Jeffrey L. Roberts v. Barry Lynn Carter, et al.
This is an appeal concerning the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, specifically to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-20-203, 29-20-204, and 29-20- 205 of the Act. At issue is the trial court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against a county government for damages sustained from an automobile accident allegedly caused by the washout of a road maintained by the county. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Joe Richard Estes
This appeal concerns the statute of limitations for a will contest. David Estes (“Petitioner”) filed a will contest in the Probate Court for Wilson County (“the Probate Court”) seeking to set aside the will of Petitioner’s father, Joe Richard Estes (“Decedent”). Jennifer Brooke Estes Little, Executrix of the Estate of Joe Richard Estes (“Respondent”), Petitioner’s sibling, filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the applicable two-year statute of limitations had expired by the time of day that Petitioner filed his will contest. The Probate Court granted Respondent’s motion. Petitioner appeals to this Court. Petitioner’s will contest was filed two years from the date that Decedent’s will was admitted to probate; thus, it was timely filed. The exact hour and minute of the day the will contest was filed is immaterial. We, therefore, vacate the judgment of the Probate Court, and remand for this case to proceed. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Union County, Tennessee v. Michelle Cole
Pro se litigant sought to receive part of the proceeds of a delinquent tax sale. The trial court found that she failed to prove her case. She appealed. We dismiss the appeal due to her failure to follow Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
David Hayes v. Extreme Excavation, LLC
A property owner filed suit against a contractor, asserting that a driveway built by the contractor was defective. The contractor filed a counterclaim against the property owner, seeking compensation for the balance owed for the driveway and additional work the contractor had done on the property. Prior to trial, the contractor made a motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement between the parties. The trial court denied the motion. After a trial on the merits, the court awarded the property owner the cost of repairing the driveway and dismissed the contractor’s counterclaim. The contractor appealed the court’s order. Because we conclude that the trial court should have granted the contractor’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, we reverse. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
David Hayes v. Extreme Excavation, LLC
The majority opinion adopts Extreme Excavation’s position on appeal that the email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys contained all the material terms of the settlement, making the correspondence an enforceable contract. I must respectfully disagree. I believe that the parties here made an agreement to agree. Agreements to agree are unenforceable in Tennessee because their terms lack the definiteness required for performance. Four Eights, LLC v. Salem, 194 S.W.3d 484, 486-87 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). Contracts must have terms of sufficient definiteness to allow courts to give them exact meanings. United Am. Bank of Memphis v. Walker, 1986 WL 11250, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 1986). |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
David Ashley Leonard v. Kimberly Champion Leonard
In this divorce action, the wife appeals the trial court’s distribution of the marital estate, the duration of the transitional alimony awarded to her, and the denial of her request for attorney’s fees and expenses as alimony in solido. The husband challenges the trial court’s decision to award any transitional alimony to the wife. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We deny the parties’ respective requests for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Kisha Dean Trezevant v. Stanley H. Trezevant, III
This is a post-divorce criminal contempt case. The trial court found Appellant guilty of four counts of criminal contempt based on Appellant’s violations of the trial court’s order. Discerning no error, we affirm |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer A. Seiber v. David S. Seiber
This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 25, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until September 3, 2024, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC, et al.
This appeal is before this court on a remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court to address issues that had been previously pretermitted related to a punitive damages award. Upon consideration of the pretermitted issues in the present case, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Vicki Marlene (Almonrode) Taylor v. Jack Elmer Taylor, Jr.
Husband appeals aspects of the trial court’s classification, valuation, and division of property in its order of absolute divorce. The trial court’s decision is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further consideration. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
Kerry Clay v. City of Memphis Sanitation Division
This suit was filed pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The plaintiff was a home improvement contractor replacing a door at a client’s home. He discarded the old door, which was placed in a garbage truck allegedly owned and operated by the defendant. The truck’s compacting mechanism was engaged, causing the door to rise and strike the plaintiff in the head. The plaintiff filed suit and was awarded damages based on injuries he suffered. The defendant filed this appeal raising several issues. Because we have determined that the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas J. Wolaver Et Al. v. JBEEZ, Inc.
A husband and his wife found their rental boat unsatisfactory. So they sued the rental company, alleging a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The rental company moved to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause in the rental agreement that required all disputes to be brought in a different county. The husband and wife responded that the venue provision of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act controlled over the forum-selection clause. The trial court agreed with the rental company and dismissed the suit without prejudice. We vacate the judgment. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Darren Franz Et Al. v. Oscar Funes
This appeal concerns premises liability. Michael Darren Franz (“Mr. Franz”) and his wife Pamela Franz (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) sued Oscar Funes (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court for Blount County (“the Trial Court”) for injuries Mr. Franz sustained from falling down the stairs at a residential rental property built and owned by Defendant. The stairs, which led from the first floor to the second floor, lacked a code-compliant handrail going the length of the stairs. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appeal. We conclude that the reasonably foreseeable probability and gravity of harm to Plaintiffs, namely serious injury or death from falling down the stairs, outweighed the burden on Defendant to engage in alternative conduct which would have prevented a risk of harm, such as extending the railing to the top of the stairs. Under common law principles of negligence, as well as negligence per se from the code violation, Defendant owed a duty of care. In addition, genuine issues of material fact exist in this case regarding causation and comparative fault. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Robyn H. Hurvitz v. Whiskey Barrel Trading Company, LLC Et Al.
Pro se appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this dispute about real property. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, we dismiss the appeal. We also conclude the appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Zaidyn B. Et Al.
In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the trial court found that six statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The father has appealed. Upon thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Toni Harris
This is a breach of contract case involving a purchase and sale agreement for real property. Because the parties’ mutual mistake of law concerning ownership of the subject property negates the prima facie element of mutual assent, there is no enforceable contract. Reversed and remanded. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Leilani G.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. The chancery court found clear and convincing evidence of two statutory grounds for termination. The court also determined termination was in the child’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree and affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Terrance Woods v. State of Tennessee
Following the death of his minor child, the appellant filed suit against the State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission (the “Claims Commission”) asserting claims for wrongful death and for violation of his rights as a crime victim. The Claims Commission granted partial summary judgment and partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of the State. The appellant appeals the judgment of the Claims Commission. Having determined that the appellant’s brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that his issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Michael Halliburton v. Blake Ballin, et al.
Michael Halliburton (“Halliburton”) filed a lawsuit against his former attorney, Blake Ballin (“Ballin”) and Ballin’s law firm, Ballin, Ballin & Fishman, P.C. (“Ballin Firm”) in the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”). Ballin and Ballin Firm filed a motion to dismiss Halliburton’s amended complaint. The Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss, and Halliburton has appealed. Having reviewed the record and briefs in this case, we conclude that Halliburton presents an issue unreviewable by this Court and that Halliburton’s appellate brief, accordingly, does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. We affirm the Trial Court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory F. Heerdink v. Dawn A. Osborne, Et Al. - (Concurring Opinion)
I believe that the majority opinion accurately reflects existing law. Therefore, I concur. I write separately to express my concern that the existing law on voluntary nonsuits as outlined in this opinion allows a plaintiff to avoid sanctions for his bad actions taken before the nonsuit. In my opinion, defendant Osborne had at least an inchoate right to receive an undetermined amount of attorney’s fees based on the trial court’s order that “the Plaintiff should be ordered to pay all of each Defendant’s attorney’s fees associated with Plaintiff’s delays, including attendance at prior hearings on Motions to Withdraw, today’s hearing and all preparations for any such hearings.” The sanction was ordered. Only the amount was yet to be determined. A voluntary nonsuit should not allow Plaintiff to escape responsibility for his actions or to prevent Osborne from being properly compensated for Plaintiff’s wrongdoing. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Megan Elizabeth West Brewster v. Brandon Paul Brewster
In this post-divorce action, the father filed a petition seeking to modify the parties’ agreed permanent parenting plan based on alleged mental and emotional instability of the mother. During trial, the father sought to remove the guardian ad litem for purportedly violating her duties pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 40A; however, the trial court denied the father’s motion. The father also sought to introduce statements by the minor children indicating that the mother had told them private information regarding the parties’ divorce. Upon objection by the mother and the guardian ad litem, the trial court determined such statements to be inadmissible hearsay. The trial court ultimately entered an order on August 4, 2023, determining that modification of the parties’ permanent parenting plan was neither necessary nor in the best interest of the parties’ children despite certain changes in the parties’ circumstances. The trial court also denied the father’s motion for a restraining order against the mother, although the court found that the mother’s actions had been inappropriate. The trial court further ordered that each party would pay his or her own attorney’s fees. The father timely appealed. Upon our thorough review, we vacate the trial court’s determination concerning child support and its finding regarding the mother’s gross income. We remand for further hearing as needed and a determination of the mother’s gross income with instructions to the trial court to consider whether gifts or payment of living expenses by her family should have been included. The trial court shall then be required to recalculate child support utilizing the proper gross income amount for the mother. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects. We deny the father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Keigen D.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights based on abandonment and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to parent. After our review, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Jorge Antonio Mata Campos v. Amanda Rosa Ruiz Zeledon
In this appeal arising from a divorce action, the husband raises issues pertaining to the trial court’s classification, valuation, and distribution of marital assets, as well as the alimony award to the wife. Upon our review, we affirm the determination of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory F. Heerdink v. Dawn A. Osborne, Et Al.
At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees after the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02. This action arose when Gregory F. Heerdink (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Heerdink”) filed a complaint for a declaration of an easement by implication on adjoining property owned by defendant Dawn A. Osborne (“Osborne”) and previously owned by defendant Robert K. Garrett (“Garrett”) (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants each filed an answer but neither filed a counterclaim. More than a year later, Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 41.02(1). In an order entered October 9, 2020, the trial court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss but ruled that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37 sanctions were appropriate and ordered Plaintiff to, inter alia, pay “all of each Defendant’s attorney’s fees associated with Plaintiff’s delays, including attendance at prior hearings on Motions to Withdraw, today’s hearing and all preparations for any such hearings.” The order further directed defense counsel to “Submit an Affidavit of itemized time for approval by the Court.” Five days after the entry of this order, but before either defendant filed a fee application, Plaintiff filed notice of voluntary dismissal. The court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal on November 2, 2020. Shortly thereafter, Garrett filed an application for fees, however, Osborne did not file a fee application until approximately two years later, when she filed a motion to enforce sanctions along with an attorney’s fee affidavit. Plaintiff opposed Osborne’s motion, arguing that the case had been dismissed and that, as a consequence, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to award the fees. Alternatively, Plaintiff argued that Osborne waived the right to fees due to the over two-year delay. Defendants contended that they had a “vested right” to recover their attorney’s fees, which vested right prevented Plaintiff from dismissing the case pursuant to Rule 41.01. They also relied on the precedence of Menche v. White Eagle Prop. Grp., LLC, No. W2018-01336-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 4016127 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2019) to contend that the order of dismissal was not a final order because the attorney’s fees claim was pending, and that the trial court therefore retained jurisdiction to rule on the unresolved issue of attorney’s fees. The trial court agreed and awarded attorney’s fees. This appeal followed. We have determined that Defendants did not have a vested right to recover their attorney’s fees and that Menche is inapposite. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award any fees following the voluntary dismissal of the action. Accordingly, we vacate the award of fees.
|
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Cedric G.
The parental rights of Cedric G., Sr. (“Father”) were terminated by the Davidson County Juvenile Court (“the trial court”) on November 20, 2023. Father appeals. We affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights as to Cedric G., Jr. (“the Child”) for abandonment by an incarcerated parent for failure to visit, failure to support, and exhibiting a wanton disregard for the Child’s welfare; substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; persistence of conditions; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility of the Child. We also affirm the trial court’s conclusion that termination is in the Child’s best interests. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
