In Re Noel B.F. The Department of Children's Services v. Veda L.M.
This is a parental termination case. The appellant mother has a history of serious mental illness and persistent difficulties in managing her mental illness, resulting in multiple hospitalizations and incarcerations. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services took custody of the child immediately following her birth. After the guardian ad litem and the Department of Children’s Services filed petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights, the child’s aunt filed an intervening petition for termination of the mother’s parental rights and for custody. The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights and did not grant the aunt’s intervening petition for custody. The aunt did not appeal. The mother appeals, arguing that the trial court’s decision to allow the child to remain with the foster parents, instead of placing the child with the aunt was not in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Monica Whitmore v. Shelby County Government
The trial court granted the defendant, Shelby County Government, judgment on the pleadings as to multiple causes of action brought by a former county employee. The trial court found, inter alia, the one-year statute of limitations of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) barred the plaintiff’s claim. Applying well-settled law, the court concluded the general saving statute does not apply to a claim non-suited and re-filed against a governmental entity under the GTLA. Although the trial court failed to address whether a different conclusion might apply to causes of action arising under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), we hold the saving statute does not “save” a claim non-suited and refiled against a State entity under the THRA. The trial court therefore properly concluded the plaintiff’s suit was time-barred. Because the trial court reviewed matters outside of the pleadings when deciding the defendant’s motion, we grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thomas, Jr., d/b/a Thomas Investments, A Tennessee Sole Proprietorship v. Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that Plaintiff’s action was filed beyond the limitations period. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm summary judgment on the basis of standing and ripeness. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of Keely A.J.
The appellant contends that the trial court made several serious errors, by inter alia, dismissing her claim for child support arrearages, reducing the father’s child support obligation, and denying her numerous motions to alter the agreed order after its entry, etc. The problem with these allegations is that they are wholly unfounded because the appellant agreed to settle and/or voluntarily dismiss all of her claims following the third day of trial, prior to the end of the trial. As for her claim that the trial court erred in awarding $10,000 in attorney’s fees against her, we find this argument is also frivolous for she was discharged of this specific obligation in bankruptcy. Therefore, we affirm the trial court in all respects. Further, upon the finding this appeal is frivolous, we remand with instructions for the trial court to award the appellee his reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs against the appellant. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Sandi D. Jackson v. Mitchell B. Lanphere
The petitioner for an order of protection appeals the trial court’s decision dismissing her petition. While we reject most of the assignments of error identified by the petitioner, we agree that the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as now required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02. We therefore vacate the trial court’s order and remand. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Settle v. Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute, et al.
The plaintiff, Mike Settle, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a complaint on April 22, 2010, in which he sought injunctive relief in the form of a transfer from the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) to the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute (“MTMHI”). The defendants, MTMHI and former Chief Executive Officer, Lynn McDonald, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appeals, and we affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Vicki L. Hutchings v. Jobe, Hastings & Associates
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract of employment for a term of three years, wherein plaintiff would prepare tax returns for defendant tax firm. Defendant terminated plaintiff's employment before the three year term had expired and plaintiff appealed to this Court to reverse the Trial Court's finding of breach of contract and award her damages for the breach. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's finding that the employer had just cause to terminate plaintiff. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
John Ambler Widener v. Stephanie Elizabeth Widener
Defendant Mother appeals the trial court’s judgment naming Plaintiff Father primary residential parent, the award of child support, and assignment of debt. We affirm in part, vacate in part, reverse in part and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Elizabeth Schwartz Brock v. Jeffery Brock
In this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial court’s award of spousal support and attorney’s fees to the wife. The husband claims his inability to pay outweighs the wife’s need for spousal support. After reviewing the record, we find the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision to award spousal support and attorney’s fees to the wife. Therefore, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Billie Seay, Nationwide Insurance v. Betty Walsh et al.
On or about May 28, 2005, Billie Seay was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle driven by the defendant Thomas E. Walsh (“the Driver”), which vehicle was owned by the defendant Betty Walsh (“the Owner”). Seay’s insurance company, Nationwide Insurance Company, settled her claim and filed this subrogation action in Seay’s name for the use and benefit of Nationwide against the Driver and the Owner. The Driver and the Owner filed separate pro se answers. The Owner appeared at trial, but the Driver did not appear. The trial court entered a judgment against both defendants. Two and a half years later, the Driver filed a motion to set aside the judgment. It was denied. He then filed a series of similar unsuccessful post-judgment motions. The Driver appeals from the last order denying post judgment relief. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Krystal Dawn (Walton) Cantrell v. Patricia Tolley
This case arises from the circuit court’s execution of judgment. Following dismissal of Appellant’s appeal from the general sessions court, the circuit court specifically affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court, issued execution thereon, and denied Appellant’s motion to quash the execution upon its finding that the ten year time period for collection of judgments, under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-110, ran from the date of the circuit court’s order. Upon review, we conclude that, by affirming the general sessions court’s judgment, the circuit court retained jurisdiction to execute the judgment, and that the ten year time period for collection of the judgment ran from the date of the circuit court’s order and was not expired when levy was made. Affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Glenn Cupp et al. v. Bill Heath et al.
In late 2007, the defendant Bill Heath built a fence on a line running generally east and west, said line having been established by surveyor Bill Parsons in 1990 and then re-staked in 2007 by surveyor Dennis Fultz. The plaintiff Glenn Cupp, an adjoining landowner to the south of Heath, hired surveyor Mark Comparoni to establish his northern line because Cupp believed Heath had built the fence much too far to the south. Marjorie Keck, who joins Heath on her northern boundary and Cupp on her western boundary, also commissioned Comparoni to survey her land. Comparoni’s survey confirmed that Heath’s new fence incorrectly encompassed approximately 35 acres of Cupp’s land and approximately 6 acres of Keck’s land. Cupp and Keck filed this action against Heath in 2008 to establish their northern boundary with Heath and the Cupp/Keck common boundary as surveyed by Comparoni. The trial court found that the Comparoni survey correctly established the boundary lines of all the parties. Heath appeals. We affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.M.K.
This appeal concerns the changing of a minor child’s surname. Tyler Weseman (“Father”) and Amanda King (“Mother”) are, respectively, the father and mother of the minor child A.M.K.(“the Child”). Father filed a petition to establish parentage and co-parenting time. Father sought to have the Child bear his surname. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) changed the Child’s surname from King to King-Weseman. Mother appeals. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s finding that changing the Child’s surname to King-Weseman is in the Child’s best interest. We further hold that the Juvenile Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney’s fees to Mother. The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
BSG, LLC v. Check Velocity, Inc.
BSG, LLC introduced CheckVelocity to Weight Watchers. In 2005, CheckVelocity and Weight Watchers entered into an agreement whereby CheckVelocity provided check collection services. BSG, in accordance with its agreement with CheckVelocity, was to receive compensation for its introduction of CheckVelocity to Weight Watchers in the form of residual fees during the time of the CheckVelocity - Weight Watchers agreement and any renewal agreements. In 2008, CheckVelocity and Weight Watchers entered into a new agreement in which credit card collection services were added and the check collection services were continued unchanged. CheckVelocitystopped paying the residual fees because it considered the Weight Watchers agreement to be a new agreement, not a renewal of the old one. BSG sued. The trial court considered the 2008 agreement to be a new agreement, not a renewal, and ruled for CheckVelocity. BSG appealed. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Jennings v. City of Smithville, et al.
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Smithville suspended and ultimately terminated the chief of police because they were unhappy with his efforts to combat the drug and crime problems in the City. The police chief filed a writ of certiorari and asked the trial court to order the City to reinstate him because he was terminated without cause. The trial court concluded there was sufficient evidence in the record to justify the City’s decision and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The police chief appealed, and we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition for writ of certiorari. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Roger William Byrd, D.C. v. Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners
This appeal arises out of disciplinary proceedings against a chiropractor before the Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The allegations originally involved a single incident of solicitation that occurred in 2000, in which Dr. Byrd telephoned a car accident victim just two days after her accident in violation of the Board’s rule governing telemarketing or solicitation. The notice of charges was later amended to include additional allegations regarding Dr. Byrd’s use of an office in Florida to telemarket Tennessee accident victims in violation of the aforementioned rule. Dr. Byrd admitted that telemarketing was being conducted by the Florida employees. However, he claimed that a corporation was responsible for conducting the telemarketing, rather than himself, and he argued that the corporation was not subject to the Board’s telemarketing rules. The Board found Dr. Byrd guilty of several violations and revoked his chiropractic license. The chancery court affirmed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza
This appeal involves a post-divorce petition to modify a parenting plan. The parties divorced in Tennessee and agreed to a parenting plan that esignated the mother as the primary residential parent of their two minor children. By the time the divorce decree was entered, both parties had moved to New York. Months later, the mother filed a petition in the Tennessee trial court seeking court approval to relocate with the minor children to Colorado. The mother also sought an increase in child support, and to recover a child support arrearage. The father objected and filed a cross-petition in the Tennessee trial court to be designated as the primary residential parent. After a hearing, the Tennessee trial court granted the mother’s petition to relocate, increased the father’s child support obligation, and assessed a child support arrearage against the father. The father appeals. We hold that, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Tennessee trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the mother’s petition to relocate or the father’s petition to change the designation of primary residential parent. We also hold that, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the mother’s request for modification of child support. The trial court, however, retained jurisdiction to enforce the existing child support order. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order insofar as it modified the parenting plan and child support. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Jared Ajani Lima v. Marcia Gabriel Lima
This appeal involves parental relocation. Mother intended to relocate from Tennessee to Las Vegas with the parties’ two children in order to accept another position with her current employer. Father filed a petition opposing the relocation and seeking modification of the parenting plan to be named primary residential parent. The trial court found that the parties were not spending substantially equal intervals of time with the children, and that the move had a reasonable purpose. Therefore, it permitted Mother to relocate with the children pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108. Father raises numerous issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, et al. v. William R. Hill, et al.
Defendant allegedly suffered an on-the-job injury to his knees over the course of several years, and Plaintiffs paid workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf. However, after Defendant was videotaped building a barn, his employment was terminated and suit was filed against him for fraud. Defendant then filed a counter-complaint alleging, among other things, retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to the retaliatory discharge claim, and we affirm and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank of Nashville v. Charles Chipman, Sr., et al.
Defendant defaulted on a $300,000 loan from plaintiff bank. He subsequently renewed the loan but not before transferring certain assets to his wife. He never repaid the loan. The bank filed suit against the husband for breach of contract and fraud and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance, conversion, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment. The bank also sought a lien lis pendens, a constructive trust, and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The trial court found against the husband with respect to the bank’s claims for breach of contract and fraud (in renewing the loan), against the wife for unjust enrichment, and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance. The court denied the bank’s request for a constructive trust and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The parties appeal the trial court’s disposition of claims for fraud, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as its decision not to impose a constructive trust. We find for the bank on its fraud (against the husband) and unjust enrichment (against the wife) claims. We find against the bank on its claims for civil conspiracy to defraud and the imposition of a constructive trust. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation, et al.
An applicant for a billboard permit appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation to deny his application. During the pendency of this action, the applicant admitted he had sold his leasehold interest in the property on which the billboard was to be located. Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court concluded that petitioner “lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit and this cause is moot as a matter of law.” We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Kittrell v. Wilson County, Tennessee, et al.
The owner of a piece of rural property in Wilson County applied for a “permissible use” permit that would allow him to display vehicles for sale on the property. The County planning staff recommended against issuance of a permit, reasoning that the proposed use was not consistent with other uses permitted in an A-1 (agricultural) zoning district. The owner appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which agreed to issue the permit, but limited the use to “no more than 10 serviceable items being on the property at any given time.” The owner challenged the limitation by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wilson County Chancery Court. The court determined that the BZA had acted arbitrarily and had exceeded its authority by placing a condition on the owner’s use of the property of a type not contemplated by the controlling ordinance, and it removed that condition. We affirm the removal of the condition, but we reverse the trial court’s holding that the BZA had violated the property owner’s substantive due process rights. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Davey Mann, and wife, Teresa Mann v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, et al.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants in an amended complaint following the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendants moved for summary judgment/judgment on the pleadings based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Subsequently, co-defendants alleged Defendants’ comparative fault in an amended answer. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings were granted, but were not made final. Based on co-defendants’ answer, Plaintiffs again amended their complaint to name Defendants pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119. However, Defendants claimed that section 20-1-119 could not be utilized as they were already parties to the lawsuit, and they moved for summary judgment and to dismiss. The trial court granted said motions, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ashraf M. Saweres v. Royal Net Auto Sale, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises out of an action in which the plaintiff asserted a claim that the agent of a used car business in which the plaintiff allegedly invested committed misrepresentation, fraud, and conversion, and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in failing to give him stock in the business or compensate him for work performed at the business. Plaintiff also asserted a claim based on defendants’ alleged failure to repair his vehicle. The trial court held that plaintiff had not established the necessary elements for any of his claims and dismissed the case; plaintiff appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Bonanno, Sr. v. Willa Faris
The plaintiff requested a transcript of a deposition from the defendant, a court reporter. When the defendant notified the plaintiff that the transcript was ready and told him her fee, he neither retrieved the transcript nor paid her. After the defendant made several telephone calls to the plaintiff in an attempt to obtain payment, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals |
