KATHLEEN MARQUARDT v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
This Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”) dispute concerns emails and documents (the “Materials”) requested by Kathleen Marquardt (“Ms. Marquardt”) from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (“UTK”). Ms. Marquardt argued that the Materials, which include emails pertaining to an article authored by a part-time UTK employee that was published in the Huffington Post, were public records because they were created as a part of the official business of the university in furtherance of its goal of becoming a top-25 university. Following an in camera review of the Materials by the trial court only and a show-cause hearing, the trial court ruled in UTK’s favor, holding that “the requested records do not meet the definition of the [TPRA] statute; that these records were made or received pursuant to law or ordinance, or in [connection] with the transaction of official business by any governmental entity.” Ms. Marquardt challenges this ruling as well as other rulings including the denial of her motion for “an attorney’s eyes only” review of the Materials and the denial of her discovery requests. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jaylynn J.
In the first appeal of this parental termination case, we affirmed the trial court’s findings that three grounds for termination were sufficiently proven, but we vacated one ground and the trial court’s best interest determination due to insufficient findings in the termination order. On remand, the trial court entered an amended order containing additional findings. The mother appeals. We affirm the termination of parental rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Saad Al Qaragholi v. Commissioner of Revenue
This appeal concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Saad Al Qaragholi (“Petitioner”) filed a petition against the Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee (“Respondent”) in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) challenging tax assessments against him. Petitioner opted not to pay the tax before proceeding with his challenge. However, Petitioner failed to timely sign his petition under penalty of perjury as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-1801(b)(2). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the oath requirement was jurisdictional and could not be corrected after the 90 days in which to file a petition expired. The Trial Court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss and granted Petitioner leave to amend, citing the legal principle that leave to amend is freely granted. This interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, followed. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Gregory B. Johnson
Appellants fail to identify an error of fact or law for our review, and their brief fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appellee’s request for damages for a frivolous appeal is granted. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Leketrice Harris v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kamilah A.
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
MidSouth Construction, LLC v. Daniel Burstiner et al.
This appeal concerns a homeowner’s attempt to vacate an arbitration award entered after a dispute arose regarding the homeowner’s contract with a construction company to build a deck on the homeowner’s property. We have determined that the trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award and that the contractor waived any argument that the trial court erred by not awarding the company its attorney’s fees at the trial level. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of the contractor’s reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
JANICE M. LONGDUE v. MELISSA HAMMOCK
This appeal stems from the trial court’s granting of Appellee’s petition for an order of protection against Appellant. We do not reach the merits of Appellant’s argument because her brief does not comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee—most notably by failing to include a statement of issues presented for review. This appeal is therefore dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
JAY MACE ET AL v. NANCY R HELTON ET AL
The tenants appeal from the judgment in this action involving a lease with a purchase option for real property. We vacate the attorney fee award to the landlords. We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Adalynn B.
This appeal arises from a petition to determine custody and establish parenting time. Following a two-day trial, the court ruled that the parents shall have joint legal custody of their two-year-old child and that the mother shall be the primary residential parent. The court also established a parenting schedule, pursuant to which the mother was awarded more parenting time than the father. The father appeals the designation of the mother as the primary residential parent and the allocation of parenting time. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Dayson A.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found three grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
LONSHORES OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. v. HENRY BENNAFIELD ET AL.
The plaintiff homeowners’ association filed this lawsuit against certain defendant homeowners who owned homes within its subdivision, seeking to enjoin the homeowners from using their residences as short-term rentals. After discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment that focused on interpretation of the association’s restrictive covenants with respect to short-term rental properties. Following a hearing on the competing motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant homeowners and concomitantly denied the association’s motion. The trial court concluded that the language of the restrictive covenants was ambiguous as to short-term rentals and therefore unenforceable to enjoin the homeowners from using their residences as short-term rental properties. The association has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Saint Claude Renal, et al. v. Drexel Chemical Company
The Plaintiffs in this case, who live in the Dominican Republic, were allegedly injured by toxic herbicides used in the sugar cane industry. Following the Plaintiffs’ filing of a lawsuit against the Defendant, a Tennessee corporation, pursuant to the Tennessee Products Liability Act, the Defendant moved to dismiss the case on several grounds. Although the trial court rejected the viability of a number of these defenses asserted by the Defendant at the motion to dismiss stage, the trial court concluded that the case should be dismissed on the basis that “the TPLA does not have extraterritorial application.” The trial court also opined that, “even if a case were to proceed in Tennessee, the applicable law would be the law of the Dominican Republic” but noted that the Plaintiffs “have only set forth a specific claim under the TPLA.” For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Saint Claude Renal, et al. v. Drexel Chemical Company -Dissent
The primary question in this case is whether the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ action on the basis of extraterritoriality. In answering that question, the trial court ruled that because no Tennessee law was on point to address the issue, federal law provided an appropriate framework to resolve the dispute. Under that framework, a court is tasked with answering two questions. First, “whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted—that is, whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325, 337 (2016). If the statute does not give a clear indication of extraterritoriality, all is not lost, however, so long as there can be a domestic application of the statute. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
DERRY M. THOMPSON ET AL. v. TIMOTHY A. GRAHAM ET AL.
This appeal stems from a trial court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement regarding a |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
83 Freight, LLC v. C4 Sourcing Solutions, LLC et al.
This appeal concerns counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract, violation of the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, and enforcement of a lien. The counter-plaintiff, C4 Sourcing Solutions, LLC, alleged that a third-party defendant, Capital City Construction, LLC, breached its agreement to purchase 171 custom-fabricated steel containers for use in an apartment complex. C4 also sought to enforce a lien against the complex property, which was owned by the plaintiff, 83 Freight, LLC. After a trial, the jury found Capital City breached its contract with C4 and awarded $866,000 in compensatory damages. And after a post-trial hearing, the court granted C4’s request to collect on its lien. Capital City and 83 Freight raise numerous issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and modify in part. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
ROBERT BATES, ET AL. v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, ET AL.
This appeal involves statutory construction. Robert Bates and Laurel Diane Bates (“Mr. Bates” and “Ms. Bates,” “Plaintiffs” collectively) sued the City of Chattanooga, Individually and d/b/a the Brainerd Golf Course (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”), alleging personal injuries, loss of services, and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Bates’ fall on Defendant’s golf course. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment relying on the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (“the TRUS”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-101, et seq., which provides immunity to landowners who open their property to recreational use. The Trial Court held that Defendant, the landowner, was immune under the TRUS because Mr. Bates was on Defendant’s property to play golf, and golf is comparable to the non-exclusive list of recreational activities found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102. No exception to the TRUS was found to apply. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that golf is not an activity like those listed at Section 102 of the TRUS. Plaintiffs argue further that the fact Mr. Bates paid to play on Defendant’s golf course means Defendant is not entitled to immunity. We hold, inter alia, that golf is sufficiently comparable to Section 102 enumerated activities, particularly hiking, sightseeing, and target shooting, such that Defendant is entitled to immunity under the TRUS. In addition, the fact that Mr. Bates paid to play on Defendant’s golf course is not dispositive because the TRUS has no applicable consideration exception. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY R. CURTIS
This appeal arises from a verified claim against an estate seeking the repayment of a purported loan made to the decedent by his mother. The decedent’s surviving girlfriend, as executrix of the estate, claimed the funds provided to the decedent by his mother were a gift as opposed to a loan. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the funds were a loan and entered an order in favor of the mother. The estate timely appeals to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
ROBYN HURVITZ V. WILLIAM SMITH, ET AL
A self-represented defendant moved to recuse the trial judge. This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal filed after the trial court’s denial of the motion. We dismiss the appeal because the defendant failed to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Poplar Avenue 1856 Center, LLC v. Nexus Exxon, Inc., et al.
This appeal involves a commercial lease of property operated as a convenience store in Memphis. The lease provided that it was to be construed and enforced in accordance with Georgia law. The lease was for an initial term of ten years, but it provided that the tenant had the option to renew the lease for two additional terms of five years commencing at the expiration of the initial term. Near the end of the initial ten-year term, the landlord sent a notice of nonrenewal to the tenant, notifying the tenant that the lease was scheduled to expire because the tenant had failed to timely exercise the option to renew it. One week later, the tenant sent the landlord written notice of its intent to exercise the option to extend the lease for an additional five years. The tenant’s letter asserted that the provision of the lease regarding when notice was to be provided “[did] not make any sense” and informed the landlord that the tenant was thereby exercising the option. The landlord filed this lawsuit, asking the trial court to hold that the lease had expired by its terms when the tenant did not timely exercise the option to extend it, and therefore, the landlord was entitled to possession of the property and a judgment for rent at the holdover rate provided in the lease. The tenant filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that the lease was ambiguous but that the only reasonable interpretation of the lease was that notice of intent to exercise the option was due ninety days before the end of the initial term. Because the tenant failed to provide notice by that date, the trial court concluded that the initial term of the lease expired, the landlord was entitled to possession, and the tenant was liable for holdover rent and attorney fees. The tenant appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County et al. v. Bill Lee et al.
A three-judge panel was convened in this case to determine the constitutionality of 2023 Tennessee Public Chapter 21. While the case was pending, the trial court temporarily stayed implementation of subsection 1(b) of the legislation, the result of which was that the deadlines contained therein were rendered moot. In considering competing summary judgment motions, the trial court unanimously ruled that subsection 1(a) of the act was not also moot. In a divided decision, however, the trial court concluded that the legislation violated two provisions of the Tennessee Constitution: the home rule amendment and a clause exempting metropolitan governments from a twenty-five-member cap on county legislative bodies. Both parties appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that subsection 1(a) is not moot. We reverse, however, its conclusion that the statute is barred by either constitutional provision at issue |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County et al. v. Bill Lee et al. (Dissenting in part)
I write separately to address what I consider to be an erroneous reading of Article VII, section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution (the “Article”), which provides, in relevant part: The legislative body shall not exceed twenty-five members . . . Any county organized under the consolidated government provision of Article XI, Section 9, of this Constitution shall be exempt from having a county or legislative body as described in this paragraph. (Emphases added). It is undisputed that Metro qualifies for the exemption contained in the Article. The obvious reason for exempting a consolidated government from the restriction on the size of its membership is to accommodate the far larger population of a consolidated government as compared to a single county or municipality. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pepper Black et al. v. Theresa Baldwin
The plaintiffs initiated this action based upon multiple theories of speech-related torts and emotional distress in response to the defendant’s statements made on her social media concerning them and their business. The defendant moved for dismissal, citing the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”), codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-17-101, et seq. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that the TPPA applied and operated to protect her right to free speech and to petition. We now affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Cooper Hearn, as Trustee of the Cooper Family Trust v. Sharon Thomas f/k/a Sharon W. Cooper as Trustee of the Cooper Family Trust
In granting appellee’s motion to amend her petition over appellant’s objection, the trial court did not consider any of the factors relevant to a trial court’s determination of whether to grant a motion to amend. In the absence of any explanation in the trial court’s order concerning the basis for its decision, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to amend. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order granting appellee leave to amend her petition and pretermit the remaining issues on appeal. |
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
DR. DAVID BRUCE COFFEY v. BUCKEYE HOME HEALTH CENTER, INC.
In the Circuit Court for Scott County (“the Trial Court”), Dr. David Bruce Coffey filed a complaint alleging that Buckeye Home Health Center, Inc. (“Buckeye”) breached its lease agreement with Dr. Coffey by failing to obtain fire insurance coverage on its leased portion of Dr. Coffey’s building. The building burned down during Buckeye’s tenancy. Buckeye filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was impossible to obtain fire insurance coverage for only a portion of the building as required by the lease. The Trial Court granted Buckeye’s motion. Dr. Coffey appealed. Upon our review, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact and reverse the Trial Court’s order dismissing Dr. Coffey’s complaint. |
Scott | Court of Appeals |
