Brittni (Gray) Haggard v. Joe Michael Carroll
Appellee filed a petition to modify parenting time and child support, and Appellant filed a countermotion and a Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B motion for recusal of the trial judge. The trial court did not enter an order on Appellant’s motion for recusal, and there was no order transferring the case to another judge by interchange. The new judge made substantive rulings, and Appellant filed a motion to alter or amend asserting that the judge lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rules 11 and 10B were not met. We agree. Vacated and remanded. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Hamilton County and F/U/B of the State of Tennessee Et Al. v. Tax Year 2018 Delinquent Taxpayers Et Al.
This appeal arises from an action to recover excess proceeds from the tax sale of a parcel of real property. After the redemption period had ended, the appellants, heirs to the decedent whose property was sold at the tax sale, moved to claim the excess proceeds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-5-2702. The appellee, a company that had held a valid judgment lien against the real property at the time of the tax sale, also moved to claim the excess proceeds, arguing that its lien held priority over the heirs’ claim pursuant to § 67-5-2702(c)(2). The heirs objected, asserting that because the company had allowed its judgment lien to lapse after the tax sale, the company no longer maintained priority to claim the excess proceeds from that sale. The trial court granted the company’s motion, determining that because its judgment lien had been valid and enforceable at the time of the tax sale, the company maintained priority over the heirs to receive the excess proceeds pursuant to § 67-5-2702(c)(2). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Kerry Jordan v. Roxana Bianca Jordan
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed because the petition for recusal appeal was untimely and the time for filing a petition for recusal appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by this court. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.08. We also find that the petition would have to be dismissed due to numerous and substantive failures to comply with Rule 10B § 2.02, including the failure to file a copy of the affidavit in support of the motion for recusal as well as the trial court’s order denying recusal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin Douglas v. Frank Strada, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal stems from an inmate’s lawsuit seeking a transfer to another facility due to a claimed imminent risk of violence from other inmates. Benjamin Douglas (“Plaintiff”) sued Frank Strada, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, and the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Hardeman County (“the Trial Court”), asking for injunctive and declaratory relief based on the safe prisons clause of the Tennessee Constitution. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. The Trial Court found that it lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff appeals. We hold, inter alia, that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not jurisdictional in this case; that the Trial Court abused its discretion in applying the exhaustion doctrine when Defendants failed to properly raise that affirmative defense; and that the Trial Court erred in considering matters outside the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Franklin Community Development v. Darlene Lee
This case involves an unlawful detainer action filed by a community development center against a tenant for failure to pay rent and for unruly conduct. The detainer action ultimately resulted in the tenant’s eviction and a monetary judgment against the tenant for delinquent rent payments. The tenant now appeals the judgment of the trial court. Because the tenant’s appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we hereby dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Josclyn M., et al.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (3) persistence of conditions which led to removal; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Eugene Callaway v. Linda Marie Callaway
In this post-divorce action, the trial court partially granted the husband’s petition to modify or terminate spousal support, reducing the husband’s monthly alimony in futuro obligation to the wife from $1,750.00 to $1,500.00 upon finding that the husband’s retirement constituted a substantial and material change in circumstance warranting the reduction. The husband has appealed, arguing that the court erred by declining to terminate or further reduce his support obligation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Re Land TN II, Inc. v. 840 Development Group, LLC
Appellant appeals the denial of its motion to quash a notice of lien lis pendens. Because the trial court improvidently certified its order as final under Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Robert W. Halliman v. Austin Peay State University
This is an action for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4- 21-101 to -1004 (“THRA”). The plaintiff, an associate professor at a state university, applied for promotion to the rank of full professor. While his application was under review, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge against the university with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). A short time later, the university denied the plaintiff’s promotion based on his alleged lack of high-quality scholarship. The trial court dismissed the action at the summary judgment stage, reasoning that the plaintiff had not produced evidence to rebut the university’s stated reason for denying his promotion. This appeal followed. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because there was evidence that the university’s administration knowingly violated university policy by reevaluating the merits of the plaintiff’s peer-reviewed scholarship. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Axis Dynamics, Inc. Et Al. v. Sonja Hawk Et Al.
The Petitioners seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to recuse. However, because the Petitioners’ filings fail to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Michael Hudson v. Steven Brian Hudson
In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) classification of the marital residence as marital property; (2) decision not to admit Tennessee Rule of Evidence 1006 summaries tendered by Husband; (3) finding of criminal contempt against Husband; (4) award of transitional alimony to Wife; and (5) award of a portion of Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs as alimony in solido. Wife asks for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Traden R., et al.
In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. The trial court found that grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. She appealed, raising several issues. We find that one ground for termination, abandonment for failure to support, was properly pled and proven by clear and convincing evidence; however, we reverse the ruling that the ground of abandonment by failure to visit had been proven. We also vacate the other grounds purportedly found by the trial court because they were not properly pled. We affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Dale Carter v. Jessica Jones Fay
This appeal stems from a long-standing custody dispute between the mother and father of two minor children. The trial court entered a court-ordered parenting plan in February of 2022, but the parties experienced substantial difficulty co-parenting with one another. Numerous pleadings were filed by both parties, including a petition for modification filed by the mother in May of 2022 and motions for civil and criminal contempt filed by the father against the mother. The trial court held a hearing on all of the parties’ pending motions on April 14, 2023, and May 12, 2023. The trial court ultimately determined that no material change in circumstances occurred and left its previously ordered parenting plan and subsequent orders in place. The trial court also found the mother in civil and criminal contempt on eight counts. Further, the trial court declined any further jurisdiction over the case, as the mother and the children had resided in Florida for several years by the time the final order was entered. The father appeals, raising four issues. We affirm the trial court’s decision as to custody and contempt. While the father raises evidentiary issues, we conclude that any error by the trial court was harmless. We vacate and remand the trial court’s judgment as to continuing jurisdiction over the case. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Paul David Rowe Et Al. v. Wellmont Health Systems Et Al.
Paul David Rowe was not informed of a radiology report, which revealed two masses in his kidneys indicative of renal cancer, for five years. Mr. Rowe passed away after suit was filed, but his wife, Sharon K. Rowe, both individually and as the administrator ad litem of his estate, (“Plaintiffs”) maintained a health care liability action against the allegedly negligent parties, Wellmont Health System d/b/a Wellmont Bristol Regional Medical Center (“Wellmont”), Carl W. Harris, Jr., D.O. (“Dr. Harris”), and Northeast Tennessee Emergency Physicians (“NETEP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of repose barred Plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs raised the defense of fraudulent concealment. The Trial Court granted the motions for summary judgment finding that Defendants had no actual knowledge until 2015 that Mr. Rowe had or might have had cancer in 2010, and therefore, had nothing to fraudulently conceal. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Ajalon Elliott, et al. v. Harold Junior Monger, et al.
This appeal arises from an automobile accident. Appellants, one of the drivers and her husband, filed a complaint for negligence against appellees, the other driver and his employer. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that immediately preceding the collision, the appellee-driver experienced a heart attack that left him physically incapacitated and unable to control his vehicle. In granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case, the trial court found that the sudden physical incapacitation doctrine provided appellees with a defense to appellants’ negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dora Rathbone Brown Et Al. v. James H. Fitchorn Et Al.
Pro se appellant appeals from an order to partition real property. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, including the lack of any specific issues for appellate review, we dismiss the appeal. We also conclude the appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Nedra R. Hastings v. Larry M. Hastings, Jr., et al.
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Santana M., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (3) persistence of conditions; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility; and (5) abandonment by an incarcerated parent. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Hunters Point Quarry LLC v. Metropolitan Government of Hartsville and Trousdale County, Tennessee et al.
A county regional planning commission denied the petitioner’s application to place a quarry in an agricultural zone. The zoning laws included certain requirements for quarrying. None of the zones, however, permitted quarrying, and all the zones prohibited any unpermitted uses. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county respondents, concluding that the planning commission did not act illegally, capriciously, fraudulently, or without material evidence. Because the zoning laws for the agricultural zone did not permit quarrying and explicitly prohibited unpermitted uses, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Trousdale | Court of Appeals | |
Brittany Sharayah Lehmann v. Jerry Scott Wilson
This appeal concerns custody and child support determinations regarding a minor child. Because the trial court failed to identify and employ the applicable legal standard, we vacate the judgment as to the limitation of Father’s parenting time, the imposition of supervised parenting time, and the suspension of Father’s parental rights. Additionally, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees to Mother because the trial court failed to determine their reasonableness. The judgment is otherwise affirmed as to the remaining issues and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Howard Levy v. James Franks et al.
This appeal concerns claims for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and enforcement of a local zoning ordinance. The plaintiff, Howard Levy, alleged that his neighbor, James Franks, engaged in an intentional and malicious course of conduct that included paving over a corner of Levy’s property, building a wooden fence along Levy’s property line, and routing construction vehicles over the parties’ shared driveway. Levy also alleged that the fence violated the Zoning Ordinance of Franklin, Tennessee, and that Franks was operating a construction company on his property in violation of the same. The trial court dismissed Levy’s fence-zoning claim at the summary judgment stage because he had not produced evidence that he was “specially damaged” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2). At the close of Levy’s proof during the bench trial, the court dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02. The court also enjoined Levy from interfering with the installation of underground power lines under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04(2). This appeal followed. We conclude the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the injunction, which was unrelated to any of the underlying claims, but we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell D. Horst, et al. v. Gary Gaar
The Plaintiffs filed suit against the former father-in-law of one of the Plaintiffs, complaining that, following alleged statements the former father-in-law made to a third party, the third party moved money that had been invested with the former son-in-law. The former father-in-law sought to dismiss the claims that were asserted against him, both pursuant to a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and pursuant to a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After initially dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim and denying a motion to alter or amend, the trial court held a separate hearing regarding dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act was appropriate and concluded that the former father-in-law was entitled to costs and attorney’s fees in connection with this litigation, both in relation to the Tennessee Public Participation Act petition and the Rule 12 dismissal. For the specific reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal under Rule 12, vacate its dismissal—and award of costs and attorney’s fees—under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, and affirm the award of costs and attorney’s fees that stemmed from the trial court’s Rule 12 dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Daniel W. Et Al.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brian Z. Et Al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing that termination was not in his child’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Tray Simmons v. Dr. Shahidul Islam et al.
A patient brought a health care liability action against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s employer, alleging the psychiatrist engaged in improper sexualized conduct that caused him psychological injury. The patient secured an expert witness in support of his suit, but the expert withdrew following the expert’s deposition. The patient obtained a new expert witness. However, relying on the cancellation rule, the trial court determined a conflict existed between the second expert’s affidavit and deposition testimony relating to the issue of damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and also granted the defendants’ request for an award of discretionary costs. The patient appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
