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 | |
Shawn T. Slaughter v. Grover T. Mills Et Al.
This matter involves Hamilton County’s attempt to recover funds it paid, through its on-the- job injury program, on behalf of one of its employees, Shawn T. Slaughter. Mr. Slaughter was injured while riding in a County vehicle when that vehicle collided with another vehicle; he filed suit against the drivers and the County. Prior to trial, Mr. Slaughter settled with one of the defendant drivers. After trial, having been found not atfault by the jury, the County attempted to assert a lien against settlement. The trial court held that the County does not have a contractual or statutory basis for a lien against Mr. Slaughter’s settlement. It further held that, because Mr. Slaughter was not made whole by his settlement, the County is not entitled to subrogation. The County filed a motion for reconsideration and requested a ruling on its asserted constitutional basis for recovery. The court denied the County’s motion. The County appeals. We affirm |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
James McDonald Shea Brown Jr. v. John F. Weaver
Appellant, a beneficiary under the will of Decedent, brought this action in 2017 to recover funds that Appellee allegedly improperly safeguarded when he served as conservator for Decedent in 1980. On Appellee’s motion to dismiss, the trial court granted the motion finding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court also found that any cause of action arising from Appellee’s conduct as conservator was barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant then filed a motion to reconsider. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion finding that Appellant’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Lesley A.
Mother appeals the trial court’s determination that her parental rights to her daughter should be terminated on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and persistence of conditions. Having concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s decisions regarding grounds as well as its determination that termination is in the best interest of the child, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
State Ex Rel Herbert H. Slatery III, ET Al. v. Chevron Corporation, Et Al.
The Tennessee Attorney General issued several civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) to several oil companies as part of an investigation into false claims and violations of the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-215-101--204. Compliance was incomplete, but the Attorney General filed suit in 2015 in circuit court. Portions of the suit were dismissed, and the Attorney General took a nonsuit. The Attorney General then filed suit in the chancery court to enforce the CIDs. The oil companies sought a protective order, which the court granted. The Attorney General appealed. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Laxmi Hospitality Group, LLC v. Rajesh Narayan
A company that loaned $100,000 to two individuals filed a complaint to collect the amount due. One defendant filed for bankruptcy, and his debt to the company was discharged. The other defendant asserted that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. The company argued that the remaining defendant was equitably estopped from relying on the statute of limitations because he had misled the company to delay filing suit by promising to pay the debt without the need for litigation. The trial court agreed with the company and ruled that the statute of limitations did not bar the company’s claim. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lawrence Benjamin Davenport v. Denise Michelle Davenport
In this divorce action, the mother appeals the trial court’s permanent parenting plan order, which designated the father as primary residential parent of the parties’ child and awarded him 280 days of annual residential co-parenting time. Having determined that the order appealed from does not adjudicate all of the claims between the parties and is therefore not a final order, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa A. Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company
This is an FELA case arising out of an accident that occurred at the railroad’s intermodal facility in which a railroad employee was crushed by a container box being lifted off of a holster truck. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the employee, determining she was zero percent at fault for the accident, despite allegations that she had failed to set the holster truck brakes. The railroad moved for a new trial, raising several evidentiary issues and asserting that the jury’s failure to find the employee contributorily negligent was against the clear weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm the trial court’s order on jury verdict, as remitted. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Galloway v. Nashid Madyun
This is a breach of contract case. The trial court entered judgment against Appellant for breach of contract, and Appellant appeals. Because there is no transcript or statement of the evidence, we cannot review the trial court’s holdings. Affirmed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Samantha Audrey Haak v. Christopher Rodney Haak
Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to change custody to Father. Here, the trial court’s findings of fact and the evidence in the record support the trial court’s determination that naming Father the primary residential parent of the children is in their best interests. As such, we affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Brian M. Haslett, Et Al. v. Barry Gregory, Et Al.
The defendants moved to disqualify the chancellor after the denial of their motion for summary judgment. As grounds for disqualification, the defendants submitted that the chancellor had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in denying their motion for summary judgment and in not promptly entering an order on a motion to compel. After the chancellor’s denial of the motion to disqualify, this accelerated interlocutory appeal followed. Because the motion identified no justifiable basis for the chancellor’s disqualification, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Raleigh Commons, Inc. v. SWH, LLC, et al.
This action, which involves payment of a promissory note, was previously appealed to this Court and subsequently remanded to the trial court due to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Following remand, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding the disputed issue of the reasonableness of attorney’s fees paid. Determining that the amount of fees paid was reasonable, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Dr. Joseph Weinstein, the note holder and the appellee herein. Dr. Stevan Himmelstein, one of the parties found to be liable on the note, has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jermaine Reese v. The Estate of Stanley Cutshaw, Et Al.
This appeal concerns a debt owed to the plaintiff by her deceased husband. The trial court awarded the plaintiff certain secured real property that she argues does not provide her the full value of her claim against the decedent. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Jermaine Reese v. The Estate of Stanley Cutshaw, Et Al. - concurring
I concur in the majority’s discussion and decision regarding the inapplicability of the doctrine of exoneration. I am also of the opinion that if the statute of limitations had been timely raised as an affirmative defense, it would have barred Wife’s cause of action. However, I believe that our Fryer decision and Rules 8.03 and 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, mandate the conclusion that the trial court erred in ambushing Wife by applying an affirmative defense that was never pled nor tried. To the extent that the majority opinion could be read as holding that the trial court’s error was harmless because the statute of limitations had run, I disagree with that reasoning, because I believe it is circular in nature. The conclusion that the error was harmless can, however be supported by other reasoning of the majority. For example, I agree with the majority that the error was harmless, but I would support this conclusion simply on the trial court’s determination that the release executed by the parties was valid and enforceable and supports the conclusion that the property securing the debt should be deeded back to Wife. I write separately to emphasize my view that Fryer was correctly decided, that it is squarely on point and applicable to this case, and that this opinion should not be read as representing an exception to the general principle stated therein, namely that a trial court commits reversible error by sua sponte applying a statute of limitations defense at the end of trial that was never pled, raised by the parties, or tried by implied consent. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Nedra B. Drayton v. Jacquelyn B. Scruggs
This appeal arises from an Order of Protection initially issued in the General Sessions Court for Shelby County, Tennessee based on the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant, her mother, assaulted her “by hitting her with her car.” In the appeal to the Circuit Court, that court ordered that all provisions in the order of protection in the General Sessions Court remain in effect until further order of the Circuit Court. Following numerous filings and motions, one of which sought a psychological mental health assessment of the plaintiff, the Circuit Court denied all pending motions and dismissed the order of protection. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Bernice Hill
A claim was filed against an estate by the former employer of the decedent. The clerk of court did not send notice to the representative of the estate as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 30-2-313(a). The estate did not file an exception to the claim until after the time for filing exceptions had run. The trial court accordingly ruled that the exception was time barred. The estate appeals. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Billy F.
Father appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights to his son is in the child’s best interest. Because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports both the grounds for termination found by the trial court and the trial court’s best interest finding, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
John Doe By His Next Friend Jane Doe, Et Al. v. Brentwood Academy Inc., Et Al.
This Tenn. R. App. P. 9 application for permission to appeal concerns whether portions of a trial court order and a transcript, both of which reference Plaintiff Jane Doe’s medical history, should be placed under seal. Pursuant to an October 2, 2018 order of remand from this court in Appeal No. M2018-01611-COA-R10-CV1, the trial court determined that portions of the documents should be redacted but that certain portions of the transcript and order which include references to Jane Doe’s medical history should not be placed under seal. The trial court subsequently granted Jane Doe and John Doe permission to appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur with the trial court that this is an appropriate case for an interlocutory appeal. Furthermore, because the application and answer fully set forth the parties’ positions and the material facts, we dispense with further briefing and oral argument and proceed to the merits of the appeal in order to save the parties additional time and expense. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Travis Daniel Freeman v. Wendy Y. Freeman
This appeal concerns the proper method of invoking a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a proceeding to modify a permanent parenting plan. About one year after the parties’ divorce, Travis Freeman (father) filed a petition to modify the court-ordered custody arrangement and attached a proposed permanent parenting plan pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405(a) (2017). Wendy Freeman (mother) opposed the requested modification. The trial court subsequently entered two orders gradually expanding father’s co-parenting time. Later, father filed another motion seeking greater expansion of his co-parenting time and/or designation as the primary residential parent. Father did not attach a new proposed parenting plan to this motion. Ultimately, the trial court ordered a new permanent parenting plan that retained mother as the primary residential parent but granted father additional co-parenting time. Mother appeals. She argues that father did not properly invoke the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction because father did not attach a new proposed parenting plan to his most recent motion to modify the custody arrangement. We agree with mother that father was statutorily required to submit a new proposed parenting plan pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405(a); nevertheless, we hold that father’s petition to modify the parenting plan was sufficient to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm |
Meigs | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Mason C. Et Al.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving the parental rights of Allison T. (“Mother”) to the children, Mason C. and Nathan C. (“the Children”), and the parental rights of Jeffrey M. (“Father”) to Nathan C. On November 14, 2016, the maternal grandparents, Patricia T. and Robert T. (“Grandparents”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to their respective Children. Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children and Father’s parental rights to Nathan upon its determination that the parents had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to support them and that termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of the Children. Because the trial court failed to enter sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of sufficient findings of facts and conclusions of law in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(k) (2017). |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals |
