In Re: Jaiden C.W. and Caiden J.W., Children Under the Age of 18 Years (d.o.b. 7/27/2006)
This is a child support case. The juvenile court found, inter alia, the father owed a child support arrearage of $21,356.63. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Andre Wilks v. Maxine Wilks
This is an appeal of a divorce matter. We dismiss this appeal for Appellant's failure to appeal a final judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Aiden R. B., et al.
Amy B. (“Mother”) is the biological mother of the minor children, Aiden R. B. and Evan M. B. (“the Children”). The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children. Following a trial, the Juvenile Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) found and held, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children on four grounds under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1), (2), and (3) and that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
O’Rane M. Cornish, Sr. v. The Home Depot, Inc.
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant in this malicious prosecution action. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: the Conservatorship of: Mary Louise Sottong, Appellee, Geoffrey Sottong, Appellant
In this conservatorship estate, Geoffrey Sottong, son of Mary Louise Sottong, raises issues as to the ruling of the Trial Court regarding the conservator's administration of the conservatorship estate. Upon review, we conclude that the Trial Court's series of orders properly instructed the conservator on administering the estate, and affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court on these issues. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Brande Kirk, et al. v. Michael A. Chavin, M.D.
Brande Kirk and Amanda Jordan, as children of Barbara Jordan, (“Plaintiffs”) sued Michael A. Chavin, M.D. alleging medical malpractice in his treatment of Barbara Jordan. Dr. Chavin filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered its order on August 30, 2010 finding and holding that Plaintiffs’ expert was not qualified to testify in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115, and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie Newman, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance v. Smart Data Solutions, LLC, et al.
This is an appeal of the grant of an application by the Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Tennessee to place an allegedly illegal insurance enterprise into receivership for purposes of liquidation pursuant to the Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-9-101, et. seq. Respondents contend they are not insurers subject to the Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act and that, because the court found that the insurance was nonexistent, the appointment of a receiver of the businesses was not authorized. Finding that the activities of the various respondents constitute “insurance business” as defined by the applicable statute and that placing the businesses into receivership was proper, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Administrative Resources, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance
This case involves judicial review of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance’s denial of a staff leasing company license. The trial court reviewed the denial of the license under the common law writ of certiorari standard and upheld the decision. Finding that the denial was unsupported by substantial and material evidence, we vacate the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Young Bok Song v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, et al.
The petitioner, Young Bok Song (“Song”), a prisoner serving a 65-year sentence resulting from convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, filed a petition for declaratory judgment, requesting that the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) be directed to release to him copies of its investigative records from his criminal case. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Song appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Benedicta Kurunwune Obi v. George Obi - Concurring
I concur with the majority’s decision; however, I would assess costs of this appeal against Mr. Obi (“Husband”), not Mrs. Obi (“Wife”), in that this appeal was a result of Husband’s omissions. Further, I write separately to state that I believe, upon proper application pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37 by Wife on remand, the trial court may consider imposing monetary sanctions against Husband in the form of expenses and/or attorney fees. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Odell Binkley v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
The appellant sought a special exception to establish a waste transfer facility. The Metro Council, pursuant to its authority under the Metropolitan Code, disapproved of the proposed location. The appellant sought a writ of certiorari and the trial court dismissed the appeal. The appellant appealed to this court. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Victor W. Isaac, M.D. v. The Center for Spine, Joint, and Neuromuscular Rehabilitation, P.C.
In this employment contract dispute, the plaintiff seeks to recover a bonus from his former employer. He asserts the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay a bonus as provided in the employment agreement; alternatively, he asserts a claim for promissory fraud. The trial court summarily dismissed plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Following a bench trial on the promissory fraud claim, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered plaintiff to pay defendant $64,471.86 in attorney fees pursuant to the employment agreement. We affirm and remand with instructions that the defendants be awarded reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Benedicta Kurunwune Obi v. George Obi
The trial court granted the wife a judgment of divorce after the husband failed to respond to requests for discovery and a motion to compel. After the judgment became final, the husband, who had been represented by counsel earlier in the proceedings, filed a pro se Rule 60 motion for relief, arguing that he was deprived of proper notice because the address on the certificates of service appended to each unanswered motion and notice was not accurate, with the result that he did not receive the motions and notices. The trial court denied the husband’s Rule 60 motion, but since husband’s address was incorrect on the certificates of service, we conclude the trial court erred and should have granted the husband relief from the parenting plan and child support provisions of the judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order as to those provisions and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Eloise J. Storey Peggie Sherrill Huber v. Lawrence G. Yohanek, CPA, a/k/a Larry G. Yohanek, Sharron S. Yohanek, and John Gary Storey
This lawsuit was filed by the decedent’s daughter against other family members alleging undue influence, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. After the decedent suffered a stroke, the family members, as attorney in fact and signatory on the decedent’s bank accounts, made gifts from the decedent’s assets to themselves and to other family members. After the decedent died, the plaintiff daughter filed this lawsuit, alleging that the defendant family members wrongfully depleted the decedent’s assets during her lifetime so as to deprive the plaintiff of her specific bequest in the decedent’s will. The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on various grounds. The trial court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not submit evidence to support several of her claims, and that several claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff now appeals. On appeal, we apply the Tennessee Supreme court’s revised analytical framework for summary judgment motions, requiring the defendant movants to either conclusively establish facts supporting an affirmative defense or negate an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. Applying this standard, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Alan Richards v. Tina Lou Richards
This is a post-divorce case where both parties sought to modify the existing custody arrangement. At the time of the divorce, the parties agreed to equal co-parenting time. Upon the mother’s request for modification, the court designated her as the primary residential parent and awarded the father standard co-parenting time. The trial court also ordered the father to pay child support and certain outstanding expenses incurred by the mother toward the child’s care. Further, the mother was awarded her attorney fees. In the initial appeal, we found that a material change in circumstances had not been proven. Accordingly, we reversed the trial court’s modification of the original custody arrangement and reinstated the initial permanent parenting plan. We also vacated the trial court’s order as to child support, the payment by the father of expenses incurred by the mother, and the award of attorney fees to the mother, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The matter was reheard, with the parties stipulating that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances. The trial court again named the mother primary residential parent, with the father having co-parenting time every other weekend and on an alternating two-week schedule in the summer. The father appeals. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey D. Key, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Randall Eugene Key et al v. Blount Memorial Hospital, Inc. et al.
