Global Mall Partnership v. Shelmar Retail Partners, LLC, et al
The landlord of a shopping mall commenced this action against a commercial tenant for breach of a lease. The tenant claimed it had an enforceable oral agreement to terminate the lease with the former landlord. The landlord contended that the original lease contained a “no oral modification” clause; thus, the oral agreement to terminate the lease was unenforceable. After the landlord presented its proof at trial, the court dismissed the case pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2), ruling that the oral termination agreement between the tenant and the former landlord was enforceable despite the “no oral modification” clause in the lease. This appeal followed. When a defendant files a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2) motion for involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s proof at trial, the only evidence the trial court may consider in determining whether the proof was sufficient to demonstrate a right to the relief is “the plaintiff’s proof” at trial. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2). We have determined that the trial court erroneously considered facts and documents not found in the plaintiff’s proof. Excluding the extraneous facts and documents, the evidence presented at trial preponderates against the trial court’s factual findings and its conclusion that the landlord’s predecessor in interest and the tenant entered into a binding lease termination agreement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Fisher v. State of Tennessee
An individual previously convicted of a felony drug offense petitioned for restoration of his citizenship rights. The trial court restored all his citizenship rights except the right to bear arms. In doing so, the court concluded that Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17- 1307(b), which makes it an offense for certain persons to possess a firearm, prohibited the court from restoring the right to bear arms. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Mariah H.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving the child, Mariah H. (“the Child”), who was one year of age at the time of trial. On June 26, 2015, the Johnson City Juvenile Court (“trial court”) granted temporary legal custody of the Child to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The Child was immediately placed in foster care, where she has remained since that date. Following separate hearings, the trial court entered two orders adjudicating the Child dependent and neglected in the care of the parents: one on November 25, 2015, as to the mother, Teresa H. (“Mother”), and the second on January 13, 2016, as to the father, Stafford B. (“Father”). On February 2, 2016, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father.1 Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Child after determining by clear and convincing evidence that Father willfully failed to visit the Child during the four months prior to the filing of the termination petition. Furthermore, the trial court dismissed the grounds alleged against Father of failure to establish paternity and persistence of the conditions leading to removal. Also finding clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Child. Father has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jamie B., et al
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children. Shortly after the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, the juvenile court appointed counsel for the mother, who lacked the funds to afford one. However, on the day of trial, appointed counsel orally moved for leave to withdraw. The court granted the motion, and the trial proceeded with the mother representing herself. Ultimately, the court found clear and convincing evidence of five grounds for termination and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The mother argues on appeal, among other things, that the trial court erred in permitting her appointed counsel to withdraw. Because we agree, we vacate the judgment to the extent it terminated the mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Pacer International, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of James E. Miller
This is a probate case. Vickie Miller (Widow), personal representative of the estate of her late husband, James E. Miller (Decedent), petitioned the trial court for letters of administration. Decedent died intestate on July 17, 2010. At issue is the ownership of Jim Miller Excavating Company, Inc. (the corporation), the company operated by the Decedent. Widow argues that she is the owner of all of the 1,000 shares of stock that the corporation issued to “Jim Miller and Vicky [sic] Miller JTROS” shortly after the company’s incorporation on April 3, 1990. She filed a copy of the stock certificate, dated April 30, 1990. Mechelle Miller and Jamie L. Shannon, Decedent’s daughters and heirs of the estate, argue that the stock certificate was invalid and that the corporation’s assets should be part of Decedent’s estate. The daughters filed a copy of the corporation’s bylaws, in which the following language is found: “the Board of Directors shall consist of one individual, to-wit, its sole shareholder, James E. Miller.” The trial court granted Widow’s motion for summary judgment. Only Mechelle Miller appealed. We hold that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the corporation’s directors and incorporators intended that the company would be owned by Decedent and Widow as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. We vacate the trial court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Nelson E. Bowers, II v. Estate of Katherine N. Mounger
The plaintiff initiated this action, claiming, inter alia, a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that he was bringing the action as the assignee of a limited liability company, which was an original party to the contract at issue. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant estate, also an original party to the contract at issue, determining that the plaintiff lacked standing to file the action. The plaintiff timely appealed. Determining that the plaintiff possessed standing, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s decision to allow the estate to amend its responses to the requests for admission propounded by the plaintiff. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
City of Gatlinburg v. Maury R. Greenstein, Et Al.
This appeal involves post-judgment proceedings following a final judgment in favor of the city that the appellants pay $45,175 for unpaid maintenance fees on their commercial real property. The appellants appeal the trial court’s action overruling a motion to pay the judgment by installments under the so-called “slow-pay” statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-2-216. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Tony E. Hancock v. State of Tennessee
Appellant was injured in an automobile collision with a State Trooper. After a trial, the Claims Commissioner found in favor of the State and dismissed the claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Erie Family Life Insurance Company v. Tiffany Dawn Sampson, et al
Insurer brought a declaratory judgment action asking the court to determine the proper beneficiary of the proceeds of a life insurance policy rider insuring the life of the named insured’s child; the named insured had designated her mother as the beneficiary of the policy and rider. Upon the child’s death, the named insured was prevented by law from receiving the proceeds, and the insurer asked for a declaration of whether the named insured’s disqualification also prevented the named beneficiary from receiving the proceeds or whether the estate of the child would receive the proceeds, in accordance with the designation of beneficiary in the policy. The trial court determined that the policy’s designation was inequitable and awarded the proceeds to the estate of the child. We have determined that the disqualification of the named insured from receiving the proceeds of the policy does not invalidate the designation of beneficiary and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re C.J.B., et al
This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of C.F.B. (mother) and J.W.B (father) with respect to their two children, C.J.B. and C.C.B. As to mother, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of four grounds supporting termination. By the same quantum of proof, the trial court found that termination of mother’s rights is in the best interest of the children. As to father, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of three grounds supporting termination. By the same standard of evidence, the trial court found that termination of father’s rights is in the best interest of the children. Mother and father appeal. As modified, we affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
In re Rylan G., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Appellant/Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan; and (3) severe child abuse. Because Appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, did not meet its burden to show that it exercised reasonable efforts to assist Mother in obtaining suitable housing, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to the ground of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home. The other grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights are met by clear and convincing evidence, and there is also clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Schnur v. James William Sherrell, III
This appeal involves a post-divorce order of protection. Mother obtained an ex-parte order of protection on behalf of the parties’ thirteen-year-old son alleging that Father had punched the child in the mouth while drunk on a family vacation. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed Mother’s petition for order of protection finding that she had not met her burden of proof. Mother appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Lorese Douglas Jones, et al. v. Stephen W. Behrman, et al.
This is a medical malpractice action in which the trial court granted summary judgment for failure to file suit within the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Francis P
The appellant, Tony P., filed a “Complaint and Petition to Terminate Parental Rights and/or for Adoption” in the Circuit Court for McMinn County (“trial court”) on September 18, 2015. This petition sought to terminate the parental rights of the “unknown father” of a child for whom Tony P. had signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (“VAP”). Jon F. filed a motion to intervene, asserting that he was the biological father of the child. The trial court allowed Jon F. to intervene in the action pursuant to an agreed order. The child’s mother later filed a motion seeking to dismiss Tony P.’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By oral motion, Jon F. joined with the mother in seeking dismissal. The trial court entered a Memorandum and Order on August 15, 2016, finding that (1) Jon F. was the biological and legal father of the child, (2) Tony P.’s VAP had been rebutted, and (3) any and all parental rights of Tony P. as legal father were “terminated by operation of law under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(28)(C).” The trial court entered a subsequent order dismissing the petition filed by Tony P. Tony P. timely appealed. Having determined that the trial court properly found that Jon F. challenged and rebutted the VAP executed by Tony P., we conclude that Tony P. no longer enjoyed any parental rights with regard to the child. Although we determine that the trial court erred by applying Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(28)(C) retrospectively to this action filed before the statutory subsection’s enactment, we determine this error to be harmless inasmuch as Tony P.’s parental rights were a nullity. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect that Tony P. had no parental rights to be terminated following the court’s rescission of the VAP. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Tony P.’s petition seeking termination of Jon F.’s parental rights. We decline to award fees and costs to the mother and Jon F. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly K. Carr v. Floyd K. Sutton
The State of Tennessee filed a petition in 2013 on behalf of the mother of a child who was born in 1996 to legitimate the child and to require the father to provide health insurance for the child; the requested relief was granted. In 2014, the mother filed a petition to set child support and, following a hearing before a juvenile court magistrate, the father was ordered to pay child support; the magistrate determined that child support should not be made retroactive to the birth of the child but, rather, to the date that the petition to have the child legitimated was filed. Mother appealed the decision to the juvenile judge; after a de novo hearing, the juvenile judge adopted the findings of the magistrate and ordered Father to pay support of $549.00 per month from the date the petition to legitimate was filed. Mother appeals the ruling, contending that the obligation to pay support should be retroactive to the date of the child’s birth. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County v. Delinquent Taxpayers As Shown On The 2006 Real Property Tax Records, et al
Delinquent taxpayer appeals the denial of his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(3) motion to set aside a 2009 final decree confirming a tax sale of his property as void on due process grounds. Having determined that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the delinquent taxpayer from relitigating the issue of notice, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip Neal Kennedy v. Jane Kennedy
This post-divorce appeal concerns the father’s petition to modify the residential schedule in an agreed parenting plan. Following a hearing, the trial court found that a material change in circumstances necessitated a change in the schedule. The court modified the plan by awarding the father additional co-parenting time. The court also entered a new child support order and directed the mother to remit payment for retroactive child support and the father’s attorney fees. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda Ramsey v. Cocke County, Tennessee, Et Al.
In this wrongful death action, the decedent’s mother filed suit alleging that the county emergency communications district and the city police department refused to send help when the plaintiff called to report that her daughter was making suicidal threats and that, as a result, her daughter committed suicide later the same night. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that the decedent’s suicide constituted an intervening, superseding cause. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that the decedent’s suicide was foreseeable and that the special duty exception to the public duty doctrine applies. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
J.P.Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Gary Eldon Finley, et al
A bank filed a complaint to reform a Deed of Trust to correct a scrivener’s error in the legal description of a parcel of property in order to foreclose on the property. While the litigation was pending, the mortgagors conveyed title to the property to a third party, who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The trial court concluded that the third party did not qualify as a bona fide purchaser because he was aware of the bank’s litigation when he obtained title to the property. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Faerber, et al. v. Troutman & Troutman, P.C., et al.
Appellees entered into a contract for the purchase of an undeveloped lot in a planned unit development. Appellants, an attorney and his law firm, prepared closing documents, including a warranty deed and settlement statement. The warranty deed included language that the property was unencumbered, and the settlement statement provided for payoff of the first mortgage and for the purchase of title insurance. Appellees later discovered that Appellants had failed to procure release of the first lien and had also failed to procure title insurance. The property was foreclosed, and Appellees filed suit against Appellants for negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found Appellees liable on these claims. We concluded that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act does not apply to Appellants, who were engaged in the practice of law in the preparation of the closing documents. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
John F. Pinkard, M.D. v. HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc. D/B/A Summit Medical Center
We granted this interlocutory appeal to determine whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272(c)(1) of the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), as applied to the facts of this case, violates the separation of powers provisions in the Tennessee Constitution. Plaintiff, a physician whose medical staff privileges were terminated by Summit Medical Center, sued the hospital, alleging, inter alia, that it acted in bad faith and with malice during the peer review process. Following a lengthy discovery process, the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment asserting, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s anticipated evidence was confidential, privileged, and inadmissible under the HCQIA because it was derived from the activity of a Quality Improvement Committee (“QIC”). At the same time, the hospital filed a motion in limine to exclude all records of quality improvement activity pursuant to the evidentiary privilege under Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272(c)(1). After ascertaining that Plaintiff intended to rely on QIC evidence, the trial court ruled that the peer review privilege could not be waived, and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272(c)(1) violated the separation of powers provisions because it deprived the court of its inherent authority to make evidentiary decisions affecting “the heart of this case.” This Tenn. R. App. P. Rule 9 interlocutory appeal followed. We agree with the trial court’s ruling that the privilege cannot be waived. However, we disagree with the trial court’s ruling that Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272(c)(1), as applied to the facts of this case, violates the separation of powers provisions in the Tennessee Constitution. This is because the General Assembly created the evidentiary privilege to effectuate one of its powers, the enactment of legislation that promotes the safety and welfare of our citizens. To that end, the primary concern of the challenged legislation is not to create court rules, but to promote candor within a hospital’s quality improvement process to ensure effective evaluation measures. Furthermore, Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-272(c)(2) provides an “original source” exception to the privilege whereby documents not produced specifically for use by a QIC, and are otherwise available from original sources, are both discoverable and admissible into evidence even if the information was presented during a QIC proceeding. Thus, the privilege is reasonable and workable within the framework of - 2 - evidentiary rules already recognized by the judiciary. For these reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy Lynn Hallums v. Bruce Alan Hallums
In this divorce action, the trial court awarded alimony in futuro and attorney’s fees to Wife; Husband appeals both awards. Concluding that the court did not make adequate findings as to whether rehabilitative or transitional alimony was feasible, we vacate the award of alimony in futuro and remand for further consideration of the nature and duration of the alimony award; we affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Wife; and we decline to award attorney’s fees to either party for the appeal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jase P.
This appeal arises from the termination of a father’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition against Anthony G. (“Father”) in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights to his son, Jase P. (“the Child”). Father had been incarcerated and unable to parent the Child since the Child’s birth. After a trial, the Juvenile Court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds of wanton disregard and various grounds coming under the putative father statute at Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g)(9)(A). Father appeals. We affirm all grounds for termination found against Father. We further affirm that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Skylar P., Et Al.
Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to two children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) abandonment by willful failure to provide support; (3) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans; and (4) persistence of conditions that precipitated the children’s removal from Mother’s custody. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We reverse in part and affirm in part. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals |
