John F. Curran v. Only Motorsports, LLC
The trial court dismissed the appellant’s appeal from general sessions court on the basis that his notice of appeal was untimely. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Piper DiDomenico v. James Andrew DiDomenico
Husband appeals the trial court’s judgment in his divorce action on the sole issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself because the judge’s comments and conduct at the trial establish that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Applying the objective standard, we find no basis for the trial judge’s recusal and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Marina Georgopulos v. Zachary Ferrell
Father was held in criminal contempt for willful failure to provide Mother with the current address where he and their child resided. The court fined him $50 and sentenced him to serve 10 days incarcerated, though it suspended the incarceration upon good behavior and continued compliance with court orders. The trial court also granted Mother attorney’s fees related to the prosecution of that count of contempt. Father appeals. We affirm and remand for a determination of Mother’s attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Renee' Niter-Martin A/K/A Renee' Niter as Next of Kin of Rosie Niter v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals D/B/A Methodist University Hospital ET AL.
Appellee filed this action, as next of kin of Decedent, against Appellant nursing facility alleging that Appellant was negligent in its care of Decedent. Appellee also asserted a wrongful death claim. Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration on its allegation that Decedent signed a binding arbitration agreement before being admitted into its facility. The trial court found that Appellant failed to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement and concluded that there was no evidence of a binding arbitration agreement between Appellant and Decedent. As such, the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Keigan S. et al.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to two of her three children. The juvenile court found that three grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
DAVID MARTIN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST OF CLAUDE S. JERNIGAN AND JO ANN JERNIGAN v. TREVOR D. HILL
A grandmother made a series of loans to her grandson totaling $147,000 to help with his |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Nina Nowaczyk et al. v. Timothy Daniels et al.
Appellants filed a motion to recuse the trial judge on the basis that the judge lives in the same neighborhood as a possible expert witness. The trial judge denied the motion. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
FRENCH BROAD UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ET AL. V. HOLSTON ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL.
This appeal involves a dispute between a local church and a denominational organization regarding the ownership of church property. We have concluded that the trial court did not err in denying the local church’s motion to recuse and, further, that the trial court properly dismissed all of the local church’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
JUSTIN ROUSE v. EMILY SULLIVAN
A mother appealed a juvenile court’s modification of the permanent parenting plan for her daughter. Once briefing was complete and the case was submitted for decision, the mother voluntarily dismissed her appeal, leaving only the father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). We grant the father’s request and remand for a determination of the amount of reasonable fees incurred. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. v. Regions Morgan Keegan Trust et al.
This appeal arises from the alleged mismanagement of two dissolved trusts established for the benefit of Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendant-trustees violated the trusts’ terms by regularly encroaching on the trusts’ corpus for unauthorized purposes, thereby exhausting the trusts’ assets. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the applicable statutes of limitations, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Pirtle d/b/a Third Coast Builders v. The Tunney Group, LLC et al.
A general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform plumbing work on a condominium construction project. After completing the first phase of the work, the general contractor paid a portion of the total contract amount to the subcontractor. The general contractor then separately hired the subcontractor to do some excavation work on the project, though no contract was created for this aspect of the work, and no payment amount was discussed. After completion of the excavation work, a dispute arose over the amount charged to the general contractor by the subcontractor. The general contractor refused to pay what it believed to be too high a fee. The subcontractor insisted that the amount charged was reasonable. The general contractor then asserted that the subcontractor had materially breached the plumbing contract during the first phase. The general contractor eventually terminated the contract. The subcontractor filed suit. After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the general contractor breached the parties’ contract, awarding lost profits and attorney’s fees to the subcontractor pursuant to the plumbing contract. The trial court also awarded damages to the subcontractor for the excavation work under a quantum meruit theory. The general contractor appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
ROBERT C. SIMMONS v. MICHAEL D. BLACK, ET AL.
In the Chancery Court for Bledsoe County (“the Trial Court”), Robert Simmons (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against his neighbors, Michael and Anna Marie Black (“Defendants”) to establish the correct common boundary line between their two properties. Two competing surveys were presented to the Trial Court, but only one surveyor testified. The Trial Court found Plaintiff’s surveyor, the testifying surveyor, credible and established the common boundary line in accordance with Plaintiff’s survey. Defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Deshields
A Henderson County jury convicted the Defendant, Darryl Deshields, of evading arrest, reckless endangerment, reckless driving, and speeding, and the trial court imposed an effective three-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. He also asserts that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in approving the verdict as thirteenth juror. Finally, the Defendant contends that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence regarding the tip that led investigators to his whereabouts. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
PHILIP J. BRYCE ET AL. v. NATHAN PARTIN ET AL.
This case concerns a ground lease for real property upon which a business maintained a billboard. After the landowner sent a letter to the business purporting to terminate the lease, the business sought a declaratory judgment that the lease remained valid and requested damages. The landowner filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the lease was void or had been breached by the business. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that the lease had expired and awarded the landowner the rental income from the billboard minus the business’s expenses. On appeal, the business asserts that the trial court erred by denying its equitable defenses and in its award of damages. We conclude that several of these defenses were waived in the trial court and that the business failed to prove the remaining defenses. However, we also conclude that the trial court erred in its award of the rental income and vacate this portion of the order. Because the record does not contain sufficient evidence for this Court to determine the proper distribution of the rental income, we remand the matter for further proceedings. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Naqusha L. Metcalf v. Darnell Woodard, et al.
This appeal arises from a personal injury action following a motor vehicle collision in Shelby County, Tennessee. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining negligence claim after concluding that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence as to breach of duty and causation. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
STATE EX REL ADOLPHUS PELLEY v. BO PERKINSON
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees as sanctions against a petitioner and his attorney in this ouster proceeding, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-47-122(b), following a voluntary nonsuit of the petition. The trial court based its award of sanctions upon, inter alia, its determination that the petition’s allegations were unsupported and that the petitioner’s attorney had acted recklessly when filing the petition by purporting to represent individuals with whom he had neither met nor spoken. The petitioner and his counsel have appealed. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s award of sanctions against counsel, but we vacate the court’s award of sanctions against the individual petitioner. We decline to award additional attorney’s fees on appeal. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
BILL W. GENTRY v. CINCO RESEARCH CORPORATION ET AL.
This case originated as a breach of contract action for the sale of a business. Eventually, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the defendants agreed to pay $1,000,000.00 by a specified date. A few days before the deadline, the defendants attempted to gain an extension and/or renegotiate the terms. The negotiations did not result in written modification of the settlement agreement, the defendants failed to pay the agreed-upon sum by the deadline, and the plaintiff sued to enforce the settlement agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that there was no meeting of the minds as to modification, no written modification, and no breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants appeal only the claim that the plaintiff did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing. We affirm the decision of the trial court and award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the settlement agreement |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Marlinee Iverson, County Attorney for Shelby County, Tennessee v. Wanda Halbert
A complaint for ouster was filed nominally on behalf of the Shelby County Attorney against Shelby County Clerk Wanda Halbert. The defendant clerk filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because the complaint was being prosecuted by a deputy county attorney and outside counsel due to a personal conflict of interest by the named county attorney. The plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment, arguing that a motion to dismiss was not a proper pleading under the ouster statutes. The trial court denied the motion for default judgment and permitted the defendant clerk to file an answer. The trial court then dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. We affirm the denial of the motion for default judgment, reverse the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald L. Shoemake v. Ann L. Shoemake
In this post-divorce action, the wife, Ann L. Shoemake (“Wife”), filed a petition against the husband, Ronald L. Shoemake (“Husband”), in the Sumner County Chancery Court (“trial court”) to receive her marital share of Husband’s pension payments through the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (“TCRS”). Wife had been awarded a portion of Husband’s TCRS payments in the final decree of divorce (“Final Decree”). Husband filed a counter-petition seeking, inter alia, a reduction of his alimony in futuro obligation. After the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Wife for her portion of his TCRS payments, Husband unilaterally ceased paying his alimony in futuro obligation to Wife and failed to pay the court-ordered TCRS arrearages. This caused Wife to file two motions for contempt against Husband, one in February 2024 and the other in August 2024. In the February 2024 motion, Wife requested that the trial court find Husband in “willful contempt” until he purged himself of the TCRS shortage and alimony arrearage. On March 4, 2024, the trial court ordered Husband to pay the TCRS shortage and ruled that Husband should continue to pay the $600.00 monthly alimony but declined to rule on the motion for contempt, stating that the court “reserves the issue of granting a judgment pending the approval of the QDRO to be submitted.” Despite the trial court’s ruling, Husband did not resume his alimony payments and did not comply fully with the order concerning his TCRS obligation, and Wife accordingly filed a second motion for contempt in August 2024. In that motion, Wife requested that the trial court find Husband “in civil contempt for his failure to make payments for [Wife’s] share of TCRS up to August 14, 2024, alimony payments to date of $600.00 per month, and judgment be granted accordingly.” The trial court entered an order on October 9, 2024, granting to Wife a judgment of “$4,812.75 to be paid within 30 days” for Husband’s TCRS obligation and arrearage, but the trial court did not specifically address Wife’s two motions for contempt or her request for alimony arrearage. On October 11, 2024, the trial court entered a second order, denying Husband’s request for a reduction of alimony and granting to Wife her attorney’s fees as the prevailing party pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). Again, the trial court did not address Wife’s motions for contempt or her request for alimony arrearage. Husband has appealed. Because the trial court did not fully rule on Wife’s outstanding motions for contempt and did not render a decision regarding Wife’s request for an alimony arrearage in the amount of $3,000.00, there is no final judgment entered by the trial court, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for further action. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Ashley Golden v. Tennessee Board of Parole
This action arises from the Tennessee Board of Parole’s revocation of an inmate’s parole. Following the inmate’s filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking judicial review, the trial court dismissed the action for failure to make partial payment of the required filing fee. We conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for dismissal on this basis. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Antonio Weston, Sr. v. GP Memphis, LP, et al.
This appeal stems from the dismissal of a premises liability action. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s first amended complaint as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations, finding that the amended complaint, which was filed more than a year after the incident, did not relate back to the original complaint under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
ANDREW ROGERS ET AL. v. VICTORIA COX
Property owners brought an action seeking an injunction to prohibit an adjoining property owner from blocking access to their properties. The trial court granted the request for an injunction after concluding that the land at issue was a public road that had not been abandoned. The adjoining property owner appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
JOHN A. WATSON, JR. v. WATCO COMMUNITIES, LLC ET AL.
A member of a Tennessee limited liability company filed a complaint seeking the appointment of a receiver to operate the company and the dissolution and winding up of the company. The trial court appointed a receiver, the receiver moved to sell the company’s assets, and the member objected to the sale. The member also sought to amend his complaint to add additional claims against additional defendants. The trial court entered an order approving the receiver’s proposed sale of the assets and denying the member’s motion to amend his complaint. The trial court ordered that the proceeds of the sale are to be paid into the trial court’s registry and certified its order as a final judgment. We conclude that the trial court’s order was not a final judgment and that the trial court improvidently certified it as such. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and we dismiss this appeal. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ESTATE OF BOBBY HAIR
Appellant filed a petition to probate the will of her former husband, asking that she be awarded a life estate in the former husband’s residence, per the terms of the will. The estate was eventually closed by agreed order, which granted Appellant a life estate in the subject property. Appellant thereafter filed a motion to set aside the agreed final order, arguing that her and the decedent’s marital dissolution agreement awarded her at least a one-half ownership interest in the property. The trial court denied the motion after concluding that Appellant did not meet her burden under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Due to profound deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, we dismiss this appeal and award Appellees their reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
731 Real Estate Group, LLC D/B/A Town & Country Realtors v. Joseph T. Fuzzell
Appellant, homeowner, appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee, real estate company’s, motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim arising from Appellant and Appellee’s contract for the sale of Appellant’s property. After the expiration of the initial period of the listing agreement, Appellant transferred the property by quitclaim deed to himself and another party. Appellee sought compensation under the contract. Appellant failed to respond to Appellee’s requests for admissions, and the trial court deemed the requests for admissions admitted. Appellant also failed to respond to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and Appellee’s statement of material facts for purposes of summary judgment was undisputed. Despite the admitted facts, the trial court erred in finding that Appellant breached the plain language of the contract. Because Appellee was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, we reverse and remand. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals |
