Conoly Brown, et al v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
The Metropolitan Council adopted a series of three ordinances that (1) created a new zoning classification called Specific Planning (SP); (2) rezoned over 700 parcels of property to SP zoning; and (3) amended permitted uses in SP zones to exclude certain types of financial services, specifically check cashing services not part of a bank. The plaintiffs owned property on which that type of service was conducted and another parcel on which they intended to conduct the excluded services. Their parcels were among those rezoned as SP. We reverse the trial court’s holding that the plaintiffs’ challenge should have been brought as a common law writ of certiorari action because the act of rezoning by amending the zoning ordinance is a legislative act which is reviewable in a declaratory judgment action. We also hold that the ordinance rezoning the 700 parcels was invalid because it was not consistent with the enabling ordinance creating the SP classification. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Lou Uselton et vir, Terry Twayne Uselton v. Jessica Walton and Clinton Brandon Woodard
This is a grandparent visitation case. The biological parents of the child at issue were never married. When the child was born, the father was in the military and away most of the time. The mother permitted the father’s parents, the petitioners in this case, to have liberal visitation with the child. As time went on, the mother got married and had children with her new husband. When the subject child was five years old, the mother limited the grandparents’ visitation with the child, but she did not end it. Dissatisfied with the limitations, the grandparents filed this petition for court-ordered visitation pursuant to the Grandparent Visitation Statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-306. The trial court granted the petition and ordered a visitation schedule that essentially allowed the grandparents to have the father’s visitation rights when he was away. The court-ordered schedule even provided for visitation for the grandparents in the event the father chose to exercise all of the visitation to which he was entitled. The mother now appeals. We hold that the trial court erred in essentially placing the paternal grandparents in the stead of the father, and that the Grandparent Visitation Statute is not applicable because there was no proof that the mother opposed the grandparents’ visitation before the grandparents filed their petition for court-ordered grandparent visitation. Therefore, we reverse and dismiss the petition with prejudice. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip Burt v. Donald L. MacTavish and Barbara W. MacTavish, et al.
This case presents the issue of whether the trial court properly dismissed the Appellees, Donald and Barbara MacTavish, as parties from the lawsuit below because Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Phillip Burt, Plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of all claims against Donald and Barbara MacTavish. We vacate the trial court’s order granting dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dean Moore, et al. v. Paul Brock, et al.
Dean Moore, Trustee for the Dean Henry Moore Living Trust (“Plaintiff”), Bobby Sullivan, and Willis Songer sued Paul Brock, Sanford Quay, and Russ Quay (“Defendants”) seeking, among other things, a declaration of a boundary line and a judgment for slander of title. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order on June 19, 2012 finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff has superior title over Defendants to the disputed real property, that the title Defendants claimed by quitclaim deed from Jerry Edmonds shall be held for naught, and that Plaintiff did not prove slander of title. Plaintiff appeals to this Court raising an issue regarding whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing his claim for slander of title. Defendants raise an issue regarding whether the Trial Court erred in finding for Plaintiff on the boundary line issue. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings with regard either to the boundary line dispute or to Plaintiff’s slander of title claim, and we affirm. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Lou Uselton et vir, Terry Twayne Uselton v. Jessica Walton and Clinton Brandon Woodard - Dissent
This is a case involving the Grandparent Visitation Statute in which the grandparents unquestionably played a significant role in the child’s life. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Burell Parrish v. Tammy Jo Scott Parrish
This is a divorce case in which the award of alimony in futuro is questioned. Appellant Husband and Appellee Wife were married for approximately thirty years. The trial court granted Husband a divorce, divided certain marital property and debt, and awarded Appellee Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $850 per month until death or remarriage. Appellant Husband appeals only the award of alimony. From the totality of the circumstances, and specifically based upon Wife’s health issues, her level of education, her employment history, and past earnings, it does not appear that rehabilitation will be possible. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the type and amount of alimony awarded. Wife’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal is denied. Affirmed and remanded. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Tera Danielle Ward v. John Patrick Ward
In this divorce case, the father appeals the trial court’s designation of the mother as the primary residential parent of the parties’ daughter. The child was born after the parties separated; at the time, the father lived in New Jersey and the mother lived in Tennessee. Divorce proceedings were initiated in Tennessee when the child was six months old; both parents asked to be designated as the child’s primary residential parent. After a trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced and designated the mother as the child’s primary residential parent; the father was granted parenting time for one week per month. The father now appeals, challenging the trial court’s decision to declare the parties divorced and to designate the mother as the child’s primary residential parent. After a careful review of the evidence, we affirm the trial court’s decision to declare the parties divorced, and reverse the designation of the mother as the primary residential parent of the child. We vacate the parenting plan approved by the trial court and remand the cause for entry of an order and parenting plan designating the father as the child’s primary residential parent, with appropriate alternate parenting time for the mother. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Lewis D. Chapman, Individually and as an Employee and Deputy Sheriff of Shelby County, Tennessee v. Shelby County Government, et al.
The trial court determined that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate an injury and accordingly lacked standing in this declaratory judgment action. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, F/K/A Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Kaiser C. Taylor and All Known and Unknown Heirs of Kaiser C. Taylor and Kathy K. Taylor
This case involves a foreclosure sale that occurred while an automatic stay was in effect pursuant to the mortgagor’s bankruptcy proceeding. The mortgagee petitioned the trial court to find the foreclosure void ab initio and to reform the real estate records by voiding the successor trustee’s deed and placing the parties in their original positions as to the deed of trust. The trial court denied the relief requested by the mortgagee. The mortgagee appeals. We hold that the foreclosure sale is invalid and of no effect because it is voidable, pursuant to United States Code § 362(a)(6) and (c) (Supp. 2012) and Tennessee law, and because there existed no equitable circumstances sufficient to constitute an exception to the operation of the stay. We reverse the denial of summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Clayton Ward v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Appellant, former employee of Appellee railroad, appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of preclusion. Appellant filed this lawsuit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, seeking damages for injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of walking on ballast in Appellant’s railyard. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the ground that Appellant’s claim concerning ballast was precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act regulation 49 C.F.R. § 213.103. The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that Appellant failed to meet his burden to negate Appellee’s proof that it complied with 49 C.F.R. § 213.103. We have determined that Appellant satisfied his burden of production to negate Appellee’s proof regarding whether the ballast rock at issue provided adequate drainage in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 213.103, making summary judgment inappropriate. Reversed and remanded. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Ramey Michelle Long v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al.
Motorist brought suit against multiple defendants for injuries arising out of two car accidents. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of two defendants. Because genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, we reverse. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Randall v. Shelby County Unified School Board (inclusive of the former Memphis City Schools Board of Education), et al.
The trial court reversed the Board of Education’s decision to dismiss a City of Memphis school teacher. We reverse the trial court and reinstate the Board of Education’s dismissal of the teacher on the ground of unprofessional conduct. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Willie Beverly, Deacon of Antioch Baptist Church v. Farm Bureau Insurance and Tennessee Farmers Insurance Company
A general sessions judgment was appealed to circuit court. In the circuit court, the Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming that there were errors in the Defendant’s notice of appeal and appeal bond that rendered the documents ineffective. The circuit court denied the motion, and the case was resolved on its merits. The Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the circuit court should have dismissed the appeal based on the alleged errors in the notice of appeal and appeal bond. We affirm. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Franda Webb, et al. v First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc., et al.
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings. The defendants assert that Ms. Webb signed an agreement to arbitrate “all controversies” when she opened the brokerage account with them. The trial court determined, inter alia, that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable under state law, that Ms. Webb did not agree to arbitration, and that the account representative fraudulently induced Ms. Webb to enter into the agreement. We affirm the decision of the trial court only as to arbitration; we vacate any findings that go to the merits of the underlying case and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel Paul Allen, et al v. The City of Newport
The City of Newport sought to annex certain properties in Cocke County, Tennessee. A number of affected parties objected to the annexation and filed a complaint against the City. The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege that the City was barred from annexing their properties because it had defaulted on a prior plan of services from an earlier annexation. The City filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the City’s motion on the ground that the statutory amendments on which the plaintiffs relied to support their claim could not be retroactively applied. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jakaeha A. L., et al
This is a parental rights termination appeal. The Department of Children’s Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the mother to her daughters, ages 2 three and one. The ground alleged was severe child abuse against a half sibling for which the mother was sentenced to more than two years imprisonment. After conducting a hearing, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(4) and (5) upon finding that termination was in the best interest of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Jozie C.A.
The trial court granted Mother’s petition to modify custody and name Mother primary residential parent. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy O'Keefe and Sharon O'Keefe v. Barry Gordon, Roger Farley, and Plantation Title
Purchasers of home brought suit against sellers, purchasers’ investment advisor and real estate agent,title company,and several other parties seeking damages and other relief arising out of their purchase of the home. Jury found seller liable for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of warranties, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and found purchasers’ investment advisor liable for intentional misrepresentation. Trial court ordered rescission of the sales contract and awarded purchasers damages and attorneys fees for seller’s violation of the Consumer Protection Act Seller and awarded plaintiffs damages against their investment advisor. Seller and investment advisor appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re:Alyssa Y., et al
This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Alyssa Y. and Brian Y. (“the Children”), the minor twin children of Juanita Y. (“Mother”). When the Children were three months old, their maternal grandmother filed a petition with the Knox County Juvenile Court, asserting that the Children were dependent and neglected due to Mother’s drug use. The Children were placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother by order of the court entered January 23, 2009. When the maternal grandmother became unable to care for the Children in November 2010, they were taken into custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and placed in foster care. DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother on April 26, 2012. The petition alleged several grounds for termination, including abandonment based on Mother’s willful failure to visit and support the Children, persistent conditions, and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition after finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned the Children due to her failure to pay child support. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that Mother had failed to substantially comply with the permanency plan and that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jordan K. Wilson v. David W. Dossett, American Honda Motor Co., and Fox Head, Inc.
This appeal concerns a landowner’s potential liability to a person injured while riding a motorcycle on the landowner’s property. Jordan K. Wilson (“Wilson”) suffered severe injuries in a motorcycle accident on property owned by David W. Dossett (“Dossett”). Wilson sued Dossett in the Circuit Court for Campbell County (“the Trial Court”). Dossett filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the affirmative defense for landowners under Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102. The Trial Court held that Dossett was afforded protection under the statute as Wilson had been engaged in recreational activities on Dossett’s land. At a subsequent hearing, the Trial Court found that no exception to the statutory defense was applicable. Wilson appeals. We hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102 applies to shield Dossett from liability as Wilson was engaged in recreational activities on Dossett’s property, and that no exception to the defense is applicable. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Perdue v. Estate of Daniel Jackson, et al.
The trial court granted summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action, finding that the will at issue was unambiguous. Having determined that the will at issue contains a latent ambiguity that must be resolved through the use of extrinsic evidence, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Meadows, etc. v. Tara Harrison, etc., et al.
In this case, Partner and Decedent created Double J Company for the purpose of buying and selling real estate. One month following the creation of Double J Company, Decedent personally purchased the Property, which he thereafter deeded to Double J Company. Following Decedent’s death, Partner filed a complaint against Heirs and the estate for partition. Heirs objected, arguing that Partner and Decedent never formed a valid partnership and that the Property was subject to the administration of Decedent’s estate. Following a hearing, the trial court deemed the Property partnership property and ordered the sale of the Property. Heirs appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Pirtle v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board et al
Petitioner, an inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction, was charged with the prison disciplinary offense of Refusing a Drug Test because he failed to provide an adequate amount of urine for testing. Following a disciplinary hearing he was found guilty of the offense. He filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was granted, and Respondents filed a certified copy of the record of Petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings. The trial court found the disciplinary board did not act in an illegal or arbitrary manner, and dismissed the case. We affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Rosalyn L. Caffey v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee Board of Zoning Appeals and Elizabeth W. Blair
Neighbor of property owner who received a variance from a side yard setback requirement in zoning ordinance filed an action seeking certiorari review of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ grant of the variance. The trial court determined that the Board’s action was within its authority pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-7-207(3) and affirmed the grant of the variance. We concur with the trial court and affirm the Board’s action. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. W. Phillip Reed, et al.
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“Tennessee Farmers”) sued W. Phillip Reed, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol LaRue; Rufus Everett; Delight Everett; and Lilla Farner seeking a declaratory judgment with regard to rights and obligations under a commercial general liability insurance policy. Tennessee Farmers filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing the Trial Court entered its order on June 12, 2012 granting Tennessee Farmers summary judgment after finding and holding, inter alia, that the insurance policy was not ambiguous, that the phrase “property damage” in the insurance policy did not include the type of loss allegedly suffered by the Everetts and Ms. Farner, and that the commercial general liability insurance policy provides no coverage to W. Phillip Reed as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol LaRue for the claims filed by the Everetts and Ms. Farner. Rufus Everett, Delight Everett, and Lilla Farner (“Defendants”) appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals |
