APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court found that the proof supported three grounds for termination as to both parents: substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(2), persistence of conditions pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(3), and failure to manifest an ability to parent pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14). The court further found that the termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the proof supported the substantial noncompliance ground as to Mother, reverse its finding that the proof supported the substantial noncompliance ground as to Father, vacate the other grounds for termination against both Mother and Father based upon insufficient findings by the trial court, affirm the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with our direction in this Opinion.

After entering an order granting Mother sole residential custody and providing Father restricted parenting time, the trial court awarded Mother discretionary costs in the amount of $45,238.85. Father appeals the trial court’s award of discretionary costs. Because Father failed to prove that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm the award of discretionary costs.

This appeal follows the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration as to a claim for fraudulent inducement.  For the reasons stated herein, namely that there was no agreement to arbitrate such a claim, we affirm.

Earl Vantrease and Justin Howell, both of whom are inmates at Whiteville Correctional Facility, filed a complaint against several defendants alleging various claims, including the failure to provide a diet program that comports with the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Mr. Vantrease filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs and statutorily mandated accompanying documents. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-801, et seq. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Mr. Vantrease failed to include all required information in his accompanying documents. The trial court agreed; it entered an order dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805. Mr. Vantrease appeals. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

I concur in the opinion of the Court.  I write separately to address the appealability of an order compelling arbitration.   

After a state administrative law judge concluded the proper tax classification for the property owned and operated by a private pilot’s club in 2010 and 2011 to be “farm property,” the county property assessor reclassified it in 2013 as split property, commercial and farm. The club paid its 2013 to 2016 taxes “under protest” and filed consolidated complaints in chancery court, seeking a refund under Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-901. The club argued that the chancery court had jurisdiction over its claim because purely legal issues were involved and the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel prevented such reclassification. Upon determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Probate Court of Davidson County, Tennessee has subject matter jurisdiction over the decedent’s estate. The decedent resided in Pennsylvania most of his life. Three weeks before his death, the decedent moved into an assisted living facility in Nashville, Tennessee to be near one of his sons. Shortly following his death, the son who was nominated to be the executor filed a Petition for Letters Testamentary in Davidson County Probate Court. The decedent’s daughter from Pennsylvania contested the court’s jurisdiction, arguing the decedent was domiciled in Pennsylvania at the time of death. Following a four-day evidentiary hearing on the issue of domicile, the probate court determined the decedent was domiciled in Tennessee and admitted the will to probate. Because the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s determination that the decedent was domiciled in Tennessee, we affirm.

A mother filed a complaint seeking to establish paternity. After years of litigation, the trial court established paternity and designated mother as the primary residential parent. The trial court determined that the father engaged in conduct that necessitated limiting his residential parenting time with the child. As a result, the trial court fashioned a residential parenting schedule that severely restricted the father’s parenting time, and the father appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

At an earlier time, Byron L. Jackson, Jr. (plaintiff) and defendant Jay Howard Crippen operated a company named Swiss Technologies, Inc. There were disagreements. The parties engaged in mediation. Following mediation, the parties, including Swiss, entered into a three year consulting agreement for Jackson pursuant to which he was to be paid $30,000 annually, “less the cost of health and related insurance.” The contract provides that plaintiff “shall be entitled to health and related insurance . . . on the same term as other employees of [Swiss].” The parties stipulated that every other employee paid no more than one-half the cost of their health insurance, and employer paid the other half. Defendants Crippen and Swiss (collectively defendants) deducted the full amount of health insurance premiums from plaintiff’s pay. Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract. The trial court held that the contract was unambiguous, and that it required defendants to pay one-half of plaintiff’s health care insurance costs. We affirm.

Father appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by wanton disregard for the welfare of the child as well as the court’s best interest determination. Because we find clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s decisions regarding both grounds for termination and the best interest of the child, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

Wendy Sterling Weinert, a former City of Sevierville police officer, brought this retaliatory discharge action against her former employer pursuant to the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (Supp. 2018). She alleged that she was discharged solely because of her whistleblowing activities of reporting an alleged incident of excessive force and alleged sexual harassment by other officers. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that plaintiff could not establish that her termination was solely caused because of her whistleblowing activities, as required by the TPPA. We affirm.

In this divorce proceeding, the Husband appeals the trial court’s reliance on certain evidence in valuing the marital assets, the classification and valuation of specific assets, and failure to recuse itself. Wife appeals the award to her of alimony in solido as being insufficient. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the court’s classification and valuation of the marital assets, with the exception of one, which we vacate and remand for further consideration; we reject Husband’s argument that the court should have recused itself. We modify the award of alimony and remand the case for the court to consider whether an additional award of alimony is appropriate.

Following a bench trial, the Hamilton County Chancery Court determined that Appellants had converted the assets of a
check-cashing business, to the detriment of the majority shareholder, Appellee. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in a 2011 decision to grant Appellee partial summary judgment and to prohibit Appellants from raising any claims or defenses based on the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act at trial. Because we have determined that the trial court’s 2011 grant of summary judgment to Appellee was erroneous, the decision of the trial court is vacated and remanded.

This appeal involves a petition for contempt of court for willful failure to pay child support related to one child. In June 2014, the mother filed a petition for contempt, alleging that the father had not paid his child support obligation as previously ordered by the trial court. Following a hearing in July 2014, the trial court magistrate found the father to be in civil contempt of court for willful refusal to pay child support and ordered the father to make a $2,600.00 “purge” payment, which the father did. Upon the father’s request, the trial court special judge conducted a rehearing in August 2016, again finding the father to be in civil contempt of court for willful refusal to pay child support. The trial court ordered a purge payment in the amount of $8,525.00, reflecting a child support arrearage that had accrued since the initial contempt hearing. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is the second appeal of this case, which involves the destruction of a TimberPro TL735B harvester by electrical fire. In the first appeal, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment for all claims against the defendants except for claims of the breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness against appellee, Woodland Equipment, Inc. (“Woodland”). After the first appeal, the trial court found that Woodland breached the implied warranty of merchantability with respect to the protective plastic covering used to cover the wires that caused the electrical fire. Nonetheless, the trial court did not hold Woodland liable, finding appellant, J.W. Smith, leaving the master switch “on” was the “last precipitating cause” of the fire. The court also determined that if an appellate court was to reverse its findings, the damages Smith would be entitled to would be $330,000 for the harvester, which was determined by subtracting the salvage value of the harvester ($45,000) from the value of the harvester before the fire ($375,000). We conclude that Smith’s failure to turn “off” the master switch was not an intervening cause, and the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s prospective award of damages. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside an order of protection. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff siblings appeal the dismissal of their legal malpractice action on the basis of the statute of limitations. Because the trial court did not comply with Henderson v. Bush Bros. & Co., 868 S.W.2d 236 (Tenn. 1993), in ruling on Plaintiffs’ motions to amend their complaints, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for reconsideration.

An employee of Nashville Electric Service (“NES”) was terminated in 2015 due to false and misleading information he provided on his initial application for employment nine years earlier, in 2006. NES did not discover that the information was false until the employee submitted an application for promotion in 2015 and one of his supervisors noticed a discrepancy between the two applications. NES provided the employee with a due process hearing and a hearing by an administrative law judge before the Electric Employees’ Civil Service and Pension Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“the Board”), which voted to terminate his employment. The employee filed a petition for judicial review of the Board’s decision, which the chancery court affirmed. On appeal to this Court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment upholding the Board’s decision.

This is a sexual assualt/health care liability case wherein a female customer alleges she was assaulted while receiving a massage at a day spa. The customer sued both the massage therapist as well as the employer-business, bringing intentional tort, negligence, and vicarious liability claims. The customer complied with the pre-suit notice requirements as required by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act; however, she failed to file a certificate of good faith with her complaint. The massage therapist and the business both moved for summary judgment and noted such failure, asking the trial court to dismiss the customer’s claims with prejudice. The trial court granted both parties’ motions for summary judgment, dismissing all of the customer’s claims. The customer appealed. Because we find that the requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act are not applicable to the claims against the massage therapist but are applicable to the claims against the employer, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Here, as I perceive it, the majority opinion contains four central holdings: (1) both Defendant Burrell and Defendant Gould’s are “health care providers,” and, as such, any claims against them that relate to the provision of health care services are governed by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (“THCLA”); (2) the intentional tort claims against Defendant Burrell are not governed by the THCLA because they are not related to the provision of health care services; (3) all vicarious liability claims against Defendant Gould’s fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (4) the remaining direct liability claims against Gould’s, i.e., the claims of negligent retention and supervision, are governed by the THCLA and fail due to the lack of a good faith certificate. While I agree with the result reached by the majority with regard to the first three holdings, I cannot agree that Plaintiff’s negligent retention and supervision claims fail due to the lack of a good faith certificate. As such, I respectfully file this partial dissent.

This appeal involves a complaint for damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement to conduct an estate sale. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded Appellee damages for breach of contract, negligent bailment, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). For violation of the TCPA, the trial court trebled the compensatory damages awarded Appellee and also awarded attorney’s fees and costs against Appellant. Because the parties did not have a sufficiently definite agreement to be enforceable, we reverse the trial court’s award of damages for breach of contract. We also reverse the trial court’s findings of negligent bailment and violation of the TCPA, which resulted in the award of treble damages and attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s award of the sale proceeds to Appellee.

This appeal concerns whether a circuit court has jurisdiction to consider a post-trial motion once it dismisses an appeal by a defendant from general sessions court for failure to appear. Ken Smith Auto Parts (“Plaintiff”) brought an action against Michael F. Thomas (“Defendant”) in the Hamilton County General Sessions Court (“the General Sessions Court”) and prevailed. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Circuit Court”). Defendant missed trial. The Circuit Court entered an order dismissing his appeal and remanding the case to the General Sessions Court for execution of judgment. Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 seeking relief on the basis that he missed trial because of a traffic jam. The Circuit Court granted Defendant’s motion and vacated the order of dismissal. However, the Circuit Court later concluded that it lost jurisdiction when it dismissed Defendant’s appeal and that its subsequent order was null. Defendant appeals to this Court. We hold that the Circuit Court’s order of dismissal was subject to post-trial motion via the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction to consider it. We hold further that the Circuit Court properly exercised its discretion to grant Defendant’s motion. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Circuit Court, and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal follows a jury trial in which the plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $9,950 for property damage caused by a construction company while demolishing a neighboring structure. Plaintiff appeals taking issue with, inter alia, the jury’s finding that he was comparatively at fault, the amount of the award, and opposing counsel’s closing argument. Because the plaintiff failed to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court, the plaintiff has waived any issue predicated upon error in “the admission or exclusion of evidence, jury instructions granted or refused, misconduct of jurors, parties or counsel, or other action committed or occurring during the trial of the case[.]” Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e). Moreover, because the plaintiff failed to provide this court with a transcript of the evidence or a proper statement of the evidence relevant to any issue presented for review, this court is precluded from considering the issues. See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tenn. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  

Tabatha H. (“Mother”) and James M. (“Father”) appeal the April 5, 2018 order of the Juvenile Court for Bradley County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminating their parental rights to the minor child, Jayla H. (“the Child”). We find and hold that the Juvenile Court did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights for abandonment by willful failure to visit pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1), and that there was clear and convincing evidence that it was in the Child’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. We further find and hold that the Juvenile Court did not err in finding the evidence to be clear and convincing as to grounds to terminate Father’s parental rights for failure to establish paternity pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9), and clear and convincing that it was in the Child’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. We, therefore, affirm.

The parents of a kindergartener filed suit against a metropolitan government for negligence after their child injured her arm at school. The trial court granted the metropolitan government’s motion for summary judgment based upon its finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the metropolitan government breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiffs or that any action or inaction by a metropolitan government employee was the cause in fact or proximate cause of the child’s injuries. We affirm.