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital in a medical malpractice wrongful death case. The trial court struck as untimely the materials filed by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The responsive materials were filed less than five days before the date originally scheduled for a hearing on the defendant’s motion; however the hearing was continued for several months. Having struck the plaintiff’s filings, the court held that the motion negated violation of the standard of care and causation and granted the motion as unopposed. The plaintiff contends on appeal that the defendant did not negate either violation of the standard of care or causation; that the materials responsive to the motion should not have been stricken; and that, if the materials filed in opposition to the motion are considered, the plaintiff presented issues of material fact for trial. We vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Chelsey D. Crews v. Jessie C. Staggs
Primary residential parent appeals determination that the parties rotate the federal tax exemption for their minor child on a yearly basis. At the time the determination was made, the trial court had not determined the amount of child support to be paid by the alternate residential parent in accordance with the child support guidelines. We reverse the decision and remand for reconsideration of the award of the exemption. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Joshua D. Schaffer v. State of Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
This appeal involves subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of certiorari. The petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. The respondent, the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, denied the inmate’s request for parole. The inmate thereafter filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the chancery court challenging the Board’s decision as illegal, arbitrary, and fraudulent. The chancery court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the inmate did not file a verified, notarized petition within the sixty-day jurisdictional time limit. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Brandon C. S. (d/o/b 10/1/2002), a Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe child abuse. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Crye-Leike, Inc. v. Sarah A. Carver
This is a dispute over a real estate sales commission. The seller entered into a six-month exclusive listing agreement with a realty company. The agreement expired on August 21, 2007, one day before the eventual purchasers were shown the property. The realty company filed suit to recover a commission asserting it caused the property to be shown to the purchasers prior to August 21 and, in the alternative, the parties orally and through their actions extended the listing agreement to August 30, 2007. The trial court concluded the realty company was not entitled to a commission under the plain language of the listing agreement because the property was not shown or submitted to the purchasers prior to August 21 and the parties did not extend the agreement to August 30. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
The Estate of Pauline Vernuse Butler v. Paul V. Peeples, Sr.
The representative of this Estate filed a "Motion to Marshal Assets" alleging that a California resident held assets of the Estate and had refused to turn them over to the Estate. The Trial Court summarily ordered the California resident to surrender any assets held and turn them over to the Estate. Paul V. Peeples, the California resident, filed a Motion in Probate Court that the Court had no personal jurisdiction over him, along with his affidavit. His Motion was denied. He appealed to this Court and we hold that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and reverse the orders against him and dismiss him as a party to the probate estate action. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy C. Russell v. Suzanne Colette Landry Lyubimov
On May 2, 2011, a show cause order was entered in this case, directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded to the show cause order, but the argument in the response does not establish good cause for maintaining this case in this court. The Order entered by the Trial Judge on November 8, 2010, demonstrates that there are issues yet to be resolved in the Trial Court before a Tenn. R. App. P. 3, appeal will lie. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the cost of the appeal is assessed to Timothy C. Russell. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Leonard Gamble v. Sputniks, LLC et al.
The trial court determined that the insuror of a bar was liable under its commercial general liability policy and liquor liability policy for injuries to a bar patron. We have concluded that this occurrence is excluded under the assault and battery exclusion of the commercial general liability policy but is covered by the liquor liability policy. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Crye-Leike, Inc. v. Sarah A. Carver - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion in this case, but write separately to emphasize that the Court’s interpretation of the term “shown” in the Agreement is limited to the facts and the proof in this case. Given the evolving importance in the real estate market of the realtor’s online presentation of property and the fact that properties are sometimes purchased by buyers who never view the property in person, with different proof, the term “shown” could be given a more expansive interpretation. However, with the proof submitted to the trial court and no contractual definition of the term “shown,” I agree with the majority’s result and reasoning. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Clark v. Sputniks, LLC et al.
The trial court determined that the insuror of a bar was liable under its commercial general liability policy and liquor liability policy for the death of a bar patron. We have concluded that this occurrence is excluded under the assault and battery exclusion of the commercial general liability policy but is covered by the liquor liability policy. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals |
