In Re Zane M.O.
This action involves a maternal grandmother’s objection to the denial of her petition for custody of her minor grandchild and his adoption by his foster parents. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Daisy A.
A mother whose parental rights to her daughter were terminated appeals the court’s best interest determination. Upon our review of the evidence, we affirm the trial court’s holdings that clear and convincing evidence existed to sustain three grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Robert F. Clark v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
This appeal arises from an action filed by Robert F. Clark (“Plaintiff”), seeking a declaratory judgment and damages against Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“Tennessee Farmers”). Plaintiff applied for a homeowner’s insurance policy with Tennessee Farmers upon his purchase of improved real property. The effective date of the policy was to begin on May 29, 2013, the original date of the closing for the sale of the property. The closing of the real property was rescheduled to an earlier date. A leak occurred after the actual closing on the property but before the date of the original closing and the stated effective date of the homeowner’s insurance policy. Determining that Tennessee Farmers had not been notified of the change and that Plaintiff had signed an authorization for work on the property, the Trial Court granted Tennessee Farmers’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm the Trial Court’s finding that the leak occurred prior to the effective date of the policy. However, we reverse the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment upon our determination that genuine issues of material fact exist to preclude summary judgment on other issues. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Neveah A.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. The trial court also found that termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Finding clear and convincing evidence in support of the trial court’s determinations, we affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Susan Smith Rawls v. Daniel Wexler Rawls
This appeal arises from the divorce of Susan Smith Rawls (“Wife”) and Daniel Wexler Rawls (“Husband”). Wife sued Husband for divorce in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court, inter alia, divided the marital estate and awarded Wife alimony and child support. Husband appeals to this Court raising a host of issues. However, Husband’s brief is non-compliant with the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to such a degree that his issues are waived. Wife raises an additional issue of her own as to whether Husband is obligated, either by an oral contract he allegedly entered into or through promissory estoppel, to pay the college expenses of one of the parties’ adult children. The evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that Husband never committed to pay these college expenses. Wife also requests an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. We decline to grant such an award. We affirm the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Johnathon Cuddeford f/k/a Johnathon Boyer v. Adam M. Jackson
This is an appeal from the judgment in a personal injury action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages incurred in a motorcycle accident. Following the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, the trial court sanctioned the plaintiff by prohibiting him from introducing a portion of the defendant’s deposition testimony at trial. The case was tried before a jury with the sanctions in place, and the jury returned a verdict in the defendant’s favor. This appeal followed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Jessica Owens Et Al. v. Gary W. Stephens, D.O. Et Al.
This is a healthcare liability action resulting from the death of a child. The defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). The trial court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the action without prejudice. The plaintiffs appeal the dismissal to this court. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Madux F.
This is an appeal of an order terminating a mother’s parental rights. The trial court found that three grounds for termination were proven against the mother and concluded that terminating her rights was in the minor child’s best interests. Although we vacate one ground for termination due to the trial court’s failure to consider all required elements of the statutory ground, we otherwise affirm the termination order. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Bradley Harper v. Jim Hammond, Sheriff Et Al.
This appeal follows the trial court’s entry of an order of dismissal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Justin Joseph Harris v. Wendell Smith Et Al.
This is a constructive trust case. The plaintiff, who had recently purchased a twelve-acre tract of real property, filed a complaint for ejectment against the defendants, his uncle and cousin by marriage, who were residing in and claiming ownership of a block house and a two-acre parcel of the twelve-acre tract. The defendants, however, requested—and the trial court ultimately imposed—a constructive trust in favor of defendant uncle against the two-acre parcel and the block house. Finding that the plaintiff purchased the entire twelve acres with notice that the defendant uncle had a beneficial interest in the two-acre parcel and block house, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Jones Et Al. v. Earth Fare, Inc. Et Al.
This is a premises liability action in which the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, filed suit against the defendant grocery store for personal injuries and other damages resulting from the wife’s slip and fall in the parking lot. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant owed a duty of care to maintain the parking lot, which was owned and operated by a third party. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
David L. Snoddy v. Dwayne D. Maddox, III as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Donald Evans Gilbreth
The plaintiff sued the administrator of the estate of his deceased business partner seeking a declaratory judgment over ownership of reel-to-reel tape recordings. The plaintiff claimed joint ownership of the tapes with the decedent. The estate administrator moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds, arguing that a federal court had previously determined that the decedent was the sole owner of the tapes. After a combined motion hearing and bench trial, the circuit court initially granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff then moved to alter or amend the judgment, and the court set aside its original ruling and granted the requested declaratory relief. We agree that res judicata does not apply. So we affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Peter R. Culpepper
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether an amended pleading that seeks to vacate an arbitration award that was delivered to the parties more than 90 days earlier relates back to the date of the original pleading pursuant to Rule 15.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure when the original pleading only sought to modify the arbitration award. A dispute arose when an employer terminated the employment contract of its chief financial officer. The parties submitted the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (“the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-301 to -320. After the arbitrator issued a monetary award in favor of the corporation, the employer filed a petition to confirm the award in chancery court. Within 90 days of the delivery of a copy of the award to the employee, which is the limitation period set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-314(a) of the Act, the employee timely filed an answer to the petition in which he sought modification of the award with respect to prejudgment interest only. Otherwise, the employee admitted all material allegations in the petition. Significantly, the employee did not seek to vacate the award. After waiving any claim to prejudgment interest, the employer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to confirm the arbitration award in all other respects. Before the hearing on the motion, but more than 90 days after a copy of the award was delivered to the employee, the employee filed a Rule 15 motion to amend his answer to assert a counterclaim to vacate the award on grounds not previously raised. The trial court denied the employee’s Rule 15 motion to amend the answer as futile on the ground that it was not a timely application to vacate the final award and awarded the employer judgment on the pleadings. The employee appeals, contending the court erred because an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading pursuant to Rule 15.03. We have determined that strict adherence to the 90-day limitation furthers the primary objectives of the Act, which is to bring the arbitration process to a speedy and final resolution. Furthermore, the limitations provided by Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-5-312 and -313(b) are more specific than the general relation-back provision of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to amend the answer as futile on the ground that the employee did not file a timely application to vacate the final award, and we affirm the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the employer. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Hector G.
Petitioners appeal from the transfer of their guardianship action from chancery court to juvenile court. Because Petitioners have appealed a non-final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Mattie L.
Mother and Father had been divorced for less than two years when Mother and her new husband petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights. A few weeks before trial, Father was arrested, and he did not appear for the trial. In Father’s absence, the chancery court concluded that two statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence: abandonment by willful failure to visit and abandonment by willful failure to support. The court also concluded that the evidence was clear and convincing that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. As part of its analysis, the court applied the missing witness rule based on Father’s failure to testify at trial. And the court applied the doctrine of unclean hands to “repel[] [Father] at the courthouse steps from receiving any relief that he has requested in this cause.” We conclude that neither the missing witness rule nor the doctrine of unclean hands was applicable and that their application was fundamentally unfair to Father. We further conclude that the evidence of the two grounds for terminating Father’s parental rights was less than clear and convincing. So we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charlene Lyon v. Castle Retail Group, LLC
This appeal involves a trip and fall premises liability case filed against a supermarket by one of its customers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff’s evidence did not tend to show the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition that would give rise to a duty to either warn the plaintiff of the condition or remove the condition. For the following reasons, we agree that the defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition in its store, and affirm the trial court’s award of summary judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Harold Oliver, et al. v. Todd Pulse, et al.
This appeal requires us to determine the scope of a real estate licensee’s duty under the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures Act codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § § 66-5-201 et seq. to advise their client to disclose conditions of improved real property. We hold that a licensee’s duty under the Act encompasses a duty to advise his or her client/seller to disclose known material defects. We affirm denial of Plaintiff/Sellers’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of breach of statutory and contractual duties. In light of the undisputed facts of this case, we find Defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the question of breach and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with this Opinion. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Samantha Beau Ballard v. Casey John Ballard
A father filed a petition to modify a parenting plan in which he sought to change the primary residential parent or modify the residential schedule. The trial court denied his petition, and he appealed. We hold that the father failed to establish a material change of circumstances to justify any change to the parties’ parenting plan and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Zaylee W.
A father appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate his parental rights based on the grounds of (1) abandonment by willful failure to support, (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child. He further challenges the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s termination of the father’s parental rights but vacate the court’s judgment regarding two of the grounds for termination. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
Steven J. Strange Et Al. v. Hank E. Roberts, Et Al.
The owners of the dominant estate sued the owners of the servient estate of an easement to Tanner’s Bar, a piece of land near a river. The trial court ruled that the easement was an easement appurtenant for ingress and egress only and did not entitle the dominant estate owners to engage in recreational activities at Tanner’s Bar. The trial court further ruled that a member of the dominant estate family had to accompany all invitees to the easement. Having concluded that the intent of the easement was for the dominant estate owners to have the right to enjoy the river at Tanner’s Bar, we reverse the decision of the trial court prohibiting recreational use. We have further determined that the trial court erred in requiring that a dominant estate family member be present with invitees. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley Collins et al. v. John D. Carter et al.
Four family members sued their former employer and eight individual defendants after their employment was terminated amid allegations of malfeasance. The complaint alleged nine causes of action. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the former employer and six of the eight individual defendants on summary judgment. The plaintiffs and the remaining two defendants then became embroiled in an extended discovery battle. The battle ended with the trial court dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice based on the plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate in discovery. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the contract claims because the contract at issue was not ultra vires. Because we reverse that portion of the trial court’s decision, we also reverse the award of attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113(a). We affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ELI S.
In this termination of parental rights case, both parents appeal the trial court’s termination of their parental rights to their son upon numerous statutory grounds and upon its finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Upon our review, we conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court’s determinations with respect to certain grounds though not others and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, we reverse portions of the court’s order finding that certain grounds for termination were established, affirm the remainder of the grounds and the best interest determination, and affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Latoya Ledford, ex rel. Nayeli Roriguez v. State of Tennessee
This appeal is from the Claims Commission’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 9-8-402, 29-26-121, and 29-26- 122. We must affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Caydan T.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, which the trial court granted on the grounds of persistent conditions, severe child abuse, and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to parent. Mother also appeals the trial court’s finding that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re The Estate of Jesse L. McCants, Sr.
This is the second appeal arising from probate proceedings involving the estate of Jesse McCants, Sr. The first appeal concerned the accuracy of the personal representative’s final accounting. The trial court determined that some expenses identified by the personal representative should not be allowed. This Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded “for the entry of a modified order consistent with this Opinion and for such further proceedings as may be necessary and consistent with our direction herein.” The primary issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly followed our instructions on remand. We conclude that the trial court did so; therefore, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals |
