In Re Estate of Joyce Ann Hendrickson
An LLC owned seven properties. The members of the LLC were a mother, father and daughter. Mother held the majority voting share. As manager of the LLC, Mother transferred most of its assets to another LLC, whose members were her daughter and son-in-law, without the knowledge of Father. Mother died and her estate sought to recover the assets for the original LLC. The trial court found that Daughter had a conflict of interest and that Mother/Decedent also had a conflict of interest. The trial court also found that the transactions violated Tennessee statutes and the “entire fairness test” of Rock Ivy Holding, LLC v. RC Properties, LLC, 464 S.W.3d 623 (Tenn. 2014). The trial court declared the transactions void. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Harold Noel v. William Gibbons, et al.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his personal injury action based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the expiration of the statute of limitations. Because the action was barred by the statute of limitations, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Bruce Hurley
A decedent’s former employee filed a petition to dissent from the decedent’s last will and |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Vickey J. Cowan v. Jimmy Cowan
This appeal concerns the division of marital property, and an award of alimony entered as part of a final decree of divorce. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court’s judgment with respect to both subjects and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
James Travis Dover v. Hanna Norris Dover
This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because there is no evidence of bias that would require recusal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Danielle Radar Blount v. James Edward Blount
This is an appeal from a three-day divorce trial in which both parties presented expert testimony regarding how to calculate the husband’s income for purposes of paying support. The husband raises nine issues on appeal regarding proof of marital fault, the valuation of marital property, and the alimony and attorney fees awarded to the wife. For the following reasons, we vacate in part and affirm the decision of the trial court as modified. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Carl E. Swann v. City of Kingsport
The appellee filed a petition for a common law writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of a decision from the board of zoning appeals. Having determined that the petition did not comply with certain statutory requirements, we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to take up the writ. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order, and remand for the entry of an order of dismissal. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Vidafuel, Inc. v. Kerry, Inc.
This is a case involving a contractual relationship between sophisticated business entities in which the Plaintiff-Appellant agreed to order beverage products manufactured by the Defendant-Appellee. The delivered products were nonconforming, and the Plaintiff-Appellant thereafter filed suit asserting common law tort claims and alleging violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Upon motion of the Defendant-Appellee, however, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit. As part of its order of dismissal, the trial court held that the asserted common law tort claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine and ruled that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim was barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeromy Tyson Ratcliff v. Melody Leann Ratcliff Neal
In this child support dispute, the mother filed a petition to extend child support for an adult child due to the child’s severe disability. The father filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order determining that the parties’ adult son was severely disabled and directing the father to pay child support “going forward” and retroactively. The father sought to amend the final judgment, again raising the issue of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and also requesting that the final order be set aside until the child could undergo a vocational evaluation. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Upon consideration, we decline the mother’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Alexis Danielle Rapp v. Christopher George Rapp
This case stems from a mother’s request to relocate outside the state with the parties’ minor child. The father filed a petition opposing relocation, and a trial was held on the matter. The trial court determined that allowing relocation was not in the child’s best interests and granted the father’s petition. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Seth Holliday v. Elizabeth Frances Holliday
In this divorce action, the trial court distributed the parties’ assets and liabilities, determined the amount of the husband’s child support obligation with regard to the parties’ two children, and awarded alimony in futuro to the wife. The husband timely appealed. Upon our thorough review, we vacate and remand to the trial court the issues of the husband’s child support and alimony obligations for further determination. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Fairway Capital Partners, LLC v. Tamaryn Gause, et al.
The assignee of a contract for the sale of real property appeals the dismissal of its claims against a third party for civil conspiracy to commit breach of contract, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and statutory inducement of breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant third party based on its conclusion that the third party had no notice of the contract at issue and did not act maliciously. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper
After declaring the parties divorced, the trial court fashioned a permanent parenting plan for their minor child. The plan designated the mother as the primary residential parent and gave the father 80 days of parenting time each year. The father argues that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting a parenting plan that failed to maximize his parenting time. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Christopher Walton v. Rebecca Guess Walton
In this post-divorce matter, the parties dispute the interpretation of a provision of their marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) concerning one of Husband’s retirement plans. On the parties’ cross petitions to enforce the MDA, the trial court found the MDA to be unambiguous and agreed with Wife’s interpretation of the disputed provision. Discerning no error, we affirm. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is granted pursuant to the terms of the MDA; her request for frivolous appeal damages is denied. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Parker v. Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development
Appellant appeals the chancery court’s decision to affirm the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s determination that he was overpaid unemployment benefits. Because we have determined that the appellant failed to comply with the applicable rules regarding appellate briefing, we dismiss this appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Devon MacPherson v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
A property owner filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of metropolitan government ordinances that prevented him from obtaining a permit for a short-term rental property with more than four bedrooms. We have concluded that the property owner’s claims are barred by res judicata. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ethan W.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s and father’s parental rights to their minor child, the trial court found that three statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights and two statutory grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Both the mother and father have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Meigs | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Epik W. Et Al.
The present appeal originates out of a Juvenile Court dependency and neglect proceeding. During the pendency of the case in the Juvenile Court, the Nenana Native Association filed a notice of intervention and averred that the two children at issue in this appeal are “Indian Children” under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Nenana Native Association requested that the Juvenile Court enter an order acknowledging its status as these children’s tribe, and the Juvenile Court subsequently did so. Although the Nenana Native Association was allowed to intervene as a party in the case, the Juvenile Court later entered an order denying a request that the case be transferred to a tribal court. An appeal was thereafter pursued in the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court, considering the matter de novo under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(a), also entered an order denying transfer. Although the Nenana Native Association now pursues an appeal of the Circuit Court’s order in this Court, we conclude that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the Juvenile Court. Accordingly, we vacate the Circuit Court’s judgment and remand the case back to the Circuit Court with instructions that it remand the matter back to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings. |
Unicoi | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Destiney J. Et Al.
In this parental termination case, the father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children. The trial court found that two grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the court terminated the father’s parental rights. The father appeals. We affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Mejia v. Samina Wazir
A homeowner appeals from a jury verdict in a breach of contract action. The homeowner complains of errors in the conduct of the trial, including the exclusion of key evidence. Because the homeowner did not present these issues to the trial court in a motion for a new trial, the issues are waived. And we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cinda Haddon v. Ladarius Vanlier et al.
A driver was injured in a car accident with an uninsured motorist and filed a negligence suit against the uninsured motorist. The driver served her uninsured motorist insurance carrier with notice of the lawsuit. After the driver could not obtain service of process on the uninsured motorist, the case proceeded against the insurance carrier. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of the driver. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, awarding damages to the driver. The trial court denied the driver’s post-trial motion for prejudgment interest based upon its determination that the suit was a personal injury action and that, therefore, the court could not award prejudgment interest. We have concluded that the trial court erred in classifying the claim against the insurance carrier as a personal injury action. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying prejudgment interest and remand for a determination of the proper amount of prejudgment interest. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Jacqueline Hall Johnson
Before taking his own life, the Defendant’s husband shot and killed another individual, resulting in a civil suit brought by the victim’s family. An insurance company with whom the husband had a policy brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Defendant’s husband’s actions were not covered by the insurance he had obtained. A sheriff’s deputy tried to serve process. The Defendant, however, was not home, and the deputy left a contact card. The Defendant called the deputy, and, after discussion, she instructed the deputy to leave the documents with a particular individual at her home. The deputy followed these instructions. The Defendant did not respond to the suit and a default was entered. Months later, the Defendant, alleging the deputy failed to effectuate valid service of process, sought to have the default set aside. The trial court disagreed and declined to set aside the default. The Defendant then asked the trial court to alter its order, asserting for the first time that she was not a proper party to the Company’s suit. The trial court declined. The Defendant appealed. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kalos, LLC v. White House Village, LLC et al.
The trial court granted Appellees’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03 motion to dismiss Appellant’s lawsuit for unjust enrichment because Appellant did not exhaust its remedies in contract. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Shacrysta B. Et Al.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on June 6, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until July 16, 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. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
James L. Davidson et al v. Jeremy Howard Johnson et al.
Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and breach of contract to enforce a purchase and sale agreement, which was allegedly entered by and between Appellants and Appellees. In their answer, Appellees asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Appellants had no standing to enforce the contract because they were not parties to it. On Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Appellants were not parties to the contract and had no standing to bring an action to enforce it. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals |
