APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involved a petition to modify the parties’ parenting plan to change the primary residential parent. The father sought to be designated as the primary residential parent of his minor child, alleging, among other things, that the child’s sibling was violent, that the mother had moved to a new county and enrolled the child in a new school, that he never received notice from the mother regarding the child’s medical appointments, and that the mother intentionally interfered with his and the child’s relationship. Because mother was not listed in father’s response to mother’s interrogatory—which specifically asked for a list of all potential trial witnesses—the trial court prohibited father’s counsel from calling mother as a witness during father’s case-in-chief. The trial court, however, allowed father to submit mother’s deposition as an exhibit and also allowed father to call mother to testify as to events that had occurred since her deposition had been taken. At the close of father’s proof, mother’s counsel moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted, finding that none of the incidents relied upon by father constituted a material change in circumstances. Construing the trial court’s order as if it were an order granting a motion for involuntary dismissal, and concluding that barring father from calling mother as a witness in his case-in-chief was harmless error by the trial court, we affirm.

This is an appeal of a suit contesting the validity of a Last Will and Testament. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal arises from a dispute over vacation benefits. The plaintiffs allege that their employer deprived them of earned vacation time when it changed its vacation policy. The plaintiffs moved for class certification, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. After hearing both motions, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice and denied the motion for class certification. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

The sole issue in this appeal concerns the trial court’s decision to classify residential property as the wife’s separate asset. The trial court made its decision upon finding the wife purchased the property prior to the marriage, titled it in her name only, and paid the mortgage and expenses to maintain the property with money she earned during the marriage and with only occasional assistance from the husband. This appeal followed. The husband contends the property should have been classified as a marital asset because the couple resided there as husband and wife for ten years; the money the wife earned during the marriage was marital property; and he made substantial contributions to maintaining the property and paying expenses. We have determined that the funds the wife used to pay the mortgage and expenses were marital assets because they were earned during the marriage. Moreover, the couple used the property as their marital residence during their ten-year marriage, and the husband provided some, albeit modest, assistance in maintaining the property. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and hold that the property shall be classified as a marital asset. Based on this decision, we vacate the division of the marital estate and remand for the trial court to determine the value of the marital assets, equitably divide those assets, and enter judgment accordingly. The husband also contends the trial court’s discovery sanction against the wife was insufficient. Finding no error with this discretionary decision, we affirm the sanction imposed by the trial court.

This case involves alleged child abuse by the mother’s paramour. After receiving a referral for potential child abuse, the Department of Children’s Services filed a dependency and neglect petition seeking injunctive relief, an ex parte order, and to transfer temporary legal custody of two minor children. After a hearing on the petition, the juvenile court found that the paramour committed severe child abuse. The paramour appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court also found there was clear and convincing evidence to show the paramour committed severe child abuse and that the abused child was dependent and neglected. We affirm the circuit court’s findings and remand.

This case involves a lease that allowed a restaurant to operate inside a hotel building. During the term of the lease, the original
owner-lessor sold the hotel building to a successor, who then sold the hotel building to the appellant. The appellant tried to “buy out” the tenant and cancel the lease, but the tenant refused. The appellant proceeded with demolition of the interior of the hotel. Thereafter, the tenant experienced a series of problems with the building, including major water leaks, lack of climate control, and other problems, which led the tenant to file this lawsuit. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court concluded that the appellant maintained the premises in an uninhabitable state, amounting to a constructive eviction of the tenant. The trial court found that the appellant repeatedly and intentionally disturbed the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises through its failure to maintain climate control in the hotel, failure to maintain windows and doors in the building, and allowing the building to be closed by Shelby County Code Enforcement for approximately six months. It found that the appellant engaged in extreme, outrageous, and intentional conduct intended to destroy the tenant’s business and drive the tenant to vacate the premises, constituting an unlawful ouster of the tenant and retaliatory eviction. The trial court calculated the tenant’s lost profits for the remaining term of the lease at $595,025. Due to the extremity of the appellant’s actions, the trial court also awarded the tenant punitive damages. On appeal, the appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings regarding liability on the underlying causes of action. It only challenges the calculation of the award of lost profits and the award of punitive damages. For the following reasons, we affirm the award of lost profits as modified but vacate and remand for further proceedings regarding punitive damages.

This is the second appeal by a father of the termination of his parental rights to his two minor children. The trial court determined that termination of the father’s rights was in the best interest of the children after finding he failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children and abandoned them by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for their welfare. In the first appeal, we vacated the judgment of the trial court because its findings of fact failed to comply with the mandate in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(k) and remanded for the trial court to make additional findings of fact on two grounds—abandonment by wanton disregard and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of or financial responsibility for the children—and on whether termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests See In re Nakayia S., No. M2017-01694-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 4462651, at *5–6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018). In this appeal, the father contends the court improperly based its decision on one child’s out of court allegations of abuse, and he asserts that he manifested ability and willingness to assume custody by complying with the permanency plan requirements. We have determined that the child’s statements were properly admitted under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803, and the preponderance of the evidence is not against the trial court’s findings, which amount to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate the father’s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

In this parental termination case, the trial court found two statutory grounds for termination of a father’s parental rights: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also found that termination of the father’s parental rights was in his child’s best interest. Because the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination and the best interest determination, we affirm. 

This appeal arises from a healthcare liability action. In these proceedings, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants in January 2018. The Trial Court issued summonses the following day, and the plaintiff’s attorney took the summonses to serve through private process instead of through the local sheriff’s department. Service was subsequently completed on the defendants’ registered agent eighty-nine days after issuance of the summonses. The defendants filed an answer raising as an affirmative defense that the defendants had not been properly served with process pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The returns for the original summonses were not filed with the Trial Court until January 2019. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defense alleging that the defendants had not sufficiently pled it pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.03. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 4.01(3) and 12.02(4)-(5), alleging intentional delay of process, insufficient service of process, and insufficient process. The Trial Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appeals. Upon a review of the record, we affirm the Trial Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to strike but reverse the Trial Court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

This appeal involves a conservatorship proceeding between two sisters with regard to their mother. The appealing sister argues that the trial court’s order was deficient in several respects and that the trial court abused its discretion in naming the other sister as conservator, rather than a public guardian. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Appellant filed a detainer action against Appellee, seeking possession of commercial property. The lawsuit was premised on Appellant’s assertion that Appellee breached the commercial lease, under which it purportedly leased Appellant’s property. Appellee, however, is not a party to the lease. As such, the judgment for breach and for back rents entered against Appellee is of no force or effect. Vacated and remanded.

The Appellant appeals the entry of an order of protection that was entered against him. Because that order of protection has expired, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by Nedra R. Hastings (“Petitioner”), seeking to recuse a special judge in this case involving child support matters. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioner, and finding it fatally deficient, we dismiss the appeal.

A medical center employee sued the medical center under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“the TPPA”) asserting that his employment was terminated because he refused to remain silent about the medical center’s failure to enact policies to safeguard its employees from workplace violence. The medical center moved to dismiss the employee’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and the trial court granted the motion. We conclude that the employee’s complaint satisfies the TPPA’s “illegal act” requirement because it alleges the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause and describes activities that implicate important public policy concerns. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal.

A mother and father’s parental rights to two children were terminated on the grounds of abandonment, persistence of conditions, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and upon a determination that terminating the parents’ rights would be in the best interest of the children. Each parent appeals; we reverse in part as to certain statutory grounds but affirm the termination of the parental rights of each parent.

concur with the majority’s opinion except as to the holding that the ground as to the “failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody” was not satisfied as to Mother. This Court is split on this issue, and I agree with the line of cases that hold that the parent has to be able and willing rather than just either of the two. See In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 3058280, at *12-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018). I would affirm the Trial Court’s determination “that the Petitioners have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Mother has demonstrated an unwillingness to assume custody of the minor children.” I agree with the Trial Court that Mother’s “sobriety was only very recently established, and her continued success in her sobriety is questionable . . . .” Mother’s unwillingness to assume custody satisfies this requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). I concur in all the rest of the majority’s opinion including termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights. Given this Court’s recurring clear and irreconcilable split as to this question of statutory interpretation, I request the Tennessee Supreme Court accept and resolve this issue once it has the opportunity to do so.

This appeal arises from a petition filed by a former wife alleging that the former husband breached their marital dissolution agreement. Wife sought $10,000 in damages to property that husband had allegedly damaged in the manner in which the property was stored. The trial court awarded Wife $7,820 in damages. Husband appeals, asserting that the court erred in adopting the values stated in the marital dissolution agreement in assessing Wife’s damages and in not holding that Wife failed to mitigate her damages. Wife asserts that she was entitled to attorney’s fees in accordance with the enforcement provision of the MDA. We affirm the award of damages and reverse the denial of Wife’s application for attorney’s fees.    

This is a wrongful death healthcare liability action against two defendants, a hospital and an emergency room physician. Following extensive discovery and scheduling orders, the physician defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the hospital joined in the motion. The trial court granted each defendant partial summary judgment by dismissing 17 claims alleging the defendants breached standards of care. When the hospital filed its motion to summarily dismiss the remaining claims against it, the plaintiff filed a response and a motion to substitute his physician expert witness for a different expert witness. The defendants opposed the motion, and the trial court denied the motion to substitute the plaintiff’s expert witness. The court also summarily dismissed all remaining claims against the hospital, leaving only the claims against the emergency room physician for trial. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the court certified the summary dismissal of all claims against the hospital as a final judgment pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. This appeal followed. We have determined that the trial court erred in certifying the order as a final judgment under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 because, inter alia, any decision we make regarding the adjudicated claims against the hospital may encroach upon the unadjudicated claims to be tried against the emergency room physician. Moreover, there is no basis upon which to conclude that an injustice may result from the delay in awaiting adjudication of the entire case. Therefore, there is a just reason for delaying the expedited appeal of the summary dismissal of all claims against the hospital. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order certifying the judgment as final under Rule 54.02 and remand for further proceedings.

This is the second appeal of this case involving a former state employee’s claim for alleged unpaid holiday compensation. In 2015, pursuant to statutory authority, the governor decided that the State would observe the Columbus Day holiday on Friday, November 27, 2015, instead of on Monday, October 12, 2015. Plaintiff, who was an employee of the Tennessee Department of General Services in 2015, was terminated through a reduction-in-force, and his last day of pay, prior to the holiday, was Tuesday, November 24, 2015. Plaintiff filed a civil warrant in general sessions court, arguing that he did not receive the substituted Columbus Day holiday compensation despite having worked on October 12, 2015. The Department filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity, which the general sessions court granted. Plaintiff then filed a de novo appeal to the circuit court, where the Department filed another motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, which was also granted. On the first appeal to this Court, however, we reversed the granting of the motion to dismiss and remanded the case back to the circuit court. Ultimately, the Department filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting affidavits, again on the grounds of sovereign immunity, which the circuit court granted. Having concluded that the Department proved, by undisputed facts, the necessary criteria for sovereign immunity to apply, we affirm.

In this divorce proceeding, the wife appeals the trial court’s division of the marital estate and the amount of income set for the husband in determining his child support obligation. We find no reversible error in the court’s division of the marital assets and debts and the amount of Husband’s monthly income it set for the purpose of calculating child support; accordingly, we affirm.

A sheriff’s office demoted an employee for failing to follow official policies and procedures during an arrest. The employee appealed to the civil service merit board. After a hearing, the board found the employee had neglected his duty as the ranking officer at the scene of the arrest. But the board modified the disciplinary action to a 30-day suspension and ordered the employee’s reinstatement to his former rank. The employee then sought judicial review. The chancery court determined that the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and modified the disciplinary sanction. We conclude that the board’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. So we reverse.

This appeal arises from a business dispute between the two members of a Tennessee limited liability company, 4 Points Hospitality, LLC (“4 Points”), each owning a 50% interest. The plaintiff-member, Terrell K. Raley (“Raley”), commenced this action asserting, individually and on behalf of the LLC, inter alia, that the defendant-member, Cees Brinkman (“Brinkman”), breached the operating agreement by failing to make a $175,000 capital contribution. Brinkman asserted counter claims, individually and on behalf of the LLC, for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Raley misappropriated funds for his personal benefit and that he withheld a large portion of Brinkman’s distributions and salary. Brinkman also claimed that Raley was liable for conversion and punitive damages. Brinkman sought to terminate Raley’s membership interest because he willfully and persistently breached his fiduciary duty, and because it was no longer reasonably practicable for the two men to continue operating the business. Brinkman also claimed he was entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-249-804 and -805, and the operating agreement. Upon Raley’s pre-trial motion, the trial court summarily dismissed Brinkman’s claim for attorneys’ fees under the operating agreement, holding that the attorneys’ fees provision only pertained to disputes submitted to arbitration. Following a lengthy bench trial, the court ruled that (1) Brinkman breached the operating agreement by failing to make a $175,000 capital contribution; (2) Raley was liable for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conversion for underpaying Brinkman’s distributions and salary and for using 4 Points’ funds to satisfy unrelated, personal expenses; (3) Raley was not liable for punitive damages because his conduct was not egregious; and (4) Brinkman was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under §§ 48-249-804 and -805. The court also terminated Raley’s membership interest in 4 Points in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-249-503(a)(6)(B) and (C), finding that Raley’s wrongful conduct adversely and materially affected the business, and it was no longer reasonably practicable for the members to continue operating the business together. Brinkman filed a motion to alter or amend the court’s order, and the court denied his motion in all respects but one, ruling, in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-805, that Brinkman was entitled to equitable relief in the form of attorneys’ fees. Therefore, the court revised its order to allow half of the $240,275.59 Raley owed 4 Points as reimbursement for personal expenses to be paid to Brinkman, individually. Brinkman then filed notice that 4 Points intended to purchase Raley’s membership interest in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-249-505 and -506, which necessitated an evidentiary hearing to determine the “fair value” of Raley’s interest. In preparation for the hearing, Brinkman’s expert prepared a valuation report applying shareholder-level discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability and adjusting 4 Points’ income for the corporate income tax. Raley responded by filing a motion in limine to determine the meaning and components of “fair value” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-506(3), arguing that any testimony or other evidence relating to discounts for lack of control and marketability and the corporate income tax should be excluded at the evidentiary hearing. In response, Brinkman submitted the affidavit of his valuation expert, explaining the expert’s valuation methodology and the reasons for applying a corporate income tax rate. The court ruled that because the company, rather than a third-party, was purchasing the membership interest, the fact that the interest was non-controlling was irrelevant to its fair value. The court also excluded evidence and testimony on discounts for lack of marketability. As for the applicability of the corporate income tax, the court ruled that “no entity level tax should be applied in the valuation analysis for a non-controlling interest in an electing S corporation, absent a compelling demonstration that independent third parties dealing at arms-length would do so as part of a purchase price negotiation.” Following the evidentiary hearing, the court determined that the fair value of 4 Points was $4,774,278.18, and that Raley’s 50% interest was $2,387,139.09. Brinkman timely filed this appeal contending the trial court erred in determining that (1) Brinkman breached the operating agreement by failing to make a capital contribution; (2) Raley was not liable for punitive damages; and (3) Brinkman was not entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the operating agreement and/or §§ 48-249-804 and -805. As for the trial court’s valuation of Raley’s membership interest, Brinkman contends the trial court erred in (1) disallowing discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability and (2) determining that tax-affecting did not constitute relevant evidence of the fair value of Raley’s membership interest in 4 Points. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in every respect but one. We have determined that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence relative to tax-affecting when determining the fair value of Raley’s membership interest, because Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-506 provides that relevant evidence of fair value includes the “recommendations of any of the appraisers of the parties to the proceeding.” Brinkman’s valuation expert stated in his affidavit that the application of a 38% tax rate “comports with generally accepted valuation standards and methods” and reasoned that, there is a risk of inaccurate valuation when the components of the capitalization rate are based on after-tax values, and no tax-affecting is applied to the income of the company. Therefore, we vacate the judgment valuing Raley’s interest and remand for the trial court to consider evidence relative to tax-affecting in determining the fair value of Raley’s membership interest and to enter judgment accordingly. 

In this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Carter County Chancery Court (“trial court”) seeking an easement over improved real property located in Carter County. The plaintiff and his wife had originally conveyed the servient estate primarily at issue to the co-defendants, their son and daughter-in-law, in 2010. Following the 2010 conveyance, the plaintiff and his wife retained ownership of two adjoining parcels of land, which included their residence and were separated from the servient estate by an adjoining tract of real property that was owned by a third co-defendant, their great niece. The plaintiff and his wife also owned an “island” tract, consisting of approximately 18.4 acres of unimproved real property surrounded by the waters of the Watauga River and connected to the servient estate by a bridge that the plaintiff had built in the 1980s. The plaintiff’s wife died in 2014. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that a permanent easement appurtenant existed, either by prior use, estoppel, or necessity, for the island tract, as the dominant estate, across the great niece’s property and the servient estate. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to an easement for ingress and egress, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 54-14-101 et seq. (2008), because the island tract was essentially “landlocked” by the servient estate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that no permanent easement existed. Noting that the great niece had filed no responsive pleading and had not appeared for trial despite having received notice, the trial court entered a default judgment against her as to all issues that may have been raised concerning her interests. Upon further finding that the plaintiff was entitled to an easement by necessity, the trial court granted a twelve-foot easement to the plaintiff around the perimeter of the servient estate and across the great niece’s property for ingress and egress to the bridge leading to the island tract. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s request to locate the easement through the front yard of the servient estate. The great niece subsequently filed motions to alter or amend the final judgment and set aside the default judgment against her, both of which the trial court denied following a hearing. The plaintiff and the great niece have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This case involves an oral contract for construction services at a residential home. The parties agreed for the contractor to make various improvements to the property, including painting; repairing cabinets; and replacing countertops. The parties dispute the agreed-upon time of completion. Unbeknownst to the homeowner at the time of contracting, the contractor had several severe physical ailments. On multiple occasions, the homeowner expressed her displeasure with the contractor’s lack of progress. Eventually, the homeowner informed the contractor that a third party would complete the majority of the agreed-upon services. The homeowner initiated this case by filing suit against the contractor and his wife, alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The contractor and his wife filed a counter-claim, alleging breach of contract by the homeowner. After a bench trial, the trial court rescinded the contract, finding a mutual mistake regarding the length of the contract term, and dismissed the parties’ claims. All parties appealed. We reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

The City of Memphis appeals the dismissal of a parking ticket issued by the staff of the Downtown Memphis Commission. The City argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment against it based on a wrongful interpretation of the authority delegated by city ordinances. Additionally, The City argues that genuine issues of material fact remained that prevented summary judgment and contends that the circuit court erred in not granting a motion to alter or amend its order. We affirm.