Connie Munn MacCaughelty v. John R. Sherrod, III
Buyer of property at delinquent tax sale filed suit against the property’s former owner to quiet title. The former owner filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging, lack of notice concerning the underlying delinquent tax lawsuit and violation of her due process rights. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, concluding the counterclaim was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations for invalidating tax sales, and ruled for the buyer in the quiet title action. We hold that the former owner failed to institute a legal challenge to the tax sale within the limitations period despite having adequate notice of the sale. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nicholas Grimaldi, D.O., Et Al. v. Ronald Christopher, M.D. Et Al.
This is a contract dispute between a doctor and healthcare entities. The trial court awarded |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re McKayla H.
In this custody case, Father appeals the trial court’s order allowing Mother to relocate, from |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Douglas Martinez v. Bill Lee Et Al.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Katherine Sanko v. Clinton Sanko
Katherine Sanko (“Mother”) and Clinton Sanko (“Father”) dispute custody of two of their |
Court of Appeals | ||
Ibraheem Sabah v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development Et Al.
This case involves the denial of a claim for pandemic unemployment assistance and the subsequent administrative proceedings before the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The applicant failed to appear for his appeals hearing despite being notified of the hearing and the procedures required to participate in the hearing. The applicant’s request to reopen his case was denied because he failed to show good cause for his failure to attend. The applicant petitioned for judicial review in the chancery court. After finding substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits, the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. We affirm the chancery court’s decision |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Dessie X v. Idris X
Husband appeals the trial court’s classification, valuation, and division of real property in |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jeremiah G.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child on the grounds of (1) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (3) persistence of conditions; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. He also challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports the aforementioned grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest. |
Clay | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Turner v. State of Tennessee
This appeal arises from a complaint filed with the Claims Commission in which Christopher Turner (“Plaintiff”) seeks monetary damages for being incarcerated by the State of Tennessee (“the State”) beyond his sentence expiration date due to the failure of the Tennessee Department of Correction to award the pretrial jail credits and “street time” ordered by the criminal court as provided by his plea agreement. The amended complaint alleged “negligent care, custody, and control of persons,” “negligent care of personal property,” “negligent operation of machinery or equipment (computer systems),” and “breach of written contract.” The State filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion and dismissed the case on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because “the allegations in the Complaint fall outside the categories set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8-307.” Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Commission’s determination that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. However, both parties contend, and we agree, that instead of dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, the Commission was required to transfer the case to the Board of Claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(a)(5) (“Claims not within the jurisdiction of the claims commission shall be sent to the board of claims.”). Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to transfer the case to the Board of Claims. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Mani Associates Et Al. v. Appalachian Underwriters Inc. Et Al.
This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying |
Court of Appeals | ||
495 Kings Stable, LLC v. Kimberly Pate
This appeal concerns a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. 495 Kings Stable, LLC |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jordan P.
Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. After reviewing the |
Court of Appeals | ||
Waterfront Investments, GP Et Al. v. Lisa Ann Collins Et Al.
This appeal stems from a disputed strip of land along the edge of Norris Lake in Campbell County, Tennessee. The defendants in this case are lot owners of residential lakefront property in a planned development. The plaintiffs are the neighborhood home owner’s association and the company operating the marina in the development. The plaintiffs claim, based upon a note in the original plat map of the development, that a “one-foot buffer” zone along the defendants’ lots was reserved to the original developer. According to the plaintiffs, the marina company thus controls the shoreline in the area at issue and is at liberty, with permission from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to expand the existing marina. The defendants, on the other hand, dispute the existence of the buffer and claim that their lot boundaries extend right up to the shoreline. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action, and, following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the plat note at issue did not reserve any interest in the disputed strip to the original developer. Plaintiffs appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Robert L. Whitworth, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
Appellant city residents sued the City of Memphis for breach of contract, breach of implied |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gilbert Lopez Et Al. v. Deidra L. Sharp
This appeal invoves a claim for adverse possession. Gilbert Lopez and his wife Wendy Lopez claimed ownership of a 1.25 acre parcel of land (“Lot 39”) adjacent to their property under the theory of common law adverse possession. Deidra Sharp, owner of a tract also adjacent to Lot 39, presented evidence of her unencumbered title to Lot 39. Ms. Sharp established that she and her predecessors in title had paid taxes on Lot 39 and argued that the Lopezes did not prove their possession was uninterrupted, continuous, exclusive, or adverse for the requisite twenty year period. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the Lopezes did not “indicate ownership of [Lot 39] nor did [they] do anything that would rise to the level of more than a trespass.” The trial court resolved the conflicting testimony by making explicit credibility determinations in favor of Ms. Sharp and her witnesses. The trial court also held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110(a), which generally bars a claim to real estate when the claimant has failed to pay taxes on the claimed property, applies to bar the adverse possession claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
The Wise Group, INC. Et Al. v. Dwight Holland Et Al.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the purchaser of real property, alleging that the purchase was a fraudulent conveyance. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined on the undisputed facts that the purchase was in good faith and without notice of Plaintiffs’ claims and for reasonably equivalent value. We conclude that the undisputed facts show that the purchaser was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We also discern no abuse of discretion in a separate decision by the court to set aside the dismissal of the purchaser’s counterclaim against Plaintiffs. So we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley V. Quinn v. Shelby County Schools
This is an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff, a female secretary at a high |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Maddox H.
This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to one of her children. The trial court found that Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) established four grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights and that termination of her rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Riley Prichard v. Rhonda Kay Prichard
This appeal arises from a divorce case. The husband filed a petition for divorce, and the |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Lucca M. Et Al.
In this case, prospective adoptive parents Whayne D., Lauren D., James K., and Heather K.1 (“Petitioners”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Miya M. (“Mother”) to two of her minor children. They alleged these grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to financially support the children; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The trial court found that Petitioners established four of the five alleged grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We reverse the trial court’s holding that Petitioners established the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects, including its ultimate ruling terminating Mother’s parental rights. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State Ex Rel. Misti Leigh Haney O'Dell v. Andrew M. O'Dell
Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Avery W. Et Al.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioner proved five statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree that clear and convincing evidence supports three grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest. So we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Lee Dunn v. Bruce Vukodinovich Et Al.
This appeal arises from a suit to rescind a contract for the sale of a home due to fraud. The |
Court of Appeals | ||
Linda Mears v. Nashville Center for Rehabilitation and Healing, LLC
Plaintiff alleges she was injured from a fall at a skilled nursing facility while using a defective shower chair with a broken lock and torn netting. The circuit court concluded the Plaintiff did not need to file a certificate of good faith under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act because the common knowledge exception is applicable and the complaint’s negligence allegations do not require expert testimony. The nursing facility appeals, arguing expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care and proximate causation; therefore, a certificate of good faith must be filed. Because the allegations set forth in the complaint do not require expert testimony to maintain the Plaintiff’s claim, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Liberty T.
In this case involving a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her child and |
Court of Appeals |
