Lisa Leann Linder v. Garry Phillip Linder
A husband appeals from a Final Order of Absolute Divorce. Because the husband did not file his notice of appeal with the Appellate Court Clerk within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Adrian Delk v. ATV Powersports, et al.
Appellant, Adrian Delk, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Circuit Court that was entered on March 13, 2025. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re John W. et al.
The mother of two minor children appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found that multiple grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Brian Coblentz et al. v. Tractor Supply Company
This is a premises liability case brought by a sales representative for a product vendor who was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply. On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision based upon the conclusion that Tractor Supply was the statutory employer of the sales representative under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-113(a) and was, therefore, shielded by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statutes. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal, concluded that Tractor Supply was not the sales representative’s statutory employer, and remanded the case to this Court to consider the pretermitted issues. We have determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Tractor Supply on the issue of whether Tractor Supply owed a duty of care to the sales representative. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Skylar K. et al.
A circuit court found four children dependent and neglected because they were suffering from abuse or neglect. It also determined that the children’s father committed severe child abuse. Upon review, we conclude that the court’s severe child abuse finding is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. So we reverse that finding and affirm the lower court’s decision as modified. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Carla Novak
In this interlocutory recusal appeal, Appellant argues that in addition to the grounds for recusal relied upon in the trial court, the trial judge’s failure to promptly rule on his motion constitutes an additional basis for recusal. Based on Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, we dismiss this appeal. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Karla M. Reichert v. David K. Reichert
This is a dispute over a child support obligation for a severely disabled adult child that would have terminated on the child’s 25th birthday under the Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”). Prior to the expiration of Father’s agreed upon support obligation, the child’s mother petitioned for child support to continue due to the adult child’s ongoing disability and needs. Finding that the adult child was severely disabled and living with her mother prior to attaining eighteen years of age and she remains severely disabled, the trial court granted the mother’s petition and ordered that the father’s child support obligation be extended indefinitely. The trial court also awarded the mother a judgment of $21,700 in retroactive child support. The father appealed. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Secure Air Charter, LLC v. Michael John Barrett, Jr.
The Plaintiff brought a claim of intentional interference with business relationships against the Defendant, and the Defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). The Defendant attached to the motion a declaration to establish that the suit was in response to his exercise of the right to free speech and right to petition. The Plaintiff did not attempt to establish a prima facie case but instead sought to amend the complaint to allege a different cause of action and sought to exclude the declaration. The trial court dismissed under the TPPA. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand for a determination of attorney’s fees under the statute. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
SAMUEL PINNER v. JESSIE CONNATSER
This action arises from the parties’ repeated petitions to modify a permanent parenting plan set forth by the trial court in 2016 regarding co-parenting of the parties’ two minor children. Shortly after the children were born, the mother moved to Virginia with the children, and the father remained in Tennessee. The parenting plan designated the mother as primary residential parent and set forth a schedule wherein the children would reside with the mother and attend school in Virginia during the school year, and reside primarily with the father in Tennessee during the summers. The parenting plan further provided that each parent would enjoy co-parenting time with the children while the children were living with the other parent. Since moving to Virginia in 2016, the mother had filed several motions to change venue to the trial court in Virginia. The mother argued that a change of venue was proper, pursuant to Tennessee’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), because the trial court in Tennessee had lost continuing, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction and because Tennessee was an inconvenient forum. At the beginning of trial, after considering Mother’s renewed motion to change venue, the trial court determined that it retained subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and that Tennessee was not an inconvenient forum. The trial court then conducted a three-day hearing on the substantive arguments presented in the parties’ competing motions to modify and motions for contempt. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that a material change in circumstance had occurred warranting modification of the parenting plan. Additionally, the trial court found the mother guilty of two counts of civil contempt for violating the parenting plan by failing to allow the father his weekend co-parenting time in October 2023 and by failing to timely return the children to the father for the beginning of his summer co-parenting time in 2024. The trial court fined the mother $100.00 for the civil contempt charges. The trial court also ordered the mother to pay the father’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,000.00 for her actions in prolonging the lawsuit and other violations of court orders. Upon careful review, we vacate the two civil contempt charges and resultant fine of $100.00. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
City of Hendersonville v. J and J Ventures, LLC, et al.
A municipal court determined that property owners repeatedly violated a city zoning ordinance restricting vacation rentals in residential areas. The property owners appealed to circuit court, where the matter was consolidated with another action filed by the City against the property owners in which the City was seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The circuit court found the property owners in violation of the zoning ordinance and granted a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, and affirmed the municipal court’s rulings as to the violations. The property owners appeal. In doing so, they advance numerous issues challenging the circuit court’s rulings. While significant briefing deficiencies result in the waiver of the majority of these issues, in considering the issues that are properly before this court, we conclude that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the ordinance. However, because our decision does not fully resolve whether the property owner violated the ordinance, we remand for further proceedings. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ISAIAH M.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court denied Appellant’s 11th motion to recuse, and Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Ralph Ray Bailey, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roberta Bailey v. Sonya Smith Wright, Executrix, Estate of Vondie Lee Smith
The Testator asked her great-niece, a licensed Attorney, to make changes to her will that were to the Attorney’s financial benefit. The Attorney returned to the Testator a revised version of the will, which included the changes requested by the Testator and additional changes. Several months later, the Testator executed the revised will. The Testator’s Nephew, acting as a personal representative, claimed that the Testator lacked capacity and that the new will was a product of undue influence. While the trial court instructed the jury that it must decide which party bore the burden of proof regarding undue influence, the trial court gave the jury a verdict form that definitively indicated that Nephew retained the burden of proof. The jury found in the Attorney’s favor. On appeal, the Nephew presents challenges to several evidentiary rulings as well as a jury instruction concerning the Testator’s capacity, which we affirm. However, Nephew also asserts that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury with respect to his undue influence claim. We conclude that the trial court’s inconsistent instructions regarding the Nephew’s undue influence claim warrant a retrial as to this claim. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Jacob Daniel Heady v. Sadie Rose Heady
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final decree as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Ewayna Mechelle Brown v. Bruce Edward Thomas
This appeal arises from a final judgment in a divorce action without children. The wife appeals contending the trial judge was biased against her, the judge erred by denying her petition for divorce while granting the husband’s counterpetition for divorce, and the judge erred in allocating marital assets and debts. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE SHYENNE G., ET AL.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established several grounds of termination and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We reverse, holding that the record does not support the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence in support of the alleged statutory grounds of termination. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Deklan B.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court allowed the mother’s counsel to withdraw from representation at the beginning of trial when the mother did not appear. On appeal, the mother asserts that she did not have prior notice of the trial date and that her attorney did not provide her with notice of an intent to withdraw from representation. Based on the circumstances presented and applicable law, we vacate the trial court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights and remand for a new trial. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Marina Kotova v. Thomas Kevin True
Marina Kotova (“Plaintiff”) and Thomas Kevin True (“Defendant”), who were formerly married, entered into an agreement whereby Defendant would purchase certain real property owned by Plaintiff pursuant to an installment purchase agreement. The agreement provided that, in the event of a default by Defendant, Plaintiff could sue for monetary damages, specific performance, or both. Additionally, an addendum to the agreement allowed Plaintiff to evict Defendant from the property if he was in default for more than thirty days. Defendant defaulted, and Plaintiff sued him seeking possession of the property and monetary damages. The trial court instead awarded Plaintiff specific performance, which required Plaintiff to sell the property to Defendant upon Defendant curing his default. Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s award of specific performance. We find that the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiff a remedy other than what she requested, and we reverse the trial court. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Chris Missel v. Angela Larkins
A plaintiff sued his son and daughter-in-law over, among other things, a warranty deed to disputed real property. The plaintiff later filed an amended complaint alleging several claims against the daughter-in-law’s attorney. The attorney filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the litigation privilege bars the plaintiff’s claims against her. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appeals to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE TAMIRIA M.
A mother appeals a juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two children. We affirm the juvenile court’s decision that clear and convincing evidence established the existence of two statutory grounds for termination. Because the juvenile court’s order failed to make sufficient factual findings to support its best interest analysis, we vacate that portion of the court’s decision and remand for entry of an order making sufficient factual findings |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
SARAH BROWN v. BRETT WALLACE
The trial court found a father guilty of nine counts of criminal contempt based on his alleged violation of the trial court’s previous order addressing child support arrearage and the current child support arrangement for the father’s minor child. Because the order appealed from contains no findings on the essential elements of criminal contempt, on what evidence supports the judgment, or on whether the criminal contempt was initiated on proper notice, we vacate and remand to the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
MONA WORD v. KNOX COUNTY ET AL.
Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the discovery sanction, the trial court’s conclusion under the Tennessee Human Rights Act that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply, the trial court’s conclusion that the Clerk was not individually liable, and the award of attorney’s fees against the Plaintiff and her attorney. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dylan Whitmore v. Melyssa Atkinson
This is an action to modify a permanent parenting plan. Mother appeals the trial court’s order finding her in civil contempt, modifying the parties’ parenting plan, and awarding attorney’s fees to Father. She also argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s initial petition to establish a parenting plan. We have determined that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Mother’s failure to abide by the parenting plan constituted a material change of circumstance. However, Father failed to carry his burden of proof to demonstrate that modification of the 2021 parenting plan to designate Father as primary residential parent is in the child’s best interest. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment granting Father’s petition to modify. We affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Father and remand for recalculation of the parties’ child support obligations. Father’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal is denied. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Jane Davis v. Leesa Renna Davis, et al.
This case arises out of allegations that Appellees misappropriated Appellant’s inheritance funds for their own use. Appellant also alleges elder abuse based on the conversion as well as a physical altercation between Appellant and an Appellee. Appellees allege that Appellant gifted them the inheritance funds. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court concluded that: (1) because Appellant engaged in bad faith, the doctrine of unclean hands applied and barred her full recovery; (2) Appellees converted and misappropriated a portion of Appellant’s inheritance funds; (3) Appellees did not commit elder abuse; and (4) Appellant intended a partial gift of the inheritance funds to Appellees. Because the trial court erred when it sua sponte raised the affirmative defenses of bad faith and unclean hands, we reverse the trial court’s application of these doctrines to reduce the judgment awarded to Appellant. We also conclude that the trial court failed to consider the elements of elder abuse, the elements of a properly executed gift, and failed to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the same. As such, we vacate the trial court’s order as to Appellant’s elder abuse claim and Appellees’ gift claim. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment awarded to Appellant. The remainder of the trial court’s order is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Appellant’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is pretermitted. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Arnold Whitmore, et al. v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Clata Renee Brewer et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
In the spring of 2023, The Metro Nashville Police Department (“Metro”) received several public records requests seeking information about a school shooting that occurred in a Nashville private school on March 27, 2023. Metro denied all such requests. The various requestors filed petitions for access to the records in the Davidson County courts, which were eventually consolidated into one action. The private school at which the shooting occurred, its affiliated church, and parents of surviving children intervened in the action as parties. These intervening parties advocated that the school shooter’s personal writings and other creative works, which Metro collected in the course of its investigation, should remain confidential. The trial court ultimately denied all petitions for access to Metro’s file for numerous reasons. The requestors appeal to this Court. Following our review, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the intervening parents have standing to raise arguments under the United States Copyright Act. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that neither Article I, section 35 of the Tennessee Constitution, nor Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-38-102, bar disclosure of any public records in this case. On all other issues, we reverse the trial court. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
