taxpayer appeals. Because the county never effectuated proper service on taxpayer, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand with instructions that the trial court void the sale of taxpayer’s property and declare taxpayer the fee simple owner |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Raymond Bertuccelli Et Al. v. Carl Mark Haehner Et Al.
Appellants appeal the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment “as to all remaining issues” asserted by Appellants in their complaint. In its order granting summary judgment, the trial court failed to state the legal grounds on which it granted summary judgment on the remaining claims as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04. In the absence of such grounds, this Court cannot make a meaningful review of the trial court’s decision. We, therefore, vacate the trial court’s final order and remand the case for further proceedings. Vacated and remanded. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Roy Franks, et al. v. Tiffany Sykes, et al.
This appeal concerns two separate plaintiffs’ claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), alleging that the filing of undiscounted hospital liens violated the TCPA by “[r]epresenting that a consumer transaction confers or involves rights, remedies or obligations that it does not have or involve or which are prohibited by law.” The trial court dismissed one plaintiff’s claim based on the pleadings due to the plaintiff’s failure to bring a claim under the Hospital Lien Act and dismissed another plaintiff’s claim for improper venue. We affirm in part as modified, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Steven W. Et Al.
This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Steven W., Jr. (“Steven”); Joseph W.; Jorrie W.; Lyric W.; and Timothy W., the minor children (“the Children”) of Tabbitha S. (“Mother”) and Steven W. (“Father”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on August 14, 2015, upon investigation into allegations of inadequate supervision, lack of stable housing, child abuse, substance abuse, and domestic violence concerns. The Davidson County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) subsequently adjudicated the Children dependent and neglected as to both parents in an order entered May 16, 2016. On March 3, 2017, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition as to both parents in an order entered on December 28, 2017. As pertinent to this appeal, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Mother had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to financially support them, (2) Mother had abandoned the Children by exhibiting behavior prior to her incarceration that demonstrated wanton disregard for the Children’s welfare, (3) Mother had failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements of the permanency plans, (4) the conditions leading to the Children’s removal from Mother’s home persisted, and (5) Mother had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility for the Children. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. Having determined that DCS failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s failure to financially support the Children was willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
R.S. Blair Schievelhud et al. v. E.L. Parker, III et al.
This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a civil action on grounds that the proceeding was barred by the running of the applicable statute of limitations. The final order of dismissal was entered on August 27, 2018. The Notice of Appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until October 23, 2018. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Joel Foust et al. v. Hank Douglas, Jr. et al.
Suit brought by a hospital security guard and his wife to recover for injuries he sustained when a patient whom he was guarding attacked him; the patient was intoxicated and had been handcuffed to a hospital bed by the security guard. At the instruction of the hospital’s patient care coordinator, the security guard removed the handcuffs; a short while later the patient attacked the guard, injuring him. The suit alleged that the hospital was negligent in breaching various duties, which led to the guard’s injuries. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe a duty to the security guard; the trial court agreed and granted the motion. The security guard appeals. Upon our review, we have determined that the undisputed facts show that the hospital voluntarily assumed a duty of care to the security guard and, consequently, reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Karisah N. Et Al.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that termination was not in the children’s best interest. We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports both the grounds for termination found by the trial court and the trial court’s best interest determination. Affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Appeals |
