Vicki L. Mobley, et al. v. State of Arkansas, et al.
This appeal involves an Arkansas plaintiff who was involved in an auto accident on a bridge between Arkansas and Tennessee with another vehicle operated by an employee of the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas plaintiff and her husband filed this personal injury suit in the circuit court of Shelby County, Tennessee, naming as defendants the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, and the Arkansas state employee who was operating the other vehicle. The defendants moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including sovereign immunity and the discretionary principle of comity. The Tennessee Attorney General filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Tennessee Department of Transportation asking the trial court to extend comity to the Arkansas defendants and dismiss the action against them. After two hearings, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of comity. Discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah L. Akers v. Heritage Medical Associates, P.C., Et Al.
This is a health care liability action in which the plaintiff asserted claims of professional negligence, negligent supervision, and medical battery against a physician’s assistant, a dermatologist, and their employer. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.02, motion for dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37.02, and motion for sanctions under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122(d). We agree with the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to obtain a competent expert witness to testify on the applicable standard of care as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-115 and violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-122 by filing a non-compliant certificate of good faith. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action and award of sanctions. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Berge, Et Al. v. Mary Gail Adams Warlick Et Al.
In this legal malpractice lawsuit, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant after the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to respond to the defendant’s motion and appear at the hearing. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment, arguing their attorney’s failure to respond was due to excusable neglect. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they had a meritorious defense. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pee Wee Wisdom Child Development Center, Inc., et al. v. Herbert H. Slatery, III, in his official capacity as Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee
This appeal involves a suspended attorney’s attempt to file a petition pro se in a case in which he was not a party. The trial court denied the petition sua sponte, concluding that the suspended attorney was not a party to the original action, he did not file a petition to intervene, and he was using the pro se petition as a subterfuge to circumvent his suspension from the practice of law. The suspended attorney appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Austin Daugherty Ex Rel Chloe v. Sally Daugherty
Austin Daugherty petitioned the trial court for an order of protection against his former wife, Sally Daugherty, on behalf of their minor child, Chloe. Mr. Daugherty alleged that Ms. Daugherty engaged in domestic violence. The order granting the petition and the amended order were entered against Ms. Daugherty by apparent default. She appeals arguing that she did not receive notice of the petition and any subsequent proceedings. We vacate the order of protection and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey Glenn Mitchell v. Carol Ann Thomas Mitchell
This is a post-divorce action involving the interpretation of certain provisions of the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) and allegations of contempt of court for failure to comply with the MDA. The Blount County General Sessions Court (“trial court”) conducted a bench trial, took the matter under advisement, and directed the parties to each prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court subsequently adopted verbatim the wife’s proposed findings and conclusions with what we determine to be insufficient explanation regarding the trial court’s decision-making process. The husband has appealed. Because we are unable to ascertain whether the trial court’s final order is an independent judgment of the court, we vacate the order and remand for sufficient findings of facts and conclusions of law that reflect the trial court’s independent analysis and judgment. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Larry E. Parrish, P. C. v. Nancy J. Strong
A professional corporation through which a lawyer practiced law brought suit against a former client seeking to recover the “res” transferred to the corporation under an assignment of chose-in-action executed by the client as a means of paying fees owed to the corporation for its representation of the client in a legal malpractice action. The client counterclaimed for breach of contract. A jury found in favor of the client and awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. We find in favor of the client on all issues raised by the corporation. As to the client’s issues, we find that the trial court erred in failing to require the corporation to file a bond with regard to the injunction restraining the client from using certain funds during the pendency of the litigation and in failing to hold a hearing on the issue of piercing the corporate veil. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Larry E. Parrish, P. C. v. Nancy J. Strong - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I concur in all aspects of the opinion, save one. The majority concludes that the Chancery Court of Lincoln County erred in denying the motion of Nancy J. Strong to hold Larry E. Parrish personally liable for the obligations of Larry E. Parrish, P.C. The majority vacates the trial court’s decision and “remands for a hearing” on that issue. Because I would affirm the denial of the motion, I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Antonio J., Et Al.
A mother placed the children that are the subject of this appeal with a child placement agency because she was unable to provide a stable home for them. Ten months later, the agency filed a petition to have the children declared dependent and neglected; the court appointed a guardian ad litem for the children and in due course declared the children to be dependent and neglected and continued custody with the agency. The guardian ad litem initiated this proceeding to have the mother’s parental rights terminated on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support, abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, substantial non-compliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions; the agency later filed a separate petition on most of the same grounds also seeking termination of mother’s rights. Following a trial, the court terminated the mother’s rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, substantial non-compliance with the permanency plans, and persistence of conditions; the court also found that termination of mother’s rights was in the children’s best interest. The mother appeals, denying that grounds existed to terminate her rights and that termination was in the children’s best interest; the guardian ad litem and agency appeal the failure of the court to sustain the ground of abandonment by failure to support. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the determination that the evidence established the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, substantial non-compliance with the permanency plans, and persistence of conditions; we vacate the holding that termination of mother’s rights was in the children’s best interest and remand the case for further consideration. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Reliant Bank v. Kelly D. Bush Et Al.
Following an appeal in which this Court affirmed the judgment of the chancery court, the unsuccessful appellants moved the chancery court for relief from the judgment under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The chancery court granted the motion by reducing the amount of the original judgment. The matter is now before us again on the grant of Rule 60 relief. Because the Rule 60 motion was untimely, we reverse the grant of relief. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Albert Bell et al. v. Richard Cadmus d/b/a Band-Type Supply
In this unlawful detainer action, the defendant appeals the dismissal of his appeal by the Loudon County Circuit Court (“circuit court”) from an order to disburse funds entered by the Loudon County General Sessions Court (“general sessions court”). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Frederick S.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. The juvenile court found three statutory grounds for termination: (1) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) mental incompetence. The court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support two of the three statutory grounds for termination. We further conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest. So we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
J.Y. Sepulveda v. Tennessee Board of Parole
In this matter involving a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a self-represented petitioner, the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Determining that the petitioner failed to properly verify the truth of the contents of his petition in accordance with the requirements of Article VI, Section 10 of the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Code Annotated |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Amnon Shreibman, Et Al. v. First Class Corporation Et Al.
A commercial landlord filed suit against its tenant and the guarantor of the lease. After obtaining a default judgment against the tenant, the landlord moved for partial summary judgment on the question of the guarantor’s liability. The chancery court concluded that the guarantor was liable under the guaranty. And following a trial on damages, the court entered judgment against the tenant and the guarantor. The guarantor appeals solely on the issue of his personal liability, arguing that his guaranty was conditional. Because the guaranty was an absolute undertaking, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Bernard Simmons
Defendant appeals the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the State’s claim that he violated Tennessee’s implied consent statute. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bill E. Owens, Et Al. v. Otto Muenzel, Jr., Et Al.
This appeal arises from an action for personal injuries incurred in a vehicle collision. The alleged tortfeasor died subsequent to the injury-causing accident. The plaintiffs, unaware of the death of the decedent, commenced this action and named him as a defendant. The plaintiffs also sued their uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance carrier. Upon learning of the death of the decedent, the plaintiffs moved for the trial court to appoint an administrator ad litem. The trial court eventually dismissed the matter in its entirety with prejudice upon finding, inter alia, that it did not possess subject matter jurisdiction to appoint an administrator ad litem and that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Nevaeh N.
Mother and Father jointly appeal from the order terminating their parental rights as to their minor child based upon the statutory ground of abandonment by willful failure to support, as well as a finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Because we conclude that Petitioners/Appellees failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father willfully failed to support the child, we reverse. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Mikko B.
A mother and her husband petitioned the court to terminate the biological father’s parental rights to his son on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support. After a trial, the court terminated Father’s rights on those grounds and upon its holding that termination of Father’s rights would be in the best interest of the child. Father appeals. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Popularcategories.com, Inc. v. David Gerregano, Commissioner Of Revenue, State of Tennessee
This appeal involves the Appellant’s liability for franchise and excise taxes assessed against it by the Tennessee Department of Revenue. The trial court determined that the Appellant’s incorporation in the State of Florida did not afford it the right to apportionment for tax purposes, and entered a judgment against it in an amount over $2,000,000.00. The trial court also determined that the Commissioner of Revenue was entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses as the prevailing party under Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-1-1803(d). For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on apportionment, vacate the monetary judgment and award of attorneys’ fees, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Willard R. Sparks Revocable Trust 2004
This declaratory judgment action involves a multi-million dollar trust and a co-beneficiary and co-trustee’s request for a detailed accounting and a liquidation plan. The case was dismissed, and the managing trustee filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The trial court found multiple Rule 11 violations by the petitioner and awarded $200,000 in sanctions. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Kiara S. Et Al.
The trial court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights to his two minor children based upon the statutory grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit, abandonment by willful failure to support, and persistence of conditions, as well as a finding that termination was in both children’s best interest. From this order, Father appeals. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to the grounds of willful failure to visit and willful failure to support, but reverse the finding that clear and convincing evidence supports termination based upon the statutory ground of persistence of conditions. Because we conclude that termination is in the children’s best interest, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Fulmer, et al. v. Jeffrey Follis, et al.
Purchasers of real property brought this action against the sellers alleging fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent concealment. The alleged misrepresentations and concealment related to severe water damage to one wall of the purchased house. The trial court found in favor of the purchasers with respect to each claim. After our thorough review of the record, we conclude that because the purchasers were on notice of potential defects and failed to exercise ordinary diligence, the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that the purchasers reasonably relied on the sellers’ misrepresentations and concealment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
CHS Development Corporation, Inc. D/B/A Bridge Documents v. Lakeview Neurorehab Center Midwest, Inc. d/b/a/ Lakeview Specialty Hospital
This contract dispute between CHS Development Corporation, Inc. d/b/a Bridge Documents (“CHS”), and Lakeview Neurorehab Center Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Lakeview Specialty Hospital (“Lakeview”), involves the interpretation of contract provisions regarding exclusivity and noncompetition. The trial court determined that the contract provisions at issue were clear and unambiguous and granted summary judgment in favor of CHS. Lakeview has appealed. Determining that the applicable contract provisions are ambiguous, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to CHS and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the contractual intention of the parties with consideration of parol evidence as necessary. Consequently, we vacate the trial court’s award of damages and attorney’s fees to CHS. We affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Lakeview. We also deny CHS’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brianna B.
This action involves a termination petition filed by the father and stepmother of two minor children in an attempt to terminate the biological mother’s parental rights. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to support and to visit and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume responsibility for the children. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We vacate the order of termination and remand for further proceedings. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey Heatley, Et Al. v. David G. Gaither, Et Al.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the owners of a neighboring property, claiming that wastewater from the neighbors’ septic system was pooling onto the plaintiffs’ property. The defendants moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) their use of the septic system was authorized by an implied easement from the previous common ownership of the two properties; and (2) they did not breach any duty to the plaintiffs because they were unaware that the septic tank existed. In response, the plaintiffs argued that, after the septic tank’s discovery, the defendants continued to use it even though it was failing. The plaintiffs also moved to amend their complaint to add claims for gross negligence, nuisance, and continuing trespass. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims and denied the motion to amend the complaint. On appeal, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on trespass but reverse the grant of summary judgment on negligence. In light of our decision on the summary judgment motion, we also vacate the denial of the motion to amend the complaint. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals |
