In Re Brooklyn J.
The mother of twins seeks to set aside the termination of her parental rights on the ground the judgment is void for lack of personal service. In August 2013, relatives who had legal custody of the children filed a “Petition for Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption.” After two failed attempts to locate the mother for service of process, she was served by publication. In December 2013, the trial court entered an Order of Default terminating her parental rights, and the children were adopted shortly thereafter. The mother received actual notice of the termination of her parental rights and the adoption no later than April 2014, but she waited until October 2015 to file a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion to set aside the 2013 judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court ruled that the 2013 judgment was void for lack of personal service but that the mother was not entitled to relief from the judgment based on “exceptional circumstances.” The mother appealed. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the mother is not entitled to relief based on exceptional circumstances, they being that she had actual notice of the judgment eighteen months prior to seeking relief, which manifested an intention to treat the judgment as valid, and that granting relief would impair the children’s and the adoptive parents’ substantial interests of reliance on the judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Christopher J., et al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that Father was criminally convicted of the intentional and wrongful death of the children’s mother and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support both findings. Thus, we affirm the termination of parental rights. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., et al.
The tenant of a warehouse and the warehouse owner’s property manager disagree over which party is responsible for the damage caused by a fire that destroyed the tenant’s inventory. We have concluded that the “as is, where is” lease between the warehouse owner and the tenant places the responsibility for the damage on the tenant and that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the property manager. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate Of John Jefferson Waller, Jr.
In this interlocutory appeal involving a will contest, the trial court determined that Appellant did not have standing to contest the will at issue. In light of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re Estate of Brock, No. E2016-00637-SC-R11-CV, 2017 WL 5623526 (Tenn. Nov. 22, 2017), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Citrina Louise Gensmer v. Luke August Gensmer
The divorced mother and father of a nine year-old child were sharing residential time equally when the mother notified the father of her intent to relocate to Gulfport, Mississippi, eight to nine hours away. The father opposed the relocation and asked the court to designate him as the primary residential parent. After determining that the parties spent substantially equal intervals of time with the child during the twelve months immediately preceding the trial, the court conducted a best interest analysis to determine whether it was in the child’s best interest to relocate with the mother. Concluding that it was not in the child’s best interest to relocate, the court designated the father as the primary residential parent and entered a new parenting plan in which the mother was awarded sixty-four days per year of residential time with the child. The mother appealed several aspects of the trial court’s decision, and we affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Glenn R. Funk v. Scripps Media , Inc. Et Al.
A public figure filed a defamation lawsuit against an investigative reporter and a television station based on two news stories that were aired in February 2016. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that their reports were constitutionally protected speech, were privileged as a fair and accurate report of pleadings and documents filed in two other lawsuits, and did not contain false or defamatory statements. The plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for documents on the defendants in an effort to discover the defendants’ investigative files. The defendants objected on the grounds of relevance and the Tennessee fair report privilege. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel, arguing that he needed the discovery to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss by uncovering evidence of actual malice. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to compel. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s decision granting the motion to compel. They argue that (1) actual malice is not an element of the fair report privilege and (2) the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel. We agree with the defendants’ position on both issues and reverse the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gary L. Key v. O.C. Renner Jr. Et Al.
Neighboring property owners disagree over the terms of an oral agreement for construction of a private road across their properties. After the road was completed, one property owner failed to pay his part of the construction costs or grant a permanent easement permitting use of the road. The other property owner filed a complaint for specific performance or, in the alternative, damages for breach of contract. The defendant admitted the parties had an agreement but disputed the terms and raised the defense of the statute of frauds. After a trial, the court ruled that the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting the statute of frauds and awarded specific performance. On appeal, the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the agreement because either the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the agreement or the plaintiff was the first party to breach. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment as modified. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Tomlin, Et Al. v. Renal Care Group, Inc. Et Al.
A real estate consultant brought suit against a renal care company and related corporate affiliates alleging breach of contract for failing to pay real estate commissions. The commissions were allegedly owed based upon the consultant’s work in negotiating one original lease for a dialysis clinic, and based upon several alleged renewals of leases that had originally been negotiated by the consultant. The parties’ consulting agreement specified that the consultant was entitled to commissions upon execution of original leases, and at any subsequent renewals or extensions of the original leases. Because the order appealed is not final in that it fails to adjudicate at least six of the former consultant’s claims, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Megan C. England v. Sonya Schnur Et Al.
Megan England filed a petition for a restraining order, protective order and injunctive relief against Sonya Schnur, Roswell Schnur, and Lisa Schnur, alleging, among other things, that the respondents had taken actions that caused her to fear for her safety. The trial court granted her a temporary restraining order. Three days later, respondents filed motions to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Respondents subsequently filed two affidavits in support of the motions. Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit asking for dismissal of her petition without prejudice. Respondents opposed the dismissal unless it was entered with prejudice. Contrary to the respondents’ request, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. We hold that the trial court did not consider matters outside the pleadings in making its decision. As a consequence, the motion of the respondents was not converted into a motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, even if the conversion occurred, the trial court had discretion to grant the petitioner’s request without prejudice under the authority of Stewart v. Univ. of Tenn., 519 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tenn. 1974). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make its dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Nystar Tennessee Mines-Strawberry Plaints, LLC v. Claiborne Hauling, LLC, DBA Claiborne Trucking, LLC
This case involves a motion for attorney’s fees filed by Nyrstar Tennessee Mines – Strawberry Plains, LLC. Nyrstar and Claiborne Trucking, LLC are parties to a contract. Nyrstar prevailed in an underlying breach of contract action against Claiborne. After prevailing in the underlying case, Nyrstar filed a motion asking to be awarded its attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ contract. The issue before us is whether the language of the contract is sufficient to allow Nyrstar to seek fees. The trial court held that the language is not sufficiently specific to create a contractual right to recover attorney’s fees. Nyrstar appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Danely C.
M.V.C. , the mother of Danely C., an undocumented minor born in Honduras, filed a petition in the trial court seeking an order appointing M.V.C. as guardian of her daughter. She further asked the court to make findings as mandated by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(27)(J) (2014). Findings favorable to the petitioner are a prerequisite for Danely C. to apply under federal law for special immigrant juvenile status. The petitioner prayed “[t]hat sevice of process issue as necessary upon [Danely C].” The trial court, acting sua sponte, dismissed the petition, finding “no justiciable controversy in this cause.” We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for a hearing with respect to the matters contemplated by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(27)(J). |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Alisa Leigh Eldridge v.Lee Savage
This dispute arises from Buyer’s purchase of a home from Seller in 1994. After discovering extensive pre-existing fire damage to the home in 2010, Buyer filed a complaint against Seller, alleging misrepresentation, mistake, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Seller, finding that Buyer’s cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Buyer appeals, alleging that Seller’s fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment and the discovery rule tolls the statutes of limitations. She also contends these are factual issues to be determined by a jury. We have concluded that a reasonable jury could not legitimately resolve the facts relied upon by Buyer in her favor; therefore, the trial court acted appropriately by summarily dismissing all of her claims as time barred. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee v. Teleport Communications America, LLC
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) sued Teleport Communications America, LLC (“TCG”) in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) to recover a fee for TCG’s use of Metro’s public rights-of-way. TCG contended the fee was unlawful and refused to pay. Metro and TCG previously had entered into a franchise agreement in keeping with an ordinance requiring telecommunications providers to pay 5% of their gross revenues to Metro. The Tennessee Court of Appeals later ruled in another case against an ordinance purporting to set a gross revenue franchise fee as being akin to a tax. The Trial Court cited this holding to invalidate the ordinance in the present case. Metro nevertheless pursued this action further, seeking to recover under a contractual theory. After extensive litigation, the Trial Court found that TCG owed damages to Metro in the amount of $550,000. The Trial Court reasoned that even though the underlying ordinance was invalid, the parties had entered into a franchise agreement and Metro was entitled to some measure of compensation. TCG appealed. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Ella Mae Haire, Et Al. v. Shelby J. Webster, Et Al.
This appeal arises from a family dispute over joint bank accounts. Phillip Daniel Haire (“Danny Haire”) sued First Tennessee Bank National Association (“the Bank”) in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) alleging, among other things, breach of contract. The Bank had allowed Danny Haire’s late mother Ella Mae Haire (“Decedent”) to remove him unilaterally as joint tenant with right of survivorship from certain accounts. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. Danny Haire appealed. We hold, inter alia, that Danny Haire’s complaint failed to identify which contract term the Bank allegedly breached, and that Decedent could have removed all of the funds from the account, thus effectuating the same practical result as that which actually occurred. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Hoover, Inc. v. Ashby Communities, LLC, Et Al.
An asphalt paving company brought suit against the developer of a subdivision, and its managing member and guarantor, for breach of contract based on the developer’s failure to pay for services rendered under the contract. The developer answered, asserting multiple affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed, asserting that the company breached the contract, violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and mispresented that it would perform the work for the price specified in the contract. The trial court held that the developer breached the contract by failing to pay and awarded damages, interest, and attorney’s fees to the paving company. The developer appeals. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Caleb F. Et Al.
Shortly after entry of an agreed permanent parenting plan, Father filed a petition to find Mother in contempt and to modify the parenting plan. The petition alleged that a material change in circumstance had occurred since the adoption of the agreed plan, such as Mother allegedly interfering with Father’s parenting time. The juvenile court found a material change in circumstance had occurred and modified the parenting plan by increasing Father’s parenting time. From this ruling, Father appealed, claiming that the court erred by not granting him equal parenting time. Because the court’s order modifying the plan contains insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, we vacate and remand. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Arabella L.
Three years after the juvenile court in Tennessee approved a parenting plan for a child, the child’s father filed a petition to modify custody, alleging a material change in circumstances. The mother, who had filed a modification petition in Alabama, requested that the Tennessee court communicate with the Alabama court to determine which court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). The Tennessee court, after communicating with the Alabama court, determined that Alabama was a more convenient forum, declined to exercise jurisdiction, and dismissed the father’s petition. On appeal, the father argues that the Tennessee court failed to allow the parties access to a record of its communication with the Alabama court or an opportunity to present evidence before making its decision. Because we conclude that the juvenile court abused its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction without allowing the parties an opportunity to present evidence, we vacate the court’s decision and remand for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Alfred C. Diviney, Sr.
In an agreed order settling a widow’s claim for exempt property and homestead against her husband’s estate, the parties included language that they were settling “all claims that the Petitioner asserted or might have asserted in the Petition.” When the widow subsequently petitioned for a year’s support and elective share, the trial court held that her claim was barred by res judicata. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Julie Ann Norman v. Joshua Shane Norman
A Father appeals the trial court’s decision to name the Mother as Primary Residential Parent of the parties’ two children. Discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court, award the Mother her attorneys’ fee incurred on appeal, and remand the case for a determination of the amount. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Chloe C.
The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to set aside a default judgment in this parentage action. Because Appellant was not properly served notice of the default judgment under Rule 55.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we reverse and remand the trial court’s decision for further proceedings pursuant to this opinion. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Blue Water Bay At Center Hill, LLC, Et Al. v. Larry J. Hasty, Et Al.
This appeal follows the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. There are four participating parties on appeal, the Appellant and three separate Appellees. With respect to the claims asserted by Appellee Blue Water Bay against the Appellant, we hereby vacate the trial court’s orders and remand for further proceedings because the trial court erred in not allowing the Appellant pre-arbitration discovery regarding issues pertaining to arbitrability. With respect to the claims involving the other two Appellees, we reverse the trial court’s orders due to the absence of a sufficient basis to establish arbitrability. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Steve Merriweather, et al. v. Debra Merriweather, et al.
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Clutch And Supply , Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company
This appeal arises from a dispute between an insured and its insurance carrier concerning the coverage limits under an “Employee Dishonesty” endorsement to a commercial general liability policy for an employee’s dishonesty that spanned two policy years. After the insured discovered that one of its employees embezzled approximately $100,000 in 2014 and 2015, it filed a claim for $30,000, the aggregate of the policy limits of $15,000 for each policy year. The insurer took the position that the limitation of coverage for such an occurrence was $15,000, paid that amount, and denied the balance of the claim. The trial court held that the policy language was ambiguous and by construing the policies in favor of the insured, determined there were two policies, each of which provided $15,000 of coverage and ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to recover $30,000. The insurer appealed. Finding no ambiguity, we have determined that the 2015 policy was not a separate policy but a renewal of the 2014 policy, that the policy limit for employee dishonesty is $15,000 per occurrence, and that there was one continuous occurrence, as that term is defined in the policy, which spanned two years. We have also determined that the policy prohibits “stacking” of coverage from one policy year to the next. For these reasons, we respectfully reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the policy limits for the claim asserted by the insured is $15,000. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dale (Crafton) Roberts v. James Frederick Roberts
This is the second time we have considered this child custody case on appeal. The parties have been embattled in post-divorce litigation almost continuously since entry of the final decree of divorce in 2007. In 2012, the parties sought to modify their parenting arrangement, and the trial court allowed a divorce referee to hear the matter. The court then attempted to retroactively appoint the divorce referee as a Special Master and adopted a modified version of the findings and recommendations of the divorce referee/Special Master. Father appealed, and on December 28, 2015, this Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings as needed to adjudicate the parties’ petitions related to custody and parenting. On remand, the trial court held a three day hearing to determine whether to modify the parties’ current permanent parenting plan. The court concluded that the primary residential parent of the parties’ remaining minor child should be changed from Father to Mother. Father appeals. We hold that the trial court erred in refusing to consider all of the applicable best interest factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106, specifically the preference of a child age twelve or older. We, therefore, vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. We decline mother’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Edward Ronny Arnold v. Bob Oglesby, Et Al.
A former state employee filed suit claiming that he should have been paid for the state holiday on November 27, 2015, because he worked on October 12, 2015, the day from which the holiday was shifted pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-4-105(a)(3). His position was terminated before the November 27, 2015 holiday occurred. The general sessions and circuit courts granted the Department of General Services Commissioner’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
