APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The order appealed is not a final judgment. Consequently, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this juvenile court case, Father filed a petition to modify the parenting plan to make him the primary residential parent. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties stipulated that there had been a material change of circumstances. We have concluded that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interest for Mother to be the primary residential parent.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s adoption of a special master’s report. The trial court referred the case to the special master for determination of the proper heirs of a residuary trust. Because the procedure in the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 53, we vacate and remand.

In this grandparent visitation case the mother of the child appeals the grant of the petition to establish grandparent visitation privileges. We vacate the judgment and remand the case for entry of an order in compliance with Tenn. Rule Civ. P. 52.01.

This case arises out of an appeal by the State of Tennessee, from an Order dismissing a Complaint for Judicial Forfeiture. The trial court granted Appellees’, the purported owners of two Tennessee Walking Horses, motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 39-14-210(f) and 39-11-707(c). We vacate and remand.

The underlying claim in this appeal concerns age discrimination. The action was filed initially against a single defendant. Three additional defendants were later added, but the plaintiff served process for them on the attorney for the initial defendant, instead of the individual defendants, a fact about which the added defendants learned only a few days prior to the trial. The trial ensued after the court refused to grant a continuance. A jury found all the defendants liable. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $70,000. The defendants collectively filed a motion for a new trial and raised the issues of insufficient service and the inadmissibility of direct evidence. In its first order, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to alter or amend, after which the court reversed its prior ruling granting the new trial and reinstated the jury verdict. The defendants appeal. We reverse.

The Town of Collierville, Tennessee, passed an ordinance prohibiting the construction of new billboards. The Town, through its Development Department, asserted that two billboards erected prior to the passage of the ordinance were illegal and ordered that they be removed. The owner of the billboards appealed the removal order to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which did not affirm the order. The Town and the Development Department petitioned for writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Shelby County Chancery Court dismissed the petition for lack of standing. We conclude that the Town and the Development Department have standing. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in an action on a homeowner’s insurance policy that contained a one-year contractual limitations period on actions arising under the policy. The home of the insured parties was damaged by a fire on December 15, 2011. The insured parties submitted a claim with the insurer pursuant to their homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurer submitted an estimate and tendered a settlement check to the insured parties on April 2, 2012. Over a year later, on October 3, 2013, the insured parties filed suit alleging they were owed an additional $75,000 for personal use and construction improvements on a new home. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that the insured parties’ claims were barred by the one-year contractual limitations period. After reviewing the record, we find no error in the trial court’s decision and affirm its grant of summary judgment.

Plaintiff submitted the winning bid for the purchase of improved real property from Defendant Bank at auction. Plaintiff and Bank executed a purchase agreement and Plaintiff paid earnest money. Before the scheduled closing date, Bank informed Plaintiff that it did not own part of the real property advertised for auction. It offered to sell Plaintiff the unimproved parcel for the contract amount or to terminate the contract. After Plaintiff informed Bank’s closing agent that he intended to close on the entire parcel as advertised for auction, Bank returned Plaintiff’s earnest money and terminated the contract. Plaintiff filed an action alleging intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act against Bank and the auction company. The trial court granted Bank’s motion to dismiss and granted the auction company’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings. We affirm the decision of the trial court and remand.

This extraordinary appeal arises from the trial court’s placement of a minor child while the minor child remains in the legal custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The minor child was removed by DCS from the home of her Foster Parents, who had cared for her almost since birth, after allegations that the Foster Parents had abused one of their other children. The minor child’s guardian ad litem filed an emergency petition seeking the return of the child to the Foster Parents’ home, or alternatively, for an award of legal custody to the Foster Parents. After a hearing wherein DCS, the Foster Parents, and the GAL presented evidence, the trial court ordered that the child be returned to the Foster Parents’ home, but declined to remove the child from DCS’s legal custody. On appeal, we hold that a trial court may not direct placement of a child in the legal custody of DCS. We reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

This case concerns the proper interpretation of a contract governing an interest in real property. The trial court concluded that the contract unambiguously granted a lease to one party, rather than an easement. Affirmed and remanded.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss Appellant’s medical malpractice action against defendants named in Appellant’s amended complaint filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued. The trial court found that Appellant’s claims against the additional parties were time barred because the amended complaint adding these parties was not filed within ninety days of the original answer asserting comparative fault against non-parties. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict. The case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Appellant State Farm defended the case as the original plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist carrier. The original plaintiffs subsequently died, one as a direct result of injuries sustained in the accident, the other some two years after the accident. The plaintiffs’ children were substituted as plaintiffs/appellees. State Farm appeals the judgment on the jury verdict on numerous grounds, including: (1) denial of its motion for directed verdict; (2) scope of cross-examination; (3) denial of its motion for mistrial based upon inappropriate closing argument; (4) exclusion of notations on medical records; (5) various acts of alleged wrongdoing on the part of Appellees’ attorneys; (6) jury instructions; (7) admission of medical bills for original plaintiff’s long term assisted living expenses; (8) excessive verdict; (9) incorrect application of statutory cap on non-economic damages; (10) denial of credit for medical and death payments made by State Farm under the insurance policy; and (11) award of discretionary costs. Because there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm and remand.

This appeal presents the issue of whether service of process was properly effected upon a nonresident defendant. The defendant filed a limited appearance and motion to dismiss pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02, asserting that he had never been properly served with process. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, finding that service of process was never properly completed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm

In this wrongful death appeal, the main issue is whether, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-106(c)(1), a surviving spouse must have abandoned the decedent for a period of two years to have waived his or her right to institute an action or collect proceeds under that section. We have concluded that the two-year period in Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-106(c)(1) applies only to “willful withdrawal.”

This parenting dispute arose upon the parents' competing motions for modification of the existing permanent parenting plan as to the parties' minor child. The trial court previously had entered a permanent parenting plan order on May 11, 2010, designating the mother as the primary residential parent and awarding equal residential co-parenting time to both parents in an alternating weekly schedule. Following a hearing, the trial court found that a material change in circumstance warranting modification of the residential co-parenting schedule had occurred since entry of the permanent parenting plan. The trial court further found that reducing the father's co-parenting time to alternate weekends during the academic year, while reversing this co-parenting schedule during the summer break, was in the child's best interest. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiffs are siblings and two of the four adult children of the decedent. The defendants include a third adult child and his wife. In the months preceding her death, the decedent changed her bank accounts, originally titled solely in her name, to become joint accounts with the defendant son with right of survivorship. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant sibling exerted undue influence over the decedent in these transactions. They sought the return of all monies withdrawn from those bank accounts to the decedent's estate. Following a two-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $284,800. The defendants have appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this appeal, the Court is asked to determine whether certain provisions of restrictive covenants recorded in 1917 are still in effect and enforceable against certain parcels of subdivision property that lay contiguous to North Broadway in Knoxville. Emma Harris filed a declaratory judgment action seeking the judgment of the trial court that a “used for residential purposes only” restriction is unenforceable as to her property due to changed conditions in the area and the abandonment of the restriction by waiver and/or acquiesence in other violations of the subject restriction. A defendant, Robert A. Whaley, a neighbor to the Harris property, filed a cross-claim seeking the same relief. The trial court, while finding that “it may well be that especially in [the] Harris[ ] case a just and equitable remedy would be the removal of the burden from her,” nevertheless went on to enforce the covenant. We affirm the trial court's judgment as to the property of cross-claimant Whaley, which property is improved with a relatively-large house inhabited by Whaley as his residence since 2001. The Harris property, on the other hand, consists of two contiguous unimproved lots that have never been built on since the subdivision was created in 1917. Considering the totality of the circumstances and equities, it is the judgment of the Court that, with respect to the Harris lots, the “residential purposes only” restriction is cancelled and unenforceable, but this decree is made subject to a restriction that no curb cut will be constructed to allow vehicular access from the Harris property to Gibbs Drive, a thoroughfare leading into the subdivision from North Broadway. Our decree is also subject to the Truan/plaintiffs agreement as reflected in Exhibit 33.

This appeal involves Father’s petition for child support modification and his petition for rehearing regarding a magistrate’s finding of criminal contempt. At issue are the juvenile court’s findings that Father failed to demonstrate a significant variance necessary for the modification of child support; the confirmation of the magistrate’s order finding Father guilty of criminal contempt for willful failure to pay child support; and the court’s decision to only excuse three months of Father’s child support arrearages. We conclude that the trial court erred in calculating Father’s and Mother’s monthly gross incomes on the child support worksheet but that the record is otherwise insufficient to address the issues raised by Father. Therefore, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

This is an appeal from an award of attorney’s fees following settlement of the underlying lawsuit. Appellees, law firm and attorney, represented Appellant in a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident. After protracted mediation, Appellee orally agreed to lower its contingency fee from 33 1/3% to 10% in consideration of Appellant’s agreement to settle her case against the tort defendants for $52,000. Appellant agreed to accept this offer and signed the settlement agreement at the conclusion of the mediation. Thereafter, Appellant allegedly refused to sign the releases drafted by the tort defendants. The trial court, upon the tort defendants’ motion, enforced the settlement agreement reached by the parties at mediation. Appellees assert that Appellant’s refusal to sign the releases drafted by the tort defendants constitutes a breach of the modified fee agreement and now seek to enforce an attorney’s fee lien for the full one-third of the recovery. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion to enforce its lien for the full amount, and Appellant appeals. We conclude that the terms of the modified fee agreement between Appellees and Appellant only required Appellant to settle her case with the tort defendants for $52,000, which she did. Accordingly, the trial court erred in not enforcing the modified fee agreement. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

The issue presented in this divorce appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to appoint a guardian ad litem for Thomas D. McClure, Sr. (Husband), and proceeding to trial in Husband's absence after he was duly notified of the trial date. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.