COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

In Re Chayson D.
E2022-00718-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeffrey D. Rader

Mother was not present when the trial court found that four grounds for termination were
proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination was in the best interest of
the child. The trial court denied the oral motion to continue made by Mother’s counsel.
Mother appeals the denial of the continuance, as well as the findings of grounds and best
interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm (1) the trial court’s denial of Mother’s
motion for a continuance; (2) the finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of
abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, and
persistence of conditions; and (3) the finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights was
in the best interest of the child. We conclude that the trial court failed to make appropriate
findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the ground of failure to manifest an
ability and willingness to assume custody of the child and vacate that ground. Accordingly,
we vacate in part and affirm in part.

Quinn Taylor v. Ionogen LLC Et Al.
E2022-01146-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Clarence E. Pridemore, Jr.

The defendant limited liability company terminated the plaintiff’s employment as Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer and revoked his 120 voting and common
membership units in the company. The plaintiff brought a claim against individuals
belonging to the company’s board of managers, alleging that the defendant board members
had breached their fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing by revoking his 120
membership units. The plaintiff sought no less than $120,000.00 in compensatory
damages, the value of the 120 membership units as of May 5, 2021, and $480,000.00 in
punitive damages. On July 13, 2022, the board of managers adopted a corporate resolution
ratifying the plaintiff’s ownership of 120 membership units in an effort to resolve the
plaintiff’s claim against the individual board members. Consequently, the defendant board
members filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, contending that the
plaintiff’s claim against them was rendered moot by the corporate resolution. The trial
court granted the defendant board members’ motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim
against them based on the doctrine of mootness. On appeal, the plaintiff posits that the
board members failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that they had rendered his
claim moot. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant board members
failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the corporate resolution fully redressed
the plaintiff’s claim for relief against them. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Carlton B. Parks v. Adam U. Holland
E2021-01506-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

This case arose from a legal malpractice action filed against a lawyer who had represented
the plaintiff in an employment discrimination and wrongful termination action. The
plaintiff provided no expert testimony to support his claims against the lawyer.
Determining that the plaintiff had not presented proof to support his claim and that the
defendant had presented evidence to negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim,
the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Discerning no error,
we affirm.

Johnna McCall et al. v. United Parcel Service et al.
M2022-01112-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda J. McClendon

A mother and father filed a personal injury action in 2022 on behalf of their adult daughter, who was allegedly injured in a car accident in 2007 when she was four years old. The daughter was not represented by counsel, and her parents purported to represent her. The trial court dismissed the daughter’s claims due to the running of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the daughter argues (through her mother/conservator) that the dismissal was in error because she lacks mental capacity. Because the daughter did not file suit pro se and was not represented by counsel, we conclude that the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Regions Bank v. Doctor R. Crants
M2022-01314-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor I'Ashea L. Myles

This case involves enforcement of an arbitration award arising from a defaulted promissory note. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for breach of contract and enforcement of a promissory note. Ultimately, the parties participated in binding arbitration per the terms of their agreement. The plaintiff obtained an award in arbitration against the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant now appeals. Having reviewed the record, we determine that the defendant has waived his argument on appeal and affirm the trial court’s order.

In Re Emmalyn H.
E2022-00710-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Lauderback

A mother appeals the chancery court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on
the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support and severe child abuse. The
mother also challenges the chancery court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The petitioners
challenge the chancery court’s dismissal of persistence of conditions ground for
termination. We reverse the court’s decision to terminate based on abandonment by failure
to visit and support, but we affirm the court’s decision in all other aspects.

William Foehring Et Al v. Monteagle Regional Planning Commission Et Al.
M2022-00916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Melissa Thomas Willis

This appeal concerns the approval of a site plan.  William Foehring, Janice Foehring, William Best, Mary Beth Best, Ron Terrill, and Sandra Terrill (“Petitioners”) filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari against the Monteagle Regional Planning Commission (“the Commission”) and RBT Enterprises, LLC (“RBT”) (collectively, “Respondents”) in the Chancery Court for Marion County (“the Trial Court”).  Petitioners alleged that the Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously in approving the site plan at issue because the underlying zoning for one of the parcels is invalid.  The Trial Court ruled in favor of Respondents.  Petitioners appeal.  In a parallel declaratory judgment action case arising out of the same facts, we determined that the underlying zoning is valid, which is dispositive of this appeal.  We affirm the Trial Court.

In Re Ziquavious P. ET AL.
W2022-00743-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Special Judge Harold W. Horne

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on five grounds: (1) abandonment by
failure to visit the children; (2) abandonment by failure to financially support the children;
(3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (4) persistence of conditions;
and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the children. Discerning no
reversible error, we affirm.

Ricky L. Boren ET AL. v. Hill Boren PC ET AL
W2021-00478-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Robert E. Davies

This is an appeal arising from allegations of fraud and breach of contract in a dispute
surrounding a stock transfer agreement that, among other things, provided for the transfer
of controlling interest in a law firm from attorney Robert Hill to attorney Ricky Boren.
Whereas many claims were resolved at summary judgment, others were tried before a jury
and resolved in the Plaintiffs’ favor. The parties present a plethora of issues for our
consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Reginol L. Waters v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al.
M2022-00316-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Spitzer

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a petition for common law writ of certiorari in which the petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), appeals a disciplinary conviction for “unauthorized financial transactions activity” by the Disciplinary Board at the Turney Center Industrial Complex. The respondents, the State of Tennessee and several governmental officials, filed a joint motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petition was not properly verified as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-8-104 and the petitioner failed to pay the mandatory initial filing fee pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-807. The chancery court granted the motion and dismissed the petition with prejudice on the grounds “the statutory requirements of T.C.A. § 27-8-104 and § 41-21-807 are mandatory and have not been met in this case, and failure to comply results in a defective filing by the Petitioner[.]” This appeal followed. We reverse the decision to dismiss based on the filing fee requirements under Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-807. Nevertheless, we affirm the dismissal of the petition with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the petitioner’s failure to file a petition that complied with the verification requirements under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-8-104 within 60 days of the entry of the judgment of which the petitioner seeks review.

In Re Ciara O., Et Al.
E2022-01179-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Cotton

This is an appeal involving the termination of parental rights.  The trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother and the fathers of the children on the following grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (3) persistent conditions; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children.  Only the mother appeals. We affirm.

Bethany Michelle Lovelady v. Nicholas Heath Lovelady
E2023-00020-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Tammy M. Harrington

Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

William Foehring, Et Al. v. Town of Monteagle, Tennessee, Et Al.
M2022-00917-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Melissa Thomas Willis

This appeal concerns whether a municipality must have a general plan for development before it can exercise its zoning power. William Foehring, Janice Foehring, William Best, Mary Beth Best, Ron Terrill, and Sandra Terrill (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued the Town of Monteagle, Tennessee (“the Town”) and RBT Enterprises, LLC (“RBT”)1 (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Marion County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiffs challenged the rezoning of a certain parcel which allowed for the development of a truck stop near their homes. Plaintiffs argued that the zoning ordinances at issue, 05-21 and 12-21, were invalid because the Town had no comprehensive or general plan in effect. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. We hold, inter alia, that no comprehensive or general plan was required before the Town could exercise its zoning powers. It was sufficient that the Monteagle Regional Planning Commission (“the Commission”) transmitted to the Town Board of Mayor and Aldermen (“the Board”), the Town’s chief legislative body, the text of a zoning ordinance and zoning maps, which comprised the zoning plan. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Automotive Performance Technologies, LLC v. State of Tennessee
W2023-00186-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner James A. Hamilton, III

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Sevier County, Tennessee, Et Al. v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization, Et Al.
E2022-00773-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Telford E. Forgety, Jr.

This is an administrative property tax appeal concerning the classification of real property
for ad valorem tax purposes. This action originated with a taxpayer appeal of the property
valuation by the Sevier County property assessor. On appeal, the administrative law judge
re-classified the property as commercial, resulting in a tax assessment of 40% of the fair
market property value. The Assessment Appeals Commission reversed the classification.
The trial court affirmed the reversal. We now reinstate the commercial classification.

Sevier County, Tennessee, Et Al. v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization, Et Al.
E2022-00777-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Telford E. Forgety, Jr.

This is an administrative property tax appeal concerning the classification of real property
for ad valorem tax purposes. This action originated with a taxpayer appeal of the property
valuation by the Sevier County property assessor. On appeal, the administrative law judge
re-classified the property as commercial, resulting in a tax assessment of 40% of the fair
market property value. The Assessment Appeals Commission reversed the classification.
The trial court affirmed the reversal. We now reinstate the commercial classification.

In Re A.W. Et Al.
E2022-01088-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Brian J. Hunt

Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights as to two of her children.
The trial court found as grounds for termination abandonment for failure to provide a
suitable home, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to
assume legal and physical custody of the children. The trial court also found that
termination was in the best interest of both children. We find clear and convincing
evidence supports the trial court’s findings as to the grounds for termination and the best
interests of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Katrina Greer ET AL. v. Fayette County, Tennessee Board of Zoning Appeals ET AL.
W2022-00783-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge William C. Cole

Appellants filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of
Appellee Fayette County Board of Zoning Appeals’ grant of a special exception to other
Appellees for the construction of a solar farm. The trial court denied the writ of certiorari.
Discerning no error, we affirm.

Thomas Stephen Goughenour, Jr. v. Marion Michelle Goughenour
M2022-00297-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonita Jo Atwood

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce involving the trial court’s award of parenting time and requiring parental restrictions. The trial court entered a permanent parenting plan in which Mother and Father were awarded equal parenting time, with Father being named the primary residential parent. The trial court also ordered that neither Father nor Mother were to consume alcohol in the presence of Child. Father appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order. We further award Mother her attorney’s fees on appeal and remand to the trial court for a determination of the amount awarded.

In Re Parker F. Et Al.
M2022-01110-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kathryn Wall Olita

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioners proved four 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 and affirm.

Torrance Taylor v. Board of Administration, City of Memphis Retirement System
W2022-00896-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Gadson W. Perry

This appeal concerns a Memphis police officer’s application for a line-of-duty disability
pension. Torrance Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Shelby
County (“the Trial Court”) seeking judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Law
Judge (“the ALJ”) for the Board of Administration of the City of Memphis Retirement
System denying his application for a line-of-duty disability pension. In 2016, Taylor
injured his left knee in the course of his duty while detaining a suspect. Afterwards, Taylor
retired from the police force and was recommended for ordinary disability benefits. The
ALJ ruled that, based on the opinions of physicians, Taylor’s disability stemmed from a
chronic condition in his left knee and not from his employment. Thus, the ALJ denied
Taylor’s application for a line-of-duty disability pension. The Trial Court upheld the ALJ’s
decision. Taylor appeals to this Court. He argues among other things that, but for his 2016
injury in the line of duty, he would not be disabled. The evidence reflects that Taylor
worked without restriction before the injury in 2016, which ended his police career. We
find that the ALJ’s decision was unsupported by substantial and material evidence. We
further find that the ALJ’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Taylor is entitled to a
line-of-duty disability pension. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

Torrance Taylor v. Board of Administration, City of Memphis Retirement System -Dissent
W2022-00896-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Gadson W. Perry

The majority thoughtfully examines the evidence in the present case and may even
have reached a better understanding of the actual cause of Officer Torrance Taylor’s injury
than was arrived at by the City of Memphis Pension Board and the hearing officer.
However, in its analysis, the majority has engaged, at least in my view, in a reweighing of
the evidence that exceeds the scope of this court’s authority when reviewing such decisions
under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Stephen Charles Johnson v. Elizabeth Kay Johnson
E2022-01635-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Richard B. Armstrong, Jr.

Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Joan Ross Westerman Et Al. v. Peggy D. Mathes Et Al.
M2022-00611-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Anne C. Martin

The trial court granted Defendants/Appellees’ motion for a directed verdict at the close of Plaintiff/Appellant’s proof. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In Re Isaiah W. Et Al.
E2022-00575-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Erwin Phillips, II

This is a dependency and neglect case concerning two minor children. Appellee Tennessee
Department of Children’s Services received a referral of potential child abuse. Following
a brief investigation, the oldest child was taken into DCS custody after he admitted to
sexually assaulting Appellant, his mother. Three days later the juvenile court sua sponte
ordered the younger child into DCS custody due to allegations of domestic violence and
sexual abuse in the home. Later, the juvenile court adjudicated both children dependent
and neglected. On de novo review, the circuit court found the older child dependent and
neglected under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-102(b)(13)(A) and found both
children dependent and neglected under section 37-1-102(b)(13)(F) and (G). Mother
appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.