In re S.D.D.
This case involves an effort to terminate parental rights. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of E.D. (Mother) with respect to her child, S.D.D. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of four grounds supporting termination. The court also found, by the same quantum of proof, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
John Michael Thayer v. Jennifer Lynn Thayer
This appeal arises from post-divorce efforts to modify child support. The father agreed, in the original parenting plan, to pay the tuition for a program for children with autism in lieu of child support. Subsequently, the parties agreed to enroll their child in a private school for children with learning challenges, and the father voluntarily paid the tuition. Several years later, the mother filed a petition for modification of child support after the father refused to continue paying the tuition. After a hearing, the trial court found a significant variance between the child support obligation in the agreed parenting plan and the presumed amount of child support under the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The court calculated a new child support amount after finding that the father was voluntarily underemployed and allocating additional income to him based on his earning potential. The court also ordered an upward deviation for extraordinary educational expenses and awarded the mother a portion of her attorney’s fees. Upon review of the record, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. Therefore, we affirm and remand this case for a determination of the amount of the mother’s reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.E.T.
DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of T.E.W. (Father) to his child, A.E.T. (the Child), on two grounds. Following a bench trial, the court entered a termination order, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had been sentenced by a federal court to a term of imprisonment of more than ten years, at a time when the Child was not yet eight years of age. The court also found that termination was in the Child’s best interest. DCS had sought to terminate Father’s parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard, but the trial court initially declined to do so. After the trial, DCS realized that the parties had made a mutual mistake, the result of which was to render invalid the sole ground for termination found by the trial court. At the request of DCS, the trial court re-opened the proof. In light of additional evidence, the court entered a new order that terminated Father’s parental rights, this time finding DCS had established the ground of wanton disregard by clear and convincing evidence. The court adopted its earlier holding regarding the Child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jacqueline G. et al.
The mother and stepfather of two children filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the children’s father. Father was incarcerated when the petition was filed and had not visited or supported the children during the four months preceding his incarceration. Father was released in February 2015 after serving more than three years in prison on a theft of property charge and admitted at trial that the oldest child “might remember” him but that the youngest child would not. Nevertheless, Father testified that he had been sober for more than four years, had started his own business, had paid child support since his release, and wanted to restore his relationship with his children. While the petition was pending, Mother, who also had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, was arrested for driving under the influence. After a two-day trial, the court found that two grounds for termination had been proved; however, the court found that Mother and Stepfather had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. The trial court’s best-interest findings were based in part on findings that Father had “turned his life around” and was addressing his addiction while Mother, who admitted to having a “very serious, addiction to alcohol,” was not realistically dealing with her addiction. Mother and Stepfather appeal contending the trial court erred by considering Mother’s DUI and addiction when it was Father who was the subject of the petition. They also contend the evidence demonstrated that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Father’s parental rights. We find no error with the trial court’s consideration of Mother’s addiction in its best-interest analysis because Tenn. Code Ann. § 36 1 113(i) expressly authorizes consideration of factors other than the enumerated factors when determining the best interest of a child. Furthermore, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Mother and Stepfather failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the children’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights. Therefore, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Denton v. Edna Taylor et al.
This case arises out of a head-on automobile accident that resulted in the death of Howard Taylor, the driver of one of the cars, and serious injuries to Christopher Denton (plaintiff), the other driver. Plaintiff brought this negligence action against the decedent’s widow, Edna Taylor, and his estate. There were no witnesses to the accident, and plaintiff has no memory of what happened. Some fifteen months after the complaint was filed, the sole remaining defendant, Edna Taylor, moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish causation. In support of the motion, defendant filed the affidavit of the officer who investigated the accident, in which he stated that he “wasn’t able to locate any roadway evidence that indicated the point of impact.” After a hearing on defendant’s motion, plaintiff filed a motion asking the trial court to grant him more time to obtain and file an accident reconstruction “report.” The court denied the motion and granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff provided no evidence establishing that the decedent’s negligence caused the accident. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Carla Landrum et al v. Methodist Medical Center et al.
This is a premises liability action in which the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, filed suit against the defendant hospital for personal injuries and other damages resulting from wife’s slip and fall. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition by failing to proffer material evidence establishing the cause, source, or duration of the dangerous condition. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Helmboldt et al v. Michael R. Jugan et al.
This appeal concerns certain declarations of covenants and restrictions (i.e., a buffer easement) on a piece of property. The purchasers of the property filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the foreclosure by the bank on its superior mortgage extinguished by operation of law any covenants and restrictions recorded after the bank’s deed of trust was recorded. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the purchasers. The holders of the buffer easement containing the covenants and restrictions appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In re Estate of Alys Harris Lipscomb
Appellants appeal from an order that was not final pursuant to Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
George Thomas Kirby v. Mable Dean Kirby
In this divorce action, the trial court fashioned a division of the parties’ marital property without determining values for several items of personal property and amounts of certain debt and without reference to the statutory factors. The trial court also awarded the wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $1,500 per month and attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,000. The husband has appealed. Due to the lack of factual findings regarding the basis for the trial court’s marital property distribution, we vacate that portion of the judgment and remand the issue to the trial court for entry of appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because we have vacated the trial court’s distribution of marital property, we must also vacate and remand the issues of alimony and attorney’s fees for reconsideration by the trial court once an equitable distribution of marital property has been fashioned. The wife’s claim seeking attorney’s fees incurred on appeal is denied. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Denver Napier et al v. Gail Howard et al.
Gail Howard purchased at auction a subdivision lot in Grainger County. The deed to Howard’s lot, as well as the deeds to the other lots in the subdivision, contains a restrictive covenant prohibiting “single wide mobile homes.” Howard converted her lot into a campground with sixteen camper trailer sites for rent. Denver Napier, Sheryl Napier, and Jeffrey Bryant (collectively the plaintiffs), each of whom had purchased a lot in the subdivision, filed a complaint against Howard seeking an injunction enjoining her from using her property as a campground. They based their complaint on the restrictive covenant against “single wide mobile homes.” The trial court held that the restrictive covenant prohibited, in the court’s words, “camping trailers and/or single wide mobile homes” in the subdivision. Accordingly, the trial court permanently enjoined Howard and all other owners of lots from having, again in the court’s words, “camping trailers/single wide mobile homes” on their property. Howard appeals. We affirm. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
Wilma J. White v. James Dale White, Jr.
This is an appeal of an order denying Husband’s motion to alter or amend the trial court’s judgment modifying Husband’s alimony obligation. Husband argues that he was not provided adequate notice that a hearing held on July 6, 2015 was the final hearing in the matter and was therefore deprived of due process. We affirm. |
Clay | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Parker Jones v. Parker Jones
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Norman C. Reece, II v. Jennifer Louise Reece
In this post-divorce action, Norman C. Reece, II (“Father”) appeals the June 9, 2015 order of the Circuit Court for Johnson County (“the Trial Court”) which, inter alia dismissed Father's motion for contempt against Jennifer Louise Reece (“Mother”) and adjusted visitation with, and support for, the parties' minor children. Father's brief on appeal severely fails to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27. We, therefore, find that Father has waived his issues on appeal. Furthermore, the record on appeal contains no transcript and Father's statement of the evidence contains nothing whatsoever to show what evidence was heard by the Trial Court. As such, the record presented to this Court precludes meaningful review of the issues on appeal. Given all this, we affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Joan Uhl Pierce
This appeal arises from a dispute over purported wills. Joan Uhl Pierce (“Decedent”) died and was survived by five living children (“Petitioners”). Another of Decedent’s children, Brock Andrus, predeceased her, and he was survived by two adult children of his own (“Respondents”). The Administrator of Decedent’s estate filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking a determination as to whether Decedent died testate or intestate. Petitioners filed a verified petition seeking to admit a purported holographic will of Decedent’s to probate, under which Respondents did not inherit. Respondents asserted that the document, a completed questionnaire, was not a valid holographic will. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order in which it held that the questionnaire was not a holographic will, and instead entered into probate an earlier purported will and codicil of Decedent’s in which Respondents did inherit. Petitioners appeal. We hold that the questionnaire is not a valid holographic will. However, we hold also that the Trial Court erred in admitting the putative will and codicil into probate when there was no verified petition before the Trial Court seeking their admission. We vacate the admission of the putative will and codicil and remand for the Trial Court to address the lack of a verified petition. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, in part, and, vacated, in part, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Micah Seamus Reynolds, et al v. Bethany Rich, et al
Micah Seamus Reynolds (“Plaintiff”) and Susan Reynolds sued Ted Rich (“Defendant”) and Bethany Rich for negligence after Plaintiff fell while assisting with the installation of a roof on a house. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Circuit Court for Carter County (“Trial Court”) granted the defendants summary judgment after finding and holding, inter alia, that “[t]he record fails to show any evidence of a violation of any duty to [Plaintiff] that [defendants] owed to him . . . .” Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find and hold that the defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and that there are genuine disputed issues of material fact regarding whether defendants breached this duty. As such, summary judgment was granted improperly. We, therefore, reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand this case to the Trial Court for further proceedings. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Central Bank v. Jeff Wilkes, et al.
This case arises from a delinquent loan. Appellee is one of the principals of a development company that obtained a loan in the amount of $250,000 from Appellant bank. Appellee was allegedly unaware of this loan. Subsequent to the $250,000 loan, Appellant bank gave the company another loan in the amount of $300,000, which all of the company's principals, including Appellee, personally guaranteed. The guaranty agreement provided that the principals would personally guarantee all of the company's debts which “may now or at any time hereafter” be owed to the Appellee bank. Appellee paid the $300,000 loan in full in exchange for Appellant bank releasing a lien on 32 acres of land owned by the development company. A year later, Appellant bank brought suit against all three principals for the $250,000 loan. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the Appellee, finding that the Appellee affected an accord and satisfaction with Appellant bank. Appellant appeals. Affirmed and remanded. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Central Bank v. Jeff Wilkes, et al.
This case arises from a delinquent loan. Appellant is one of the principals of a development company that obtained a loan in the amount of $250,000 from Appellee bank. Appellant was allegedly unaware of this loan. Subsequent to the $250,000 loan, Appellee bank gave the company another loan in the amount of $300,000, which all of the company’s principals, including Appellant, personally guaranteed. The guaranty agreement provided that the principals would personally guarantee all of the company’s debts which “may now or at any time hereafter” be owed to the Appellee bank. One of the company’s other principals paid the $300,000 loan in full. A year later, Appellee bank brought suit against all three principals for the $250,000 loan. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellee bank. Appellant appeals. Affirmed and remanded. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Ram Tool & Supply Company, Inc. v. HD Supply Construction Supply LTD., et al
A construction tools and materials distribution company filed a complaint against one of its former employees for unlawfully recruiting some of the plaintiff company’s other employees to work for a competitor, alleging breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty. The plaintiff company also named as defendants the competing company and one of the competitor’s employees, asserting these defendants aided and abetted its employee’s breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty. The plaintiff company further alleged all the defendants were liable for engaging in a civil conspiracy. All parties moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the defendants’ motions on the basis that the plaintiff company’s claims were preempted by the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”). On appeal, we hold that the plaintiff company asserted viable claims against the defendants that do not depend on the company’s trade secrets and are, therefore, not preempted by TUTSA. The trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff company’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy is reversed, and the case is remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Melinda K. Fields v. Neil M. Friedman
Mother appeals the juvenile court's child support determinations. Because Mother failed to file a brief in compliance with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and failed to present arguments to support her contentions, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Geraldine Abbott, et al. v. Mark Abbott, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute concerning a purported right of first refusal in a deed. In a section titled "Right of First Refusal," the deed provided that the purported holders of the right "shall have a right of first refusal to purchase said property and once a price is agreed upon," the holder will have a certain time period in which to raise the funds to pay the purchase price. The trial court found that the provision was enforceable and imposed a "reasonable time" in which the parties could negotiate and agree upon a price. The sellers appealed. We reverse. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Elias Mc.
Petitioners sought to terminate the parental rights of both parents. After a trial, the court found that the grounds of wanton disregard, abandonment by willful failure to visit, and abandonment by willful failure to pay support did not exist as to the father. Petitioners took a voluntary dismissal as to the mother. Petitioners appealed the trial court’s decision as to the father. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Utopia Place, LLC, et al v. Eastern Properties, Inc.-Bellevue, et al
A commercial landlord filed suit against its tenant seeking a declaratory judgment that the purchase option and right of first refusal in their lease were no longer enforceable and damages for tortious interference with business relations. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that all rights of the tenant to purchase the leased premises were void. The landlord subsequently voluntarily dismissed its tortious interference claim, and the trial court entered an order dismissing the claim without prejudice. The order dismissing the claim disposed of the last claim asserted by the landlord. Several months later, the trial court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice and taxing costs to the landlord. The tenant filed its notice of appeal within thirty days of the order dismissing the case with prejudice. Because we find the notice of appeal untimely, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rosalyn Small v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority
This appeal arises from the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority's decision to terminate Appellee's employment. Appellee was employed as a police sergeant with the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority. Appellee received a nine-day suspension from work for insubordination and conduct unbecoming. The suspension also included a requirement that Appellee undergo a fitness for duty assessment before returning to work. Appellee reported for her fitness for duty assessment, but a disagreement with the psychologist performing the assessment over whether she could record the clinical interview resulted in the interview not being completed that day. The Airport Authority consequently terminated Appellee‟s employment on the basis that she was noncompliant with the order to undergo the fitness for duty assessment. Appellee appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission, which upheld the termination. Appellee then filed a petition for judicial review to the Shelby County Chancery Court, which overturned the Civil Service Commission‟s decision. The Airport Authority appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: I.E.A., et al.
The case involves the termination of Mother‘s parental rights on the ground of severe abuse. The trial court terminated Mother‘s parental rights to the two children at issue based on two previous severe abuse findings against Mother: (1) a finding as to the children at issue during the dependency and neglect portion of the underlying proceedings; and (2) a finding that the children‘s older half-sibling was the victim of severe abuse prior to the children at issue‘s birth. The trial court further found clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children‘s best interest. Although we conclude that the trial court erred in relying on a non-final order as res judicata of the ground of severe abuse, we find that the trial court did not err in relying on a prior final order of severe abuse as to the children at issue‘s half-sibling. We also affirm the trial court‘s finding that termination of Mother‘s parental rights is in the children‘s best interests. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Delain L. Deatherage v. John C. Hailey, et al
At issue in this case is whether the parties entered into a contract that granted Plaintiff a right of first refusal to purchase Defendants’ real property. Defendants leased their property to Plaintiff for a twelve-month period. After the lease was renewed several times, Plaintiff inquired with Defendants’ agent as to whether Defendants would be interested in selling the property. The agent informed Plaintiff via email that Defendants did not wish to sell their property at the time, but should they decide to in the future, Plaintiff “would have the first right of refusal.” Defendants subsequently decided to sell the property to a third party and did not provide Plaintiff the opportunity to purchase the property. Plaintiff then filed this action for specific performance and breach of contract, asserting that Defendants granted Plaintiff an enforceable right of first refusal. After discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the purported contract fails for lack of mutual assent and consideration. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that the language in the email correspondence was too indefinite to create a binding contract. We have determined that the agreement to provide Plaintiff with a right of first refusal was not supported by consideration; thus, it did not constitute a binding contract. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
