In Re Yancy N.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one of his children. The juvenile court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of seven statutory grounds for termination. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree and affirm.
|
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Carole J. Boyd Et. Al. v. Town of Morrison
The issues in this appeal arise from protracted litigation in three courts involving several property owners (“Plaintiffs”) who contend the Town of Morrison, Tennessee, (“the Town”) is estopped, for various reasons, from collecting property taxes on their properties. Although the dispute initially involved a challenge to whether the Town lawfully annexed Plaintiffs’ properties, it is no longer disputed that the Town annexed the properties with the passage of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02 on second and final reading on November 5, 2001. The genesis of the dispute occurred in 2017 when Plaintiffs were cited to the Municipal Court for violating the Town’s zoning ordinances. During the hearing, the Town was required to establish that Plaintiffs’ properties had been annexed. To prove it had annexed the properties, the Town erroneously relied upon Ordinance 01-03, instead of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02. The Municipal Court found that the Town had not lawfully enacted Ordinance 01-03 to annex Plaintiffs’ properties; therefore, the court dismissed the citations. The Town did not appeal that decision. Two years later, the Town filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court, arguing that it had properly annexed the subject properties. The Chancery Court dismissed the petition concluding that the Town was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue because “the relevant issue was litigated and determined by the Municipal Court . . . , [which] was a court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore, this Chancery Court will not disturb that Court’s findings.” The Town appealed the Chancery Court decision; however, it voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Nevertheless, the Town continued to send delinquent tax notices to Plaintiffs. As a consequence, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a declaration that their properties had not been properly annexed by the Town. In its Answer, the Town asserted, for the first time, that it had annexed Plaintiffs’ properties in 2001 pursuant to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02. Although Plaintiffs argued that the Town was collaterally estopped from relying on these ordnances, the chancellor ruled otherwise. Specifically, the chancellor held that Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02 were not at issue in the Municipal Court proceedings and because the issues raised in that proceeding were not identical to those raised in the prior court proceedings, collateral estoppel did not apply. Further, the chancellor ruled that the Town had lawfully annexed the properties in November 2001 pursuant to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-02. However, the chancellor also ruled that the Town was equitably estopped from collecting delinquent taxes owed prior to 2022. This appeal followed. We have determined that the Municipal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the Town had lawfully annexed Plaintiffs’ properties; therefore, the judgment of the Municipal Court is a null and void judgment that may not constitute a basis for collateral estoppel. For this and other reasons, we affirm the chancellor’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ Petition for Injunctive Relief. However, we reverse the chancellor’s ruling that the Town is equitably estopped from collecting delinquent property taxes from Plaintiffs. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Mantis Funding LLC v. Buy Wholesale Inc. Et Al.
Plaintiff filed a petition to have a New York confession of judgment enrolled as a judgment in Tennessee. Defendant claimed the Tennessee circuit court had no jurisdiction because the confession of judgment was not permitted by Tennessee law, violated Tennessee public policy, and was fraudulent and usurious. The trial court enrolled the judgment. Defendant appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Lorelai E.
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services sought to intervene in a private-party termination of parental rights and adoption proceeding concerning a minor child. The trial court permitted the intervention. The child’s mother appealed. Because the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the Department of Children’s Services permissive intervention pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.02, we affirm.
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
The Appellant takes issue with the trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself from the litigation assigned to him pursuant to designation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Charles Cooke v. Rita Moses Cooke
This appeal involves an amended final decree of divorce entered by the Circuit Court of Hamilton County (“trial court”) on December 20, 2021. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the parties a divorce pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-129(b), divided the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, and awarded transitional alimony to the wife in the amount of $1,200.00 per month for two months. Both parties subsequently filed motions to alter or amend the court’s ruling. The trial court entered an amended final decree, incorporating by reference a memorandum opinion wherein the court altered the percentages awarded to each party of certain items of marital property in its marital property distribution. The wife timely appealed. Following review, we affirm the trial court’s determinations concerning valuation and classification of the parties’ assets. We vacate, however, the portion of the trial court’s amended decree wherein the court altered the percentages awarded to each party, and we remand this issue to the trial court for further findings, explanation, and determination. By reason of this unresolved issue concerning the trial court’s marital property distribution, we likewise vacate and remand the trial court’s determinations regarding alimony and attorney’s fees for reconsideration following the court’s equitable division of marital property. The trial court’s amended final decree is affirmed in all other respects. The parties’ respective requests for attorney’s fees on appeal are denied. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Cochran
The Defendant, Jeffrey Cochran, was convicted by a McMinn County Criminal Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, for which he is serving a nine-year sentence. See T.C.A. § 39- 13-304(a)(5) (2018). On appeal, he contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying, in part, his motion to suppress, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and (4) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mustafah Brummell
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Mustafah Brummell, of two counts of aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodger E. Broadway v. State of Tennessee
Rodger E. Broadway, Petitioner, sought relief from his 2003 convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated rape, which were the result of guilty pleas, claiming that trial counsel told him he could not file for post-conviction relief and that the trial court deprived him of his fundamental right to represent himself. The post-conviction court found that the petition was not timely filed and that Petitioner was not entitled to due process tolling and summarily dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William E. Blake, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
William E. Blake, Jr., Petitioner, claims that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and because the jurors in his trial were not impartial and were influenced by their fear of the victim’s family. Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court dismissed the Petition. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Curtis Greenman
A Lincoln County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Curtis Greenman, of three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor more than 100 images and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor more than fifty images, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of thirty years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for new trial; and (4) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
|
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Muhammad Javed v. Bano Nasim Baig
This is an appeal from a final order of absolute divorce. The trial court granted the divorce based on a finding that both parties committed inappropriate marital conduct. The wife appeals. We dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Stephen H. et al.
In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the trial court found that several statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The father has appealed. Having determined that clear and convincing evidence did not support the trial court’s finding of the statutory abandonment ground of failure to support, we reverse the trial court’s judgment with respect to this ground. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of the father’s parental rights. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Seybold, et al. v. Sheldon J. Metz, et al.
This case involves a petition for contempt filed against the defendant arising out of a dispute over an easement. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant violated the court’s prior order implementing a permanent injunction with regard to the easement. The trial court dismissed the petition finding that the plaintiff had not proven the requisite elements of contempt. We affirm.
|
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
Carrie Elizabeth Bean v. Jordon Estes Bean
Mother appeals the trial court's decision to award equal parenting time after making no findings regarding her allegations of abuse by Father. Because the trial court stated that there was no evidence of abuse in the record despite the plethora of relevant testimony by both parties, we are unable to ascertain the trial court's reasoning. We therefore vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further findings. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Herbert Slatery III v. The Witherspoon Law Group PLLC, Et Al.
This appeal involves an action brought by the State of Tennessee for alleged violations of Tennessee’s statutes regarding the unauthorized practice of law and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The State of Tennessee claimed that the defendants improperly solicited clients who were in the process of making funeral arrangements for their recently deceased children. Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict unanimously finding in favor of the State of Tennessee and assessing civil penalties against the defendants. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment against the defendants. The defendants appeal. We affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kyndra N. Abernathy v. Icker Derek Barile
Kyndra Abernathy (“Petitioner”) petitioned the trial court for an order of protection against Icker Derek Barile (“Respondent”), alleging that he sexually assaulted her. After a hearing at which each party proceeded pro se, the trial court issued a one-year protective order, finding that Respondent engaged in sexual penetration without Petitioner’s consent and continued after she told him to stop. Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by considering irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and that its decision was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Priscilla A. Barnett
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Priscilla Ann Barnett, of one count of first degree premediated murder, one count of felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, and two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying her request for funds to retain a mental health expert; and (3) the trial court erroneously imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lexington Charter L.P. ET AL v. FBT of Tennessee INC.
After counsel for the plaintiff partnership filed a claim for attorney fees in the counsel’s firm’s own name, limited partners of the partnership sought a right of intervention to oppose the firm’s claim. The trial court denied the limited partners’ efforts to intervene. We reverse the trial court’s conclusion that intervention was not appropriate, vacate the award giving relief to the firm, and remand the case for further proceedings with the limited partners’ participation as intervening parties. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michelle Shoemaker v. Stanley Dickerson, Warden
The Petitioner, Michelle Shoemaker, is appealing the trial court’s summary dismissal of her habeas corpus petition. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the court finds that this is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Anna W. ET AL.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights, arguing that it erred in denying her motion to continue the trial and in considering hearsay evidence in its best interests analysis. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's order terminating mother's parental rights. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
James Keith Eudaley v. U.S. Bank National Association
A loan was secured by a deed of trust on the borrower’s real property. When the borrower repaid the loan in full, the bank paid a fee to record a deed of release. The bank then sought reimbursement of the fee from the borrower. The borrower filed a putative class action suit, alleging that Tennessee law prohibited the bank from seeking reimbursement of the recording fee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that federal regulations preempted the borrower’s claims. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jacob Scott Hughes v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner-Appellant, Jacob Scott Hughes, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse, for which he was sentenced, respectively, to life and twenty-five years’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively, as a result of the death of the sixteenmonth- old daughter of his girlfriend. State v. Jacob Scott Hughes, No. M2016-01222- CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3724457, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2017), no perm. app. filed. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to pursue plea negotiations, failure to obtain a forensic pathologist to provide expert testimony, and failure to prevent a reference to the phrase, “Hammer Skin” during trial. 1 Upon our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kirsten Janine Williams
The Defendant, Kirsten Janine Williams, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. She received an effective 15-year sentence to be served at 100-percent. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions, arguing that there was no proof she ever held a gun, that the victim was free to leave, and that she entered the victim’s residence with consent. Following our review of the record and applicable authorities, we find the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions and affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |