Mark IV Enterprises, Inc., Et Al. v. Bank Of America, N.A., Et Al.
Appellants’ employee embezzled funds from Appellants using the employee’s Bank of America account. The employee wrote checks on Appellants’ accounts to legitimate third party vendors but deposited the checks into her own personal account by way of Bank of America’s ATMs. Appellants filed suit against Bank of America alleging that the bank’s failure to either prevent this activity or alert Appellants thereto constituted causes of action for aiding and abetting conversion, aiding and abetting fraud, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The trial court granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss Appellants’ claims for aiding and abetting fraud and conversion and for civil conspiracy based on Bank of America’s lack of knowledge of Appellants’ employee’s wrongdoing. The court subsequently granted Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining negligence claim finding that the bank owed no duty to Appellants. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christle Stanley Et Al. v. Fidel Castro Segura Et Al
This is an uninsured motorist case. Appellee State Farm Insurance Companies denied Appellants’ uninsured motorist coverage after the uninsured motorist, defendant, discharged the claim in bankruptcy. The trial court granted State Farm’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion, finding that the policy language that State Farm was liable for “bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the [uninsured motorist],” relieved State Farm from providing coverage after the uninsured motorist discharged the claim in bankruptcy. Because the order appealed is not final, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
M. Latroy Alexandria-Williams v. Mark Goins, et al.
This is an extraordinary appeal, filed pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, seeking review of an injunction entered with respect to the August 2, 2018 Democratic primary ballot for Tennessee’s Ninth Congressional District election. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that an extraordinary appeal should be granted and that the trial court’s injunction should be vacated. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mardoche Olivier v. Travis Excavating, et al.
Trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint due to its failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Grady Eugene Dutton v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
We granted the Rule 9 application for an interlocutory appeal filed by Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“TN Farmers”) to consider whether material misrepresentations made on an application for a policy of insurance may become not material by virtue of later changes made to the policy. We find and hold that the misrepresentations made on the policy application increased the risk of loss and voided the policy or prevented its attaching pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-103 and that subsequent changes to a void policy did not render the misrepresentations not material. We, therefore, reverse the June 22, 2017 order of the Circuit Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”) denying TN Farmers’ motion for summary judgment and remand this case to the Trial Court for entry of an order granting summary judgment to TN Farmers. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Jason Keenan v. Jeffery L. Hollifield
Jason Keenan sued Jeffrey L. Hollifield for damages arising out of a two-vehicle collision on Interstate 40 in Knox County. By way of an order entered August 9, 2017, the plaintiff took a voluntary nonsuit, pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01(1). On the same date, the defendant filed a motion for discretionary costs. Following a hearing on September 8, 2017, the trial court, in an order entered September 15, 2017, denied the defendant’s motion. Defendant appeals, arguing that he is entitled to discretionary costs of $814.66. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and award the defendant discretionary costs of $814.66. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Damon B., et al.
Parents appeal the termination of their parental rights to their two minor children. The children came into the custody of the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) after receiving a referral of domestic violence and subsequent concerns raised about the parents’ drug abuse and mental health. The children were adjudicated dependent and neglected in juvenile court. Several permanency plans were developed and monitored by DCS, all of which listed goals of good mental health, a safe environment free from domestic violence, and a drug free home. DCS filed a petition in circuit court to terminate the parents’ rights to the children on grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home as to both parents; (2) abandonment by incarcerated parent as to Father; (3) substantial noncompliance with permanency plan as to both parents; and (4) persistence of conditions as to both parents. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the children in both the juvenile court dependency and neglect case and the circuit court termination case. The guardian ad litem filed a motion in juvenile court to modify the parents’ visitation, based in part on her personal observations. Father filed motions to disqualify the guardian ad litem in both juvenile and circuit court, asserting that the guardian ad litem began functioning as a necessary witness. The juvenile court granted the guardian ad litem’s motion to modify the parents’ visitation and denied the father’s motion to disqualify the guardian ad litem, specifically noting in its ruling that the court excluded any personal observations by the guardian ad litem. Thereafter, the circuit court also denied the father’s motion to disqualify the guardian ad litem, holding that the guardian ad litem was not a “necessary witness” as required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a). Following a trial, the circuit court found that DCS had proven the grounds of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions, and that termination was in the children’s best interest. Based on these findings, the circuit court terminated both parents’ parental rights. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
State, ex rel., Sharon Denise Townsend v. Eric Wayne Williamson
Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s order, charging Appellant with $23,663.54 in child support arrearage. Specifically, Appellant asserts that he is entitled to certain credits against the arrearage. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Montague v. Michael D. Kellum
A man convicted of multiple criminal offenses sued his former criminal defense attorney for legal malpractice, and the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his legal malpractice action. Because the plaintiff failed to establish a necessary element of his claim for criminal legal malpractice—namely, exoneration—we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Earl McClure v. Christopher Shawn Cole, Et Al.
Personal injury action arising out of accident between a pickup truck and a dump truck hauling materials for a company that paved roadways. The pickup truck driver sued the driver of the dump truck and the paving company to recover for injuries he sustained in the accident. The trial court granted the paving company’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the driver of the dump truck was an independent contractor and that the paving company was not liable for the dump truck driver’s negligence. The injured driver appeals. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Joshua E., Et Al.
Tabitha B. (“Mother”), represented by counsel, appeals the May 31, 2017 order of the Juvenile Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). Mother’s brief on appeal fails to comply in any meaningful way with Tenn. R. App. P. 27. We, therefore, find that Mother has waived her issues on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa Martin, Et Al. v. Rolling Hills Hospital, LLC, Et Al.
This is an appeal in a health care liability action from the dismissal of the action for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) when they failed to provide the Defendants with HIPAA compliant authorizations for release of medical records. The trial court held that, as a result of the failure, Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the one-year statute of limitations for bringing suit and the action was barred. Plaintiffs appeal. Upon our review, we find that Plaintiffs substantially complied with the requirements of section 29-26-121 and that the Defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by the deficiencies in the authorizations; accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Gillis Elliot v. Mike Robbins, Et Al.
This appeal arises from an action where the plaintiff sought to reform a deed that did not transfer a disputed acre of property to him. The plaintiff alleged that a mutual mistake had occurred and that both plaintiff and defendants had intended for the disputed acre to be sold. The trial court held that the mutual mistake existed and that the error was clear and convincing enough to allow for reformation of the deed. The defendants appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Alys Harris Lipscomb
The administrator of an estate appeals the trial court’s award of attorney fees to a beneficiary in a contempt action filed by him against the beneficiary. We reverse, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in its award of attorney fees because the fees awarded did not inure to the benefit of the estate. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate Of Andrew Thomas Peery, Jr.
The brother of a decedent filed a petition to admit to probate a purported holographic will. The decedent’s widow protested. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the document was not a holographic will and that the decedent had died intestate. The brother appeals. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Douglas Wright v. Angel Sims Wright
The appellant has filed a notice of appeal from an order denying her motion to alter or amend. Because the motion to alter or amend was not timely filed and the court has already dismissed the appellant’s prior appeal from the underlying judgment as untimely, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Kylea K.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights. The trial court found that grounds existed to terminate parental rights based on a prior adjudication of severe child abuse and abandonment by willful failure to visit and support. The trial court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We vacate the trial court’s finding regarding one ground for termination but otherwise affirm the order terminating parental rights |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Amynn K.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving the parental rights of the father, William K. (“Father”), to his minor child, Amynn K. (“the Child”), who was four years of age at the time of trial. The Child was born in 2013 to Father and Amanda S. (“Mother”). In April 2013, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) granted temporary legal custody of the Child to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The Child was immediately placed in foster care, where he has remained since that date. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order on June 24, 2013, adjudicating the Child dependent and neglected due to Mother’s abandonment of the Child at the hospital following his birth. On August 23, 2016, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Child upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that Father had (1) abandoned the Child through conduct exhibiting wanton disregard for the welfare of the Child prior to Father’s incarceration, (2) failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plans, and (3) failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of and financial responsibility for the Child. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Michelle Newberry v. Jeremy Mack Newberry
In this post-divorce case, Angela Michelle Newberry appeals the trial court’s modification of the permanent parenting plan. She challenges the trial court’s decision to change the designation of primary residential parent from her to her former spouse, Jeremy Mack Newberry. She also attacks the court’s decree reducing her co-parenting time. We hold that father failed to meet his burden of establishing a material change in circumstances affecting the children’s well-being, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 6-101(a)(2)(B) (2017). Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and reinstate the parenting plan as originally agreed to by the parties and ordered by the court in the final divorce judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Seth Mc. Et Al.
A mother of four children had her parental rights terminated based on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, abandonment by wanton disregard, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, severe child abuse, and persistence of conditions. Mother appealed the trial court’s judgment. We affirm the termination of her rights as to all grounds other than abandonment by failure to support, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and persistence of conditions. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Aden H.
The mother and step-father of a child appeal the denial of their Petition to Terminate the Parental Rights of the father of the child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Desiree Daniels Disterdick v. John Disterdick
In this divorce action presenting issues concerning the classification and distribution of the parties’ assets, the trial court determined that an oil and gas investment purchased during the marriage was the wife’s separate property, as was her engagement ring. The trial court fashioned an equitable distribution of the parties’ marital property and debts and denied the wife’s claim for alimony. In doing so, the trial court excluded any consideration of assets formerly owned by the parties that were held by a trust at the time of trial. The husband has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: D.T.
In this termination of parental rights case, the Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the rights of R.T. with respect to his child, D.T.1 At trial, DCS alleged a single ground for termination: persistence of conditions. The court found clear and convincing evidence. By the same quantum of proof, the court also found that termination is in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Dakota M. Et Al.
Father’s rights to his son were terminated based upon his stipulation that the Department of Children’s Services could prove that grounds to terminate existed and upon the Court’s conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. Upon our review, we conclude that Father’s stipulation that the evidence satisfied the statutory grounds for termination was a nullity. We also conclude that the trial court’s order does not contain adequate factual findings with respect to the grounds for termination to provide for a meaningful review. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court and remand the case. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Jo Goodman v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Et Al.
A borrower filed a pro se petition against a mortgage company and law firm seeking to enjoin a foreclosure sale. The trial court issued the injunction but, upon motion of the mortgage company and law firm, set aside the order granting injunctive relief after finding the order void. The trial court also found that the borrower’s petition failed to state a claim and dismissed the action. We vacate in part and affirm in part. |
Maury | Court of Appeals |
