In Re: Jeremiah I. R.
Spenser R.S. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor son, Jeremiah I.R. (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) removed the Child from his mother’s custody after a babysitter took the Child and two siblings to the emergency room for injuries to the siblings. Father’s whereabouts were then unknown and his paternity of the Child had not yet been established. The Child’s mother entered into an agreed order with DCS stipulating that the Child was dependent and neglected in her care. Thereafter, the mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights. Some 18 months later, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s rights. The trial court granted the petition based on its findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Clendenon
This case involves a claim filed against the Estate of Todd Clendenon. Elite Oncology Medical Group filed the claim seeking payment for medical treatment and services rendered to the decedent. Barbara Jean Clendenon, the decedent’s wife and his Personal Representative, moved the probate court to designate as “exempt funds” the monies paid to the decedent under his health insurance policy. The payments included those pertaining to the treatment and services the decedent received from Elite. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The court determined that payments made by the health insurance carrier that were deposited into the Estate’s bank account after the death of the decedent were exempt from the claims of creditors pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-1-110 (2010). Elite appeals. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
FirstBank v. Landview Construction, LLC, et al.
Firstbank (“Plaintiff”) sued Landview Construction, LLC, Winston D. Cox (“Defendants”), and Beverly Linkous with regard to promissory notes secured by deeds of trust on three parcels of real property located in Knoxville, Tennessee. The parties attempted to enter into stipulations in lieu of presenting testimony at trial and informed the Trial Judge of these purported stipulations. After what passed as the trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment in the amount of $149,192.22 against defendants Landview Construction, LLC and Winston D. Cox jointly and severally. Defendants appeal to this Court alleging that the Trial Court misconstrued the stipulations and as a result erred in the amount of the judgment. We find and hold that the purported stipulations were insufficient to show that the parties reached any agreement as to the stipulations. We, therefore, vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand this case for a new trial. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Bell v. James Dale Trull
This appeal arises from Defendant’s erection of barricades between Plaintiff’s property and Johnson Street in Benton County, Tennessee in order to block Plaintiff’s access to the street from her property. Defendant contends that Johnson Street does not extend to Plaintiff’s property and that he owns the land between the two. Plaintiff contends that Johnson Street does extend to her property and that she has a right of unimpeded access to it. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment establishing Plaintiff’s right of access to Johnson Street, compensatory relief for damage caused to her land as a result of Defendant’s barricades, and that punitive damages be assessed against Defendant. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted Plaintiff unimpeded access to Johnson Street, awarded her $5,100 in compensatory damages, and assessed punitive damages of $10,000 against Defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, we are unable to effectively review the record and must remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. |
Court of Appeals | ||
S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D.
Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s post-divorce modification of Appellee/Father’s child support obligation, and its finding that Appellant was guilty of various acts of criminal contempt. Appellant/Mother also appeals the trial court’s admission of certain evidence. We conclude that the trial court erred in addressing, sua sponte, the issue of modification of Appellee/Father’s child support obligation in the absence of a petition for modification as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-5-101(f)(1). Accordingly, we reverse the modification of child support. The order of the trial court is otherwise affirmed. Father’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in defense of this appeal is granted based upon provisions in the parenting plan and marital dissolution agreement. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
4215 Harding Road Homeowners' Association v. Stacy Harris
In suit brought by condominium Homeowner’s Association, former owner of condominium unit which was ordered sold after being determined to constitute a nuisance, appeals the trial court’s order granting the Association’s application for attorneys’ fees. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the award, we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tonya Andrews, As Admin. for the Estate of James Christopher Sprinkle & Jacob Colton Sprinkle a minor by next friend and Guardian Tonya Andrews v. Amy Sprinkle and Frank Wray
The basic issues in this appeal involve the valuation of a decedent’s business at the time of his death. After the decedent died, the decedent’s mother was appointed administratrix of his estate. She filed this lawsuit against the decedent’s wife and the decedent’s wife’s brother, alleging that they had wrongfully disposed of virtually all of the decedent’s property after his death, including his business assets, therebyrendering a proper administration of the estate extremely difficult if not impossible. Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court concluded that the defendants had wrongfully taken possession of the decedent’s business assets and converted them to their own personal use. Relevant to this appeal, the court valued the decedent’s business at $75,000, and it held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to the estate for that amount. The defendants appeal, challenging only the amount of damages awarded by the trial court for the value of the business. After a careful review of the record, we affirm |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Lillian F. W.
This is an appeal from orders entered by the Circuit Court in an appeal from a juvenile court’s judgment finding a child dependent and neglected and establishing custody and visitation. These proceedings are part of a custody struggle between the biological father of the child, who lives in California, and her maternal grandparents, who live in Tennessee. Both parties have participated in proceedings in the courts of Tennessee and California. Although the substantive orders of the two courts were very similar, each of the parties decided at some point not to follow the orders of the court in the state of the other party’s residence, resulting in conflicting orders of custody and a jurisdictional battle in which both parties have invoked the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. We have determined that the only type of subject matter jurisdiction at issue here is the temporary, emergency jurisdiction that the juvenile court exercised to determine Grandparents’ petition for dependency and neglect. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Sara Eigen Figal v. The Vanderbilt University
A professor denied tenure at Vanderbilt University brought suit against the university asserting causes of action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the university. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Danna Owen v. Timothy Scott Hutten
This case involves a man and a woman who formed a limited liability company under the Tennessee Revised Limited Liability Company Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-249-101 et seq, with the ostensible purpose of investing in real estate. The only investment it made, however, was the purchase of a house for the man and his children to live in. The woman supplied all the money to buy the house, as well as all the capital that was invested in the company. After personal differences arose between the parties, the woman petitioned the court to dissolve the company and to distribute its assets. The man asked the court to divide the assets of the company equally between the parties in accordance with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-305(b). The woman asked the court to order that she be repaid her entire financial contribution to the company. The trial court dissolved the company. After hearing proof and argument, it ordered that the house be sold, with the net proceeds of the sale to be applied first to the return of the woman’s capital contributions, with any profits beyond those contributions to be divided equally between the parties. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Stein Holdings, Inc. v. Goense Bounds Management, LP, et al.
The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting breach of contract, common law tortious interference, statutory interference, and civil conspiracy. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Christopher S. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Christopher S., Jr. (“C.J.”) and Lilly S., the minor children (“Children”) of Tawana S. (“Mother”) and Christopher S., Sr. (“Father”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on October 14, 2010. On September 22, 2011, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Following a bench trial held on April 27, 2012, and July 11, 2012, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents had committed severe child abuse and were mentally incompetent to provide for the further care and supervision of the Children. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interests. Father and Mother have appealed. We reverse the finding that Father and Mother were mentally incompetent to provide for the further care and supervision of the Children. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights on the statutory ground of severe child abuse. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Ann Hernandez v. Jose Emmanuel Hernandez
The issues in this divorce case are whether the trial court correctly ordered husband to pay wife $600 per month in transitional alimony for 36 months, child support in the amount of $253 per month, and $4,000 of the wife's attorneys fees, the latter as alimony in solido. At the time of trial, husband had been unemployed and actively seeking work for about one year. The trial court found that his income was zero. Wife did not argue that husband was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, and the trial court made no such findings. The proof at trial establishes that many of the statutory factors supporting an award of alimony in futuro - including the need of the wife, duration of the marriage, i.e., 20 years, the parties' relative earning capacities, wife's contributions to the marriage as homemaker and parent, and wife's health - were demonstrated. Husband's current ability to pay, however, is quite limited because of his involuntary unemployment and zero income. Consequently, we modify the transitional alimony award to $50 per month, but designate it as alimony in futuro. The difference in husband's income, i.e., $1,191.66 per month, at the time his child support obligation was set and his income, i.e., zero, at time of trial likely supports a finding that there is a significant variance between the current support order of $253 and the amount of the proposed presumptive modified support order. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's order refusing to modify his child support obligation and remand for a recalculation of child support. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Steven A. Pugh, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying the appellant’s motion to waive all fines and costs related to the nolle prosequi of all charges in Hamblen County Criminal Court case number 03CR212. Because it is clear from the record that no court costs or fines were assessed against the appellant as a result of the nolle prosequi entered in the proceedings below, there appears to be no judgment of the trial court adverse to the appellant’s interests and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Robb Thompson v. Brian W. Groves
This is a collateral attack on an order entered by a general sessions court. The plaintiff tenant leased residential property from the defendant landowner. The tenant fell behind in his rent, so the landowner filed a forcible entry and detainer action in general sessions court against the tenant and obtained a judgment for the past-due rent. The tenant did not appeal that judgment. Months later, the tenant filed the instant lawsuit in chancery court to set aside the general sessions court judgment. The tenant alleged in the chancery court complaint that the general sessions court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the FED action because the landowner did not give the tenant a statutorily-required notice of termination of the lease. The chancery court below agreed with the tenant and set aside the general sessions judgment as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The landowner now appeals. We reverse the decision of the chancery court and remand with directions to dismiss the tenant’s lawsuit in its entirety. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Monroe E. Davis v. Pinnacle Apartments, et al.
