Judy Webb v. Trevecca Center For Rehabilitation And Healing, LLC
This appeal concerns the dismissal of a health care liability action against a long-term care facility. The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff did not provide the long-term care facility with pre-suit notice of her claim as required by statute. The plaintiff argues that the notice she mailed to the facility’s administrator at the facility’s business address satisfied the statutory requirement. Because her letter was not directed to the facility, we affirm the dismissal of her complaint. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Arianna B.
This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. Amy B. (“Mother”) is the mother of the minor child Arianna B. (“the Child”). At Mother’s request, Kayla A. (“Petitioner”), the Child’s paternal aunt, assumed temporary custody of the Child. Petitioner later filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights. After trial, the Trial Court entered an order finding that Petitioner had proven the ground of failure to support and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals, arguing among other things that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1), as amended in 2018, is unconstitutional for shifting the burden of proof on willfulness to parents. As Mother failed to raise this issue below and the statute is not obviously unconstitutional on its face, we decline to consider Mother’s tardy constitutional challenge. We find the ground of failure to support was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and, by the same standard, that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Lillian W.
Father living in California had his parental rights terminated by default judgment. Father appealed, and we vacate the termination because the trial court failed to conduct a best interest analysis. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas John Pitera v. Samantha Pitera
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding. Husband is a resident of Connecticut with no ties to Tennessee. Wife and minor child, also former residents of Connecticut, have resided in Tennessee since December of 2018. Wife filed for divorce in Tennessee in May of 2019 and personally served Husband in Connecticut. Husband moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court thereafter entered a final decree of divorce in favor of Wife. Because we find that Wife was not a resident of Tennessee for six months preceding the filing of the complaint for divorce, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the divorce. The judgment of the trial court is vacated and dismissed. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Noah A.
This action involves the termination of both parents’ rights to a minor child. Following a trial, the Loudon County Juvenile Court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support five statutory grounds for termination of both parents’ rights: (1) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (2) abandonment by an incarcerated parent; (3) substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan; (4) persistence of conditions; and (5) failure to manifest an ability and a willingness to assume custody. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. Both parents appealed. We vacate in part and affirm in part. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Melanie Shea Thompson, Et Al. v. Southland Constructors Et Al.
This action involves a tragic accident resulting in the death of Tommy Smith (“Decedent”), who was working as a plumber connecting a sewer line when the trench he was in collapsed and crushed him. Decedent’s children (“Plaintiffs”) sued, among others, Focus Design Builders, LLC, general contractors for the building project, alleging negligence. The trial court granted Focus Design’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). The trial court held that Focus Design did not owe a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances because Decedent’s death was unforeseeable. We hold the complaint states a cause of action for negligence and consequently reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Edward R.
This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to two children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that four grounds for termination had been proven and that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on two grounds for termination but otherwise affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Edward R. - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
Although I concur with the end result reached by the majority in this case, I write separately to address two issues. First, while the majority correctly concludes that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated based upon the persistent conditions ground, more analysis is warranted in light of the sparseness of DCS’s case. Second, I must dissent from the majority’s decision to conclude, based on In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COAR3-PT, 2018 WL 3058280 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018), that DCS satisfied its burden of proving that Mother failed to manifest a willingness and ability to assume legal or physical custody of her children. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Alvin Lewis v. State Farm
Appellant was injured in an automobile accident, and a jury found that an unknown motorist was 100% at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellant. Thereafter, the trial court denied Appellant prejudgment interest on its finding that Appellant’s uninsured automobile insurance policy with Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company precludes an award of prejudgment interest. We conclude that the policy language “all damages” is sufficiently broad to include prejudgment interest. However, because the award of prejudgment interest is an equitable consideration within the discretion of the trial court, we decline to address Appellant’s issue concerning whether prejudgment interest is necessary and equitable in this case. This question is remanded to the trial court. Vacated and remanded. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Kerry Davis v. Garrettson Ellis, MD
This is a health care liability case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee/doctor finding that Appellant’s expert witness failed to connect the decedent’s death to Appellee’s alleged deviation from the standard of care. We conclude that Appellant presented sufficient evidence, at the summary judgment stage, to create a dispute of fact concerning deviation from the standard of care and causation. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Daphne Saunders v. Y-12 Federal Credit Union
The plaintiff, Daphne Saunders, filed a complaint against Y-12 Federal Credit Union (“Y-12”), alleging breach of the parties’ banking contract. Ms. Saunders asserted that Y- 12 had charged excessive fees for items presented for payment from Ms. Saunders’s account that were returned due to insufficient funds. Ms. Saunders also alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and asserted that Y-12 had been unjustly enriched by charging excessive fees. The trial court dismissed Ms. Saunders’s claims with prejudice, finding that Ms. Saunders had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ms. Saunders has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
MC Builders, LLC v. Fuad Reveiz, Et Al.
On the day of trial, the parties to this action, through counsel, settled the case amongst themselves and testified in open court as to the specific terms of the settlement and their consent thereto. One party filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, seeking to repudiate the settlement agreement before the trial court entered an order adopting the settlement and ordering judgment. We affirm the trial court’s decision. We also conclude the appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
New Phase Investments, LLC, et al. v. Elite RE Investments, LLC, et al.
An internecine conflict led to a suit asserting breach of contract and a variety of torts. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court deferred ruling on the motion. Instead, the court granted the plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction and ordered the parties to mediate their dispute. When the defendants refused to participate in mediation, the court held them in contempt. We granted the application of the defendants for an extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in not proceeding summarily to the determination of whether there was an agreement to arbitrate. Upon review, we vacate the three orders issued after the motion to compel arbitration was filed and remand for the court to determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Associates Asset Management, LLC b. Sheila Smith
The issue in this appeal is whether the defendant waived the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction through insufficient service of process by making a general appearance. It is undisputed that service of process on the defendant was insufficient when this case commenced in the general sessions court. Nevertheless, the defendant’s counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant in the general sessions court, and the court set a trial date. Prior to a trial on the merits, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the civil warrant premised on insufficient service of process. The record does not include any ruling on that motion, and the general sessions court transferred the case to the circuit court by agreement of the parties before a trial on the merits. Shortly thereafter, the defendant filed her second motion to dismiss the action based on insufficient service of process. The circuit court denied the motion ruling that, although service of process was insufficient, the defendant waived the issue by making a general appearance in general sessions court. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $35,667.42, and this appeal followed. In Tennessee, a party makes a general appearance for the purposes of waiver by seeking affirmative action from the court on an issue related to the merits of the dispute. See Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tenn. 1994); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-15-505 (any issues related to the general sessions court’s jurisdiction must be raised “before the hearing, or they will be considered as waived.”). There is nothing in the record indicating that the defendant sought affirmative action from the court on an issue related to the merits of the dispute in the general sessions court prior to filing her motion to dismiss. Further, the record shows that the defendant promptly filed another motion to dismiss on the same ground when the case was transferred to the circuit court. Therefore, the defendant did not waive the issue of insufficient service of process. Because it is undisputed that service of process was insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and this case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie Burnett Montgomery v. Gary Alan Montgomery
This divorce action concerns the trial court’s classification and division of the marital estate, among other issues concerning the trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Judith Michele Dial v. James Klemis, M.D., et al.
This is a health care liability case. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), arguing that the plaintiff had not provided them HIPAA compliant medical authorizations allowing them to receive medical records from the other providers being sent statutorily-required pre-suit notice. The trial court agreed with the defendants’ argument and, upon observing that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on the 120-day extension of the statutory limitation period pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c), held that the complaint was time-barred and should be dismissed with prejudice. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Druek v. Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc., Et Al.
This action involves the plaintiff’s attempted levy of execution on improved real property in Greeneville, Tennessee, owned by an intervening corporation, HEC-TINA, Inc. (“HECTINA”), and subject to a lease by another corporation, Plastic Innovation, Inc. (collectively, “Intervenors”), to satisfy a judgment against the original defendant/debtor corporation, Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc., of Iowa. The plaintiff alleged that Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc., was the parent corporation of HEC-TINA. Following a hearing and upon Intervenors’ pleadings, the Greene County Circuit Court (“trial court”) entered two orders, one granting Intervenors’ petition to intervene and one granting Intervenors’ motion to quash any levy of execution on assets owned by HEC-TINA. The plaintiff has appealed the latter order. Having determined that the order granting the motion to quash was entered based upon the consent and agreement of both the plaintiff and Intervenors, we affirm. We deny Intervenors’ motions to consider post-judgment facts and Intervenors’ request for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Alexis S.
This appeal concerns the trial court’s dismissal of termination petitions upon remand. We reverse the dismissal of the petition as applied to the father but affirm the dismissal of the petition as applied to the mother. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Heun Kim, et al. v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the court for a second time. Plaintiffs filed a negligence suit in the Tennessee Claims Commission against the State of Tennessee after their six-year-old son fell from the fifth-floor balcony of the state-owned and -operated Paris Landing State Park Inn. Plaintiffs alleged that the State was negligent in two respects: 1) in allowing their son to gain access to an unoccupied guest room and the attached balcony, and 2) in maintaining balcony railings that were shorter in height than was required by applicable building codes. Following a bench trial, the Tennessee Claims Commissioner concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the State’s negligence was the proximate cause of their son’s injuries. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court, and we held that the Commissioner’s conclusions of law were deficient and vacated and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, the Commissioner entered a supplemental order that included additional conclusions of law as to both claims for negligence, and, again, determined that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that the Inn’s acts were the proximate cause of their son’s fall and dismissed the claim in its entirety. Plaintiffs again appeal. We affirm the Commissioner’s holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the negligence of the Inn was the proximate cause of their son’s injuries. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Brian W. Et Al.
A mother and father appeal the juvenile court’s decision to terminate their parental rights based on six statutory grounds. They also challenge the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Loans Yes v. Kroger Limited Partnership I Et Al.
A commercial tenant stopped paying rent on leased space six months before the end of its five-year term. The landlord was unsuccessful in its attempts to find a replacement tenant and sued the tenant for breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of the landlord and awarded it damages, including unpaid rent, late fees, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The tenant appealed. Other than a change in the amount of late fees awarded and instructions regarding recalculating the prejudgment interest, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Rommie H.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. The trial court concluded that the paternal grandparents had proven three statutory grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights: abandonment by failure to visit; abandonment by failure to support; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of her child. The court also concluded that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, the mother argues that the grandparents’ petition did not sufficiently plead the statutory grounds for termination. And even if sufficiently pled, the mother argues that the evidence of the grounds and the child’s best interest was less than clear and convincing. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Terry Wallace v. City of Lewisburg, Tennessee
Former city employee brought suit for age discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Based upon its determination that the city fired the employee because a majority of the city council members disapproved of his job performance and that the employee failed to prove that age was a determining factor in his termination, the trial court dismissed the employee’s complaint. We affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Mindy Donovan v. Joshua R. Hastings
The trial court dismissed a contractor’s amended countercomplaint against a homeowner for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court then awarded the homeowner her attorney fees in the amount of $3,600 pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c). The homeowner appealed arguing that, in limiting her recovery to $3,600, the trial court interpreted the statute too narrowly. Because the trial court properly interpreted the statute, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mindy Donovan v. Joshua R. Hastings - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that some of the issues raised by the defendant/appellee, Joshua R. Hastings, are untimely. Mr. Hastings was required to raise issues related to the voluntary dismissal of claims and his motions to compel within thirty days of the final judgment. See TENN. R. APP. P. 4(a). After ruling on those issues, the trial court deemed the May 24, 2019 order to be a final judgment. See TENN. R. CIV. P. 58. But Mr. Hastings did not seek an appeal within thirty days of that order. So appellate review is limited to what took place after the time for appeal of the May 24, 2019 order ran, the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff/appellant Mindy Donovan. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
