In Re Anna W. ET AL.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights, arguing that it erred in denying her motion to continue the trial and in considering hearsay evidence in its best interests analysis. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's order terminating mother's parental rights. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
James Keith Eudaley v. U.S. Bank National Association
A loan was secured by a deed of trust on the borrower’s real property. When the borrower repaid the loan in full, the bank paid a fee to record a deed of release. The bank then sought reimbursement of the fee from the borrower. The borrower filed a putative class action suit, alleging that Tennessee law prohibited the bank from seeking reimbursement of the recording fee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that federal regulations preempted the borrower’s claims. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
STJ, L.P. v. Wanda Kaye Duke Frensley et al.
This case involves a decedent’s alleged wrongful transfer of real property, without fair consideration, out of a limited partnership in which he had served as general partner. Presently at issue is the trial court’s dismissal of claims brought against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate and the decedent’s wife. Although the partnership appeals the decision of the trial court and challenges, among other things, the trial court’s determination that a claim involving breach of fiduciary duty by the decedent is timebarred, we affirm the trial court’s judgment for the reasons stated herein.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Aiden W.-L.
In this custody case, Appellant/Mother asserts that the trial court erred in its best interest analysis by failing to consider the preference of the minor child under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a)(13). As such, she contends that the trial court erred in designating Father/Appellee the primary residential parent. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Nikki Leanne Miles v. James Kurt Miles
This case involves a long-standing and highly contentious custody matter. Upon competing petitions to modify the existing parenting plan, the trial court determined that it was in the best interest of the child for Mother to remain the child’s primary residential parent. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court did not properly weigh the best interest factors as it pertained to the child in reaching its decision. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Mona J. Small
The trial court awarded the estate of Mona Small (“the Estate”) a judgment in the amount of $26,515 against appellants Kevin J. Elliott and Heather R. Elliott, based on its finding that the Elliotts converted that amount when Ms. Small was residing with them. Because the Elliotts’ brief was untimely filed and wholly fails to comply with the applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal. We also grant the Estate’s request to find this appeal frivolous, and we remand to the trial court for a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal to be awarded to the Estate. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah R. Chase v. Christopher W. Chase
This appeal involves matters of alimony and valuation of marital property upon the divorce of the parties, who were married for twenty-four years. Following its valuation of certain marital assets, the trial court distributed the parties’ substantial marital assets in near-equal shares. The trial court awarded to the wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro based on its determinations that the wife had demonstrated a need for alimony and that the husband had the ability to pay. The husband has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s spousal support award in its entirety. We also affirm the trial court’s value placed on the husband’s medical practice. Exercising our discretion, we decline to award attorney’s fees to the wife on appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Ross ET AL. v. Alisie Jackson ET AL
Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident with Defendant and allegedly sustained personal injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Shelby County General Sessions Court but were unable to get personal service on Defendant. Ultimately, Plaintiffs issued service by publication. Defendant, having never been personally served, did not appear for trial in the General Sessions Court, and Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against her. The General Sessions Court judgment was not timely appealed and became final. Plaintiffs made a demand on Defendant's insurance carrier to pay the judgment. Counsel purporting to represent Defendant on behalf of her insurance carrier subsequently filed a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court. Plaintiffs objected to counsel's standing to appear on behalf of Defendant, but the Circuit Court granted the writ of certiorari and later granted counsel's motion to dismiss the case, finding that counsel had standing to litigate on behalf of Defendant pursuant to the court's interpretation of a contract of insurance that was not in evidence. We conclude that the trial court's conclusion as to standing was erroneous. Accordingly, we vacate the orders entered by the trial court in the proceedings and dismiss the writ. Tenn. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Keith Lamont Farmer v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
Keith Lamont Farmer (the “Petitioner”), an inmate in the West Tennessee State Penitentiary (“WTSP”), filed suit against Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC” or “the State”) after Petitioner received a disciplinary infraction. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Lauderdale County (the “trial court”) seeking review of the disciplinary proceedings. The State filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Petitioner’s case was barred by Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-812. The trial court granted the State’s motion, and Petitioner appealed to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Louise Ship Green
Appellant filed an objection to the probate of Decedent’s will, and Appellee, the Executrix of Decedent’s estate, filed a motion to dismiss the objection. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion, dismissed Appellant’s objection for lack of standing, and admitted Decedent’s will to probate. Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and also asserts that she received no notice of the hearing on Appellee’s motion. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Kindred, et al. v. Evelyn Townsend, et al.
This negligence action arises from the collision of Plaintiff/Appellee’s Mercedes convertible with a tractor-trailer operated by Defendant/Appellant in the scope of her employment. The trial court determined that Appellant was more than 50 percent at fault for the accident and apportioned 75 percent fault to Appellant and 25 percent fault to Plaintiff/Appellee. The trial court also determined that Defendant/Appellant employer was vicariously liable for the damages awarded. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
L.A.S. v. C.W.H.
This is a custody dispute over two minor children, P.H. and V.H. (together, “the Children”). The Children’s mother, L.A.S. (“Mother”), lives in Nevada, while the Children live primarily in Tennessee with their father, C.W.H. (“Father”), and his wife (“Stepmother”). Father is the primary residential parent, and Mother sees the Children over the summers and during their breaks from school. On June 12, 2020, Mother filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (the “juvenile court”). Mother asked to be named primary residential parent. Following a three-day bench trial, the juvenile court dismissed Mother’s petition. The juvenile court determined that no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custod had occurred. Mother timely appealed to this Court. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Sharon Toomes v. D & S Motors, et al.
Pro se appellant appeals the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant following a bench trial. Because we conclude that Appellant has waived all arguments by failing to file a substantially compliant brief or a transcript or statement of the evidence, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda N. Burnett v. Aaron L. Burnett
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers of Benton County, Tennessee
After a delinquent tax sale of land owned by a limited liability corporation, the managing member filed a motion to redeem the property pro se, signing only his own name. The trial court deemed admitted requests for admission propounded on purported redeemer individually after only the entity responded. Relying in part on the admissions, the trial court granted the tax sale purchaser’s motion to strike the attempt at redemption for lack of standing. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Perry v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
An inmate convicted of first-degree murder in 1999 filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the Tennessee Department of Correction’s calculation of his release eligibility date. The trial court granted the Tennessee Department of Correction’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah Russell v. HSBC, Inc. et al.
A pro se plaintiff filed a 543-page complaint containing improper allegations and claims. The trial court struck the complaint and ordered the plaintiff to refile. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint of less than half the length, but containing many of the same deficiencies as the original complaint. The court again struck the offensive portions and ordered the plaintiff to refile. The court also dismissed several of the defendants because the amended complaint failed to state a claim against them for which the court could grant relief. Rather than file a second amended complaint, the plaintiff moved several times to recuse the trial judge. Having failed to file a proper complaint within the time specified, the court dismissed the case. We affirm.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Scott Austermiller v. Penny Smith Austermiller
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal in a pending divorce action. The husband moved for recusal based on comments the presiding judge made after the husband failed a court-ordered drug test. The judge stated from the bench, “If I could put [the husband] in drug court, I would. It’s a two-year program. I would certainly love for him to be in that. Unfortunately, he doesn’t qualify because it’s not for domestic. It’s for criminal.” In the order denying the husband’s motion, the judge stated: “the Court made these suggestions only to help [the husband] get well and beat his addiction so he can be a father to his two children.” The court also found that the husband filed his motion “for an improper purpose, i.e., to delay the litigation.” We have concluded that the motion was not filed for an improper purpose; however, we find the evidence is insufficient to prompt a reasonable, disinterested person to believe that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for recusal is affirmed.
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Wayne Haddix d/b/a 385 Ventures, Inc. v. Jayton Stinson, et al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in the petition, the appeal is hereby dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brandon Copeland v. Tennessee Department of Correction
The appellant, a former Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) employee, challenges the Tennessee Board of Appeals’ decision upholding his dismissal as an employee due to actions allegedly constituting official misconduct and tampering with evidence. The appellant requests that this Court overrule or modify the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in Tenn. Dep’t of Corr. v. Pressley, 528 S.W.3d 506 (Tenn. 2017), which this Court lacks authority to do. Although we conclude that the appellant has waived his remaining two issues on appeal by failing to provide legal authority or argument, we further conclude that the Tennessee Board of Appeals’ decision was supported by substantial and material evidence. We therefore affirm the Davidson County Chancery Court’s final judgment dismissing the appellant’s petition for judicial review with prejudice. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy R. Durham v. Tennessee Registry of Election Finance
This case involves the imposition of a civil penalty by the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance as the result of multiple violations of the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act and the Campaign Contribution Limits Act. An appeal of the Registry’s decision was decided by an Administrative Law Judge who generally affirmed the decision of the Registry but significantly reduced the civil penalty. After further review by the Registry, the penalty was largely reinstated. Upon further appeal, the Chancery Court affirmed the decision of the Registry. We affirm.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Kimberly Krepela Hoard v. Richard Lane Barrom
In this Title IV-D child support case, the juvenile court modified a father’s child support obligation pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines after the child had reached the age of majority and had graduated high school. We vacate and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Molly Leann Green v. Michael Wayne Green
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by Molly Leann Green (“Mother”), seeking to recuse the judge in this case involving parenting issues. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Mother and the answer filed by Michael Wayne Green (“Father”) pursuant to this Court’s order, and finding no error, we affirm. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
Appellant/Mother filed a post-divorce petition for contempt against Appellee/Father for alleged violations of the parenting plan. Mother also moved to change the child’s primary residential parent from Father to her. The trial court held that there was no contempt and further held that there was not a material change in circumstances to warrant a change in the child’s primary residential parent. Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey Lee Self v. Jennifer Dawn Self
In this divorce action the husband raises multiple issues on appeal concerning, inter alia, the factual accuracy of the trial court’s judgment; the trial court’s grant of divorce to the wife on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct; the trial court’s equitable distribution of the marital property, including the trial court’s one-time award to the wife of $50,000 as part of the distribution; the trial court’s findings concerning the husband’s income, expenses, and ability to work; and the trial court’s award to the wife of $3,000 in attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. The husband has not directly raised an issue regarding the trial court’s award to the wife of $850 monthly as alimony in futuro. We determine that with the exception of one issue related to the trial court’s miscalculation of the marriage’s duration, which we deem to have been harmless error, the husband has waived all issues by failing to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b)-(c) and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 7. We accordingly affirm the trial court’s judgment. Deeming this to be a frivolous appeal, we grant the wife’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal and post-judgment interest on the trial court’s alimony awards. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals |
