In Re: Shameel S., et al
Valerie S. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor children Shameel S., born November 1996, and LaRiea S., born May 1998, (“the Children”). Acting upon a petition to terminate parental rights filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), the Juvenile Court for Anderson County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children on the ground of severe abuse pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102. Mother argues on appeal that DCS did not exercise reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and the Children in the period before a finding of severe abuse. We find and hold that clear and convincing evidence was shown that the ground existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children for severe child abuse, that clear and convincing evidence was shown that termination was in the Children’s best interest, and that DCS exercised reasonable efforts. We affirm the Juvenile Court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Atchley v. Tennessee Credit, LLC
This appeal arises from the chancery court’s decision to rescind a transaction for the sale of property. Purchaser gave Seller a check for $18,000 to buy a piece of property. Purchaser later sent a letter to the Seller attempting to rescind the transaction when he discovered Seller did not have title to the property it attempted to sell. Thereafter, Seller came into possession of the deed to the property and attempted to convey it to Purchaser. Purchaser filed suit in chancery court to rescind the transaction. The trial court held the transaction should be rescinded and the purchase price returned to the Purchaser because the Seller did not own the property at the time of the transaction. Seller appeals, asserting that Purchaser should be compelled to accept the after-acquired-title to the property or, alternatively, that it was entitled to specific performance. We have reviewed the record and the relevant legal principles and have determined that the trial court did not err in rescinding the transaction. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ayden J.C.
This is a termination of parental rights case in which the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights to the Child. The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination on the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to remit support, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court further found that termination of each parent’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Parents appeal. We reverse the court’s termination of Father’s parental rights for failure to remit child support. We affirm the court’s termination of parental rights in all other respects. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
William Gregory Hall, Jr. v. Hillary Hudgens Hall
This is an appeal of the trial court’s grant of a one-year extension of an order of protection. The petitioner/father had initially obtained an ex parte order of protection against the respondent/mother in August 2005. Subsequent to the expiration of that ex parte order, the parties were divorced in January 2007, with the trial court incorporating into the final decree of divorce an agreed permanent parenting plan awarding the parents equal co-parenting time with their two minor children. Five years later under the docket number of the previous order of protection, the father initiated the instant action by filing an ex parte petition for a new order of protection against the mother. The trial court granted an ex parte order and subsequently entered a one-year order of protection to which the parties agreed on August 30, 2012. This order of protection, inter alia, allowed the mother three telephone calls per week with the children but no in-person contact. On October 1, 2012, the father filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan, utilizing the docket number of the original divorce action. In July 2013, the father filed, again within the divorce action, a motion to consolidate the order of protection and permanent parenting plan proceedings, requesting that the order of protection be extended indefinitely. Following a bench hearing, the trial court granted a one-year extension of the order of protection. The mother appeals. Because we determine that the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the father proved the allegation of domestic abuse at the time the extension was granted, we vacate the trial court’s extension of the order. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Coffey v. City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee
This is a retaliatory discharge case in which a former police officer filed suit against his department for back pay, front pay, and other compensatory damages. The trial court found that the police officer did not establish the elements of retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act and dismissed his suit. The police officer appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
James Witt v. Tennessee Board of Parole, Et Al.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Tennessee prison system serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for first degree murder. The Tennessee Board of Parole declined to recommend the inmate for parole, citing as its reason the seriousness of his offense. The inmate filed a common law writ of certiorari in Davidson County Chancery Court challenging the Board’s decision to deny him parole. The chancery court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Khadijeh Naraghian v. Darryle K. Wilson
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Harvey, et al. v. Massage Envy of Tennessee, LLC
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tina L. Milam, et al. v. Titlemax of Tennessee, et al.
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Herbert N. Jackson v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission’s dismissal of Appellant’s claim against the Madison County Circuit Court for alleged sentencing errors made in Appellant’s criminal case. The Commission dismissed the claim on the ground of judicial immunity. Appellant appeals. Because the Appellant failed to timely file his notice of appeal, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Beverly Meadow v. D & G Limited Assortments, Inc.
The trial court granted a directed verdict pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 in favor of the defendant in a premises liability action. The court found the defendant did not have constructive notice of the defective condition stating, “the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof of more likely than not that this unsafe condition existed for a period of time in order to be corrected or warned about[.]” The plaintiff, who sustained a broken femur when the automatic sliding glass door at the front of the grocery store closed on her, presented an expert witness who testified that “the immediate cause of the accident was the failure of the presence sensing capability” of the automatic door. The expert testified that had the defendant conducted daily safety checks of the sensors in the proper manner, the defendant would have known that they were not functioning properly, and the likelihood the sensors first failed on the day of the incident “was extremely small.” Whether the defendant conducted daily safety checks in the appropriate manner was disputed. Taking the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff while discarding all evidence to the contrary as Rule 50.01 requires, we have concluded the evidence is sufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide whether the defendant had constructive notice in time to remedy or warn customers of the defective condition of the door. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Corey A. Adams v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al.
The Disciplinary Board of the Turney Center Industrial Complex convicted Petitioner of assault based upon his involvement in a gang stabbing of another inmate, the conviction was affirmed by the Commissioner of the Department of Correction. Petitioner then filed this common law writ of certiorari with the Chancery Court of Hickman County to challenge his conviction. The trial court granted the writ and the administrative record was filed with the trial court. Thereafter, on motion of the respondents, the trial court denied relief to Petitioner on the grounds that the record demonstrated that the disciplinary board had not acted illegally,arbitrarily,or exceeded its jurisdiction,and that Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated. Finding no error, we affirmed. Petitioner then filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application to the Supreme Court, which granted the application and remanded to this court with instructions to address the issue of whether the trial court“ improperly dismissed the writ of certiorari without first disposing of [Petitioner’s] pretrial motions.” After requesting supplemental briefs on the issue, we have concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the writ of certiorari without first disposing of Petitioner’s motions. We reach this decision because we are unable to conclude that the outcome of the petition could not have been affected had the trial court granted some or all of the motions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph J. Levitt, Jr. v. City of Oak Ridge, Et Al.
Joseph J. Levitt, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) appeals the dismissal of his suit against the City of Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge Board of Building and Housing Appeals, and Denny Boss (“Defendants”) entered by the Chancery Court for Anderson County (“the Trial Court”). We find and hold, as did the Trial Court, that Plaintiff’s suit is barred by res judicata, and we affirm. We further find and hold Plaintiff’s appeal to be frivolous and remand to the Trial Court for an award of damages for frivolous appeal. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jewell M.
Father of Child filed a petition seeking parenting time with Child when she was four years old. Mother sought retroactive child support from Father dating back to Child’s birth. The trial court entered an order stating that the child support arrearage would be measured from the date Father filed his petition. The permanent parenting plan order that was entered the same day, however, was inconsistent and indicated that the arrearage would be measured from the date of Child’s birth. Father appealed, arguing that the order measuring the child support arrearage from the date of the petition should control. The record contains no transcript or statement of the evidence, and we cannot determine which order contains the correct date. We vacate the portion of the trial court’s judgments relating to Father’s child support arrearage and remand the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. Should the court determine the child support arrearage should date back to the filing of the petition rather than to Child’s birth, the court will have an opportunity to make findings supporting such a deviation from the child support guidelines, as required by the applicable statutes and guidelines. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Stanley Dennis Waters, et al v. Benny Joe Pendergrass, et al.
Stanley Dennis Waters (“the plaintiff”), a detective with the Polk 2 County Sheriff’s Department, was seriously injured when the Polk County vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by one of the two named defendants and driven by the other named defendant (collectively “the Named Defendants”). The plaintiff’s vehicle was being driven by the Sheriff of Polk County. The plaintiff and his wife sued the Named Defendants. Process and a copy of the complaint were served3 upon two unnamed parties, Tennessee Risk Management Trust (“TRMT”) and Markel Corporation4 (collectively “the Unnamed Parties”). The suit against the Named Defendants was settled for the full amount of the liability limits of their respective casualty insurance policies. The plaintiffs seek to recover uninsured5 motorist benefits from the Unnamed Parties. The plaintiffs and the Unnamed Parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion of the Unnamed Parties and denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
James Ray Mynatt v. Charlene Mynatt Lemarr, et al.
This appeal involves property that the plaintiff alleged was transferred by a deed with a forged signature. The plaintiff filed an action to have the deed, filed over a decade earlier, set aside. The defendants contended that the signature on the deed was an authorized assisted signature, and was recorded and published within a few days after it was made. The defendants further asserted that they had no obligation to announce to anyone they had obtained the property. The trial court found the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof necessary to void the deed. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Smith Stewart v. Johnnie Stewart
This is the second appeal in this matter involving applicability of the parties’ agreement, embodied in their 1997 final decree of divorce, regarding issues related to the dissolution of their marriage. In May 2012, the husband sought to terminate his alimony obligation pursuant to said agreement, citing a material change of circumstances affecting his ability to pay. The trial court dismissed the husband’s motion, concluding that the language of the parties’ agreement rendered his alimony obligation non-modifiable. Husband timely appealed. Because we determine the husband’s alimony obligation to be modifiable, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the husband’s motion and remand this action to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the husband’s alimony obligation is warranted. We vacate the trial court’s taxing of court costs to Husband, and we deny Husband’s request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Rock-Tenn Converting Company, et al. v. The City of Memphis, et al.
The dispute in this case arises from a contract for recycling services entered into by the City of Memphis and a recycling vendor. A competing recycling vendor and a citizen and taxpayer of the City of Memphis filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to void the contract, on the ground that the contract was subject to the City of Memphis’s competitive bidding procedure. The trial court determined that, because the City of Memphis did not expend any monies in connection with its recycling contract, the contract was not subject to competitive bidding. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Memphis and its recycling vendor and this appeal followed. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Chris Eric Strickland v. Pennye Danielle Strickland
In the first appeal in this divorce action, the case was remanded for the trial court to adopt a parenting plan that increased Mother’s parenting time and to adjust her child support obligation accordingly. Mother appeals the order entered on remand,contending that the trial court failed to give her meaningful parenting time as directed and by imputing income to her based on a finding that she is voluntarily underemployed. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Byrge v. Stacey Campfield, et al.
This is a defamation case. Based on information that he received from a political source, then State Representative Stacey Campfield (“Campfield”) posted remarks on his blog alleging that candidate for State House Roger Byrge (“Byrge”) had been arrested on drugrelated charges. The information, however, turned out to be false. Byrge lost the election and sued Campfield for defamation in the Circuit Court for Campbell County (“the Trial Court”). Campfield, asserting that at the time of the posting he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information, moved for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Campfield’s motion. Byrge appealed. We hold that the record before us in this case concerning the alleged defamation of a public figure contains evidence that is clear and convincing from which a trier of fact could find actual malice in Campfield’s publication of false statements about Byrge. We reverse the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings on Byrge’s claims against Campfield for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Lois Whitten
Creditor filed a claim against deceased debtor’s estate. Administrator of the estate filed an exception to the claim, alleging that it was not filed within the four-month period following publication of the Notice to Creditors. The Chancery Court, Gibson County, George R. Ellis, J. allowed the claim after finding that the notice provided to Creditor was insufficient to constitute “actual notice” of the probate proceedings, and thus the one-year limitation period for filing claims applied. Administrator appealed. We affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ra'niyah T.
This is a child custody and visitation case. After protracted litigation, and the entry of several temporary orders on visitation, the trial court implemented a permanent custody and visitation schedule. Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s designation of Appellee/Father as the child’s primary residential parent, and also appeals the trial court’s award of Father’s attorney fees. Discerning no error, we affirm. Affirmed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Scarlett Robbins Goodman v. Temitope "Michael" Bamiji Ogunmola
This appeal involves Defendant’s motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in a divorce action. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, TN v. The Board of Zoning Appeals of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, et al
Company which builds and manages billboards applied to the Metropolitan Department of Codes and Building Safety for permits to convert two static billboards to digital billboards. When the applications were denied by the Zoning Administrator, the company appealed to the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, which reversed the administrator’s decision and granted the permits. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Board’s decision; the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the Metropolitan Government did not have standing to bring the proceeding. We reverse the decision and remand for further proceedings |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Hayden L.E.B.
Rebecca H. and Christopher H. (“Petitioners”) filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Kayla H. (“Mother”) and Aaron B. (“Father”) to the minor child Hayden L.E.B. (“the Child”). After a trial the Juvenile Court for Knox County 1 (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated Father’s parental rights to the Child after finding clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) for abandonment by willful failure to pay support and abandonment by wanton disregard and clear and convincing evidence that it was in the Child’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to this Court. We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings made by clear and convincing evidence, and we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
