Ricky L. Boren, et al. v. Hill Boren, PC, et al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal, pursuant to the de novo standard as required under Rule 10B, § 2.01, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Roy D. Cox v. Carolyn Ellen Cox
This appeal arises from a combined judgment of divorce and an award of damages in tort. After awarding the husband a divorce, the court classified, valued, and divided the marital property. The court also granted the husband a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages arising from an intentional tort committed by the wife. The wife raises numerous issues on appeal, including the classification of marital property, the equitable division of the marital estate, and the amount of the damages award. Because the court’s order lacks sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain its division of the marital estate or the amount of punitive damages awarded, we vacate those portions of the court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order in compliance with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Blake Bookstaff v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
In this action, the Tennessee Department of Revenue (“the Department”) sought to collect unpaid franchise and excise taxes owed by a dissolved corporation from its former shareholder. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the shareholder, determining that the Department could not collect on the assessments originally issued in 2008 and 2009 due to the six-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-1-1429. The trial court also determined that the shareholder was not a “person” or “taxpayer” subject to franchise and excise taxes because those taxes are assessed solely against entities such as corporations. Finally, the trial court determined that the shareholder had no personal liability for the taxes owed by the dissolved corporation absent proof of a fraudulent conveyance. The Department timely appealed. Determining that the trial court erred in its construction and application of the applicable tax statutes, we reverse the judgment in favor of the shareholder. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Ava B.
The parents in this action challenge inter alia, the juvenile court’s decisions regarding calculation of the parents’ income for child support purposes and the modification of the final co-parenting order. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine J. Hollahan v. Tennessee Department of Health
An advanced practice nurse worked at three different testosterone clinics in the Memphis area and was charged with violating portions of the Nursing Practice Act and the rules and regulations governing nurses. The Tennessee Board of Nursing (the “Board”) held a hearing and determined that the evidence supported many of the alleged offenses. The Board revoked the nurse’s certificate to practice as an advanced practice nurse, revoked the nurse’s license to practice as a registered nurse in Tennessee and the multistate privilege to practice in any other party state, and assessed civil penalties against her that totaled $7,200. The nurse sought judicial review of the Board’s decision, and the trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. The nurse then appealed the Board’s decision to this court. Concluding that substantial and material facts support the Board’s findings, we affirm the Board’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah Lacy v. MeHarry General Hospital, Et Al.
Plaintiff sued a physician, alleging that the physician’s handshake caused her injuries and that the physician failed to properly document her medical records. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements of the Health Care Liability Act. We conclude that the claim of failure to properly document plaintiff’s medical records relates to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of that claim for failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act’s procedural requirements. But we conclude the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for injuries allegedly caused by the physician’s handshake. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Autumn B. - CORRECTED
This is a child custody case. Mother appeals the trial court’s determination that Father should be designated as the child’s primary residential parent. Father requests attorney’s fees for defending this appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. This Court deems the appeal frivolous and remands this matter to the juvenile court to determine attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Father. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Danny E. Gilliam v. Frances A. Blankenbecler
This case involves the dismissal, on the basis of res judicata, of the plaintiff Danny Gilliam’s breach of contract case against the defendant Frances Blankenbecler. In an earlier case involving the same parties, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint based upon his failure to comply with the court’s order to provide discovery responses. The order of dismissal in that first case did not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. After the plaintiff refiled the same case, the trial court dismissed the case on the basis of res judicata. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Dermon-Warner Properties, LLC v. Steve H. Warner
A member of a limited-liability company withdrew from the company with a deficit in his capital account. The company filed suit against the withdrawing member on the ground that he had an obligation to repay the deficit amount. The withdrawing member filed a counter-complaint arguing that the company was estopped from collecting the debt because the debt had been forgiven. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the withdrawing member’s motion and granted the company’s motion, finding that the withdrawing member failed to prove that the company forgave the debt. The withdrawing member appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Cobble, Et Al. v. Greene County, Tennessee, Et Al.
This appeal arises from a dispute over the grant of a zoning variance. Earl Scott Moore and Joetta Moore (“the Moores,” collectively) applied for a variance in order to build a carport at their home. The Moores’ neighbors, Michael Cobble and Lora Cobble (“the Cobbles,” collectively) opposed the requested variance. The Greene County Board of Zoning Appeals (“the BZA”) rejected the Moores’ application. The Moores submitted a second application, this time reducing their request by seven feet so as not to protrude into a public right-of-way. The BZA granted the Moores’ application for a variance. The Cobbles filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Greene County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court concluded that material evidence supported the BZA’s decision to grant the variance and dismissed the Cobbles’ petition. The Cobbles appealed to this Court. We affirm the Trial Court in its declining to hold that res judicata barred the Moores’ second application for a variance. We hold further that, because the Moore property is not distinguishable in any meaningful way, the BZA’s decision to grant a variance was not supported by material evidence. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Tressie G. Smith v. Michael Lee Smith
This appeal involves an unnecessarily lengthy and convoluted divorce proceeding. The appellant-wife argues that the trial court failed to properly classify and divide the parties’ marital property. Due to the lack of factual findings regarding the basis for the trial court’s marital property distribution, we vacate that portion of the judgment and remand the issue to the trial court for entry of appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Antonio Leneal Simpson v. Bradley County, Tennessee
Appellant filed a complaint after he was terminated from his employment with the Bradley County, Tennessee Sheriff’s Department. The complaint alleges a violation of procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, breach of contract, and violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 38-8-304. The County filed a motion for summary judgment on various grounds and a second motion to dismiss on the basis that Appellant’s claims were barred by the one year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and by separate order granted the County’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the one year statute of limitations applied. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony D. Herron, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services
Anthony D. Herron, Jr., a disabled army veteran, applied and was approved for vocational rehabilitation services through the Tennessee Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services. During the course of developing a self-employment plan, the Division of Rehabilitation Services determined it had received insufficient information from Mr. Herron to merit further consideration of his self-employment plan. Mr. Herron administratively appealed, but after a hearing, the Department affirmed the decision of the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Mr. Herron then petitioned for judicial review in chancery court, which also affirmed the decision of the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Mr. Herron appeals. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tennison Brothers, Inc., et al. v. William H. Thomas, Jr.
This appeal involves parties with interests in neighboring properties who competed for the issuance of a billboard permit. Rather than waiting for the resolution of the administrative process that would determine which of the two applicants was entitled to a billboard permit, one party illegally constructed his billboard without a permit in the midst of the proceedings. Because of his action, the opposing party was unable to construct a billboard when the litigation ultimately ended in its favor. The party who prevailed in the administrative process and its landlord both obtained default judgments against the party who constructed the billboard based on claims of intentional interference with business relations and inducement to breach a contract. The trial court appointed a special master to calculate damages and adopted the master’s report in its entirety, awarding the landlord approximately $1.1 million and awarding the party who planned to construct the billboard $3.9 million, which included treble damages. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brianna B.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. The father is currently serving an eleven-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to vehicular homicide, with the victim being the child’s mother. The child’s maternal aunt and uncle, who had been granted custody of the child, filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights upon finding by clear-and-convincing evidence that four grounds for termination were proven, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The father appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court as to three of the grounds for termination. However, we affirm the trial court’s decision as to one ground, and that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Josh Holland Et Al. v. Edward M. Forester Et Al.
This case involves an alleged intentional or negligent misrepresentation made in connection with the sale of a residence. Shortly after purchasing their home from sellers Edward M. Forester and Alisa S. Forester, buyers Josh Holland and Angie Holland discovered that the subfloor of the house was saturated and ruined by pet urine. The buyers sued the sellers in general sessions court. That court found that the sellers intentionally misrepresented the condition of the subfloor on the property disclosure form. The sellers appealed to the trial court. The buyers alleged that the sellers violated the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act (TRPDA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-5- 201, et seq. (2015). They sought damages for intentional or negligent misrepresentation; promissory fraud; fraudulent inducement to contract; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.1 Mr. Forester passed away prior to the second trial. The buyers continued this litigation but only against Ms. Forester in her individual capacity. The trial court held that the buyers failed to prove that Ms. Forester had knowledge of the alleged defect in the subfloor. Specifically crediting her trial testimony, the court held that Ms. Forester did not violate the TRPDA or make an intentional or negligent misrepresentation. The buyers appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in determining that Ms. Forester did not know about the condition of the subfloor and in admitting Ms. Forester’s testimony regarding Mr. Forester’s mental capacity around the time of the general sessions court trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Orion Federal Credit Union v. Fitzgerald Brewer
This is a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer action in which Orion Federal Credit Union, after purchasing the property at foreclosure, was awarded a judgment for possession of the property by the general sessions court. The prior owner refused to surrender the property and appealed the judgment for possession to the circuit court. Orion filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted. The trial court also issued Orion a writ of immediate possession, and Orion took possession of the property. The prior owner appeals the trial court’s grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because we have determined the case is moot, we dismiss. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Steevie A.
The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to visit; (2) abandonment by willful failure to support; (3) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; and (4) persistence of conditions. We reverse the grounds of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home and persistence of conditions. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, including the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Bonnie Shaw v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee
In this premises liability action, following the filing of a motion for summary judgment by the defendant, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend her complaint to add a claim of negligence per se based on alleged building code violations attributed to the defendant’s maintenance of the premises at issue. The trial court failed to rule upon the pending motion to amend before granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff timely appealed. Due to the trial court’s lack of proper consideration of the motion to amend, we conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant and remand this matter to the trial court for consideration of the motion to amend and entry of an order presenting a reasoned explanation for the grant or denial of the sought amendment. Following such action regarding the motion to amend, the trial court may consider the motion for summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Alyssa W., Et Al.
The Department of Children’s Services initiated a proceeding to have four children declared dependent and neglected; the children were so determined, and in a separate proceeding, the Department sought to terminate the rights of the parents of the children. The rights of the father of three of the children were terminated on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse; the court also determined that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the ground of persistence of conditions and affirm the remaining grounds and the holding that termination of Father’s rights is in the best interest of the children. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Da'Vante M., Et Al.
This appeal concerns termination of a father’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Jackson County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Craig M. (“Father”) to his three minor children Da’Vante, Brandon, and Leaddra (“the Children”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on the grounds of failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and persistent conditions. The Juvenile Court also found that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Father appeals to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Carter B.
This case involves the custody of Carter B., a child adjudicated to be dependent and neglected. The Department of Children’s Services, after taking custody of the child, asked the trial court to approve a 90-day trial home visit in the home of the child’s maternal grandmother, pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-130(d) (Supp. 2017). The trial court granted the motion, finding a trial home visit to be in the child’s best interest. The court scheduled a review hearing at a time near the end of the 90-day period. The child’s guardian ad litem, Stacie Odeneal, who opposed the trial home visit, filed a notice of appeal. The child’s mother filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the trial court’s order is not a final judgment. We hold the trial court’s order granting a temporary trial home visit is not a final judgment. Accordingly, the guardian ad litem’s appeal is dismissed. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Maura Baxstrom (Webb) v. Kirk Ewing Webb
This is an appeal from an order granting a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the order does not resolve all issues raised in the proceedings below, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final judgment has been entered. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Randall Lloyd Case v. Mary Kathryn Case
The notice of appeal in this case indicates on its face that the appellant is appealing from a decision entered on September 18, 2017. However, there is no final judgment in the proceedings below entered on September 18, 2017, or any other date. Because the case remains pending in the trial court, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Covarrubias v. Gerald Edward Baker
This appeal arises out Husband’s petition to reduce his alimony in futuro obligation and Wife’s motion for criminal contempt for Husband’s failure to pay his alimony obligation in full. Wife opposed the modification of alimony on two grounds: (1) the 2007 Marital Settlement Agreement was not modifiable and (2) there had been no material change in circumstances. The trial court held that the alimony in futuro provision was modifiable and, based on a finding that Husband had proven a material change in circumstances, reduced Husband’s alimony obligation. The court then calculated Husband’s alimony arrearage for 2015 based on his income in 2007, not on his income as stated on his W-2 for 2015, which was greater. The court also dismissed the contempt petition upon a finding that Wife failed to prove the essential elements. Wife appeals, contending the trial court erred (1) by dismissing her motion for criminal contempt; (2) by finding that the trial court had the authority to modify alimony; (3) by finding that a substantial and material change in circumstances warranted a modification; and (4) by failing to properly calculate Husband’s alimony arrearage for 2015. We have determined that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes us from reviewing the trial court’s decision to dismiss the contempt petition; therefore, we affirm the dismissal of the criminal contempt petition. As for Husband’s petition to modify alimony in futuro, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the alimony in futuro provision was modifiable; however, we have determined that there is no factual basis to support a finding that Husband proved a substantial and material change in circumstances. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to decrease Husband’s alimony obligation and remand with instructions to reinstate the alimony award as stated in the final divorce decree. Because the alimony arrearage judgment was based on the reduced alimony obligation, we also reverse that award and remand with instructions for the trial court to award an arrearage judgment based on Husband’s gross earnings in 2015, not his salary in 2007. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for recalculation of the alimony arrearage judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