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Hawks and Design Consultants, Inc. v. CD Development, LLC and Chris Davis
This appeal involves the tolling of the statute of limitations for a breach of contract. The plaintiff architect rendered services to the defendant real estate developer, and the developer failed to pay for the architect’s services. Approximately four years later, the architect recorded a lien against the real property to secure the indebtedness. The developer then promised the architect he would pay the indebtedness if the architect released the lien. The architect released the lien but still was not paid. Approximately four years after that, the architect filed this lawsuit against the developer to collect the debt. The developer asserted that the architect’s claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. After a trial, the trial court held that the statute of limitations was tolled under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, so the architect’s lawsuit was timely filed. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the architect. The developer appeals only on the issue of whether the claim was time-barred. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa Brooke Haley, et al v. State of Tennessee
This is a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff filed a claim with the Division of Claims Administration, as the resident physician alleged to have engaged in negligence was purportedly connected to a University of Tennessee training program at Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The State moved the Commissioner to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). The Commissioner reluctantly agreed with the State’s position. We hold that the plaintiff complied with section 121(a)’s notice requirement by complying with the claim notice requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402. We further hold that section 121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms, and that the plaintiff’s failure to provide all the items denoted in section 121(a) does not warrant dismissal with prejudice under the facts of this case. We vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerald Farmer, Individually and as surviving spouse for the wrongful death beneficiaries of Marie A. Farmer v. South Parkway Associates, L. P., d/b/a Parkway Health and Rehabilitation Center
This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The sister of the decedent signed several admissions documents on the decedent’s behalf for purposes of admitting her to the defendant health care facility. At that time, the sister also signed an optional arbitration agreement. Several days later, the decedent passed away, and subsequently, the decedent’s beneficiaries brought a wrongful death action against the healthcare facility on her behalf. The healthcare facility moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the sister had authority to bind the decedent to the terms of the arbitration agreement based on several agency theories, as no power of attorney existed. After reviewing the depositions submitted in lieu of live testimony, the trial court determined the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because the sister lacked the legal authority to bind the decedent. Based on a careful review of the evidence, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Patton v. Cheri Patton
During the pendency of this divorce action, the trial court found Husband in criminal contempt for failing to pay pendente lite support on five occasions and sentenced Husband to ten days per count for a total sentence of fifty days. Husband was not booked or jailed for contempt but he was detained for two hours during the court’s lunch recess. During the recess, Husband’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal. Husband was returned to the courtroom thereafter, and he and his counsel participated in the divorce hearing, which commenced after lunch. Following the conclusion of a short divorce hearing, the court took notice of the appeal from the contempt action and granted a stay of the sentence pending this appeal; Husband was then released. This appeal followed. We have concluded that the evidence upon which the five counts of criminal contempt were based was inadmissible and there is no other evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Husband had the ability to pay the support when it was due. Therefore, we reverse the finding of five counts of criminal contempt. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adriana L. et al.
The trial court terminated the parties’ parental rights based on a finding of severe child abuse and abandonment and determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the parties engaged in severe child abuse and that termination of their parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kay F. Fritz v. CVS Corporation d/b/a CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Kay F. Fritz (“Plaintiff”) sued CVS Corporation d/b/a CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant had improperly filled a prescription for Plaintiff causing Plaintiff damages. Defendant filed a motion for involuntary dismissal or in the alternative for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendant summary judgment after finding that Plaintiff was unable to prove an essential element of her claim, i.e., causation. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Sahara W.
The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Jasmine W. (“Mother”) to the minor child Sahara W. (“the Child”). A new permanency plan was approved following the filing of the petition. After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence had been proven that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(2) and (g)(3), and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that she was not properly notified of being at risk of losing her parental rights because the new permanency plan was approved after the filing of the petition. We hold that Mother sufficiently was put on notice that her parental rights were subject to being terminated at trial. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Justin T. H.
This is a termination of parental rights case in which Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father to the Child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of Father’s parental rights on the statutory ground of abandonment and that termination of his rights was in the Child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani v. Masoud Bajestani
This is the second appeal in this post-divorce matter. Wife, Maryam Ghorashi-Bajestani (“Wife”), was granted a divorce from husband, Masoud Bajestani (“Husband”), on April 16, 2009. Following the first appeal to this Court, the case was remanded to the trial court. Various petitions and motions were filed by the parties, seeking modification of the trial court’s valuation of marital property, modification of child support, a lien on husband’s assets to secure his child support and alimony obligations, a finding of contempt, and an award of attorney’s fees. The trial court, inter alia, modified Husband’s child support obligation due to his reduced income, found Husband in contempt for his late payments of child support and alimony, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees. Both parties appeal the trial court’s order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals |
