In Re: Rosylyn W.
Sarah E. (“Mother”) and Scott W. (“Father”) appeal the termination of their parental rights to their minor child, Roslyn W. (“the Child”). In September 2018, Michael D. (“Uncle”) and Megan D. (“Aunt”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the parents to the Child in the Hawkins County Chancery Court (“Trial Court”). The Trial Court conducted a trial in August 2019. Following the close of Petitioners’ proof, the Trial Court involuntarily dismissed the statutory ground of abandonment for failure to visit against both parents upon oral motion by the parents, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court terminated Mother’s parental rights based on the statutory grounds of abandonment by failure to support the Child and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the Child. The Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment by failure to support the Child. The Trial Court further found that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child was in the Child’s best interest. Upon its termination of the parents’ rights to the Child, the Trial Court ordered that Petitioners and the parents must enter into an agreed order or a “preadoption contract” that will survive the adoption to allow for reasonable visitation between the Child and the parents to continue their relationship. Both Mother and Father timely appealed the Trial Court’s judgment. The Petitioners raise two additional issues. We reverse the Trial Court’s involuntary dismissal of the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to visit pertaining to Father at the conclusion of Petitioner’s proof, as well as the requirement that the parties enter into an agreed order or “preadoption contract” allowing reasonable visitation between the parents and the Child after the adoption. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Knoxville Community Development Corporation v. Orchard Entertainment Group, LLC, Et Al.
This appeal involves the condemnation of a property within a redevelopment area in Knoxville, Tennessee, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-20-202. The plaintiff obtained entry of an order granting it title to the property based upon assertion of eminent domain. The defendant claims that it did not receive due notice of hearings and that the plaintiff failed to follow the procedures set forth in the relevant redevelopment plan prior to initiating the taking. Upon the trial court finding that the plaintiff acted properly, the defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. We reverse. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Knoxville Community Development Corporation v. Orchard Entertainment Group, LLC, Et Al. - Concurring
I concur with the majority opinion but write separately to more fully address KCDC’s argument that it was not required to provide notice to OEG of the Board of Commissioners’ decision to acquire the Property by eminent domain because the Redevelopment Plan does not contain a notice requirement. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Debra Smith, et al. v. Ronnie Outen, M.D., et al.
In this health care liability action, the defendant pharmacists were sued for dispensing the wrong medication to the plaintiff. The defendants then alleged comparative fault against Appellant doctor, who was treating the patient. The plaintiff amended her complaint to allege fault against the doctor. However, the doctor was eventually granted summary judgment when no expert was produced to support the claim. Appellant doctor then sought sanctions pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122(d)(3) on the basis that, inter alia, the defendants’ certificate of good faith was supported by the written statement of an incompetent expert witness. The trial court denied the motion for sanctions. We affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Conservatorship of Annette H. Cross
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellees in this long and storied family dispute over the conveyance of real property held in a testamentary trust. The trial court also awarded Appellees’ attorneys’ fees. We affirm both the award of summary judgment and the award of attorneys’ fees. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rex Allen Moore v. Silvia Hill
This appeal concerns a dispute between a landlord and her former tenant. Rex Allen Moore (“Plaintiff”), the former tenant, filed suit against Sylvia Hill (“Defendant”) in the General Sessions Court for Knox County (“the General Sessions Court”) for violation of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“the URLTA”). Plaintiff obtained a judgment in his favor, which Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Circuit Court”). There, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, and Defendant filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff. At trial, Plaintiff asked for a continuance, which was denied. The Circuit Court ruled against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant on her counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff’s brief severely fails to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27. We find, therefore, that Plaintiff has waived whatever issues he has attempted to raise on appeal. We affirm the Circuit Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
BOP, LLC, Et Al. v. Plastic Surgery Of Nashville, P.C., Et Al.
This appeal arises from a complaint for breach of a commercial lease agreement brought by the landlord to recover damages from the tenant and its guarantor. The tenant admitted breaching the lease but asserted that the landlord had been made whole prior to the commencement of this action and was not entitled to an award of damages. The tenant also asserted a counterclaim for attorney’s fees as authorized by the lease. The trial was bifurcated. A jury determined that the landlord was not entitled to recover any damages because the landlord recovered its damages in full in a previous proceeding in general sessions court, the landlord failed to mitigate its damages, and its claims were barred by res judicata. Following a bench trial on the parties’ competing claims to recover attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the lease agreement, the court determined that the tenant and guarantor were entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing parties. The landlord appeals. We affirm the court’s decision in all respects. Because the lease agreement states the prevailing party in any action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs and Defendants prevailed on all issues on appeal, we remand with instructions for the trial court to award Defendants the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs they incurred in this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Layton W.
The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support his child. The father stipulated to certain grounds for termination but appeals the trial court’s conclusion that terminating his parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Because the trial court’s findings as to the grounds for termination do not relate to the father’s conduct during the relevant time period prescribed by statute and the trial court’s final order fails to show that the trial court considered the best interests factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Cored, LLC v. Steve Hatcher, Et Al.
This is an appeal from a company’s claim of a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act against the individual owners of a limited liability company serving as its contractor. In 2017, Cored, LLC entered into a construction contract with Astercor Group, LLC for the construction of two homes in Nashville. A dispute arose as to the specifics of the contract, and a complaint was filed against Cored, LLC, for breach of contract. In response to the complaint against it, Cored, LLC filed its own complaint against the individual owners of Astercor Group, LLC for violating the Contractor’s Licensing Act of 1994 and thus violating the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Although the respective lawsuits were eventually consolidated, this appeal concerns only Cored, LLC’s lawsuit against the individual owners of Astercor Group, LLC. The trial court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that the statute of limitations had run due to the company’s failure to properly serve the individual owner defendants. Additionally, the trial court denied the individual owners’ request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court in both respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Lijah D. Et Al
This appeal arises from the trial court’s finding that grounds exist for terminating a mother and father’s parental rights to four children, and its finding that termination is in the children’s best interest. In this appeal, the parents contest only the best-interest determination. They contend termination was not in the children’s best interests because, inter alia, the Department of Children’s Services failed to use “reasonable efforts” to help them make a lasting adjustment to their circumstances. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the grounds of severe abuse and persistent conditions were proven and that termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of both the mother and the father’s parental rights. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Grimes Kidd, Et Al. v. James Q. Dickerson, Et Al.
In this health care liability action, the surviving daughter of a woman who died as a result of a stroke brought suit as executrix of her mother’s estate and as her next-of-kin against two physicians and their practice group as well as a pharmacist who filled a prescription for her and the pharmacist’s employer. Plaintiff alleged that the death occurred due to a stroke her mother suffered as a result of taking the drug Pradaxa, which had been prescribed by the defendant doctors and filled by the defendant pharmacist and the defendant pharmacy (the “pharmacy defendants”). The trial court granted summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants on all claims, holding that the proof submitted by Plaintiff was insufficient to establish the element of causation; the court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors on Plaintiff’s claims that their negligence caused and hastened the decedent’s death, and the claim that the doctors did not have the decedent’s informed consent to administer Pradaxa; the court granted summary judgment to one doctor on all claims; and the court denied summary judgment to one doctor and the practice group on the remaining claims. Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants and the doctors; the remaining doctor and practice group appeal the denial of their motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Upon ourde novo review, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants; we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Thomas Farmer in toto; we affirm in part the grant of partial summary judgment to the doctors and their group and remand for further proceedings on whether the nurse practitioner’s actions caused Ms. Grimes’ injury and suffering during the period of October 20 until she was stabilized in the hospital, as well as whether the remaining doctor and practice group are liable for that negligence under a respondeat superior theory. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate Of Wawana Lynn Brakebill
Attorney Herbert Moncier (“Claimant”) brought this action for prejudgment and/or post-judgment interest on an award of $667,681.80 in attorney’s fees charged by Claimant for legal services rendered to W. Lynn Brakebill (“Decedent”). Claimant also sought an award of attorney’s fees against Decedent’s estate for his pro se legal work done in litigating the issues pertaining to his fees charged as an attorney. The trial court denied prejudgment and post-judgment interest and held that Claimant could not recover attorney’s fees for his time expended representing himself. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Cortez P.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that three grounds supported the termination of the father’s rights and also concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. Although we reverse one ground for termination found by the trial court, we affirm the trial court as to the remaining grounds. Further, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s holding that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Marcus Belton, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
A minority business owner sued the City of Memphis and two city officials alleging that the City wrongfully terminated his service contract and contracted with two non-minority owned companies for similar services in violation of state and federal law. The trial court ruled that the business owner failed to prove that race was a motivating factor in the City’s decision. On appeal, the business owner contends that the trial court erred in excluding relevant evidence and refusing to grant a mistrial after opening statement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Braden K.
This case involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. In the petition, the Department alleged five grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court found that all five grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights. As a result, the juvenile court granted the petition, and the mother appealed. We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling and remand. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Cameo Bobo v. City of Jackson, Tennessee
Appellant appeals the denial of her motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Appellant's brief fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Sun, Air, Water, & Land, Inc. v. Harold M. "Jack" Reynolds
The holder of a promissory note sued the maker. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted the holder a judgment for the outstanding balance of the note plus interest. On appeal, the maker contends that the holder’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. If the claim is not barred, the maker argues that he is entitled to a set-off. We agree with the holder that the maker waived his laches argument. And the maker’s set-off claim fails for lack of mutuality. So we affirm. |
Sequatchie | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Et Al. v. Tennessee Department of Education, Et Al.
Davidson and Shelby counties sued the State of Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program. The trial court found that both counties had standing and that the act was unconstitutional under paragraph 2 of article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The State and intervening defendants appealed. We affirm |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Kerr Et Al. v. Lydia Henderson Et Al.
In this case involving the inheritance of an investment account, the three plaintiffs filed a complaint in September 2016, asserting, inter alia, that a letter executed by their father prior to his 2007 death had operated to create an express trust concerning the account, for which their stepmother had acted as trustee with the understanding that the plaintiffs were to be the beneficiaries of the account after her death. The plaintiffs alternatively sought imposition of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs’ stepmother, who is the subject decedent in this action, had died in April 2016. The plaintiffs initially named as defendants the co-executors of the decedent’s estate, as well as the financial institution holding the investment account. The trial court subsequently entered agreed orders to dismiss the financial institution as a party and to substitute as defendants the decedent’s three adult children from a previous marriage. Upon competing motions for summary judgment and following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that an express trust had been created by the writings of the plaintiffs’ father and that, alternatively, a constructive trust should be imposed based on the combined writings and actions of the plaintiffs’ father and the decedent. The defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the trial court denied following a hearing upon finding in part that new evidence submitted by the defendants should not be considered. The defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
Travis Kanipe v. Pragnesh Patel MD
This appeal arises from a health care liability lawsuit. In 2013, Sandra Kanipe (“Ms. Kanipe”) died from an undiagnosed aortic dissection while in the care of Dr. Pragnesh Patel, M.D. (“Dr. Patel”). Travis Kanipe (“Mr. Kanipe”), Ms. Kanipe’s son, sued Dr. Patel in the Circuit Court for Hamblen County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the jury found in favor of Dr. Patel. The Trial Court granted Mr. Kanipe’s motion for a new trial on grounds that Dr. Patel had, through his testimony, shifted blame to a non-party despite having never pled comparative fault. After a second trial, the jury found in favor of Mr. Kanipe. Dr. Patel appeals, arguing among other things that he never shifted blame. From our review of the record, we conclude that Dr. Patel did, in fact, shift blame to a non-party when he testified in the first trial that the nurses never notified him of Ms. Kanipe’s ongoing chest pain. In view of our Supreme Court’s holding in George v. Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996), the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a retrial. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Highlands Physicians, Inc. v. Wellmont Health System
In this class action lawsuit involving an association of physicians alleging breach of an agreement by the defendant hospital corporation, a three-week jury trial resulted in a verdict of more than $57 million in damages. The trial court denied the defendant’s posttrial motions and subsequently awarded over $5 million in attorney’s fees and expenses. The defendant has appealed. Determining that the trial court erred in failing to submit the attorney’s fee issue to the jury, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and expenses and remand the issue to the trial court for determination by a jury. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Cheyenne S. Et Al.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. The juvenile court determined that four statutory grounds supported terminating her parental rights: abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; failure to substantially comply with the permanency plan; persistence of conditions; and her failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of her children. The court also determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of her children. Upon our review, we conclude there was clear and convincing evidence supporting both the grounds for termination and the best interest determination. So we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
David Timothy Dungey v. Doris Anne Dungey
In this post-divorce case, Doris Anne Baumgaertner (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s decision to deny her request to relocate the parties’ minor son (“Child”) to Germany. She also appeals the decision to change the primary residential parent designation from her to David Timothy Dungey (“Father”). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Nedra Finney v. Miles Jefferson Et Al.
In a letter sent to high-ranking school officials, parents claimed that a special education teacher had denied their child an appropriate education based on the child’s needs and improperly used physical restraints on the child. The parents also claimed that the teacher had ignored them at a school event and did not communicate with them for a month afterward. The teacher sued the parents for defamation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the parents, reasoning primarily that the parents had not published the letter. The court also reasoned that the statements in the letter were not defamatory and that the parents did not act with actual malice. We conclude that some of the statements in the letter were not defamatory but others were capable of being understood as defamatory. For those statements capable of conveying a defamatory meaning, the record lacked evidence of actual malice. So we affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Griffin v. Board of Zoning Appeals For Rutherford County, Tennessee, Et Al.
This case concerns the decision of the Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) to deny a property owner’s application for a special exception to operate a major home-based business on his residential property. The property owner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court, and the court upheld the BZA’s decision. Discerning no error, we affirm the Chancery Court’s decision. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals |
