Joan T. Williams et al. v. Bank of America et al.
Debtors on a promissory note and deed of trust who have not made a mortgage payment since October 2008 filed this action in October 2009 in an attempt to stay foreclosure proceedings and alternatively for damages based on unjust enrichment. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims and the plaintiffs did not appeal that order. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary dismissal and for stay of foreclosure pending the outcome of the motion for reconsideration; the motion was denied. The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from the order denying the motion for reconsideration and stay. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel A. Riley, C.N.A. v. John Dreyzehner, M.D., M.P.H., in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Health
Appellant nurse assistant’s name was placed on the Abuse Registry after the Appellee Tennessee Department of Health concluded that he had committed an act of abuse on an elderly person in his care at a nursing home. Appellant appeals, arguing that substantial and material evidence does not exist to show that he committed an act of abuse on the nursing home resident. Having determined that substantial and material evidence in the record supports the decision of the Tennessee Department of Health, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jane Field v. The Ladies' Hermitage Association
This is the second round in a long-running dispute over the provisions in a warranty deed conveying historic Tulip Grove to the Ladies Hermitage Association (LHA). In the deed LHA agreed to make certain payments to the grantor and her heirs. In a prior appeal this Court affirmed the chancellor’s ruling that the property did not revert to the heirs so long as LHA paid the heirs at least $600 every six months. On remand the chancellor held that LHA did not have an implied obligation to keep the property open for paid tours and that LHA did not have to share with the heirs the income derived from renting the property for special events. We affirm the chancellor on the implied obligation and reverse the holding on the heirs’ right to a portion of the special event income. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffery Charles Hayes v. Melissa Marie Hayes
This is a divorce appeal, primarily over property issues. The parties were married for approximately six years, with no children born of the marriage. During the marriage, they owned several homes, including the home in which they lived, but some went into foreclosure. Given the complicated state of the parties’ finances, the trial was lengthy. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court entered an order holding that the home in which the couple lived was the wife’s separate property and dividing the remainder of the parties’ assets and debts. The husband now appeals, raising numerous issues. We affirm in part, and reverse the finding that the home in which the parties resided was the wife’s separate property. In light of our holding that the home in which the parties lived was marital property, we remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of its division of the marital estate. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Susan Elaine Dunlap, Lady Bug Corporation, Trustee for BLF Land Trust, and BLF Land Trust
A judgment creditor sued the owners of two parcels of real property, who received the |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Emily C.R.
Grandparents of a minor child who had raised the child since her birth, filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s Mother. The trial court held that the Mother had abandoned the child by failing to visit and failing to support her and that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. Mother appeals; finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Freeman
Defendant/Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and violation of the implied consent law. At trial, Appellant and the arresting officer gave conflicting testimony as to whether Appellant refused to submit to a blood test. The jury acquitted Appellant of the driving under the influence charge, but the trial court, crediting the arresting officer’s testimony, found that the Appellant had violated the implied consent law. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in crediting the testimony of the arresting officer despite the acquittal by the jury. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Scott Marcum, et al. v. Haskel "Hack" Ayers, et al.
Timothy Scott Marcum and Audrey L. Marcum (“Plaintiffs”) purchased real property containing a house originally constructed by Haskel “Hack” Ayers and Tomi Ayers (“Defendants”). After the purchase, Plaintiffs discovered problems with the house. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement. Subsequently, Plaintiffs discovered additional problems with the house. Plaintiffs sued Defendants. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendants summary judgment after finding that the settlement agreement constituted an unambiguous release of all claims past, present, and future. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Jeffery B. and Anne B.
The parental rights of Mother and Father to their two children were terminated based upon abandonment, persistent conditions, and non-compliance with the permanency plans. We affirm in part and we reverse in part; however, we affirm the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey R. Cooper v. Phillip Glasser, Richard Glasser, David Glasser and Does 1-50
Jeffrey R. Cooper (“Cooper”) sued Phillip Glasser, Richard Glasser, and David Glasser (“the Defendants ”) in the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) 1 for, among other things, breach of contract. Cooper previously had filed two lawsuits arising out of the same underlying facts as those of this lawsuit. Both previous lawsuits, the first in a California state court and the second in a United States District Court in Tennessee, were voluntarily dismissed. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court held that the second voluntary dismissal in federal court was a judgment on the merits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, res judicata prevented Cooper from filing suit for a third time in Tennessee. Cooper appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Damon Gorbet v. Tiffany Gorbet
This is a divorce case. Prior to the parties’ marriage, the wife lived in Arkansas and the husband lived in Tennessee. When the parties married, the wife quit her job in Arkansas and the parties moved into a house in Tennessee. They separated after just seven months of marriage, and the husband filed this complaint for divorce. After a two-day trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced and equitably divided the parties’ marital property. The trial court awarded the wife transitional alimony, attorney fees as alimony in solido, and moving expenses for the wife to return to Arkansas. The husband now appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Jane (Fillers) Crum v. Arvin Dwayne Fillers
In this post-divorce case, Mother sought to modify the existing custody arrangement relating to the Children that she shared with Father. At the time of divorce, the parties agreed to equal co-parenting time but designated Mother as the primary residential parent. Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Father objected. The trial court held that there had been a material change of circumstances and that it was in the best interest of the Children to modify the parenting plan as Mother requested. Father appeals the court’s modification decision. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Dominique L. H.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Father’s rights based on clear and convincing evidence that Father was sentenced to incarceration for ten (10) years while the child at issue was younger than eight (8) years of age. The trial court further found that it was in the best interest of the child for Father’s rights to be terminated in order for the child to establish a permanent home with his foster family. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its best interest analysis. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Jacqueline Elaine Green v. Paul Roberts
This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant sustained injuries after she tripped over a steel post that was protruding just above the surface of a parking lot that is owned by the Defendant/Appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, finding that the Appellee owed no duty to the Appellant, and that Appellant was at least 50% at fault for her own injury, thus negating her negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Van Buren | Court of Appeals | |
Sandi D. Jackson v. Tennessee Board of Nursing
The Tennessee Department of Health filed civil charges against Nurse Jackson alleging that she had inappropriately prescribed medications for her daughter. Before a hearing on the merits was held, however, the Department filed a Notice of Nonsuit without prejudice. After an Order of Voluntary Dismissal was entered, Nurse Jackson filed a Petition in the chancery court seeking dismissal of the case against her with prejudice, as well as her attorney fees expended, claiming that the Board of Nursing had subjected her to an unwarranted investigation and prosecution which was “not well grounded in fact and was not warranted by existing law, rule or regulation[.]” She did not, however, seek a consideration of the merits of the charges against her. The chancery court dismissed Nurse Jackson’s Petition. We find that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider her Petition; therefore, the judgment of the chancery court is vacated and the case is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Eric Holley, Individually and on behalf of Susie Holley, Deceased v. Melrose Blackett, M.D.
This appeal involves an attempt to substitute parties after the original plaintiff in this wrongful death case died. The trial court struck the motion to substitute parties and dismissed the case. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Custis v. Metropolitan Nashville Police Department
This case involves a claim for attorney’s fees and costs under the Public Records Act. The |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Tonia M. Bernard v. Robert E. Smith
Appellant/Father appeals the trial court's finding that he was in criminal contempt for failure to pay child support. Upon review of the record, we reverse and dismiss the criminal contempt charges. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Erik Hood v. Casey Jenkins, et al.
This appeal involves a claim for breach of a life insurance contract issued by Old Line. Father named his son, a minor, as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. When Father died, the proceeds of the policy were issued to minor’s older sister, who depleted the funds. Beneficiary filed suit against Sister and Old Line, alleging that Sister misappropriated the life insurance proceeds and that Old Line erroneously awarded the proceeds to Sister without proper documentation. A default judgment was entered against Sister. Following a trial on Beneficiary’s claim against Old Line, the court ordered Old Line to re-issue a portion of the proceeds to Beneficiary. Old Line appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
Stephen G. Butler v. Michele G. Butler
The parents of a three year old girl were divorced by order of a Georgia court, and their settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce degree. The parties subsequently moved to this state, and after several years Father petitioned the Tennessee court to name him as the child’s primary residential parent. He also asked the court to modify his child support. After a hearing, the trial court declared that Mother would remain the child’s primary residential parent, and it granted Father additional visitation. The court also found that Father was not entitled by law to a reduction in his child support obligation, but it adopted Mother’s proposal that the obligation be reduced by about one fourth. On appeal, Father contends that the trial court erred by failing to apply the Tennessee child support guidelines to determine his support obligation. We vacate the child support order and remand for setting Father’s support using the Child Support Guidelines. Despite concerns expressed by Father, we find the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Sara Eigen Figal v. Vanderbilt University
This appeal arises out of an action for breach of contract and misrepresentation brought by a former university faculty member who was denied tenure. The faculty member has appealed from the trial court’s dismissal of her lawsuit and subsequent denial of her Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter or amend. We hold that the order denying the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 motion complied with the service requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 58, and thus entry of the order was effective on May 29, 2012. Because the faculty member did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after the entry of that order as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Brian Lee Hill v. Kimberly Dawn Hill
In this divorce appeal, Husband disagrees with the trial court’s decision regarding a residence he purchased during the pendency of the divorce and with the calculation of his child support obligation. We find merit in Husband’s arguments, vacate the relevant portions of the divorce decree, and remand. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Conservatorship of Leah Angelique Thomas - Cathey J. Tillman, Conservator v. Ronald Marvell Thomas
The probate court appointed a conservator for a disabled young adult. The court awarded attorney’s fees to the petitioner who was appointed as conservator, and to the guardian ad litem, to be paid from the estate of the disabled ward. The court also ordered that another party, who originally sought to be appointed as conservator but withdrew his petition before the hearing, would likewise receive an award of attorney’s fees to be paid from the estate of the ward. The conservator appeals, arguing that the probate court lacked the authority to make such an award to the party who withdrew his petition. We agree, and therefore, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dale England, et al. v. Robert England, et al.
This case is a property dispute between two brothers regarding the width of a right-of-way that affects both their properties. The plaintiff claims the right-of-way is eight feet wide and the defendant should be prevented from expanding the gravel road that runs along the right-of-way to 25 feet because the expansion would require the plaintiff to remove fences, septic tanks, and other permanent structures. The trial court ruled that the right-of-way created by the brothers’ father was intended to be 25 feet wide. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Robert Braun, Jr. v. Nita Lynn Braun
This is a post-divorce appeal. Stepfather assumed a parental role over Mother’s child from a previous relationship even though only one child was born of the relationship between the Parties. Following an agreed divorce, the court ordered Stepfather to submit child support for both children. The court reasoned that as a result of Stepfather’s participation in a petition to terminate the biological father’s parental rights to Mother’s child, the Child lost any right to support from his biological father. Stepfather appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court but remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Roane | Court of Appeals |
