Crouch Railway Consulting , LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC
The sole issue on appeal is whether a Tennessee court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. A Tennessee civil engineering company filed an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against a Texas energy company in Williamson County Chancery Court, alleging that the Texas company breached its contract with the Tennessee company by failing to pay for engineering and planning services. The defendant filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, determining that the minimum contacts test had not been satisfied because the defendant did not target Tennessee. Additionally, the trial court determined that it would be unfair and unreasonable to require the defendant to litigate the dispute in Tennessee. This appeal followed. Relying primarily on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s reasoning in Nicholstone Book Bindery, Inc. v. Chelsea House Publishers, 621 S.W.2d 560 (Tenn. 1981), we have determined that the Texas company purposefully directed its activity toward Tennessee by engaging a Tennessee engineering company to provide customized services, which were performed primarily in Tennessee. We have also determined that it is fair and reasonable to require the Texas company to litigate the dispute in Tennessee. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Commercial Equipment Finance, LLC v. Richards Aviation Inc., et al.
In this appeal, the trial court granted summary judgment to a bank that financed the debtor’s purchase of an aircraft; the court also dismissed the debtor’s counterclaim based on fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, and the debtor’s motion seeking damages from the Receiver that had been appointed by the court to manage and sell the aircraft. We vacate the order granting summary judgment to the bank and remand the case for further consideration and entry of an order that complies with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04; in all other respects we affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sandi Lynn Pack v. James Wade Pack
This appeal arises from a divorce action in which the wife was granted a partial default judgment after the husband failed to enter an appearance or file a responsive pleading to the complaint, and failed to file a response or appear at the hearing on the wife’s motion for a default judgment. After receiving the order granting the partial default judgment, the husband retained counsel and filed a motion to set it aside pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) and (5), seeking relief for “excusable neglect” and for “any other reason justifying relief.” Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to set aside the partial default judgment upon a determination that the husband’s conduct precipitating the default was willful. The court also set a final hearing to try the remaining issues, including child support for the parties’ minor child and property division. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court valued the marital estate at well over one million dollars; however, the total did not include the present value of the wife’s pension plan, which was classified as marital property and awarded to the wife. Excluding the unknown value of the wife’s pension, the court awarded 60% of the marital assets to the wife and 40% to the husband. This decision was based in part on the court’s finding that in addition to being the sole wage earner for the family, the wife was primarily responsible for the children and the home while the husband “dissipated marital assets” through stock trading. The husband appeals, contending the trial court erred by (1) failing to set aside the partial default judgment; (2) failing to make an equitable division of the marital estate by not determining the value of the wife’s pension plan, designating the husband’s stock trading losses as a dissipation of marital assets, and awarding the wife a greater share of the marital estate, despite the fact that the husband was the economically disadvantaged spouse; and (3) failing to award the husband his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Paige Diane Griffith v. Richard John Griffith
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding. The only issues raised on appeal relate to the trial court’s awards of alimony and child support. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Cannon and Associates, LLC v. Hillcrest Healthcare, LLC
This case involves the enrollment of a foreign judgment in Tennessee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, effectively enrolling the foreign judgment, rendered in Florida, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution and Tennessee’s Uniform Foreign Judgment Enforcement Act. On appeal, the defendant argues that the granting of summary judgment was improper because the Florida court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant. Because we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is vacated and remanded for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Venture Holdings, LLC v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee, by and through Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals
This case involves an appeal to the Davidson County Chancery Court (“trial court”) of an administrative zoning decision denying an application for a special exception permit. In January 2018, the petitioner, Venture Holdings, LLC (“Venture”), filed an application with the respondent, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, acting by and through the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals (“the Board”), for a special exception permit to build a waste transfer station at a particular location. Following an administrative hearing, the Board denied Venture’s application upon finding that Venture had failed to meet the applicable requirements set forth by the Zoning Code for Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro Code”). Venture, through a petition for writ of certiorari, appealed the Board’s decision to the trial court, alleging that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial or material evidence and was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. Following a hearing, the trial court found substantial and material evidence to support the Board’s decision and affirmed the Board’s denial of Venture’s application. Venture timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Laura F.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence three statutory grounds for termination of parental rights: abandonment by willful failure to support and by willful failure to visit and persistence of conditions. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Upon our review of the record, we affirm. |
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
James Kirby v. Memphis Light Gas & Water
The driver of a delivery truck was injured when the delivery truck collided with a utility truck. The trial court determined that the utility company was 70% at fault and the delivery driver was 30% at fault. The court awarded the delivery driver $105,000 in damages. On appeal, the utility company argues that the trial court erred in including future medical expenses in its calculation of damages and that the delivery driver failed to mitigate his damages. We find no error in the trial court’s award of damages and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
U.S. Bank National Association, et al. v. Marce Harvey Ingram, et al.
This a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff sought to reform a deed that included an incorrect description of the property at issue. The plaintiff alleged that a mutual mistake had occurred and that the parties to the transaction intended to encumber a 2-acre tract of land, not a 0.7-acre tract of land as described in the deed. The plaintiff claimed that the land had also been improperly released. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: O.M. Et Al.
Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of father, J.M., with respect to his children, O.M. and K.M. The court held clear and convincing evidence exists to terminate father’s parent rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1), and for failure to manifest an ability to parent, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g)(14). By the same quantum of proof, the court held that termination is in the children’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Antoine J., et al.
The mother of a three-year-old child appeals the trial court’s ruling that she committed severe child abuse under Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-102(b)(27). The Department of Children’s Services (the “Department”) received a referral from a Memphis hospital after determining that the child had suffered a fractured femur along with other injuries that were not usually caused by normal childhood play. Following its initial investigation, the Department determined that the injuries were the result of abuse by the mother’s boyfriend. Subsequently, the Department filed a petition against the mother and her boyfriend to declare her children dependent and neglected and the victims of severe child abuse. A juvenile court magistrate and the juvenile court judge each found the children dependent and neglected and that the mother committed severe child abuse by failing to protect the child from her boyfriend’s abuse and failing to timely seek medical attention for the child. Following an appeal, the circuit court made the same findings. The mother appeals the determination that she committed severe child abuse. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
James C. Gekas v. HCA Health Services Of Tennessee, Inc., Et Al.
This is an appeal from an order granting the defendants’ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Because the plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Winebrenner v. Johnnie Mackalyn Godwin, Et Al.
This appeal illustrates the, not uncommon, choice of law problems that can arise when an unmarried couple begins cohabitation in one state and then moves to another state and one of the cohabitants dies. After meeting and living together in California, the cohabitants moved to Tennessee, where they lived together for a number of additional years. When one of the cohabitants died, the other sought a declaratory judgment against the decedent’s children and the trustee of a trust created by the decedent that, among other things, the cohabitants’ relationship entitled the surviving cohabitant to support in the form of “palimony” as allowed by California law. The children and the trustee moved for summary judgment, which was granted. On appeal, the surviving cohabitant argues that the trial court erred in not applying California law to an agreement for support that was made in California. We conclude that, under our choice of law rules, Tennessee law applies. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Comcast Holdings Corporation, Et Al. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue, Et Al.
This action involves a multistate taxpayer suit concerning an assessment against four Comcast entities doing business in Tennessee for the payment of additional franchise and excise tax liabilities for cable television and internet receipts from Tennessee subscribers. Comcast filed suit against the Tennessee Department of Revenue, alleging that the assessments improperly attributed the cost of performance of various earnings producing activities to Tennessee. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that Comcast failed to correctly identify its earnings producing activity, thereby requiring judgment for the Department. The court alternatively ruled that the activities underlying the licensing costs for video content took place in Tennessee, supporting the assessment for cable television receipts. The court entered judgment against Comcast. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Mark Mangum v. Laney Celeste Mangum
In this appeal, the wife challenges the trial court’s designation of the husband as the primary residential parent of the minor children, the crafting of the parenting plan, and the marital property determinations. The trial court neglected to make findings under the appropriate statutory provisions. We vacate the judgment except as to the divorce and remand with instructions to make findings of fact and conclusions of law that consider all the relevant and applicable statutory factors. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
David B. Starkey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
After receiving notice of foreclosure proceedings, a homeowner filed suit against the bank challenging the bank’s authority to foreclose, demanding verification of the debt, and asserting multiple causes of action against the bank. The bank counterclaimed for slander of title, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. In response to the bank’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined that the bank was the holder in due course of the promissory note and the deed of trust and granted the bank summary judgment on all claims asserted by the homeowner and on the bank’s claims for breach of contract and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The bank subsequently moved forward with a foreclosure sale and purchased the homeowner’s property. The trial court then held two hearings on damages and awarded the bank a total of $194,554.23 in damages, which consists of the balance due on the loan, rent due after the foreclosure, and attorney fees and litigation expenses. On appeal, the homeowner raises numerous issues regarding the damages awarded to the bank. Finding no merit in the issues raised by the homeowner, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Logan Diffie v. Theresa Crump Diffie
In this divorce action, the husband contends the trial court erred in the division of marital property in awarding 60% of the marital estate to the wife and 40% to the husband, and in its decision to award the wife all four types of alimony. The wife takes issue with the amount of alimony awarded to her, and both parties seek attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the award of alimony in solido. As for the awards of alimony in futuro and transitional alimony, an award of alimony must be based on the factors known at the time of the hearing, Ford v. Ford, 952 S.W.2d 824, 829-30 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); however, the trial court considered the husband’s “speculative income,” that being what he might earn in the future, in setting the amount of alimony in futuro and transitional alimony. Accordingly, we reverse the amounts awarded for in futuro and transitional alimony and remand to the trial court to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine the wife’s need for each category of alimony and the husband’s ability to pay based upon the relevant factors and facts known at the time of the divorce, and enter judgment accordingly. We vacate the award of rehabilitative alimony because it was not requested, and there is no competent evidence to support an award of rehabilitative alimony. Moreover, because we have affirmed the finding that the wife is entitled to receive transitional alimony, which should be awarded only when rehabilitation is not necessary, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–5–121(d)(4), she may not be awarded rehabilitative alimony. Additionally, we decline the husband’s request to recover his attorney’s fees on appeal but grant the wife’s request and remand this issue for the trial court to award the fees and expenses she incurred on appeal that were reasonable and necessary. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Frances Brooks v. Royce Bates
Royce Bates (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court for Hancock County (“the Trial Court”) awarding Francess Brooks (“Plaintiff”) a judgment against Defendant in a breach of contract action. Defendant raises issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in not dismissing the case because the amounts were owed to Hugh G. Brooks Industries, LLC and not to Plaintiff and whether the Trial Court erred in not dismissing the case based upon Plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing to sue for a debt owed to the now deceased Hugh G. Brooks. We find and hold that Defendant waived his issues by not presenting them to the Trial Court. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s judgment. |
Hancock | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Williams v. Gateway Medical Center, Et Al.
In this health care liability action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) upon determining that the plaintiff’s pre-suit notice failed to include a HIPAA-compliant medical records authorization. The trial court found that the medical records authorizations provided by the plaintiff failed to include a “[d]escription of information to be used or disclosed” and an expiration date. The trial court further determined that these deficiencies prejudiced the defendants from mounting a defense because they were unable to obtain the relevant medical records. As a result, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff timely appealed. We consider the plaintiff’s omission of an expiration date insignificant. The HIPAA form provided by the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with the statute because it did not include a description of the information to be used or disclosed, thereby causing prejudice to the defendants. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Williams v. Gateway Medical Center, Et Al. - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion insofar as it affirms the dismissal of the action on the basis, set forth in Section V, that Dr. Johnson was not an employee of Gateway Medical Center and, consequently, did not have access to Ms. Williams’ medical record. I concur with the holding in Section IV A that the omission of an expiration date on the HIPPA authorization was insignificant and did not keep the form from being substantially compliant with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). I respectfully disagree with the holding in Section IV B that the failure of Mr. Williams to check the box to authorize access to specific medical records makes the authorization non-compliant. In my opinion, the purpose of the authorization form is to allow the recipient to receive the records pertinent to the case, thus serving as a bypass to the normal procedures for discovery governed by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Consistent with the letter and spirit of the discovery rules, any deficiency in the authorization forms that limit the recipient’s ability to obtain the pertinent records should be addressed in accordance with Rule 26. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Williams v. Gateway Medical Center, Et Al. - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I concur fully in this Court’s affirmance of the dismissal of Mr. Williams’s claims based on his failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). I write separately solely to express my opinion that prior precedent from this Court would mandate dismissal not only for Mr. Williams’s failure to describe the records to be disclosed on his medical authorization form but for the omission of an expiration date as well. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Dayle Ward, Et Al. v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee, Et Al.
In this certiorari review of a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the Appellants challenge the Board’s grant, as authorized by ordinance and state and federal law, of an accommodation from the zoning requirements applicable to property owned by a church, on which it sought to build 22 micro-homes to house the homeless. Appellants argue that the development should be subject to the zoning laws and procedures because the development would be constructed, owned, and operated by a lessee of the property that was not a religious institution or assembly or otherwise exercising religion and, consequently, applying the zoning laws to the development would not adversely affect the church’s exercise of religion. The Appellants also argue that the project did not meet the standards for the accommodation set by the state and federal laws. The trial court upheld the decision of the Board. Upon our review, we conclude that material evidence supports the Board’s decision and that the decision is not contrary to law, and is not arbitrary or capricious; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Citizens Tri-County Bank v. Russell R. Goodman, ET Al.
This appeal involves a boundary dispute. Following a trial in the Grundy County Chancery Court, the chancellor held that the boundary between the parties would be the boundary depicted on a survey introduced by the Defendants. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we affirm. |
Grundy | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jaxx M.
This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her son. The trial court found that all grounds alleged in the petition had been proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to two grounds for termination but otherwise affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Kerry Gray v. Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett, Inc. a/k/a Tenet HealthSystem Bartlett, Inc., et al.
This Tenn. R. App. P. 9 appeal arises from a wrongful death, healthcare liability action filed by the plaintiff on behalf of his deceased wife and her heirs-at-law against two hospitals and numerous healthcare providers. The dispositive issue is whether the pre-suit notices and HIPAA releases the plaintiff sent to one set of healthcare providers on December 17, 2015, and the separate pre-suit notices and HIPAA releases the plaintiff sent to a different set of healthcare providers on December 22, 2015, substantially complied with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(2)(D) and (E). If so, the commencement of the initial action in 2015 as to both sets of healthcare providers and the refiling of the action in 2017 pursuant to Tennessee’s saving statute were both timely. If not, the plaintiff’s claims as to all defendants are barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s now-deceased wife had outpatient hernia surgery at Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett, Inc. (“St. Francis”). Five days later, she was admitted to Methodist Hospital University (“Methodist”) following several days of altered mental status with auditory and visual hallucinations where she was examined, treated, and released only to return to Methodist three days later. Following an exploratory laparotomy and other examinations and treatments, she died at Methodist a week later. The plaintiff timely sent pre-suit notices to the St. Francis providers; however, the notices only identified the St. Francis providers as potential defendants and provided HIPAA authorizations that allowed the St. Francis providers to obtain medical records, but only from the other St. Francis providers. Moreover, the pre-suit notices did not identify any Methodist providers as potential defendants. Five days later, the plaintiff sent pre-suit notices to numerous Methodist providers, which only identified the Methodist providers as potential defendants and which provided HIPAA authorizations that allowed the Methodist providers to obtain medical records, but only from the other Methodist providers. Thereafter, and relying on the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations available under § 121(c), the plaintiff filed a single wrongful death, healthcare liability action naming both hospitals and all of the healthcare providers as co-defendants. The defendants filed Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motions to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on the 120-day extension because he did not substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of § 121(a)(2)(D) and (E). Before the trial court could rule on the motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action. Then, relying on Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105(a), Tennessee’s saving statute, the plaintiff refiled the action. The defendants responded by filing Rule 12.02(6) motions to dismiss, arguing that the original action and the refiled action were both time-barred because the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with § 121(a)(2)(D) and (E) prior to commencing the original action. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the plaintiff substantially complied with the pre-suit notice statute in the original action and was thus entitled to rely on the extension under § 121(c). This Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal followed. Having determined that the plaintiff did not substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of § 121, we reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss all claims as barred by the statute of limitations. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
