Nedra R. Hastings v. Larry M. Hastings, Jr., et al.
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Santana M., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (3) persistence of conditions; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility; and (5) abandonment by an incarcerated parent. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Hunters Point Quarry LLC v. Metropolitan Government of Hartsville and Trousdale County, Tennessee et al.
A county regional planning commission denied the petitioner’s application to place a quarry in an agricultural zone. The zoning laws included certain requirements for quarrying. None of the zones, however, permitted quarrying, and all the zones prohibited any unpermitted uses. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county respondents, concluding that the planning commission did not act illegally, capriciously, fraudulently, or without material evidence. Because the zoning laws for the agricultural zone did not permit quarrying and explicitly prohibited unpermitted uses, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Trousdale | Court of Appeals | |
Brittany Sharayah Lehmann v. Jerry Scott Wilson
This appeal concerns custody and child support determinations regarding a minor child. Because the trial court failed to identify and employ the applicable legal standard, we vacate the judgment as to the limitation of Father’s parenting time, the imposition of supervised parenting time, and the suspension of Father’s parental rights. Additionally, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees to Mother because the trial court failed to determine their reasonableness. The judgment is otherwise affirmed as to the remaining issues and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Howard Levy v. James Franks et al.
This appeal concerns claims for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and enforcement of a local zoning ordinance. The plaintiff, Howard Levy, alleged that his neighbor, James Franks, engaged in an intentional and malicious course of conduct that included paving over a corner of Levy’s property, building a wooden fence along Levy’s property line, and routing construction vehicles over the parties’ shared driveway. Levy also alleged that the fence violated the Zoning Ordinance of Franklin, Tennessee, and that Franks was operating a construction company on his property in violation of the same. The trial court dismissed Levy’s fence-zoning claim at the summary judgment stage because he had not produced evidence that he was “specially damaged” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2). At the close of Levy’s proof during the bench trial, the court dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02. The court also enjoined Levy from interfering with the installation of underground power lines under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04(2). This appeal followed. We conclude the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the injunction, which was unrelated to any of the underlying claims, but we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell D. Horst, et al. v. Gary Gaar
The Plaintiffs filed suit against the former father-in-law of one of the Plaintiffs, complaining that, following alleged statements the former father-in-law made to a third party, the third party moved money that had been invested with the former son-in-law. The former father-in-law sought to dismiss the claims that were asserted against him, both pursuant to a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and pursuant to a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After initially dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim and denying a motion to alter or amend, the trial court held a separate hearing regarding dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act was appropriate and concluded that the former father-in-law was entitled to costs and attorney’s fees in connection with this litigation, both in relation to the Tennessee Public Participation Act petition and the Rule 12 dismissal. For the specific reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal under Rule 12, vacate its dismissal—and award of costs and attorney’s fees—under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, and affirm the award of costs and attorney’s fees that stemmed from the trial court’s Rule 12 dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Daniel W. Et Al.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brian Z. Et Al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing that termination was not in his child’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Tray Simmons v. Dr. Shahidul Islam et al.
A patient brought a health care liability action against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s employer, alleging the psychiatrist engaged in improper sexualized conduct that caused him psychological injury. The patient secured an expert witness in support of his suit, but the expert withdrew following the expert’s deposition. The patient obtained a new expert witness. However, relying on the cancellation rule, the trial court determined a conflict existed between the second expert’s affidavit and deposition testimony relating to the issue of damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and also granted the defendants’ request for an award of discretionary costs. The patient appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Rome W.
The juvenile court terminated a mother’s parental rights to two of her children. The mother appealed and challenges the court’s determination that clear and convincing evidence established grounds for termination and that termination of her rights was in the children’s best interests. We find no error and affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Julie Michelle Garret (Mix) v. Keith Douglas Garrett
A husband appeals the trial court’s final judgment of divorce with respect to two issues. Because the husband failed to comply with the applicable briefing rules, we have concluded that he waived his first issue. We find no support for the husband’s second issue. Having determined that the husband’s appeal is frivolous, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand to the trial court for the assessment of damages. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jolene S.
In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, the appellant’s oral motion for recusal made during trial was denied. She then filed a written motion for recusal that apparently has yet to be resolved by the trial court. Because no order denying the motion has been entered, we dismiss the appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Tayla R.
This appeal concerns the termination of parental rights. Tamara R. (“Mother”) is the mother of minor child Tayla R. (“the Child”). Jesse R. (“Legal Father”) is the Child’s legal father, having married Mother on the day that the Child was born. The Child was removed into state custody based on Mother’s drug use while pregnant and environmental concerns in the home. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), and the Child’s foster parents Autumn M. (“Foster Mother”) and Drannon M. (“Foster Father”) (“Foster Parents,” collectively), filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Putnam County (“the Chancery Court”) seeking to terminate Mother’s and Legal Father’s parental rights to the Child. The Chancery Court terminated Mother’s and Legal Father’s parental rights on several grounds. Aside from a few token visits with the Child, Mother and Legal Father essentially did nothing on their case, declining to cooperate with DCS or even allow DCS inside their residence, an RV camper. Neither Mother nor Legal Father paid any child support whatsoever for the Child. We affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Donald Patrick Burns
A decedent’s stepchildren filed a complaint contesting ownership of a portion of his twenty-acre property. They asserted theories of adverse possession, express oral trust, and breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Because we conclude that the allegations of an express oral trust and breach of contract are sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss, we reverse in part. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Guardianship of Beatrice Rose Malone - Dissenting
For disobedience of or resistance to a court order to constitute contempt, four elements must be satisfied. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton Cty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 354 (Tenn. 2008); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102(3) (2024) (defining the scope of a court’s contempt power). This case turns on the second of the four: whether “the order alleged to have been violated . . . [was] clear, specific, and unambiguous.” Konvalinka, 249 S.W.3d at 354. Because the order here was not sufficiently specific to support the finding of contempt, I would reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Caz H. et al.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to six children based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and severe abuse. The trial court further concluded that terminating the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Guardianship of Beatrice Rose Malone
Katherine Malone died in an accident in Idaho. Her ex-husband, Patrick Malone, was named guardian of their child, Beatrice Rose Malone (“Rosie”). A trust (“the Tennessee Trust”) was established in Davidson County, Tennessee, for all funds due to Rosie. Katherine Malone’s parents, James William Rose and Jennie Adams Rose (“the Roses”) were the personal representatives of her estate and “Limited Trust Protectors,” of the Tennessee Trust. Mr. Malone, as Rosie’s guardian, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Idaho and recovered a settlement. The settlement funds were placed in a trust Mr. Malone established in Missouri with Blue Ridge Bank and Trust. The Roses filed this action to transfer the funds to the Tennessee Trust and to find Mr. Malone in civil contempt. The Probate Court agreed with the Roses, finding Mr. Malone in civil contempt and ordering that the funds be transferred to the Tennessee Trust. Mr. Malone and Blue Ridge Bank and Trust appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Janet Doe v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
Shortly after the City of Memphis (“the City”) made public announcements regarding untested sexual assault kits, three women filed a class action complaint alleging that the announcements caused them severe emotional distress. More than a year after the announcements, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add a new plaintiff. The three original plaintiffs’ claims were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the trial court based upon the statute of limitations. The City sought summary judgment against the only remaining plaintiff on the ground that her claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, and this Court granted the City’s petition for an interlocutory appeal. Concluding that the applicable statute of limitations barred the new plaintiff’s claims, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Logan R. McDavid v. Andrea Murray
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Janet Doe v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
This is an appeal from a class certification. Because the trial court failed to clearly define the class being certified, we are unable to proceed to review the trial court’s decision. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s certification order and remand for further proceedings as may be necessary. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson
Parents filed competing petitions to modify a parenting plan. The parents agreed there had been a material change in circumstances warranting a modification. But they disagreed over the residential custody schedule and decision-making provisions. After a hearing, the trial court modified the schedule and granted joint decision-making. Because neither decision was an abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Kedalo Construction, LLC et al. v. Linda Duygul Ward et al.
Ms. Ward hired Kedalo Construction LLC (“Kedalo”) to renovate her store. She claimed that the work was not completed or was not done properly. After Kedalo attempted to remedy the situation, Ms. Ward was still not satisfied. Kedalo then said she was not their problem anymore. Ms. Ward created a website and Facebook page criticizing the company. Kedalo sued for defamation. Ms. Ward responded with a petition to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After many filings and a deposition, the trial court dismissed the petition. Ms. Ward appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin W. Addis Et Al. v. Eagle CDI, Inc.
In this contract dispute, the trial court dismissed the petitioners’ claims of fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation predicated on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court also awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant. The petitioners have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Marie Roberts v. Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority
In this negligence action, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff, who is legally blind, had failed to present evidence that her fall from a street curb and resultant injury were caused by the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to make a courtesy stop at the location the plaintiff had requested for exiting a city bus. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Karl Raymond Duffy v. Jenifer Michele Duffy
In its divorce decree, the trial court “adopted” Wife’s proposed parenting plans without signing or attaching the plans. More than a year after the resolution of Husband’s subsequent motion to alter or amend, the trial court eventually signed the parenting plans pursuant to a motion to enter by Husband. Because we determine that Husband’s argument that the trial court’s order only became final when the plans were signed is without merit, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. Wife is awarded her appellate attorney’s fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
