Martis J. Kelley and Joseph Kelley, Sr. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, individually and d/b/a Erlanger Health System
This is a medical malpractice action filed pursuant to the Tennessee 1 Medical Malpractice Act (“the TMMA.”) The plaintiffs are wife and husband. The sole defendant is a governmental entity subject to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“the GTLA”). The defendant operates a hospital in Chattanooga. The complaint alleges that wife was a victim of medical malpractice at the hospital in February 2010. On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs sent the notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a) (2012), a part of the TMMA. On June 3, 2011, the plaintiffs filed suit against the Hospital Authority. The Authority filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12(6), arguing that the suit was not timely filed because it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-305(b) (2012), set forth in the GTLA. The plaintiffs responded that the period of limitations was extended by 120 days by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) because the plaintiffs had complied with the pre-suit notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 26-121(a). The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely filed. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Leonard Embody v. Robert E. Cooper, Jr.
This appeal arises from a challenge to the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1), a law restricting the carrying of firearms in Tennessee. Leonard Embody (“Embody”) challenged the validity of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1) in a case filed against Attorney General and Reporter Robert E. Cooper, Jr. (“Respondent”) in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) on grounds that the law violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 26. The Trial Court upheld the law as constitutional. Embody filed an appeal to this Court. We hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1) is a valid regulation of the carrying of firearms that does not contravene either the Second Amendment or Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 26. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Taylor H., et al
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on the four minor children (“the Children”) of mother, Kelly H. (“Mother”) and father, Bernard H. (“Father”). A termination petition was filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) after the third custody episode involving these parents. The petition alleges the sole statutory ground of severe child abuse. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father had committed severe child abuse pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(4) and § 37-1-102. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of John Leonard Burke
Robert LaFever appeals the Trial Court’s order of July 12, 2012 dismissing his notice of will contest after finding and holding, inter alia, that the Last Will and Testament of John Leonard Burke had been admitted to probate in solemn form and could not be challenged in a later will contest. We affirm the Trial Court’s July 12, 2012 order. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Ruby Blackmon v. Eaton Electrical, et al.
Appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits was denied based upon a finding of work-related misconduct. Appellant sought review in the chancery court, which upheld the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. On appeal to this Court, Appellant claims that the chancery court erred in denying her request for a continuance and in affirming the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee without considering the evidence which purportedly would have been introduced had a continuance been allowed. We affirm the decision of the chancery court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
D'Army Bailey, et al. v. Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
Plaintiffs, former part-time Shelby County employees, claim they were wrongfully excluded from Shelby County’s retirement plan. The trial court dismissed all claims based on the six year limitations period applicable to contract actions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tyrone Spates v. Tracy Howell and Robert Preston
Appellant appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the prison’s medical staff for failure to properly diagnose and treat him. The trial court determined that Appellant prisoner’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which was not tolled by operation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s findings concerning his status as an indigent person. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Trey Wood, III v. Jennifer Rose Wood
Mother appeals the trial court’s order naming Father primary residential parent and setting child support. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Willowmet Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, Tennessee
The homeowners’ association of a residential subdivision in Brentwood,Tennessee seeks just compensation from the City of Brentwood for loss of property rights in a portion of the subdivision’s open space. The City acquired the property by purchasing it from the developers of the subdivision without the Association’s knowledge. The Declaration of Protection Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the subdivision, which the developers drafted and of which the City was on notice, states that the developers “will deed the completed Open Space on the subject Properties to the Association free and clear of any encumbrances before the first Lot is conveyed to a Lot Owner.” Although they sold the first individual lot in 2001, the developers did not convey any of the open space to the homeowners’ association until after the sale to the City. This action by the homeowners’ association ensued. The trial court summarily dismissed the action on the City’s motion, finding the homeowners’ association did not own a compensable property right in the Open Space when it was sold to the City. We have determined the homeowner’s association had an equitable interest in the Open Space pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions when it was sold to the City; therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Minor Miracle Productions, LLC, An Idaho Limited Liability Company, and David L. Richards v. Randy Starkey
This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s enrollment of a foreign judgment acquired by the petitioners against the respondent in Idaho, and the case was remanded for enforcement proceedings. On remand the respondent refused to comply with the Idaho judgment, so the petitioners filed a motion for contempt and for an order to compel compliance with the judgment. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The trial court found the respondent to be in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the Idaho judgment. The respondent now appeals. We dismiss the appeal, because the issues raised on appeal were not first raised in the trial court, and the respondent did not comply with either Rule 24(c) or Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Brown v. Autozone, Inc., et al.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this action asserting claims for fraudulent misrepresentation; civil conspiracy; negligence, breach of contract; and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff appeals; we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. TN Metro Holdings XII LLC et al
Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) initially brought this action for foreclosure and damages against a borrower,TN Metro Holdings XII LLC (“TN Metro XII”) alleging default by failure to make scheduled principal and interest payments, by improperly allowing liens against the mortgaged property in violation of the loan agreements and by misapplication of rents collected from leasing the mortgaged property. FNMA subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking relief in the nature of personal liability against Defendant Selim Zherka under the loan. The trial court granted FNMA summary judgment and held both the borrower and “Key Principal” liable for the deficiency following a foreclosure sale and for damages. We vacate the summary judgment, holding that (1) FNMA failed to provide written notice and a thirty-day period to cure the alleged defaults as required by the parties’ agreement; and (2) there are genuine issues of material fact making summary judgment improper regarding FNMA’s claim for damages resulting from the alleged misapplication of rents. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Mya E. et al
This is a termination of parental rights case involving a set of young twins, Mya E. and Kaleah E. (“the Children”). The Children were born out of wedlock to Jasmine E. (“Mother”) and Darius M. (“Father”) on June 1, 2008. The Children, found to be dependent and neglected by Juvenile Court Order entered January 28, 2011, were placed in the custody of their maternal grandmother, Olivia E. Olivia E. filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Father and Mother on March 30, 2012. The petition alleged as grounds statutory abandonment and persistence of conditions. Mother later joined in the petition to terminate her parental rights. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to visit and support them. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to removal persisted and were unlikely to be remedied in the near future. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Dean Harkleroad v. Linda Althea Turner Harkleroad
This appeal concerns a requested post-divorce modification of alimony in futuro. Husband sought a reduction in his support obligation owed to Wife, alleging that he had not received a paycheck in two years and that Wife was eligible for Medicare and no longer in need of his assistance for health insurance coverage. Following a hearing, the trial court reduced Husband’s health insurance obligation but held that Husband failed to prove a material change in circumstances that necessitated a modification in the remainder of his support obligation. Husband appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Hope A.A.
This case concerns the termination of the mother’s parental rights. The subject child is the second born to the mother. The petitioner is a friend of the mother with whom the child has lived continuously for several years. We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the mother’s parental rights on the three grounds relied upon by the trial court: abandonment for failure to visit and to provide support and persistence of conditions. The record further supports the conclusion that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
John R. Conder, and wife, Paula S. Conder v. William Salyers, and wife, Pam Salyers
This appeal arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellees and Appellants both provided expert testimony and surveys from their respective surveyors. The trial court concluded that Appellees’ surveyor’s line was correct, and was not in conflict with the historic deeds. Accordingly, the court set the common boundary line between the parties’s properties in compliance with Appellees’ survey. In addition to the competing surveys, the court based its decision, in part, upon Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-2-109, which creates a presumption of ownership in a party who has paid taxes on property for more than twenty years. Based upon tax records, the court determined that Appellees had paid the property taxes on the disputed property for the relevant statutory period. Appellants appeal. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determinations. Affirmed and remanded. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford
Mother, who spent greater time with the parties’ minor child, notified Father via certified letter of her intent to relocate out of state. Thirty-three days later, Father filed a petition in opposition to the move. The trial court allowed Father to oppose relocation, despite his failure to formally oppose the move within thirty days, noting that Mother had learned of Father’s opposition within the thirty-day period and that she had not relocated until “well after” Father filed his petition. In this statutory construction case, we conclude that Tennessee’s parental relocation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108, mandates that a parent wishing to oppose relocation file a petition in opposition within thirty days of receipt of notice of the proposed relocation. If no written petition in opposition is timely filed, the parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do so, notwithstanding the absence of harm or prejudice to the relocating parent due to the untimely petition. Because Father failed to file a written petition in opposition to Mother’s proposed relocation within thirty days of receipt of her certified letter, we find the trial court erred in conducting any further analysis pursuant to section 36-6-108. The decision of the trial court is reversed, and Mother is permitted to relocate to Omaha, Nebraska, with the minor child. Father’s request for appellate attorney fees is denied, and all remaining issues are deemed pretermitted. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford - Dissent
Based on the application of Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to the facts of this case, I must respectfully dissent from the majority. While the majority concludes that Father’s petition is barred by his failure to timely file his petition in opposition to the relocation, I would instead remand to the trial court for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of whether Father’s delay in filing his petition was the result of excusable neglect. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford - Separate Concurrence
I have carefully considered Judge Stafford’s energetic dissent in this case, and find that I cannot agree. I submit this separate concurrence to explain my position. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: James C.E.
This is a termination of parental rights case in which the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services sought to terminate the parental rights of Robert E. and Susan E. to James C. E. The trial court terminated Robert E.’s parental rights, finding that he had abandoned James C. E. and that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of James C. E. Robert E. appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Finch v. Tina Raymer, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute over property allegedly owned by a partnership. The plaintiff and defendant lived together for about six years but never married. It is undisputed that they formed a partnership during that time for the purpose of buying and selling real estate. The parties bought, renovated, and sold numerous properties, and after they separated, they equally split the remaining profits from the property sales. However, they could not agree as to who owned the house where the parties were currently living and various items of personal property acquired during their relationship. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that all of the disputed property was partnership property and that each party held a one-half undivided interest in the property. Accordingly, the court declared that the parties owned the disputed real property as tenants in common, and it awarded the plaintiff a judgment for one-half of the value of certain personal property. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The court further concluded that the defendant had fraudulently conveyed partnership property to her father, a co-defendant, and the court set aside the sale and held that the defendant was responsible for repaying to her father the amount he paid for the fraudulently conveyed property. The defendants appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the cause for further proceedings. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Erykah C.
This case involves an appeal by a mother of the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. We conclude that the grounds for termination have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Further, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Will J. Milton v. Saeed Etezadi, M.D.
This case presents the issue of whether proper service of process was accomplished regarding the defendant, Saeed Etezadi, M.D. Plaintiff, Will J. Milton, filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Etezadi on April 14, 2003. The complaint and summons were served upon Dr. Etezadi’s office manager, with a notation appearing on the summons that service was accepted as “agent.” Dr. Etezadi filed an answer which, inter alia, raised the affirmative defense of insufficiency of service of process. Mr. Milton voluntarily dismissed that action and subsequently re-filed within one year of the non-suit. In connection with the second action, the complaint and summons were allegedly served upon Dr. Etezadi at his office. Dr. Etezadi filed an Answer, again raising the affirmative defense of insufficiency of service of process. Dr. Etezadi also asserted that all applicable statutes of limitation and repose had expired. He later filed a motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the trial court dismissed the claims against Dr. Etezadi, finding that there was no service of process in either action. Mr. Milton appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
John McLaughlin v. John L. Tweedall, et al
The final judgment from which the appellant seeks to appeal was entered on December 3, 2012. The only Notice of Appeal “filed” by the appellant on December 28, 2012, was submitted to the trial court clerk via facsimile transmission in violation of Rule 5A.02(4)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Notice of Appeal was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, this appeal is dismissed. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Levi D.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the grounds that Mother was incarcerated under a sentence of more than 10 years and her child was under the age of eight at time of sentencing, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6), and that Mother was convicted of the intentional and wrongful death of the child's other parent, see Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-113(g)(7). Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals |
