COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Kathy Lynn Averitte v. William Ronny Averitte
M2012-00738-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Royce Taylor

This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute over whether the parties’ MDA required the payment of alimony in futuro or alimony in solido. The Wife remarried shortly after the parties’ divorce, and the Husband filed a motion to terminate his alimony obligation, claiming that the obligation was for alimony in futuro, which automatically terminates upon remarriage. The trial court concluded that the obligation was for alimony in futuro, and therefore, the court granted the Husband’s motion to terminate his alimony obligation. Wife appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Rutherford Court of Appeals

In Re Estate of Ann M. Taylor, Deceased
M2012-00596-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John Thomas Gwin

Former administrator of decedent’s estate appeals order denying his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, which sought relief from an order requiring him to reimburse the estate for fees incurred by the successor administrator. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

Wilson Court of Appeals

Robert W. Porter v. Brandi Porter (Kimbrell)
M2012-00148-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

Upon the parties’ divorce, Mother was named the children’s primary residential parent. Years later, Mother petitioned to increase Father’s child support, and Father filed a countercomplaint seeking to be named the primary residential parent. The trial court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the entryof the parties’ parenting plan. The trial court further found that certain best interest factors weighed in favor of,and against, both parties; however, it determined that the children’s best interests would be served by Mother remaining the primary residential parent. Father appeals and, discerning no error, we affirm.
 

Franklin Court of Appeals

Robert W. Porter v. Brandi Porter (Kimbrell) - Concur
M2012-00148-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

While I agree with the majority opinion in this case, I write separately to say that I view the question of whether to affirm the trial court’s decision to be a much closer question than is indicated by the majority opinion. I concur only because of the high standard of appellate review of the trial court’s decision.
 

Franklin Court of Appeals

Matthew Beck Ramsey v. Michelle Min Ramsey
M2011-02483-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Thomas Gwin

This appeal arises from a divorce action in which the trial court named Mother the primary residential parent and entered a permanent parenting plan limiting Father’s parenting time to one hundred and eight (108) days a year. Father appeals. We affirm.
 

Wilson Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. James Lyon, II
M2012-00357-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

The appellant, a juvenile, appealed the juvenile court’s revocation of his probation and commitment to the custody of the Department of Children’s Services. The trial court, upon the juvenile’s timely appeal, affirmed the ruling of the juvenile court. We affirm.

Franklin Court of Appeals

In Re: Estate of James Edgar Miller
E2012-00648-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Reed Dixon

Many years prior to the decedent’s death, he was ordered to pay child support. Upon his death, the decedent’s ex-wife filed a claim against his estate seeking recovery of child support arrearages. The personal representative filed an exception, and the trial court denied the claim. The ex-wife appeals. We reverse.

Monroe Court of Appeals

In Re Baby
M2012-01040-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Betty K. Adams Green

This case involves the status of the parties with respect to a baby conceived pursuant to a surrogacy agreement. The juvenile court determined that there was a valid surrogacy agreement and denied the surrogate’s requests for relief from a final order ratifying the surrogacy agreement. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Joseph H. Johnston
M2012-01537-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

The Metropolitan Government issued a parking citation to the driver of a vehicle parked at an expired meter; upon his failure to pay the $11.00 fine within the requisite 45-day period, the fine was increased to $50.00 and costs were assessed. Driver challenged the fine as a violation of the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause of Article VI, Section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Metropolitan Government’s authority to increase the fine, and asserted that the parking citation was unconstitutional for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-3-501. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Mary C. Smith, as Surviving Widow of James B. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., et al.
W2011-02405-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee mental health facility, effectively dismissing the case. Having determined that the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which it was granting summary judgment, we vacate the orders at issue and remand for entry of orders that comply with Rule 56.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Shelby Court of Appeals

Rev. J. M. Shaffer v. Memphis Airport Authority, Service Management Systems, Inc., and John Doe B. through D.
W2012-00237-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge Karen R. Williams

This interlocutory appeal involves comparative fault and amending to add a defendant. The plaintiff suffered slip-and-fall injuries at the defendant airport. The day before the statute of limitations ran, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the airport, alleging negligence. The airport’s answer asserted comparative fault but did not identify an additional tortfeasor. In later discovery, the airport identified its janitorial service. The plaintiff amended her complaint to add the janitorial service as a defendant, citing T.C.A. 20-1-119. The defendant janitorial service filed a motion to dismiss, citing the statute of limitations. The trial court declined to dismiss the claims against the janitorial service, holding that the disclosure of the identity of the janitorial service in discovery triggered the 90-day statutory period under Section 20-1-119 in which the plaintiff is permitted to amend the complaint to add a defendant. We reverse, holding that, by the express terms of Section 20-1-119, the statutory 90-day period is not triggered by a defendant’s response to a discovery request.

Shelby Court of Appeals

Rolando Toyos v. Amanda G. Hammock
W2011-01649-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Curtis S. Person, Jr.

After primary residential parent Mother notified Father of her intent to relocate, Father opposed relocation and he petitioned to be named the child’s primary residential parent. The trial court determined the Father had demonstrated a material change in circumstances, but it found the child’s best interests would be promoted by Mother remaining the primary residential parent, and it allowed Mother’s relocation with the child. We affirm in part and we reverse in part.

Shelby Court of Appeals

In Re: Jeremiah P.A.
E2012-01961-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael W. Moyers

This appeal is from an order of the trial court entered on August 14, 2012, which order terminated the parental rights of Jeremy A. to his son, Jeremiah P.A., based upon Jeremy A.’s joining in the petition for adoption filed by Donna J. P., the child’s biological maternal grandmother, on September 20, 2011. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-1-117(f). The order appealed from does not resolve all issues raised in the petition for adoption, or the petition to intervene and adopt filed by Charles R., the child’s biological maternal grandfather. As such, the order is not a final order and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Knox Court of Appeals

Alberto DeLeon v. State of Tennessee
E2012-02393-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: William O. Shults, Commissioner

Alberto DeLeon (“the Claimant”) filed a claim pursuant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act for permanent impairment benefits and moving expense benefits allegedly arising out of an incident that occurred on April 5, 2011, in which the Claimant apparently was shot by his landlord. The claim was assigned to the small claims docket of the Claims Commission. Because we have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a claim appearing on the small claims docket of the Claims Commission, this appeal is dismissed.

Davidson Court of Appeals

John Charles Wilson, et al. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
M2012-00675-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russell T. Perkins

The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ appeal. We affirm.
 

Davidson Court of Appeals

Martin D. "Red" Patterson, as a Citizen of the State of Tennessee, and as Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369, et al. v. The Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co.
M2012-00341-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

Respondent Convention Center Authority appeals the trial court’s determination that the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors contained in payroll records submitted by the contractors to the Convention Center Authority aren ot exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Petitioners cross-appeal the trial court’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Torrie Schneider Longanacre v. Matthew Robert Longanacre
M2012-00161-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Laurence M. McMillan

Husband appeals the order granting Wife a legal separation and alimony in futuro. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

Montgomery Court of Appeals

Torrie Schneider Longanacre v. Matthew Robert Longanacre - Dissent
M2012-00161-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Laurence M. McMillan

I dissent from the majority because I believe that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the husband did not prove a ground for divorce. My review of the record leads me to conclude that the husband did, in fact, produce unrebutted evidence that established the ground of inappropriate marital conduct.
 

Montgomery Court of Appeals

Torrie Schneider Longanacre v. Matthew Robert Longanacre - Concur
M2012-00161-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Laurence M. McMillan

I fully concur with the decision to affirm the trial court in all respects; I write separately to address the emphasis on reconciliation as a predicate to granting Wife a legal separation for two years even though Husband failed to prove any ground upon which he would be entitled to a divorce. I fully recognize that the trial court had the discretion to grant or deny Wife’s request for a legal separation; however, based upon the facts of this case, I submit the only party who would have a basis to appeal the grant or denial of a legal separation would be Wife, not Husband. This is because Husband failed to prove any ground upon which he would be entitled to a divorce at the time of the hearing.
 

Montgomery Court of Appeals

In the Matter of Jacob A. C. H.
M2012-01175-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Richard H. Dinkins
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Laurence M. McMillan

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother to her child, finding that she wilfully failed to visit or support the child. Mother appeals, contending that she lacked the capacity to visit or pay support. Upon our de novo review we determine that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact and its conclusion that Mother abandoned the child and that termination of her rights is in the child’s best interest.
 

Robertson Court of Appeals

Aegis Sciences Corporation v. Lou Ann Zelenik, et al.
M2012-00898-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph P. Binkley, Jr.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendants in this action for defamation, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff appeals the award of summary judgment on its claims for defamation and civil conspiracy. We affirm.
 

Davidson Court of Appeals

Aegis Sciences Corporation v. Lou Ann Zelenik, et al. - Dissent
M2012-00898-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph P. Binkley, Jr.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The majority affirms summary judgment on the basis that Aegis is unable to show that a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence could find that the advertisement was capable of a defamatory meaning. Instead, I would hold that summary judgment is inappropriate in this case, reverse the trial court, and remand for further proceedings.
 

Davidson Court of Appeals

Martha McCormick v. Warren County Board of Education
M2011-02261-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge Buddy D. Perry

This appeal involves a GTLA claim for personal injuries arising out of alleged negligence. The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after falling in a hole in a school football field. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant board of education alleging negligence by failure to maintain the school premises and failure to warn. As defenses, the defendant board of education asserted governmental immunity and comparative fault. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the board of education had constructive notice of the hole in the football field and so did not have governmental immunity, and awarded the plaintiff monetary damages. The board of education now appeals, challenging the trial court’s holding on governmental immunity and arguing the plaintiff’s comparative fault. We affirm the trial court’s holding as to governmental immunity, but remand on the issue of comparative fault for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

Warren Court of Appeals

Stephen S. Patterson, II v. Suntrust Bank, East Tennessee
E2012-01371-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge David Reed Duggan

This case was filed pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Customer sought reimbursement from Bank for unauthorized transactions made using a debit card linked to his account. Bank limited reimbursement to the transactions that occurred prior to and within 60 days of the transmittal of the bank statement that revealed the first unauthorized transaction. Customer filed suit. The trial court upheld Bank’s denial of recovery, finding that Customer’s failure to review his bank statements resulted in losses beyond the 60-day time period. Customer appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Blount Court of Appeals

James T. (Tom) Higdon v. State of Tennessee, et al.
E2012-00939-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Billy Joe White

The State of Tennessee Department of Revenue rendered an assessment against James T. Higdon (“Higdon”) for certain business taxes owed. Higdon, challenging the actions taken by the department, sued the State of Tennessee; Commissioner Richard Roberts of the Department of Revenue; and, M. Bernadette Welch of the Department of Revenue (“the Defendants,” collectively), in the Chancery Court for Campbell County (“the Trial Court”). The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. The Trial Court held, among other things, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case as Higdon had not satisfied the statutory requirements for seeking relief regarding state tax claims. Higdon appeals to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.

Campbell Court of Appeals