This is an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff, a female secretary at a high
school, sued the county school board for discrimination alleging that she was terminated
because of her sex in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Following a bench
trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages. The school board
appeals, asserting that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.
We have determined that the plaintiff failed to identify a “similarly situated” employee and
therefore failed to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination. We reverse the
judgment of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
In Re Lucca M. Et Al. M2021-01534-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge David R. Howard
In this case, prospective adoptive parents Whayne D., Lauren D., James K., and Heather K.1 (“Petitioners”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Miya M. (“Mother”) to two of her minor children. They alleged these grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to financially support the children; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The trial court found that Petitioners established four of the five alleged grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We reverse the trial court’s holding that Petitioners established the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects, including its ultimate ruling terminating Mother’s parental rights.
Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
this appeal.
Court of Appeals
In Re Avery W. Et Al. M2022-01057-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Sheila Calloway
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioner proved five statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree that clear and convincing evidence supports three grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest. So we affirm.
This appeal arises from a suit to rescind a contract for the sale of a home due to fraud. The
trial court found clear and convincing evidence of fraud justifying rescission. It ordered
the buyer to convey the property back to the sellers, with the sellers returning the purchase
price, minus the fair rental value of the property, with a credit to the buyer for various
expenses he had incurred. However, the trial court declined to award any offset to the
buyer for improvements he had made to the property. It also declined to award punitive
damages but did award the buyer attorney fees. Taken together, the parties present twentyfive issues for review on appeal. We vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings.
Plaintiff alleges she was injured from a fall at a skilled nursing facility while using a defective shower chair with a broken lock and torn netting. The circuit court concluded the Plaintiff did not need to file a certificate of good faith under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act because the common knowledge exception is applicable and the complaint’s negligence allegations do not require expert testimony. The nursing facility appeals, arguing expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care and proximate causation; therefore, a certificate of good faith must be filed. Because the allegations set forth in the complaint do not require expert testimony to maintain the Plaintiff’s claim, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In Re Liberty T. E2022-00307-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Douglas T. Jenkins
In this case involving a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her child and
to allow the petitioners to adopt the child, the trial court determined that one statutory
ground for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, the
trial court further determined that the petitioners had failed to establish clear and
convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s
best interest. The trial court accordingly dismissed the petition and remanded to the
juvenile court’s protective jurisdiction. The petitioners have appealed the best interest
determination, and the mother has raised an issue regarding the statutory ground. We
affirm the trial court’s finding as to the statutory ground of failure to support. However,
having determined that under the facts of this case the trial court erred in applying the
statutory best interest factors applicable to the initial termination petition rather than
those applicable to the amended petition, we reverse the trial court’s best interest finding
and remand for reconsideration applying the amended best interest factors contained in
Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i) (Supp. 2022).
The plaintiffs, Martina and Eddie Smith (“Buyers”), filed suit in the Madison County
Circuit Court (“Trial Court”) regarding their purchase of a piece of real property from the
defendant, Donna Jean Walker (“Seller”). Buyers alleged intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, and failure to disclose the presence of mold within the home.
The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of Seller. Buyers previously filed an
appeal to this Court regarding the grant of summary judgment. During that appeal, this
Court held that the Trial Court had not provided a sufficient basis for granting Seller’s
motion for summary judgment and remanded for entry of a new order explaining its
reasoning. Thereafter, the Trial Court entered a revised order providing detailed reasoning
for its grant of summary judgment in favor of Seller on each of Buyers’ claims against her.
Buyers timely appealed the revised order to this Court. During this second appeal, Buyers
filed essentially the same brief as in the previous appeal despite entry of the Trial Court’s
revised order following remand. Because Buyers failed to address the revised order in their
appellate brief and failed to cite to the record submitted to this Court in this appeal, Buyers
waived their issues for appeal by failing to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and Tenn. Ct.
App. R. 6. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.
Madison
Court of Appeals
W. David Hall v. Zora Humphrey E2022-00405-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Clarence E. Pridemore, Jr.
This is a conservatorship action initiated by University of Tennessee Medical Center with
respect to one of its patients. The trial court granted the hospital’s petition for
conservatorship based in part on a physician’s affidavit and medical examination report
attached to its petition. The respondent has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by
considering the physician’s affidavit and report, by denying her motion for a continuance,
and by finding clear and convincing evidence that she was disabled and in need of a
conservator. Given that no party introduced the physician’s affidavit and report into
evidence, we conclude that the trial court erred by considering these documents as
evidence. We further conclude that the trial court’s final judgment is deficient due to its
dearth of factual findings. We therefore vacate the trial court’s judgment appointing a
conservator for the respondent and remand for a new hearing on the petition.
This appeal concerns a father’s continued failure to remit payment for his child support
obligation. Following the mother’s contempt petitions, the trial court determined the
father’s current child support obligation and arrearage amount and awarded the mother her
attorney fees. The father appeals arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, erred in awarding the mother attorney fees, and erred in setting the arrearage
payment amount. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on these issues.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Mark Clayton v. Joseph Dixon et al. M2021-00521-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Property owner sued owners of an adjacent property for damages allegedly caused by the installation of a pipe culvert. The plaintiff alleged that, due to improper installation, the pipe culvert obstructed the downstream flow of water and caused the plaintiff’s property to flood. Both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the adjacent property owners based on the statute of repose for defective improvements to real property. We conclude that the statute of repose could not be asserted by the adjacent property owners. So we reverse the grant of summary judgment.
This appeal arises from a health care liability action. The plaintiffs filed their complaint
against a physician and a surgical practice after the expiration of the statute of limitations,
relying on the 120-day extension under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c).
However, the physician was not employed by the surgical practice during the treatment at
issue but was employed by a governmental entity that was not named as a defendant. Both
the physician and the surgical practice filed motions to dismiss, which were ultimately
treated as motions for summary judgment due to consideration of matters outside the
pleadings. Afterward, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to
substitute parties. Pursuant to section 29-20-310(b) of the Tennessee Governmental Tort
Liability Act, the trial court found that the plaintiffs had to sue the governmental entity in
order to sue the physician individually. The court found that the motion for leave to amend
the complaint was futile because the statute of limitations had run as to any claim against
the governmental entity. The court explained that any claim against the governmental
entity would be time-barred even if it related back to the date of the filing of the complaint.
The court further explained that the plaintiffs relied on the 120-day extension contained in
section 29-26-121(c) when they filed their complaint and that the extension did not apply
to any potential claim against the governmental entity because they failed to provide presuit
notice to it. The court also noted that the plaintiffs unduly delayed seeking to amend
their complaint despite being explicitly informed before filing their complaint who the
physician did and did not work for. Additionally, the court found that the surgical practice
was not involved in the treatment at issue and did not employ the physician or any of the
medical providers involved. Thus, the court found that the surgical practice negated an
essential element of the plaintiffs’ claim against it and demonstrated the evidence was
insufficient to establish such a claim. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’
motions and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute
parties. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Tennessee, filed by Agness McCurry (“Petitioner”), seeking to recuse the judge
in this case involving post-divorce parenting issues. Having reviewed the petition for
recusal appeal filed by Petitioner, and finding no error, we affirm.
This appeal concerns breach of contract. In 2012, Michael F. Thomas (“Thomas”),
president and owner of CCW Systems, Inc. (“CCW”), completed and signed an open
account application (“the Application”) with Ken Smith Auto Parts (“Ken Smith”). The
one page Application provided that Thomas would personally guarantee all invoices due
to Ken Smith, which sold auto parts to CCW. Later on, CCW became delinquent and
dissolved. In 2017, Ken Smith filed a civil warrant against Thomas in the General Sessions
Court for Hamilton County. This followed two unsuccessful attempts to serve Thomas on
previous civil warrants. The General Sessions Court ruled in favor of Ken Smith. Thomas
appealed to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court
granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ken Smith, holding that Thomas was
personally liable for CCW’s debt. After a bench trial, the Trial Court found, inter alia, that
the four-year statute of limitations had not expired on Ken Smith’s breach of contract claim
because, in 2013, Thomas promised to pay the debt which served to renew the statute of
limitations. Thomas appeals to this Court. We affirm.
This appeal involves an issue of arbitration. The trial court entered an order declining to
approve for entry the defendants’ proposed notice of intent to arbitrate and order to compel
arbitration. The defendants appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In Re: Braylin T. M2022-01256-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amy V. Hollars
This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights, arguing that it is not in the child’s best interest for her rights to be terminated. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.
This action concerns the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against his former attorney for breach of contract, malpractice, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We affirm.
The trial court dismissed Appellant’s action for aggravated perjury for failure to state a claim under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(6); the trial court dismissed Appellant’s action for spoliation of evidence as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.The trial court also assessed sanctions against Appellant’s attorney pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.Discerning no error, we affirm.
This appeal arises from a series of civil actions between a tenant and its landlord. The first
action resulted in a ruling that the landlord was “merely a sham or dummy corporation”
and “the alter ego” of its sole shareholder. See Dog House Investments, LLC v. Teal
Properties, Inc., et al., 448 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). The second action
resulted in a settlement agreement that entitled the prevailing party in future lease disputes
to an award of related attorney’s fees. The third and present action commenced in 2017
with each party suing the other on various grounds in different courts. Following a
consolidation of the pending actions, the case was tried by a jury, which ruled in favor of
the tenant, Dog House Investments, LLC, (“Dog House”) on the merits. Thereafter, Dog
House filed a motion to recover its attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party pursuant
to the 2014 settlement agreement, and the trial court awarded Dog House $292,168.84 in
attorney’s fees and costs. This appeal followed. The sole issue on appeal is the amount of
the attorney’s fees awarded. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Because Dog House
is also entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees it incurred in
successfully defending this appeal, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
In this divorce action, the trial court distributed the parties’ marital assets and debts,
fashioned a parenting plan naming the mother primary residential parent and providing
the father with fifty-five annual days of co-parenting time, and set the father’s child
support obligation. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment. Deeming this to be a frivolous appeal, we grant the mother’s
request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal and remand this issue
to the trial court for a determination regarding the amount.
In a prior appeal involving this case, this Court vacated the trial court’s decision to require
the Appellants herein to interplead funds, but we otherwise affirmed the trial court’s
actions, including the dismissal of the underlying case. Following our remand for further
proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion, such as the collection of costs, the trial
court ruled, notwithstanding our prior affirmance of the case’s dismissal, that the case
“shall be Dismissed With Prejudice” but upon the payment of $300,000.00 into the registry
of the court. The trial court further dismissed, without prejudice, a petition to enforce an
attorney’s lien that plaintiff’s former attorneys had attempted to get the trial court to
adjudicate in the present litigation. Because this Court’s prior opinion affirmed the trial
court’s previous dismissal, thus ending the underlying case, we conclude that the trial
court’s efforts to condition dismissal of the case on remand was in error. Regarding the
petition for enforcement of an attorney’s lien, the issue raised for our review on appeal is
whether the trial court should have transferred the matter to another court division as
opposed to dismissing the petition without prejudice. For the reasons stated herein, we
discern no error with the trial court’s disposition on that issue.
This is a breach of contract action between a lender, borrower, and guarantor on a promissory note. When the borrower ceased payment on the promissory note and the borrower and guarantor failed to cure the default, the lender commenced this action against the borrower and the guarantor. After extensive discovery, the lender passed away, and the personal representatives of the lender’s estate were substituted as the party plaintiffs. The estate filed a motion for summary judgment based on two grounds. The first ground was that in their discovery responses, the defendants admitted that they failed to remit payments as required by the promissory note. Second, the defendants’ discovery responses denied that the defendants had any facts or evidence upon which to support the affirmative defenses that the lender violated the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing and/or that the note was unenforceable. The defendants filed a response in opposition to the summary judgment motion, supported by the affidavit of the president of both defendants. Relying on the affidavit, the defendants asserted, for the first time, that neither defendant was ever liable for the debt because the lender had never remitted the loan proceeds to the borrower. The trial court ruled that the bulk of the affidavit was inadmissible on three grounds. First, it found the officer’s testimony regarding conversations with the deceased lender inadmissible under the Dead Man’s Statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 24-1-203. Second, it found certain statements were directly contradictory to previous discovery responses, so the court accordingly rejected the evidence under the Cancellation Rule. Third, it found the business records the affiant referenced in his affidavit but did not produce failed to satisfy the best evidence rule. After considering the statement of undisputed facts, discovery responses, and the defendants’ admissions, the trial court concluded that the material facts were undisputed and that the estate was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, it granted the estate’s motion and awarded a judgment for the outstanding principal and interest totaling $260,710.00 and $12,445.28 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. The defendants appealed. We affirm.
In this divorce case, Wife/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) pre-trial rulings
concerning certain entities; (2) denial of her motions for leave to amend the complaint for
divorce; (3) pre-trial procedural rulings; (4) evidentiary rulings; (5) designation of
Husband/Appellee as the primary residential parent and parent with sole decision-making
authority over the parties’ child; (6) child support award; (7) alimony award; (8) denial of
retroactive temporary support; and (9) denial of her request for attorney’s fees. Wife also
asks this Court to award her attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal. For the reasons
discussed below, we vacate in part, reverse in part, and affirm in part. Wife’s request for
appellate attorney’s fees is denied.
A mother obtained an order of protection against her son in general sessions court. The
son appealed to circuit court. Through the parties’ inaction, the case languished for more
than five years, leading to the circuit court dismissing the case. In response, the son filed
various motions and documents seeking restoration of the case to the docket and further
relief, which resulted in a hearing and additional orders being entered by the circuit court.
Through these orders, the circuit court ruled in accordance with the son’s position that the
order of protection was no longer in effect and had not been in effect for years. The circuit
court also concluded that, given the parties’ inaction and because the case had become
moot, dismissal rather than restoration to the docket was appropriate. The son appealed.
We conclude that for purposes of this appeal the case is moot.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
In Re Khloe B. M2022-01013-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Larry B. Stanley
This is the second appeal involving the termination of a mother’s parental rights to this
child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed
to support termination but failed to identify any specific statutory section in support of its
decision. We vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded for sufficient findings of fact
and conclusions of law. Upon remand, the court offered additional findings of fact and
conclusions of law before ultimately holding that the evidence presented established the
following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment and (2) failure to manifest an
ability and willingness to care for the child. The court also found that termination of the
mother’s rights was in the best interest of the child. We now affirm the court’s ultimate
termination decision.
