APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from a detainer action filed by a bank following a foreclosure sale.  The defendant borrower filed a counterclaim for “Wrongful Foreclosure – Breach of Contract,” alleging that the plaintiff bank breached the deed of trust by failing to provide proper notice prior to acceleration.  The trial court originally granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff bank, finding that notice was properly sent, but this Court reversed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed such that summary judgment could not be awarded to either party.  On remand, the trial court permitted both parties to amend their answers.  The plaintiff bank then asserted res judicata based on a prior lawsuit in federal court and moved for summary judgment on that basis.  The trial court ultimately granted the plaintiff bank summary judgment, concluding that the defendant’s argument regarding lack of notice either was raised or should have been raised in her prior action in federal court in which she attempted to halt the foreclosure.  The defendant appeals.  We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

A landlord and tenant entered into a lease-purchase agreement.  Near the end of the lease term, the tenant sought to exercise the purchase option.  The landlord claimed that the tenant could not do so because she defaulted on rent payments.  The landlord also argued that he terminated the agreement before the tenant exercised the option.  The trial court rejected both arguments and granted the tenant specific performance of the purchase option.  We affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Upon competing petitions for adoption of a minor child whose parents are deceased, the trial court conducted a bench trial and a comparative fitness analysis of the petitioner, who is the child’s maternal grandmother, and the intervening petitioner, who is the child’s paternal aunt. The trial court found that it was in the best interest of the child to be adopted by the paternal aunt while also maintaining visitation with the maternal grandmother. Prior to the bench trial, the trial court set aside its own previously entered order granting what had been presented to the trial court by the maternal grandmother as an uncontested petition for adoption of the child despite the paternal aunt’s status as custodian of the child pursuant to a juvenile court order. In the trial court’s final order, it granted the paternal aunt’s petition for adoption and directed that the maternal grandmother would have unsupervised visitation with the child on alternate Sundays. The maternal grandmother has appealed both the order setting aside the initial grant of her adoption petition and the judgment granting the paternal aunt’s petition. Discerning no error in the trial court’s decision to set aside the initial adoption decree, we affirm the set-aside order. However, having determined that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court committed reversible error by conducting an in camera interview with the child without counsel or a court reporter present and then withholding the court’s summary of the testimony until entry of the final judgment, we vacate the court’s judgment granting the paternal aunt’s petition. We remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing solely to afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence in response to the child’s testimony and to enter a judgment after consideration of all proof presented during the trial and on remand.

This is an appeal from a circuit court order dismissing an appeal from a general sessions court judgment. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal to this Court within thirty days after entry of the circuit court’s final order as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.

A wife sought relief from a default judgment that granted her husband a divorce and awarded him alimony.  The wife argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default because she was not properly served with the complaint and that jurisdiction was not proper under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-2-214.  The trial court denied the wife’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion.  Finding that the wife was entitled to a hearing on her Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The former manager of a country music recording artist sued the artist and related business entities for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  He also sought damages from the artist’s business manager for inducement of breach of contract.  The defendants moved for summary judgment.  They argued, in part, that the undisputed facts showed that the parties had mutually agreed to modify the contract.  And the former manager had been paid in full under the terms of the modified contract.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On appeal, the manager argues that genuine issues of material fact as to whether he agreed to modify the contract preclude summary judgment.  We conclude that the unambiguous course of dealing between the parties showed mutual assent to the modification.  So we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

Plaintiff Deborah Lacy brought this action against Dr. Nagendra Ramanna, alleging that he committed a battery upon her by shaking her hand too forcefully during a visit in which Plaintiff was seeking medical treatment for an alleged heart condition. Following discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted after finding no evidence that the handshake caused injury to Plaintiff’s right hand. We affirm.

In this appeal, we review the trial court’s dismissal of the action upon its finding that it was an “abusive civil action,” pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-41-101 to -107, and res judicata. The appellee also seeks her attorney’s fees for this appeal. Discerning no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm the dismissal of the suit as to the former wife and award her the attorney’s fees she incurred defending this appeal. We remand for further proceedings.

The appellant, Darrell Stamper, has appealed the December 16, 2021 order of the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). As the December 16, 2021 order does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this breach of contract case, Appellee law firm sued Appellant former client for unpaid attorneys’ fees.  Appellant argued that the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches barred Appellee’s breach of contract claim.  Alternatively, Appellant argued that the unpaid attorneys’ fees were unreasonable.  The trial court held that neither the statute of limitations nor the doctrine of laches barred Appellee’s breach of contract claim, and that Appellee’s attorneys’ fees were reasonable.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by failure to support and by wanton disregard, Tenn. Code Ann.
§§ 36-1-113(g)(1), and 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); and (2) incarceration as a result of a criminal act, under a sentence of ten (10) or more years, and the child is under eight (8) years of age at the time the sentence is entered by the court, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6). Appellant also appeal the trial court’s determination that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Because the relevant statutory time period is not specified in the trial court’s order and in view of the sparsity of evidence, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent by failure to support. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on the remaining grounds, and on its finding that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

This appeal arises from an unorthodox procedural history, wherein the trial court made its findings of facts and conclusions of law in an order granting summary judgment, the result of which terminated the mother/appellant’s parental rights. The court determined that the undisputed material facts clearly and convincingly established five grounds on which to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The court also found the undisputed material facts established that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother appeals, asserting that the trial court violated her due process rights by terminating her parental rights without affording her an effective opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. She contends the trial court erred by denying her motion to continue the hearing on the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. She also contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on each of the alleged statutory grounds for termination as well as the issue of the child’s best interests. Following a careful review of the record, we have determined that the mother’s due process rights were not violated, and the trial court did not err in denying her motion for a continuance. We reverse the trial court’s ruling that Petitioners proved the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility; however, we affirm the trial court in all other respects. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a permanent parenting plan involving one minor child.  The mother appeals the trial court’s designation of the father as the primary residential parent of the minor child.  We vacate the trial court’s determination and remand for sufficient findings of fact to facilitate appellate review. 

This appeal concerns an alleged conversion of funds. Rebecca Durbin, Teresa Fletcher Kidd, and Ramona Lewis ("Plaintiffs," collectively), the adult children of the late Charles Lewis ("Charlie"), sued Bernice Lewis ("Defendant"), Charlie's widow, in the Chancery Court for Washington County ("the Trial Court").Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant exercised undue influence over Charlie in his later years and converted funds in a bank account that Charlie had intended for them to have. After a trial, the Trial Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendant appeals, arguing among other things that the three-year statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs' claim had expired. Defendant also argues that the Trial Court erred by not awarding her any darnages for Plaintiffs' failure to maintain Charlie's house, which Defendant continued to live in pursuant to Charlie's will. We hold that Plaintiffs were on constructive notice of their claim against Defendant no later than October 5, 2009, and thus their lawsuit filed in October 2019 is time-barred. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Trial Court with respect to Plaintiffs' claim against Defendant. However, we affirm the Trial Court as to its declination to award Defendant any damages for Plaintiffs' failure to maintain Charlie's house as Plaintiffs owed her no duty to maintain the house; per Charlie's will, that was his Estate's responsibility. We thus affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the Trial Court's judgment.

This appeal involves the mortgagors’ petition to set aside the non-judicial foreclosure of a piece of real property, alleging that the mortgagors and owner of the property were not given proper notice of the non-judicial foreclosure sale. The mortgagee and the beneficiary of the deed of trust concerning the property at issue is the City of Chattanooga. The property was sold to Vince Trotter in a foreclosure auction. In a court order, which was certified as final pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Trotter, determining that Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 prevented the foreclosure sale from being considered void or voidable due to lack of notice and that the mortgagors had a constitutionally adequate remedy of monetary damages. Despite the mortgagors arguing that Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 is unconstitutional as applied to governmental entities, the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office was not notified of the constitutional challenge to the statute, as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.04, Tenn. R. App. P. 32, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-107(b). Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Trotter and remand to the trial court to provide the required notice to the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the proof was less than clear and convincing that termination was in her child’s best interest. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence of three grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

Deanna Lynn Akers (“Wife”) and Neil E. Powers (“Husband”) were divorced by the Circuit Court for Bradley County (the “trial court”) in 2016. Wife was awarded $1,100.00 per month in alimony in futuro. Following a slew of post-trial motions and proceedings, Husband filed a petition to terminate Wife’s alimony on August 6, 2019. A hearing was held after which the trial court terminated Wife’s alimony and entered a judgment against Wife for the overpaid amount. Because the trial court erred in terminating Wife’s alimony altogether, the trial court’s decision is vacated and remanded for reinstatement of Wife’s in futuro support. Because Husband established, however, a substantial and material change in his earning ability, a modification of the amount of alimony is appropriate and should be determined by the trial court on remand.

In this divorce, one of the former spouses appeals the court’s division of certain marital debt.  She claims that the division was inconsistent with the court’s final judgment and that there was no basis to revisit its previous decision absent a request for relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02.  Because we conclude that the previous decision addressing debts was not a final judgment, we affirm the court’s division of marital debt.     

In this premises liability case, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by determining that the divot in the brick step that caused her to trip and fall amounted to a minor aberration and that, as a result, the defendants did not owe her a duty of care.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Unwed parents filed competing petitions to modify a permanent parenting plan.  The parents agreed that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting a modification.  But they disagreed over the parenting schedule and who should be the primary residential parent.  After a hearing, the trial court changed the primary residential parent and, based on proof of domestic abuse, limited the mother’s parenting time.  We conclude that neither decision was an abuse of discretion.  So we affirm.

In this dispute between Appellant, homeowner, and Appellee, homeowners’ association, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant’s property is bound by a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Appellant painted his home’s trim without first seeking approval from the homeowners’ association in violation of the declaration. Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to show a dispute of material fact regarding his affirmative defenses. As such, the trial court did not err in granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, nor in awarding attorney’s fees to Appellee under the declaration. Affirmed and remanded.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother as to two of her minor children on various grounds. The trial court ultimately concluded that grounds existed for termination and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother now appeals. We affirm.

Husband appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to hold Wife in contempt. Because Husband’s brief is not compliant with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal.