Williamson County Election Commission, et al. v. Paul Webb, Mayor of Brentwood, et al.
County election commission was denied use of city library for a polling place and initiated an action to have its rights under several election statutes declared. The trial court held that the statutes vested the election commission with the authority to designate polling places and that such authority must be exercised reasonably; the trial court also held that the city did not abuse its discretion in determining that the library was not a practicable location for use as a polling place on the dates requested and in failing to make the building available. We reverse, holding that the election commission has the sole responsibility to designate polling places and that the city, through the library board, was required to make the library available for use as a polling place. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Jo Earl Headrick v. William H. Headrick, Jr.
This is a post-divorce matter. The trial court found the appellant, William H. Headrick, Jr. (“Husband”), in contempt and set forth what Husband was required to do to purge himself of contempt. All of this was accomplished in an order entered on March 21, 2012. Husband filed a timely motion to alter or amend that was denied by the trial court in an order entered on June 13, 2012. Husband filed a notice of appeal on August 2, 2012. The appellee, Mary Jo Earl Headrick (“Wife”), filed a motion to dismiss in this Court predicated on her argument that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. We dismiss Husband’s appeal as untimely filed. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Debbie West, Individually and as the Surviving Spouse of William P. West, Deceased v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospital, et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The General Sessions Court granted the Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (“TMMA”). Plaintiff timely sought a de novo appeal to Circuit Court, paid $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk, and paid an additional cash bound in the amount of $250.00. On appeal in Circuit Court, the Defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the TMMA. After raising the issue sua sponte, the Circuit Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the General Sessions Court because Plaintiff failed to file a surety bond as required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103. Alternatively, the Circuit Court further concluded that, even if it had jurisdiction, the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to comply with the TMMA. Plaintiff appeals. Although we conclude that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the appeal from General Sessions Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm the Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Debbie West, Individually and as the Surviving Spouse of William P. West, Deceased v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospital, et al. - Partial Dissent
In this case, the majority concludes that the plaintiff’s payment of $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk and her posting of an additional $250.00 cash bond satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27–5–103, and therefore, that the Circuit Court erred in sua sponte dismissing her appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The majority further concludes, however, that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the certificate of good faith requirement. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-5-103 so as to properly perfect her appeal from the general sessions court to the circuit court. I would find that the requirements of section 27-5-103 were not satisfied because the fee paid and the bond posted were insufficient to secure all costs incurred throughout the appeal, and, therefore, that the circuit court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction in the cause. Although I would rely upon divergent grounds, however, I fully concur in the majority’s ultimate dismissal of the case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Autumn R.W., et al
This appeal concerns a termination of parental rights. The trial court, upon finding clear and convincing evidence of two grounds on which to base termination and concluding that termination was in the children’s best interest, revoked the mother’s parental rights to three of her minor children. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
James Lyle Graham v. Barbie Phylissa Graham
This post-divorce appeal concerns an agreed-upon parenting plan, which designated Father as the primary residential parent and denied Mother any form of visitation with the Child. Years after the plan was entered, Mother filed a petition to modify the plan, alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred. The trial court agreed and provided Mother with liberal visitation. Father appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Christ Church Pentecostal v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization, et al.
This lawsuit concerns the extent to which a bookstore/café area and fitness center/gymnasium contained in a church family life center facility are exempt from property taxation under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-5-212. The trial court upheld the determination of the State Board of Equalization and the Assessment Appeals Commission that the bookstore/café area was not exempt from taxation, and that the fitness center qualified for a 50 percent exemption under the statute. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Clyde Tubwell v. City of Memphis, et al.
This is an appeal from the circuit court’s dismissal of Appellant’s appeal from the Memphis City Court. Appellant filed a pauper’s oath in the circuit court, but did not file a proper bond or oath in the city court as required to perfect his appeal. Accordingly, the circuit court did not gain jurisdiction over the matter and, thus, properly dismissed the appeal. Affirmed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Peggy Dobbins, As Conservator of the Estate of Frank Bailey, Jr., v. Gerald S. Green, et al.
This is a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 25.01 case. Following plaintiff’s death and the filing of a suggestion of death in the trial court, no motion to substitute party was made within the ninety day time period set out in Rule 25.01. The trial court determined that the failure to file a motion for substitution of party was not the result of excusable neglect and granted the Rule 25.01 motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court subsequently also granted the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01. We conclude that, in the absence of excusable neglect, failure to comply with Rule 25.01 requires mandatory dismissal of the case with prejudice and the lawsuit may not thereafter be revived by the filing of a motion for voluntary dismissal. Reversed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Danny Keith Ellis
This case involves a dispute between the administrators of the estate of a man who died intestate and the decedent’s’s former wife over the legal ownership of funds that were held in jointly titled accounts at two banking institutions. After the man’s death, his former wife withdrew almost all the funds from the accounts. The administrators asked for a declaratory judgment that the funds belonged to the estate on the basis that the husband and wife had entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA) before their divorce which designated those funds as belonging solely to the husband. However, the husband never changed the titles on those accounts, and the ex-wife insisted that the unaltered designation of joint ownership conclusively established her right to the funds after her ex-husband’s death. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the bank accounts were the sole property of the estate, and the former wife was obligated to return the funds. The trial court reasoned that because the MDA was approved by the court and was binding on the parties, it amounted to an amendment to the contract that the parties had created when the accounts were established. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Barry Russell, et al. v. Hendersonville Utility District
Property owners sued utility district for damages and an injunction as a result of the excessive use of an easement across the property owners’ land by the district’s assignees. The utility district denied any wrongdoing and moved the trial court to dismiss the complaint. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The property owners appealed. We conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the property owners’ complaint because the property owners have stated a cause of action for which relief can be granted. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Gene B. Cochran, et al. v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
The South Cordova Area was annexed in November 2001. In December 2001, Plaintiffs timely filed a complaint challenging the South Cordova Area annexation. In 2011, however, the complaint was dismissed “without prejudice” for failure to prosecute. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint challenging annexation, but the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Hill Boren, P.C. v. Paty, Rymer and Ulin, P.C. and James Eric Hamm
This appeal involves a dispute over an attorney’s fee involving two law firms and their client. The parties originally entered into a contract whereby both law firms would jointly represent the client as a plaintiff in a personal injury suit. Two years later, the client discharged one of the law firms. The other firm continued to represent the client, and when the case settled over a year later, the remaining firm retained the entire contingency fee. The discharged firm sued the client and the other firm, alleging that it was entitled to a share of the contingency fee and asserting numerous causes of action. The defendants claimed that the discharged firm was limited to quantum meruit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The plaintiff law firm appeals. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
David D. Clark, Jr. v. Ashlyn Cooper
This appeal arises from a dispute involving custody of a child. David D. Clark, Jr. (“Father”) and Ashlyn Cooper (“Mother”) voluntarily gave custody of their minor child (“the Child”) to the Child’s paternal grandparents. Mother later sought to alter custody of the Child through the Juvenile Court for Jefferson County (“the Juvenile Court”). The Juvenile Court denied Mother’s motions. Mother filed a motion for a new hearing, which also was denied. The Juvenile Court, when denying Mother’s motion for a new hearing, described the matter as a dependency case despite earlier classifying it as a custody case. Mother appealed to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”), which denied Mother’s appeal. The Trial Court held that the action was, in fact, a custody matter, and therefore, Mother’s appeal from Juvenile Court, if any, should have been to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Mother appeals. We hold that, while the Trial Court correctly held that this was a custody matter and that it therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Mother’s appeal, it should have transferred her appeal to this Court rather than simply deny the appeal. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Angel S. F. et al.
The Juvenile Court of Putnam County terminated the parental rights of both parents to their |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Khoury L. Kinnard v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
Certiorari proceeding in which an inmate sought review of disciplinary board proceeding finding him guilty of possession/use of a cell phone. The trial court granted motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that it sought to challenge the correctness of the disciplinary board’s decision. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kaylee F. et al.
In this action to terminate the parental rights of both parents to their three minor children, the trial court found that the petitioners, the paternal grandmother and her husband, had proven the grounds of persistence of conditions, abandonment for failure to visit, and abandonment for failure to support the children, and that termination of both parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests. Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights; Father did not. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
George Ridenour v. Darrell Carman et al.
The plaintiff, an employee of a real estate and auction company, sustained serious injuries while assisting the managing broker of the company to move cattle panels on the managing broker’s personal farm.The plaintiff filed a claim for workers’compensation benefits against the real estate and auction company and its insurer. The plaintiff also filed a common law tort action against the managing broker and the broker’s son, who was called to assist after the injury occurred. The workers’ compensation action was settled. Pursuant to the court approved settlement agreement, the employee released and discharged the real estate and auction company and its insurer, as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives “from any and all further liability and indemnity, under the terms and provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law of the State of Tennessee, at common law or otherwise . . . .” After the workers’ compensation action was settled, the managing broker and his son filed a joint motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s tort claims on the grounds they were afforded immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-108(a), and that the plaintiff gave the defendants a full release in the workers’ compensation settlement agreement. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against the defendants on both the statutory ground and the release. We affirm the dismissal of the tort claims against the employer’s managing broker. However, we reverse the dismissal of the claims against the managing broker’s son because the son was not an affiliate,officer,director,employee,agent or representative of the employer when the plaintiff sustained his injuries and he does not come within the terms of the release. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims against the son are reinstated and remanded for further proceedings. |
Trousdale | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kaleb N. F. - Amanda Kay D. N. and Waylon Ray N. v. Christy Shantae C. and Michael L.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights and adoption. In August 2007, the Department of Children’s Services visited the home of the respondent mother and her 11month-old son based on a referral. After it determined that the mother’s husband had engaged in domestic abuse and that the mother was using illegal drugs, the Department told the mother that her son would be taken into state custody if she did not immediately find someone to care for him. The mother’s neighbor, the petitioner in this case, agreed to take temporary custody of the mother’s son. Even though the child was not actually taken into state custody, but was “safety-placed” with the petitioner neighbor, the Department developed a Family Services Plan, assigning certain tasks to the mother for her to regain custody of her son. After about ten months, before the mother had completed the assigned tasks, the Department closed the mother’s case and ceased any involvement with the child or the mother. The child remained in the custody of the petitioner neighbor and her husband, and the mother visited the child each week. The mother brought the child items such as diapers, milk, and food, but made no monetary payments to the neighbor. When the child was three years old, the petitioner and her husband filed this petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights and adopt the child. After a trial, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights based on failure to comply with the FamilyServices Plan and failure to support. The mother now appeals. We reverse the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Ray Adkisson v. Tonya Suzette Adkisson
After a 2006 divorce, both parties petitioned the trial court in 2009 for a modification of the parenting plan and to hold the other parent in contempt. The trial court slightly modified the parent visitation schedule and held the father in contempt for violating the parenting plan’s provisions on spring break and medical expense reimbursement. On appeal the father asserts that the trial court erred in the contempt rulings, in not giving him primary custody or substantially equal parenting time and in not holding the mother in contempt. We reverse the father’s contempt for his actions during spring break. In all other respects we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
American Express Centurion Bank v. John Lowrey
The trial court dismissed this case on the ground that the plaintiff credit card company failed to timely respond to discovery requests. We reverse, concluding that the trial court erred in dismissing the case without sufficient evidence of contumacious conduct on behalf of the plaintiff. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
A. Julian Ahler v. Walter Stephen Stewart, et al.
This is an appeal from an order transferring the action below from the Circuit Court for Roane County to the Chancery Court for Roane County. Because the order appealed from does not resolve any issues raised in the proceedings but merely transfers those claims to another court, we dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estefani Y.M., et al.
This is an appeal by Elvira N. M. from an order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, Estefani Y. M. and Vanessa N. M. The order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was entered on October 15, 2012. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until November 15, 2012, more than (30) days from the date of entry of the October 15, 2012 order. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Cheyenne E. H. and Robert L. H.
Mother’s parental rights to two children were terminated on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial non-compliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. The court also concluded that termination of Mother’s rights was in the best interests of the children. Mother appeals, contending that the evidence does not support the statutory grounds or that termination is in the children’s best interest and asserting that the Departmentof Children’s Services did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. We affirm the judgment terminating her rights. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Adoption of a male child Z.J.D.
Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate Father’s rights to his fourteen year old son to allow Stepfather to adopt the child. Mother and Stepfather asserted Father abandoned the child because his visits constitute nothing more than “token visitation.” Father lives in Massachusetts and usually visits the child once a year. Father’s most recent visit was one month before Mother and Stepfather filed their petition. The trial court denied the petition and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Father presented evidence that he has tried to communicate and visit more with the child but that Mother has thwarted his efforts. Based on the particular facts of this case we conclude Father has not abandoned the child by failing to visit, or engaging in “token visitation” as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102, in the four months preceding the filing of the petition for termination. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals |
