In Re Estate of Donald Patrick Burns
A decedent’s stepchildren filed a complaint contesting ownership of a portion of his twenty-acre property. They asserted theories of adverse possession, express oral trust, and breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Because we conclude that the allegations of an express oral trust and breach of contract are sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss, we reverse in part. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Guardianship of Beatrice Rose Malone - Dissenting
For disobedience of or resistance to a court order to constitute contempt, four elements must be satisfied. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton Cty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 354 (Tenn. 2008); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-102(3) (2024) (defining the scope of a court’s contempt power). This case turns on the second of the four: whether “the order alleged to have been violated . . . [was] clear, specific, and unambiguous.” Konvalinka, 249 S.W.3d at 354. Because the order here was not sufficiently specific to support the finding of contempt, I would reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Caz H. et al.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to six children based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and severe abuse. The trial court further concluded that terminating the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Guardianship of Beatrice Rose Malone
Katherine Malone died in an accident in Idaho. Her ex-husband, Patrick Malone, was named guardian of their child, Beatrice Rose Malone (“Rosie”). A trust (“the Tennessee Trust”) was established in Davidson County, Tennessee, for all funds due to Rosie. Katherine Malone’s parents, James William Rose and Jennie Adams Rose (“the Roses”) were the personal representatives of her estate and “Limited Trust Protectors,” of the Tennessee Trust. Mr. Malone, as Rosie’s guardian, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Idaho and recovered a settlement. The settlement funds were placed in a trust Mr. Malone established in Missouri with Blue Ridge Bank and Trust. The Roses filed this action to transfer the funds to the Tennessee Trust and to find Mr. Malone in civil contempt. The Probate Court agreed with the Roses, finding Mr. Malone in civil contempt and ordering that the funds be transferred to the Tennessee Trust. Mr. Malone and Blue Ridge Bank and Trust appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Janet Doe v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
Shortly after the City of Memphis (“the City”) made public announcements regarding untested sexual assault kits, three women filed a class action complaint alleging that the announcements caused them severe emotional distress. More than a year after the announcements, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add a new plaintiff. The three original plaintiffs’ claims were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the trial court based upon the statute of limitations. The City sought summary judgment against the only remaining plaintiff on the ground that her claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, and this Court granted the City’s petition for an interlocutory appeal. Concluding that the applicable statute of limitations barred the new plaintiff’s claims, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Logan R. McDavid v. Andrea Murray
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Janet Doe v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
This is an appeal from a class certification. Because the trial court failed to clearly define the class being certified, we are unable to proceed to review the trial court’s decision. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s certification order and remand for further proceedings as may be necessary. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Carrie M. Thompson v. Stephen Matthew Thompson
Parents filed competing petitions to modify a parenting plan. The parents agreed there had been a material change in circumstances warranting a modification. But they disagreed over the residential custody schedule and decision-making provisions. After a hearing, the trial court modified the schedule and granted joint decision-making. Because neither decision was an abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Kedalo Construction, LLC et al. v. Linda Duygul Ward et al.
Ms. Ward hired Kedalo Construction LLC (“Kedalo”) to renovate her store. She claimed that the work was not completed or was not done properly. After Kedalo attempted to remedy the situation, Ms. Ward was still not satisfied. Kedalo then said she was not their problem anymore. Ms. Ward created a website and Facebook page criticizing the company. Kedalo sued for defamation. Ms. Ward responded with a petition to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After many filings and a deposition, the trial court dismissed the petition. Ms. Ward appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin W. Addis Et Al. v. Eagle CDI, Inc.
In this contract dispute, the trial court dismissed the petitioners’ claims of fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation predicated on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court also awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant. The petitioners have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Marie Roberts v. Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority
In this negligence action, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff, who is legally blind, had failed to present evidence that her fall from a street curb and resultant injury were caused by the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to make a courtesy stop at the location the plaintiff had requested for exiting a city bus. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Karl Raymond Duffy v. Jenifer Michele Duffy
In its divorce decree, the trial court “adopted” Wife’s proposed parenting plans without signing or attaching the plans. More than a year after the resolution of Husband’s subsequent motion to alter or amend, the trial court eventually signed the parenting plans pursuant to a motion to enter by Husband. Because we determine that Husband’s argument that the trial court’s order only became final when the plans were signed is without merit, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. Wife is awarded her appellate attorney’s fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Home Service Oil Company v. Thomas Baker
A judgment creditor petitioned to enroll and enforce a Missouri judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. In an earlier appeal, we determined that the trial court properly enrolled the foreign judgment, but we vacated the enforcement decision to determine the outstanding amount owed under the judgment. In this appeal, the judgment debtor faults the trial court for not considering his equitable estoppel defense on remand. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Garramone v. Tommy Dugger et al.
This Tennessee Public Participation Act appeal involves three parties and multiple issues. The plaintiff/appellee, Lisa Garramone (“Ms. Garramone”), while serving as a commissioner for the City of Nolensville, Tennessee, filed a complaint for, inter alia, false light invasion of privacy against four defendants, including appellants Jason Patrick (“Mr. Patrick”) and Dr. Joe Curtsinger (“Dr. Curtsinger”). Ms. Garramone alleged that the defendants acted in concert to spread defamatory information about her during her 2022 re-election campaign. Each defendant responded by filing a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 20-17-101 to -110 (“the TPPA”). Mr. Patrick also filed a motion for summary judgment; Dr. Curtsinger did not. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Garramone filed a notice of voluntary dismissal “with prejudice” of all of her claims under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01(1), to which the defendants objected. While the TPPA petitions were pending, this court ruled on the interplay between the TPPA and Rule 41.01(1) in Flade v. City of Shelbyville (“Flade I”), No. M2022-00553-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 2200729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023). Consequently, the trial court ordered the parties to reargue the TPPA petitions considering this court’s rulings in Flade I. Thereafter, the trial court determined that Ms. Garramone’s voluntary dismissal mooted Dr. Curtsinger’s TPPA petition but that it was ineffective against Mr. Patrick’s TPPA petition because of his pending motion for summary judgment. The trial court further held that Mr. Patrick established that the TPPA applied because Ms. Garramone’s claims were based on, related to, or in response to his exercise of the right to free speech. But the court held that Ms. Garramone failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for her tort claims as required by the TPPA. Thus, the court granted Mr. Patrick’s petition, dismissed Ms. Garramone’s claims against him, and ordered Mr. Patrick to submit his claim for attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Patrick sought $74,346.50 in attorney’s fees and $920.09 in costs, but the court awarded him only $25,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $66.91 in costs based on its determination that the TPPA’s fee-shifting provision—Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-17-107—should be construed narrowly because it runs contra to the American Rule. Thus, the court found that Mr. Patrick was entitled to only those fees “reasonably incurred in obtaining the dismissal of the action,” which did not include, inter alia, services rendered to prepare a defense against Ms. Garramone’s tort claims. The court reasoned that “more than $46,600.00 of his total fees and $853.18 of his costs” were incurred after Ms. Garramone filed her notice of voluntary nonsuit with prejudice, which the trial court stated disposed of the case “for all practical purposes.” Mr. Patrick appeals the amount of the award for his attorney’s fees and costs; he also seeks his attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. Dr. Curtsinger appeals the denial of his TPPA petition as moot. For her part, Ms. Garramone contends the trial court erred by not denying Mr. Patrick’s TPPA petition as moot when she filed her notice of voluntary dismissal “with prejudice.” After these consolidated appeals were filed and argued, our Supreme Court rendered two decisions pertaining to the TPPA, Charles v. McQueen, 693 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2024), and Flade v. City of Shelbyville (“Flade II”), ––– S.W.3d ––––, No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV, 2024 WL 4448736 (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2024). Based on the reasoning in Flade II, we hold that Dr. Curtsinger’s TPPA petition did not curtail Ms. Garramone’s “free and unrestricted” right to voluntarily dismiss her claims against him; thus, we affirm the dismissal of Dr. Curtsinger’s TPPA petition as moot. We further find that Ms. Garramone’s characterization of her dismissal as “with prejudice” did not place it outside the ambit of Rule 41.01(1)’s summary-judgment exception. As for Mr. Patrick’s attorney’s fees and costs, we rely upon the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Charles and Flade II to find that the trial court erred by categorically excluding all fees and costs he incurred in preparing a defense to Ms. Garramone’s claims. Accordingly, we vacate the award of Mr. Patrick’s attorney’s fees and costs and remand for reconsideration of the reasonable amount to which he is entitled under § 20-17-106 and to enter judgment accordingly. We also find that Mr. Patrick is entitled to recover his attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this appeal pursuant to § 20-17-107, as explained in Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, 639 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021), and remand for the trial court to make the appropriate award. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Avyona P.
Appellant/Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to support; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal; and (6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also determined that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Because the Department of Children’s Services withdrew noncompliance with the permanency plan as a ground for termination, we reverse termination of Father’s parental rights on this ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on all remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of his rights is in the child’s best interest. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Danielle Lowe, ex rel. Beau Christopher Lowe et al. v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
This is a premises liability/wrongful death case. Decedent, an employee of appellee’s independent contractor, died when the suspension system that was used to lift and turn tire molds failed, and the mold fell onto decedent. The trial court denied appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the question of workers’ compensation exclusivity, but it granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the question of duty. Because disputed material facts concerning appellee’s duty to decedent preclude summary judgment, we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion on that question. We affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on the workers’ compensation exclusivity question. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Nash M.
The Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) terminated the parental rights of Kelsie M. (“Mother”) to Nash M. (“the Child”), finding by clear and convincing evidence the statutory ground of severe child abuse and that termination was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appealed, and this Court vacated the judgment due to an insufficient record and remanded for preparation of the transcripts of the proceedings. On remand, the Trial Court entered orders providing for the payment of the transcripts and reinstated its judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed again, and transcripts of the proceedings have been presented in the record. Based upon our thorough review, we discern no reversible error and affirm the Trial Court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Whisper B. et al.
The legal father of two children and the putative father of one of the children both appeal a juvenile court’s decision to terminate their parental rights. We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate their parental rights, but we reverse the juvenile court’s decision to terminate the putative father’s rights on the ground of failure to manifest willingness and ability. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Princeton W.
This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child. The trial court determined that the mother had abandoned the child by failure to engage in more than token visitation and further ruled that it was in the child’s best interests for the mother’s rights to be terminated. Because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports both the ground of abandonment by failure to visit and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Frank Louis v. Parmjeet Singh et al.
The trial court granted Appellees’ respective motions averring that Appellant’s lawsuit failed to state a claim against them. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Anita Buchanan, Next of Kin of Lucy Anita Leach, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Lucy Anita Leach v. Franklin Operating Group, LLC et al.
Following a woman’s death in a nursing home facility, the woman’s daughter sued the facility and its affiliated entities for negligence and wrongful death. The defendants moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement that the woman’s daughter signed when the mother was admitted to the facility. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion but also granted the plaintiff’s request for an interlocutory appeal. This Court agreed with the trial court and granted the interlocutory appeal. Because the woman’s daughter, the plaintiff, did not have the requisite authority to sign the particular arbitration agreement at issue, we reverse and remand. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Henry W. H.
After a hearing by a juvenile magistrate, Mother filed a timely petition for rehearing before the juvenile judge under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-107(d). Over five hundred days later, section 37-1-107(d) was amended to eliminate the de novo hearing procedure and require a party seeking rehearing to file written exceptions to the magistrate’s order. Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s request for rehearing based on the amended statute. The juvenile court ruled that the amended statute would apply retroactively to Mother’s request for rehearing but granted her additional time to comply with the amended procedure. In this interlocutory appeal, we reverse the decision of the trial court to apply the amendment to section 37-1-107(d) retroactively to this particular case and remand to the juvenile court for a de novo hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wayne C. Lance v. City of Manchester, et al.
The plaintiff, who is pro se, filed an inverse condemnation action against a city, county, and related governmental entities, alleging that the defendants constructed and operated an outdoor event venue on property partly owned by him without his knowledge or consent. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s request for a change in venue. The court ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants for two reasons. First, it concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-16-124. Second, the trial court found that the defendants affirmatively negated an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim for inverse condemnation – that his property suffered a decrease in value – and therefore summary judgment was appropriate on that basis as well. The plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion, asking the trial court to consider the impact of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. After a hearing, the trial court denied the post-judgment motion. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Xiaohua Jiang v. Kevin Furness d/b/a Premium Auto Repair
The pro se plaintiff asserted claims against the defendant for negligence and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, alleging faulty repair work on her vehicle. After the plaintiff presented her proof at a jury trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on all claims. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence to establish a prima facie case to show that the defendant was negligent or violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Anita Buchanan, Next of Kin of Lucy Anita Leach, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Lucy Anita Leach v. Franklin Operating Group, LLC et al. (concurring)
I concur in the decision to reverse the order compelling arbitration. I write separately to address the interpretation of the durable power of attorney by which the decedent, Lucy Leach, designated her daughter, Anita Buchanan, as her attorney-in-fact. In arguing whether the durable power of attorney authorized Ms. Buchanan to sign an arbitration agreement associated with Ms. Leach’s admission into a nursing home, the parties contend that Owens v. National Health Corp., 263 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2007) controls. The majority describes Owens as “helpful background” in that “the trial court’s order and much of the parties’ arguments on appeal center around that case.” But, in my view, Owens also provides important context for interpreting the durable power of attorney. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
