APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Landowner sued surveyor for damages due to an improperly prepared survey done for an adjacent landowner. The trial court granted surveyor’s motion to dismiss based on the application of the three-year statute of limitation found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105. Landowner appealed, arguing that the limitation period is four years based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-114. We agree with landowner.

Plaintiff appeals the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 dismissal of her claims against two defendants, the Circuit Court Clerk of Jackson County, individually and in his official capacity, and Jackson County, Tennessee for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and numerous intentional torts. The trial court dismissed all claims against these defendants finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

In this divorce action, Mother appeals the trial court’s permanent parenting plan, residential schedule, child support determination, and division of marital property and debt. We affirm the designation of Father as primary residential parent; modify the residential schedule  and award of unpaid child support; and vacate the “paramour provision” in the parenting plan and the “equalization payment” from Mother to Father. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.

The issue in this commercial real estate lease dispute is whether the individual defendants are additional lessees and, thus, personally liable under the lease. Plaintiff, the lessor of retail space, filed this action against the three defendants when the limited liability company, Décor Fabrics, LLC, a lessee, breached the lease by failing to pay rent for the term of the lease. The individual defendants denied liability, asserting that Décor Fabrics, LLC, was the only lessee. The trial court found that the lease unambiguously identifies each of the individual defendants as additional lessees and assessed damages against them for breach of the lease, including the plaintiff’s attorneys fees. Only one of the defendants appealed. He asserts that the trial court erred by finding the lease unambiguous as to the identify of the lessee(s) and by failing to consider the parties’ conduct to conclude that Décor Fabrics, LLC, was the only lessee. We affirm.

David Bates d/b/a David Bates Construction Co. (“Plaintiff”) sued Caroline Benedetti (“Defendant”) for breach of a construction contract involving demolition of an existing residential garage and construction of a new one. Defendant answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, (1) that Plaintiff had not proven damages, (2) that Defendant had failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-36-103 with regard to her counterclaim and, therefore, pursuant to the statute her counterclaim should be abated, and (3) that Defendant also had failed to give notice and an opportunity to cure pursuant to the common law and that her counterclaim should be dismissed for that reason as well. Defendant appeals the abatement and dismissal of her counterclaim. We find that Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-36-103 does not apply to the case at hand, but that the Trial Court correctly dismissed Defendant’s counterclaim. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s order.

This case arises from a car accident in which Appellant was injured when her vehicle was struck by Appellee’s vehicle. Following a jury trial, the jury awarded Appellant damages, including $100,000 for Appellant’s loss of earning capacity claims. Acting as the thirteenth juror, and based upon its finding that Appellant had failed to meet her burden to show loss of earning capacity, the trial court suggested remittitur of the entire $100,000 loss of earning capacity award. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees and from the trial court’s grant of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) motion for involuntary dismissal in favor of Appellees. The trial court granted both motions upon its finding that Appellant had committed fraud upon the court in filing his complaint under an assumed name. Specifically, the court granted the motion for summary judgment finding that the statute of limitations had expired because the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint, which the court determined was a nullity ab initio. The Rule 41.02 motion was granted based upon the court’s finding that the Appellant had perpetrated a fraud upon the court in filing the complaint under an assumed name. Concluding that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Appellant committed fraud and, specifically, as to whether Appellant’s alleged mental incapacity negates a finding of fraud, we reverse both the order on the motion for summary judgment and the order granting the Rule 41.02 motion. We remand for further hearing on the issues of fraud and mental incapacity. Reversed and remanded.

The mother and stepfather of a nine year old boy filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the boy’s father, who was incarcerated at the time the petition was filed. The sole ground alleged in the petition was abandonment by failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the trial court terminated the father’s rights. The court ruled that the ground of abandonment had been proved because there was clear and convincing evidence that the father had failed to support the mother during her pregnancy, and that the father had subsequently shown wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to his incarceration. The court also found that termination of the father’s rights was in the child’s best interest.  We reverse.

This post divorce appeal arises from the lack of symmetry between the parties’ 1995 Final Divorce Decree and a 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Order that was not entered into contemporaneously with the Divorce Decree. The ex-husband, a General Motors retiree, contends the trial court erred in finding that his ex-wife was entitled to the marital portion of his early retirement supplements of his pension and in finding that her benefits are based on post-divorce increases to his pension benefits. For her issue, the ex-wife contends the trial court erred in failing to grant her survivorship rights in the ex-husband’s retirement benefits. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found the Department of Children’s Services proved the grounds of abandonment and substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan and that the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Father appeals. We affirm.

I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision in this case. The Majority found that the Trial Court “did not err in finding that Wise Construction, LLC was the contracting party....” I believe the evidence and Tennessee law shows that John S. Wise, III rather than Wise Construction, LLC was the contracting party, and I would so hold.

This case arose over the construction of a home for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the construction company and a bank and several individuals. The Trial Court resolved the issues as to defendants, except Mark Rodriguez, prior to trial. The plaintiffs' case against Rodriguez was tried by the Trial Court who directed a verdict at the end of plaintiffs' proof. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court. Plaintiffs insisted that material evidence established a violation of the Consumer Protection Act by defendant, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the Trial Judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and we affirm the Trial Court's Judgment.

This appeal involves an arbitration agreement that was executed when a patient was admitted to a nursing home. The arbitration agreement was signed by the patient’s sister, who had presented a power of attorney document to the admissions staff that designated her as the patient’s attorney-in-fact. The patient’s representative in this lawsuit contends that the patient was incompetent when he executed the power of attorney document, and therefore, the sister lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement on his behalf. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the patient was incompetent when he signed  the document and denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. We affirm and remand.

This is a wrongful death action filed in the Tennessee Claims Commission (“the Commission”) by the parents and brother (“the Claimants”) of six month old Demitrus M. T. (“the Infant” or “Demitrus”), individually and on behalf of Demitrus, after he drowned in a bathtub while in the care of Sherika Hamilton, a friend of the family identified in a Tennessee Department of Child Services (“DCS” or “the Department”) safety plan as the “placement caretaker.” There is no dispute that Hamilton left the Infant unattended in the bathtub while she was otherwise occupied in an adjacent room. The primary disputes at trial before the Commissioner, and on appeal, are whether the Infant was in the “care, custody and control” of the Department so as to provide jurisdiction to the Commission; whether the Department’s “Case Recordings,” some of which were made more than a month after the event they purport to record, are inadmissible hearsay; and whether it was foreseeable to the Department that Hamilton would leave the helpless Infant unattended in a bathtub and let him drown. The Commission found that it had jurisdiction because the Department had control of the Infant even though it did not have custody, that the Case Recordings were admissible, and that the Department was not negligent because it could not have foreseen this tragic event. The Claimants appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate the dismissal on the merits.

This case arises from the grant of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motion to dismiss, whereby the trial court dismissed one of the party-defendants from this lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, the trial court determined that: (1) the Appellants had failed to serve process on the Appellee; (2) that neither the statute of limitations nor the statute of repose operated to save the Appellants’ cause of action; and (3) that Appellants were not entitled to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60 relief on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.

The order from which the appellant Anna Marie Roller seeks to appeal was entered on Wednesday, December 15, 2010. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, the 34th day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, the motion of the appellee to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed.

In this declaratory judgment action, the parties sought interpretation of a real estate purchase contract. The contract between the buyer and the seller provided for the assignment of all leases on the property and proration of rents to the buyer. The parties disputed whether these provisions contemplated a separate agreement between the seller and a third party. At the behest of the parties, the trial court construed both agreements and granted summary judgment to the buyer. On appeal, we raise, sua sponte, the question of whether all necessary parties were before the trial court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 19. After concluding that all necessary parties were not included in this action, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Julie Alexander died in an automobile accident on South Rutherford Boulevard in Murfreesboro. Her husband sued the city, claiming that the road was unsafe or dangerous and that the city had notice of the condition of the road. After a trial, the trial court found that the city did not have notice and that the road was not unsafe or dangerous. Ms. Alexander’s husband appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision that the city had no notice of the condition.

This appeal is from the General Sessions Court of Roane County. It is the opinion of this Court that the appeal is premature as there is no final judgment as provided in the applicable rules. It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs on appeal are taxed to the Appellant, Brett D. Stokes, and his surety, for which execution may issue, if necessary.

Plaintiff in shareholder derivative action appeals the dismissal of his suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other misconduct, including insider trading, by current and former officers and directors of corporation. Plaintiff filed suit without first making demand on the board of directors of the corporation that the directors initiate the lawsuit. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege with requisite particularity that such demand would have been futile. We affirm the dismissal of the action.

This appeal involves a home construction dispute between an LLC contractor and the homeowners. The contractor entered into a written contract with the homeowners for the construction of a 6000 square foot home. Upon the relationship between the parties becoming strained, the homeowners claim the contractor told them to find another builder. The contractor contends it was fired from the project. The instant action was commenced by the contractor to enforce a lien. The trial court found in favor of the contractor. The homeowners appeal. We affirm.

The order from which the appellant Donna Angela Ross seeks to appeal was entered on Monday, August 2, 2010. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Friday, September 3, 2010, the 32nd day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not filed timely, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellant obtained a credit card from Appellee’s predecessor in interest, and defaulted on payment of the debt. Appellee brought suit to recover the debt, and the trial court granted summary judgment to Appellee. Appellant appeals, arguing that there is a dispute of fact as to whether Appellee is a lawful successor in interest, and also asserting that the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s  request to have certain documents included in the record. Affirmed.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father on the grounds of abandonment and persistence of conditions, and upon finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. We affirm.

Plaintiff sued Haywood County and a Haywood County sheriff’s deputy after she was sexually harassed by the deputy. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Haywood County and against the deputy. Haywood County appeals, challenging the finding of liability and the amount of damages awarded against it.  We affirm.