In Re: Estate of James W. Smalling, Deceased
This matter involves a will contest. The deceased died testate. His daughter, the proponent, is the executor. She submitted the deceased’s will to the trial court for probate. An order to probate was entered. The will expressly provides that the deceased’s son “is to take nothing” under the will. The son filed a complaint and a notice with the trial court contesting the will due to alleged undue influence. Proponent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that contestant did not have standing to file a contest. Contestant subsequently took a voluntary nonsuit; the trial court entered an order of nonsuit. Nine months after his initial filing, contestant filed a second will contest in the same court. The proponent filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the contestant’s voluntary dismissal of his first will contest bars the filing of his second complaint. The trial court agreed. It entered an order granting proponent’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. We affirm. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Troy Nicholas v. Tennessee Department of Safety And Homeland Security
After police seized a vehicle allegedly used to transport drugs, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security initiated forfeiture proceedings against the vehicle’s owner. The owner filed a claim contesting the forfeiture proceedings, and the Department dismissed the claim as untimely. The owner petitioned for judicial review, and the trial court reversed the dismissal, reinstated the owner’s claim, and remanded for a hearing. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kathryn Lynn Jones v. Gary Edward Jones
This is the second appeal arising from a divorce action. In this appeal, the wife contends the trial court erred by depriving her of the post-trial increase in her proportionate share of marital investment accounts. On remand, the trial court held that the wife was awarded a sum certain as of the date of divorce; thus, the subsequent increase in the value of the account was the husband’s property. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Conservatorship Of Mary Ruth Davis Hudson
In this conservatorship action, three of the conservatee’s five adult children filed a petition for conservatorship over the conservatee in May 2015 and subsequently filed an emergency petition for conservatorship in June 2015. Following a hearing, the conservatorship court granted the emergency petition, naming one of the petitioners as conservator over the conservatee’s property and one of the petitioners as conservator over the conservatee’s person. The conservatee’s two non-petitioning children subsequently filed a motion in opposition to the conservatorship and requested that it be dissolved. The conservatee then filed an answer to the petition and motion to dismiss the conservatorship. Following various subsequent motions and a hearing conducted in September 2015, the conservatorship court entered an order in October 2015, inter alia, appointing East Tennessee Human Resources Agency (“ETHRA”) as an emergency interim conservator over the conservatee’s property but maintaining the originally named petitioner as conservator over the conservatee’s person. The conservatorship court subsequently memorialized these appointments as permanent in an order entered in December 2015. Upon motions for attorney’s fees filed by the petitioners’ counsel in January 2016, the conservatorship court found that the attorney’s fees requested were reasonable and granted them in an order entered in March 2016. On March 29, 2016, ETHRA filed the last of three successive inventory and property management plans. The conservatee died on May 2, 2016. Upon multiple motions requesting fees, the conservatorship court conducted a hearing and subsequently entered an order on June 21, 2016, inter alia, awarding reasonable fees and expenses to the attorney ad litem, the conservator of the person, and the petitioners’ counsel and former counsel. ETHRA filed a motion to enter final accounting on August 25, 2016, and concomitantly filed a motion requesting $9,112.50 in fees for the services of its representative agent. In September 2016, the petitioners’ counsel filed additional requests for attorney’s fees, and in October 2016, ETHRA’s counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees. On October 6, 2016, ETHRA filed a motion to close the conservatorship. The petitioners subsequently filed an objection to the final accounting, and the two non-petitioning children filed separate objections to the petitioners’ supplemental motions for attorney’s fees filed subsequent to the conservatee’s death. Following two hearings, the conservatorship court entered an order on March 28, 2017, granting ETHRA’s motion to close the conservatorship and motions for its representative’s fees and attorney’s fees. The conservatorship court declined to consider the petitioners’ pending supplemental motions for attorney’s fees, referring those to the probate court in a subsequent order. The conservatorship court also referred any claims arising from the petitioners’ objections to the final accounting to the probate court. The petitioners have appealed, asserting improper transfer to probate court of their pending motions requesting attorney’s fees, a lack of itemization of the services provided by the ETHRA representative, and deficiencies in the final accounting. Having determined that the conservatorship court improperly transferred to the probate court the petitioners’ motions for attorney’s fees without making necessary findings of fact and improperly closed the conservatorship without making findings of fact concerning the petitioners’ objections to the final accounting, we vacate those portions of the judgment. We affirm the undisputed grant of attorney’s fees to ETHRA’s counsel. We remand for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the petitioners’ objections to the final accounting and concerning whether the attorney’s fees requested in the petitioners’ counsel’s pending attorney’s fee motions were incurred in relation to the conservatorship and, if so, whether reasonable attorney’s fees should be granted upon each of these motions. We also direct the conservatorship court to enter an order on remand directing ETHRA to present a detailed explanation of the basis for its representative’s claim for fees and expenses for the conservatorship court’s consideration based upon the factors provided in Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-112(a) (2015). |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Alan C. Cartwright v. Alice Cartwright Garner, et al.
Trust beneficiary filed suit against co-trustees and various business entities in tort for the alleged wrongful withholding of distributions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on several grounds. The trial court dismissed trust beneficiary’s complaint relying on each of the grounds asserted by the defendants. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint based on the statute of limitations. We also grant reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred by defendants on appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Molly S. Baglio v. Melissa A. Henyan
A creditor obtained a judgment in Minnesota and sought to authenticate and enforce the judgment in Tennessee, where the judgment debtor resided and had assets. The judgment debtor objected to the creditor’s complaint because the affidavit accompanying the complaint was not notarized, as required by law. The creditor’s attorney subsequently filed a corrected affidavit that was notarized, and the trial court entered an order authenticating and enrolling the foreign judgment. The judgment debtor appealed, and we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
The Manor Homes, LLC v . Ashby Communities, LLC, Et Al.
This is a contract dispute between the developer and the builder of a residential property. The developer claimed that the builder was not in compliance with the terms of the contract and removed the builder from the project. The trial court found that the developer breached the contract first by removing the builder from the property without providing it with an opportunity to cure the problems the developer identified and awarded damages to the builder. The developer appeals the decision by the trial court, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Countryside Center, LLC v. BPC of Memphis, LLC d/b/a Auto Radio, et al.
The defendant, the alleged guarantor of the obligations of BPC of Memphis, LLC, under a lease agreement, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant personally liable for the tenant’s obligations under the lease. BPC, the tenant, occupied the leased premises from December 2012 until August 2015, at which time it stopped paying rent. After BPC and the defendant refused the plaintiff’s demands for payment, the plaintiff commenced this action against BPC and the defendant as the guarantor. In the answer to the complaint, the defendant denied signing any document that purports to establish his personal liability. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment that was properly supported by a statement of undisputed facts and affidavits pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56. The defendant’s response was supported by his affidavit in which he disputed the plaintiff’s statement of fact that he signed “the lease” or “the Personal Guarantee section” of the lease. The chancery court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment stating, in part, “[i]n the face of the mountain of evidence in the record submitted by Plaintiff, Defendants had the burden to bring forward evidence other than Mr. Panchikal’s blanket denial in order to create a genuine issue of material fact,” and “Defendants failed to meet their burden.” The court also stated it was “mindful that Defendants have attempted to put into question Paragraphs 10, 21, and 27 in Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Fact.” This appeal followed. We have determined that the defendant created a genuine dispute of a material fact by stating, inter alia, in his affidavit that “the documents claimed to bear my signature by the Plaintiffs are a forgery,” and “I never executed any guaranty section on any lease, contract or other document.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Brandon W. DeBruce
This appeal involves a plaintiff with a personal injury claim who has challenged the validity of a declaratory judgment involving the defendant tortfeasor and his insurer because the personal injury plaintiff was not made a party to the declaratory judgment action. The personal injury plaintiff brought an action for damages against the defendant tortfeasor in December 2013 in Hamilton County, prior to the filing of the instant declaratory judgment action, based upon an automobile accident that occurred in December 2012. The defendant tortfeasor in the personal injury action reportedly failed to notify his insurance company of the lawsuit or cooperate with his insurance company regarding an investigation into the accident, which allegedly amounted to a breach of the automobile insurance policy between them. In March 2015, the insurance company filed the instant action in the Bradley County Chancery Court against the defendant tortfeasor, seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendant tortfeasor based on his alleged breach of the insurance contract. In June 2015, the Bradley County Chancery Court entered a declaratory judgment against the defendant tortfeasor, holding that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify him. In June 2017, the personal injury plaintiff filed a petition to set aside that declaratory judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, alleging that she was a missing indispensable party to the declaratory judgment action and requesting to intervene therein. Following a hearing, the Bradley County Chancery Court denied the personal injury plaintiff’s petition. The personal injury plaintiff has appealed. Having determined that the personal injury plaintiff had a sufficient interest in the declaratory judgment action and was therefore an indispensable party, we set aside the underlying declaratory judgment as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re McKenzi W.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The juvenile court found four statutory grounds for termination of parental rights: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. The juvenile court also found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. Thus, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Robin Leah Louise Farnham Carter v. Myron Thomas Carter
This appeal concerns visitation and parenting responsibilities following a divorce. The trial court granted decision-making authority over both children, a son and a daughter, to the father. After granting both parties 50/50 visitation with the son, the court awarded the father most of the visitation time with the daughter. The mother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tullahoma Industries, LLC v. Navajo Air, LLC, Et Al.
A manufacturer of military uniforms entered into an agreement with its supplier of fabric and the manufacturer’s bank whereby the bank would disburse funds from the manufacturer’s account to pay invoices for fabric the supplier shipped to the manufacturer. After several months, the supplier learned that the process for paying the invoices was not being followed and sent the bank the unpaid invoices directly and demanded payment. The manufacturer filed a declaratory judgment action, naming the supplier and the bank as defendants, and asked the court to determine the “rights, status or other legal relations” under the agreement. The supplier filed a crossclaim against the bank, asserting claims for breach of the disbursement agreement, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), fraud in the inducement of contracting, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud in the inducement. The court granted summary judgment to the bank on all of the supplier’s claims except the civil conspiracy claim; the supplier appeals. Upon a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. v. Blue Wave Pool Supply of Memphis, LLC, et al.
This appeal concerns an employee who made preparations to start a competing business while still employed by his old company. Todd Heins (“Heins”) was a manager working for Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. (“Leslie’s”), a nationwide pool supply business, at its Bartlett Hills location in the Memphis, Tennessee area. Jay Karcher (“Karcher”), while a customer in Leslie’s Bartlett Hills store, approached Heins one day while he was working with an idea about starting a new pool supply business. Heins was intrigued and followed up with Karcher to found Blue Wave Pool Supply of Memphis, LLC (“Blue Wave”). Heins resigned from Leslie’s before Blue Wave opened for business. Heins’ friend and Leslie’s employee Chad Pitcock (“Pitcock”) also resigned and went to work for Blue Wave. Leslie’s sued Blue Wave, Heins, Pitcock, and Karcher (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”) for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and inducement to breach contract. After a trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Defendants and dismissed Leslie’s complaint with prejudice. Leslie’s appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cindy Hatfield, et al. v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al.
This appeal results from a jury trial on claims of negligence, medical malpractice, and violations of the Tennessee Adult Protection Act by a nursing home. In addition to finding the limited liability company nursing home liable for the resident’s injuries, the jury awarded extensive compensatory and punitive damages against the nursing home’s related administrative services provider, the nursing home’s parent companies, and the individual members of the parent companies. Defendants appeal, raising a variety of issues related to the jury impaneled, the evidence presented, and the finding of liability against the non-nursing home defendants. We reverse the jury’s decision finding material evidence to subject the nursing home’s parent companies and their members directly or vicariously liable in this case. We affirm the direct liability of the nursing home’s administrative services provider. Because the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury appears to be largely predicated on the liability of the non-nursing home defendants, we vacate the award and remand for a new hearing solely as to the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. In all other respects, the verdict is affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Steven M. Wirth v. James W. Friedlob
Breach of contract and negligence action brought by disabled plaintiff who engaged nonattorney representative to assist in plaintiff’s application for social security disability benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant and denied the plaintiff’s motion to set the judgment aside, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(1). Plaintiff appeals; Determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60.02 motion, we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Brewers Rentals v. Otto Karl Appelt
This appeal arises from a detainer action. Brewers Rentals (“Brewers”) obtained a detainer warrant against tenant Otto Karl Appelt (“Appelt”) in the General Sessions Court for Bradley County (“the General Sessions Court”). Appelt thereafter appealed to the Circuit Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”). Appelt paid a $500 appeal bond. However, Appelt did not post bond equal to one year’s rent as required by statute in order to retain possession during the appeal. Brewers filed a motion to dismiss and/or for possession in the Trial Court, which was granted. The Trial Court held that, as Appelt had neither surrendered possession nor posted the requisite bond, dismissal was required. Appelt appeals. We hold that Appelt’s failure to post bond equal to one year’s rent enables Brewers to regain possession immediately but does not deprive the Trial Court of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Appelt’s appeal. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for this case to proceed. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory Eidson v. City of Portland, ET Al.
Appellant filed a Rule 60 motion with the trial court while the matter was pending on appeal. The trial court denied the motion finding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter. Appellant appeals the denial of his Rule 60 motion. We affirm the trial court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion at that time. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Leroy H.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. The child’s guardians, who had been granted custody of the child, filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. The trial court granted the guardians’ petition after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that four grounds for termination were proven—willful failure to visit, willful failure to provide child support, failure to provide a suitable home, and persistence of conditions—and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We vacate the trial court’s finding regarding one ground for termination but otherwise affirm the order terminating the father’s parental rights. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Joe Marce Abbott
This case involves the last will and testament of the deceased, Joe Marce Abbott. Upon the death of the deceased, his daughter, Marce Harvey, filed a petition in the trial court seeking to probate the deceased’s will. The validity of the will is not contested by any beneficiary or other person. The court, however, apparently acting sua sponte, held that the will failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 32-1-103 (2015), 32-1-104 (Supp. 2017), and 32-2-110 (Supp. 2017). As a consequence of this determination, the court rescinded its previously-entered order to probate because, as the court stated, the will “does not meet the requirement of the Laws of the State of Tennessee.” The petitioner appeals. We reverse. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael O'Brian, Et Al. v. Rutherford County Board Of Education
This action arises out of an incident in which an instructor with the Eagleville High School’s Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps pulled a stool from beneath a student participant in a JROTC competition while the student was sitting on it, causing injury to the student. The student’s parents brought suit against the Rutherford County Board of Education under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to recover for her injuries. Following a trial, the court dismissed the suit, holding that the instructor’s actions were not within the scope of his employment, and therefore, the Board’s immunity from suit was not removed. Plaintiffs appeal. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s holding that the instructor acted outside the scope of his employment, and as a consequence, the Board retained immunity from suit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Vicky Lynn Ballard v. Noah Thomas Ballard
This is an appeal from an Amended Final Decree of Divorce entered on November 15, 2017. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the decree as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
David Banks v. University Of Tennessee
The University of Tennessee at Knoxville terminated the employment of Appellant, a tenured faculty member. Appellant appealed his termination to an administrative hearing officer pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Following a contested hearing, the hearing officer upheld the University’s termination of Appellant. Appellant then petitioned the chancery court to reverse the decision of the hearing officer. The chancery court upheld the hearing officer’s decision to affirm the termination of Appellant’s employment and tenure. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Johnson & Associates, LLC, Et Al. v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., Et Al.
This is a case concerning a commercial-property insurance policy dispute. The insured party filed suit upon the insurance company denying theft coverage on a claim. The insurance company claimed that the vacancy clause excluded the theft coverage of the property at issue. The trial court found that the vacancy clause did not apply and that the policy required the insurance company to cover the theft. The insurance company appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Steve Perlaky v. Jimmy Chapin, Et Al.
The plaintiff filed a claim for trespass against the defendants. The trial court found trespass and awarded nominal damages and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. After a hearing on the parties’ respective motions to alter or amend the judgment, the trial court vacated the award of attorney’s fees and declined to increase the amount of nominal damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Philip Foxwell Berg v. Keiko Shigeno Berg
A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court after the trial court denied a motion for recusal. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
