Karen Deonne Stamps v. Roy Denton Stamps, Jr. - Dissenting
I respectfully, but with a lack of total commitment, disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s denial of Wife’s motion to alter or amend and to remand this matter for the trial court to further consider the motion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Mezo v. Jennifer (Peterson) Marker
Father filed petition to modify a parenting plan, asserting that a material change of circumstance had occurred since the entry of the original parenting plan and seeking to be named primary residential parent. At the close of Father’s proof, Mother moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the evidence did not show a material change of circumstance; the court denied the motion and adjourned the hearing, expressing a desire to hear testimony from the child’s counselor and receive evidence regarding the child’s performance in school. Following the adjourned hearing, the court granted Father’s petition. Mother appeals, asserting that the court erred in denying the motion to dismiss and hearing further proof, in granting Father’s petition and in making certain evidentiary rulings. Father appeals the court’s award of attorney fees to Mother. We vacate the award of attorney fees and remand the case for entry of a supplemental order relative to the award; in other respects the judgment is affirmed. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Timmons Austin v. Benjamin Holt Gray
This appeal arises from the modification of a parenting plan in a post-divorce action. In the initial Permanent Parenting Plan, Mother was designated the primary residential parent of their son. Four years later, Father filed a Petition to Modify the Parenting Plan, alleging that multiple material changes in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be the primary residential parent. While the petition was pending, Mother was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility; immediately thereafter, on Father’s pendente lite motion, the trial court designated Father as primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority pending further adjudication. Father then amended his Petition to enumerate additional material changes. Some eight months later, the trial court conducted a trial. The court found that Mother’s mental health, Mother’s attitude and untoward actions directed at Father, the child’s manipulation and power struggles with his parents; the child’s enrollment in an out-of-state boarding school, and multiple other factors demonstrated that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in their son’s best interest for Father to serve as the primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority. Mother appeals claiming the trial court erred in determining that a material change in circumstances existed and that a modification was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Robert Lee Abbott
Residuary legatees appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to disallow compensation for executrix and estate’s attorney. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Reginald Tutton v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, et al.
Inmate was serving a 47-year sentence for rape and attempted first degree murder. Inmate had a parole hearing in 2011, when he had 19 years of his sentence left to serve. Parole was denied, and Inmate’s next parole hearing was scheduled to take place six years later. Inmate challenged Parole Board’s decision to defer his next parole hearing for six years. The trial court held the Board acted lawfully in deferring Inmate’s next parole hearing for six years. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on appeal. Board members serve for staggered six-year terms, and Inmate will not be denied the opportunity for new Board members to review his request for parole six years from the date of his last hearing. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of K.A.P.
This is a dependency and neglect appeal. The father of the child at issue filed a dependency and neglect petition in the juvenile court against the child’s mother. The juvenile court held that the parties’ son was dependent and neglected and designated the father as the primary residential parent. The mother appealed the juvenile court’s decision to the circuit court. The circuit court conducted a de novo trial on the father’s dependency and neglect petition. The circuit court noted the mother’s past drug use but also found that the mother had consistently had clean drug tests since the juvenile court proceeding. Nevertheless, the circuit court held that the child was dependent and neglected, so it left the father as the primary residential parent. The mother now appeals. Based on our review of the record, we hold that the facts as found by the circuit court do not amount to clear and convincing evidence that the son was dependent and neglected in the mother’s care. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara A. Lynch, et al v. Loudon County, Tennessee, et al
In this wrongful death action, the plaintiffs alleged that after the deceased was involved in a single car accident, the investigating officer improperly allowed her to continue driving, resulting in her death when she had another wreck shortly thereafter. In the initial lawsuit, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that the public duty doctrine applied and granted the motion. After the plaintiffs appealed, we held that under the public duty doctrine, disputed material evidence existed as to whether the officer assumed a specific duty to protect the deceased but then discontinued his aid and protection to her, thereby leaving her in a worse position than she was in before he intervened. We therefore reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Lynch v. Loudon Cnty., No. E2010-02231-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 4952778 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2011). Upon remand the trial court found that the special duty exception did not apply and the public duty doctrine was a complete bar to the plaintiffs’ action. The court additionally concluded that Restatement (2nd) of Torts section 324 was not applicable and even if fault was compared, the fault of the deceased exceeded that of the officer by more than fifty percent. Accordingly, the trial court found that the claims of the plaintiffs must be denied. The plaintiffs again appeal. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Miljenovic v. Sherri E. Miljenovic
This interlocutory appeal concerns an interstate custody dispute. Father attempted to register and modify the child custody provisions of a New Jersey judgment in Tennessee. Mother agreed to the registration but objected to the modification because she believed the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the judgment. The trial court disagreed and registered and modified the judgment. Mother pursued this extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Following our review, we hold that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Marvin Sutton
The plaintiff, who is the decedent’s daughter, filed this will contest action regarding the estate of the decedent on April 24, 2012. A previous will contest proceeding brought by another daughter of the decedent had been dismissed by the trial court through an order entered February 7, 2012. The trial court dismissed the instant will contest as barred by the final judgment in the previous in rem proceeding. The plaintiff appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Wal-Mart Stores East, L. P. v. North Edgefield Organized Neighbors, Inc.
This appeal arises from a Complaint to Quiet Title and for Declaratory Relief filed by WalMart Stores East, L.P. Pursuant to a 2008 Quitclaim Deed, Wal-Mart conveyed, subject to a reversion clause, a one-quarter acre parcel to the defendant upon which stood a 1930’s era Fire Hall. The reversion clause states, in pertinent part, that fee-simple ownership of the property shall revert to Wal-Mart in the event the improvements are subject to any casualty. “Casualty” is defined in the deed to include a fire that results in damage to all or substantially all of the Fire Hall or damage that is not repaired within 180 days after the occurrence of such casualty. It is undisputed that substantially all of the Fire Hall was damaged following a fire that occurred on December 1, 2011. This action ensued, and Wal-Mart subsequently filed a motion for summary judgement contending fee-simple title reverted to Wal-Mart due to the December 2011 casualty. The defendant did not dispute the fact that substantially all of the Fire Hall was damaged by the fire; nevertheless, the defendant opposed the motion on the basis that the term “casualty,” as defined in the deed, is ambiguous. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that the term “casualty” was clear and unambiguous, that the damage resulting from the December 2011 fire constituted a casualty, and that the property reverted back to Wal-Mart. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioner. The defendant appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Charles W. McGinnis
George E. Copple, Jr., and Suzette Peyton, attorneys who represented the administrator of the decedent’s probate estate, appeal from an order of the trial court holding them personally liable for expenses incurred by a non-party in responding to a subpoena duces tecum. One year after the subpoena was issued and the expenses were incurred by non-party Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., to comply with the subpoena, the attorneys for the administrator of the estate filed a motion to withdraw. Merrill Lynch did not object to the motion to withdraw, but did file a response requesting that its expenses to comply with the subpoena be assessed against the attorneys personally. The trial court granted leave to withdraw; however, the court did not relieve the attorneys as sureties for “costs to date including and limited to $776.00 incurred by Merrill Lynch in the reproduction of materials produced by Merrill Lynch to counsel for the Administrator.” In its order, the trial court stated that its ruling was based upon the record as a whole, including, but not limited to, Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 45. No other authority was cited in the order. The attorneys appeal. Being unable to identify any authority upon which to hold the attorneys personally liable for the expense of a non-party to comply with a subpoena duces tecum, we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kristina Morris v. Jimmy Phillips, et al.
A multi-vehicle accident occurred in August 2010. The plaintiff initially named only one of the drivers involved in the accident along with the record owner of the driver’s vehicle. The record owner filed an answer identifying three other drivers/tortfeasors involved in the accident in December 2011,and the driver identified the same three individuals as tortfeasors in his answer that was filed seven months later, in July 2012. The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint adding the individuals identified as defendants until August2012, which was more than 90 days after the first answer was filed. One of the individuals named as a defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff waited too late to add her as a defendant. The trial court denied the motion. The late-added defendant appealed, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rebecca Webb v. Mark Thomas Webb
Father appeals the trial court’s amended judgment in this divorce action. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
William Lane Lanier v. Corie J. Dizol (F/K/A Lanier)
Court in post-divorce modification of custody action dismissed Mother’s motion to alter or amend the order adopting parenting plan proposed by Father, holding that the motion was unsigned and not promptly corrected as allowed by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.01. Having determined that the motion was properly signed, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand the case for consideration of the motion. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, on Relation of the Commissioner of Transportation v. E.G. Meek, et al
This appeal arises from a condemnation action. The State of Tennessee (“the State”) acquired real property owned by E. G. Meek (“Meek”) and Shirley T. Meek. The acquisition of the property is not at issue. Rather, the dispute is over the amount of money Meek is entitled to receive from the State. This case was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”). Meek and the State’s expert witness testified. The jury reached, and the Trial Court approved, a verdict for $15,250. Meek had sought considerably more money at trial for his property than the $15,250 awarded by the jury. On appeal, Meek alleges numerous errors, such as that the Trial Court erroneously allowed certain evidence to be admitted and that the Trial Judge failed to properly exercise his responsibility as thirteenth juror. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Rebecca J.R.M.
The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Christopher W.C. (“Father”) to the minor child Rebecca J.R.M. (“the Child”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence was proven that grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Child pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113 (g)(2) and (g)(9)(A), and that clear and convincing evidence was proven that it was in the Child’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. Father appeals to this Court. We affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights to the Child. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Karen Renae Aleo v. Joe Weyant
Client sued her former attorney for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from the attorney’s failure to include in the marital dissolution agreement, prepared for the client and incorporated into Final Divorce Decree, provisions that would permit the client to receive one-half of her husband’s military pension and to be listed as the beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan following their divorce. The trial court granted summary judgment to the attorney on the grounds that the statute of limitations had passed on the malpractice and the breach of contract claims and that the evidence did not support a finding of serious mental injurysufficient to support the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim; client appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Aretha Moss v. Shelby County Division of Corrections, et al.
Petitioner/Appellant was terminated from her position with the Shelby County Division of Corrections for violating the Division’s Standards of Conduct and for untruthfulness. The Civil Service Merit Board affirmed. On appeal, the Chancery Court for Shelby County affirmed the Board’s decision. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ike J. White, III v. David A. Beeks, M.D.
This appeal involves the question of whether the trial court properly limited a medical expert’s testimony at trial regarding the standard of care in an informed consent health care liability action. In the case at bar, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to limit the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert at trial regarding risks that should have been disclosed to the plaintiff to only those risks that actually resulted in injury. The trial court granted the motion. A jury trial was held, and the jury found in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals, asserting that the trial court committed reversible error when it restricted the ability of the plaintiff’s medical expert to testify about other known risks. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Ike J. White, III v. David A. Beeks, M.D. - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority to affirm the Trial Court. I believe the Trial Court did commit reversible error when it limited Plaintiff’s medical expert’s testimony at trial regarding the standard of care in this health care liability informed consent action. Specifically, I do not believe that the Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony on what risks should have been disclosed to the Plaintiff to meet the acceptable standard of care for informed consent should have been limited to disclosure of only those risks that actually came to pass. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Ike J. White, III v. David A. Beeks, M.D. - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to further address the causation aspect of the trial court’s rationale in excluding portions of Dr. Law’s testimony. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan Burke Skelton v. Freese Construction Company, Inc.
This appeal involves the enforceability of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The trial court found the agreement was not unconscionable, but that the defendant had waived its right to enforce the agreement. We reverse the decision of the chancery court and we remand for entry of an order compelling arbitration. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: David L. R. et al
The parents of six children appeal the termination of their parental rights. The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents on two grounds, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans and persistence of conditions, and the determination that termination of both parents rights was in the best interests of the children. We affirm. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Brown v. Gossett Kia-Hyundai South d/b/a Gossett Kia South and Gossett Hyundai South
Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of an order of the trial court which failed to adjudicate all claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jacobe M.J.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1102(1)(A)(i). We conclude that the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support is met by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and that there is also clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights is in the child's best interest. Affirmed and remanded. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals |
