APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court dismissed plaintiff/Appellant’s Governmental Tort Liability action against the county and an unknown deputy. The trial court determined that Appellant’s lawsuit was barred by the Public Duty Doctrine. Because Appellant has not pled facts sufficient to establish a special duty exception to the Public Duty Doctrine, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.

I concur in the majority’s holding that an unwed father, who previously executed a VAP, has standing to sue for custody and visitation rights to his minor child. I also concur in the holding reversing the trial court’s award of visitation rights to the paternal grandmother. I write separately only to highlight my concern about the procedure used by the unwed father in this case to obtain his visitation rights.

The administrator of Appellee estate filed a declaratory judgment action against Geneva Cosey, seeking to quiet title to real property owned by decedent. Geneva Cosey died during the trial court proceedings, and the administrator filed a suggestion of death. However, neither party filed a substitution of party. As such, the trial court granted a default judgment in favor of the estate (and the administrator as the sole heir) on the declaratory judgment action. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.01. Thereafter, Geneva Cosey’s daughter, Eloise Cosey, filed an appeal to this Court. The notice of appeal was brought in the name of Geneva Cosey, deceased, and Eloise Cosey, as Geneva Cosey’s next of kin. The notice was signed and submitted by attorney Matthew Edwards. Because neither Eloise Cosey nor Mr. Edwards satisfy the standing requirement under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 19(a), the notice of appeal is ineffective and the appeal is dismissed.

The owner of a vehicle seeks to recover for damage done to his vehicle while being repaired by the defendant auto repair shop. The defendant denied liability and asserted a counterclaim for the work it performed at the owner’s request. The circuit court dismissed the owner’s claims and awarded the defendant a judgment of $1,600. The owner appeals. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

This appeal concerns injuries allegedly caused by dogs running loose and the application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 44-8-413. Under this statute, the “owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable control at all times, and to keep that dog from running at large.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413(a)(1). “A person who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in or on the private property of another.” Id. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellee/Defendant, an LLC, where the dogs had been kept prior to the incident, as to an alleged violation of section 44-8-413, holding that the Appellee/Defendant never assumed ownership of the dogs at the center of this dispute. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on this issue.

This case involves an unwed father’s right to visitation with his minor child. After an initial denial of Father’s request for visitation, the trial court later granted Father and Father’s mother visitation rights following the filing of a Rule 60 motion. In granting relief, the trial court found that Father had standing, having previously executed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. Mother filed a timely appeal arguing that the trial court erred in granting Father relief. Notably, Mother contested Father’s standing to sue for visitation, arguing that the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity did not vest Father with standing to sue. For the reasons contained herein, we affirm in part and vacate in part the trial court’s order granting Father relief. Further, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s order granting visitation rights to Father’s mother.

This is a Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability action for personal injuries resulting from a trip and fall on the premises of a public school that was owned and operated by Maryville City Schools. The complaint alleged, in pertinent part, that the plaintiff tripped and fell near the entrance to the Maryville High School on a section of the school’s sidewalk that was deteriorated, the condition of which the defendant knew or should have known. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing it was “immune from suit pursuant to the public duty doctrine.” Finding the public duty doctrine applied and the defendant was immune, the trial court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. We have determined that the facts alleged in the complaint do not pertain to or give rise to a defense based on the public duty doctrine. Further, accepting the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true—as we are required to do at this stage in the proceedings—we have determined that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by M.E. Buck Dougherty, III (“Petitioner” or “Father”), seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case involving modification of a parenting plan. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioner, and finding that the Chancery Court for Fayette County (“the Trial Court”) properly recused but erred in entering further orders, we vacate, in part, the November 5, 2020 order and affirm the order as so modified.

Appellant appeals the circuit court’s decision to allow a law firm to intervene in an estate matter. Because we conclude that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this estate matter, we vacate the decision of the circuit court and remand with instructions to transfer this matter back to probate court.

Husband appeals the trial court’s decisions regarding the classification and division of property relative to divorce. We affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects.

This appeal involves the termination of both parents’ rights to one of their minor children. Following a trial, the Bradley County Juvenile Court found that petitioners proved two statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence: abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. Both parents appealed, arguing the abandonment was not willful. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.

A Giles County jury convicted the Petitioner, Cody D. Marks, of the sale of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II offender to fifteen years of incarceration, twelve years of which was to be served at 100%. This court affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. Cody D. Marks, No. M2018-00020-CCA-R-CD, 2018 WL 6992553, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 13, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 28, 2019). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the child, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Similarly, Appellant Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1); (2) abandonment by failure to support, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1); and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the child, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Appellants also appeal the trial court’s finding that termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Because the record does not support grounds for termination of Appellants’ parental rights, we reverse the trial court’s order concerning same. Accordingly, the issue of whether termination is in the Child’s best interest is pretermitted.

This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a mother and father to their child. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support two grounds for termination: persistence of conditions and severe abuse. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interests of the child. We affirm.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, David Oeser, as charged of first degree premediated murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1), (a)(2), 39-13-403, 39-14-403, 39-16-503. The trial court imposed life sentences for the Defendant’s first degree murder convictions before merging them. It then sentenced the Defendant to twenty years at one hundred percent for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, five years at thirty percent for the aggravated burglary conviction, and five years at thirty percent for the tampering with evidence conviction, with these sentences served concurrently with one another but consecutively to the life sentence, for an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for first degree premediated murder; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the sentences for the especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence convictions served consecutively to his life sentence. After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable law, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms in Counts 1 and 3 as specified in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed

An employee sustained severe injuries when she was run over by a public transit bus on her way to work. The employer denied the employee’s workers’ compensation claim, and she filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission. Both parties filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the employee was within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred. The Claims Commission answered the question in the negative and determined that the case was subject to the “coming and going” rule. Therefore, the Claims Commission granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. Upon our review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the decision of the Claims Commission.

In a direct appeal from the Environmental Court for Davidson County, Tennessee (“general sessions court”), the Davidson County Circuit Court (“trial court”) granted the plaintiff agency’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court’s determination that the defendant, Farokh Fani, had untimely filed his motion for Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60 relief in the general sessions court, rendering his appeal to the trial court untimely. Mr. Fani has appealed. We conclude that the trial court erred by determining that Mr. Fani’s Rule 60 motion and his appeal were untimely. Having further determined that a factual dispute exists concerning whether the plaintiff agency properly served process on Mr. Fani, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including the development of a record concerning service of process.

We granted this appeal to settle a split of authority in the Court of Appeals concerning the proper interpretation of a statute that requires a person seeking termination of parental rights to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a “parent or guardian has failed to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14) (Supp. 2016); id. (2017 & Supp. 2020). In some decisions, the Court of Appeals has interpreted this language as requiring clear and convincing proof that a parent was both unable and unwilling to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of a child. See, e.g., In re Ayden S., No. M2017-01185-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 2447044, *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018). In other decisions, the Court of Appeals has construed this statute as requiring clear and convincing proof that a parent was either unable or unwilling to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of a child. See, e.g., In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 3058280, *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018). We hold that the statute is ambiguous and that the latter interpretation—the In re Amynn K. interpretation—best effectuates legislative intent. Therefore, we overrule In re Ayden S. and all other Court of Appeals’ decisions inconsistent with our holding herein. Additionally, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals herein, which applied the In re Ayden S. interpretation, and reinstate the judgment of the trial court terminating mother’s parental rights based solely on Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14). In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment remains intact and is reinstated.

The primary issue in this case involves the State’s delayed disclosure of obviously exculpatory evidence. On June 18, 2015, Lawrence Eugene Allen, Defendant, was arrested for aggravated rape and domestic assault of his wife, Kimberly Allen. The charges were based primarily on Ms. Allen’s statement to Detective Dustin Fait that Defendant struck her and penetrated her with his hand. On June 22, 2015, the day before the original setting of the preliminary hearing, Ms. Allen sent two emails to Detective Fait. In the first email, Ms. Allen stated that Defendant did not rape her. She claimed that she had a consensual sexual encounter with an unknown man in his vehicle outside a bar in Nashville during the early morning hours of June 18, 2015. After numerous continuances, a preliminary hearing was finally held on March 18, 2016. The State did not disclose the emails to Defendant before the preliminary hearing. Both Ms. Allen and Detective Fait testified at the preliminary hearing and were cross-examined by defense counsel. Neither witness mentioned Ms. Allen’s emails or her recantation of the rape allegation. A few days after the preliminary hearing, Ms. Allen was murdered. The murder was unrelated to this case or to Defendant. The emails were finally disclosed to Defendant when the State provided discovery on December 21, 2017. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to exclude Ms. Allen’s preliminary hearing testimony based on Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804 and the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. Following a hearing, the trial court declared Ms. Allen unavailable and denied Defendant’s motion, finding that Defendant had both an opportunity and a similar motive to develop Ms. Allen’s testimony at the preliminary hearing through cross-examination. At trial, the State played the audio recording of Ms. Allen’s preliminary hearing testimony for the jury and introduced the emailsas substantive evidence. The jury convicted Defendant of one count of aggravated rape and one count of domestic assault, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years to be served at one hundred percent. We hold that the State’s failure to disclose the obviously exculpatory first email before Ms. Allen testified at the preliminary hearing, coupled with her death before trial, deprived Defendant of the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Allen about the veracity of the emails, violated Brady 12/10/2020 -2 v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and deprived Defendant of his constitutional right to due process of law. We reverse Defendant’s convictions and remand for a new trial.

In this case arising from a divorce, the father of the parties’ minor child petitioned to modify the existing parenting plan which he and the mother had agreed to in mediation approximately eight months earlier. Finding that the petition’s allegations were unsubstantiated and that the father had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there had been a material change of circumstances that affected the child’s best interest, the trial court dismissed the father’s petition. The trial court awarded the mother attorney fees. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

The Petitioner, Jamey Crowell, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2017 Chester County convictions for aggravated kidnapping, facilitation of aggravated assault, and three drug-related convictions, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by the Defendant. In its order denying the motion to compel, the trial court failed to make any factual findings. Further, there is no indication that any proof was considered by the trial court. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Arlene T. Pugh aka Arlene McFadden, of disorderly conduct, assault, and resisting arrest, and the trial court imposed an elevenmonth, twenty-nine day probation sentence, with a seven-day jail sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions because of conflicting testimony of the witnesses. Because credibility determinations regarding witness testimony are within the province of the jury, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Petitioner, Jack Louis Janes, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea or, in the alternative, petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.