In Re Estate of James Donald Meadows
Appellants, an estate and its co-executors, appeal from the trial court’s order disqualifying their counsel due to a purported conflict of interest. Because the appellants have appealed from a non-final order, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Eddison Williams v. State of Tennessee
This appeal involves the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Claims Commission to hear an action brought by a former medical student, Eddison Williams (claimant), against the Quillen College of Medicine at East Tennessee State University. Claimant alleged that the State, acting through medical school officials, “negligently breached its contractual duties regarding following policies before dismissing [him] on disciplinary grounds.” He argued his action stated a claim for “negligent care, custody and control of persons,” a category of claims the Commission has jurisdiction to hear under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8- 307(a)(1)(E) (Supp.2017). The Commission concluded it had no subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Toniann Whitaker v. James B. Devereaux
After Appellant’s son violated an order of protection entered against him, Appellant sought relief from the trial court. Although the trial court ruled on some of the issues raised by Appellant, not all of her claims were adjudicated. We therefore dismiss the appeal due to the absence of a final judgment. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Francis J. Kowalski
Thomas Kowalski, Michael Kowalski, John J. Kowalski, and Margaret Kowalski (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the February 2, 2017 judgment of the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) finding and holding, inter alia, that the holographic Last Will and Testament of Francis J. Kowalski (“the Will”) contained a residuary clause such that Francis J. Kowalski (“Deceased”) did not die partially intestate and that the Will granted a conditional life estate in real property located at 2820 Azalea Place (“Azalea Place”) in Nashville to Trevor Walker for as long as Walker operates Thrill Building Music, LLC. We find and hold that the Will does not contain a residuary clause and that Deceased died partially intestate. We further find and hold that the Will granted a fee determinable estate in Azalea Place to Trevor Walker for as long as Walker operates Thrill Building Music, LLC. Given all this, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment as to whether the Will contained a residuary clause and modify the judgment to reflect that the Will granted a fee determinable estate in Azalea Place to Trevor Walker for as long as Walker operates Thrill Building Music, LLC. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr. v. Randy Rayburn
The former director of a culinary program filed a complaint alleging defamation by implication or innuendo and false light invasion of privacy against an individual he claimed was the source of statements made in a newspaper article. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the statements were not actionable as a matter of law. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the former director appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and remand the issue of attorney’s fees to the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sugar Creek Carriages v. Hat Creek Carriages, Et Al.
This case involves a claim for procurement of breach of contract. The plaintiff and the defendants operate competing businesses that provide carriage rides for hire in Nashville, Tennessee. The plaintiff sued the defendants for violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109 by procuring one of its carriage drivers to breach his noncompete agreement with the plaintiff by driving a carriage for the defendants’ business. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants upon the determination that the plaintiff could not prove an essential element of a procurement of breach of contract claim, that the underlying contract was enforceable. Agreeing with the determination that the noncompete agreement was not enforceable, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: T.W. Et Al.
In this termination of parental rights case, J.B.H. and H.D.H. (prospective parents) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of M.A.W. (mother) and E.R.W. (father) in order to adopt two of their minor children, T.W. and B.W. (the children). S.A.G. (grandmother) and M.W.G. (grandfather) are the maternal grandparents of the children. They joined the prospective parents as co-petitioners. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that mother and father abandoned their children by willfully failing to visit and support them during the relevant statutory time frame. By the same quantum of proof, the court also determined that termination is in the best interest of the children. Consequently, the court entered an order terminating the parents’ rights. Mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her rights. We reverse. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
E Solutions For Buildings, LLC v. Knestrick Contractor, Inc., Et Al.
This appeal involves a construction contract dispute among a general contractor, a subcontractor, and the subcontractor’s equipment supplier regarding liability for construction project delays. After a four-day bench trial, the trial court resolved most of the substantive issues among the parties and ultimately determined that the prevailing parties were entitled to awards of attorney’s fees pursuant to various contractual provisions. However, the trial court did not make the awards of attorney’s fees at that time because the parties had not submitted sworn itemizations of services rendered. As a result, the trial court directed the parties to renew their requests for attorney’s fees after any appeals were exhausted. The requests for attorney’s fees were granted in part and denied in part “without prejudice.” Due to the outstanding unresolved issues regarding the attorney’s fee awards, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kathlene Denise Roberts v. Willie Dino Roberts, Jr.
Husband appeals the trial court’s decision in this post-divorce marital property dispute, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that certain retirement benefits “matured” in 2012. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Bruce Guy, Jr., et al. v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Shelby County Board of Education, et al. v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Conrad Fichtel v. Jill Crowell Fichtel
This is a post-divorce/parental relocation matter in which the father of two minor children opposed the mother’s intended relocation to Ohio. The father also sought a modification of the parties’ parenting plan regardless of whether the mother was permitted to relocate. The mother filed a cross-petition to modify the parenting plan and child support. After determining that the parties spent substantially equal intervals of time with the child, the court conducted a best-interest analysis to determine whether it was in the children’s best interest to relocate with the mother. The court concluded that it was not in the children’s best interest to relocate and modified child support to reflect the parties’ current incomes. Although the trial court made an explicit finding that the mother had indeed relocated without the children, the trial court never ruled on the parties’ competing claims to modify the original parenting plan or entered a new parenting plan. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we observe that the judgment appealed from is not final. Given the absence of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
500 Block, LLC v. Donald Bosch
This case was brought by the landlord of a building that was leased to a limited liability company for purposes of operating a restaurant; the restaurant failed, and the company defaulted on its obligations under the lease and took bankruptcy. The landlord filed suit to recover damages from four persons who had signed agreements guaranteeing performance of the lease to the extent of the guarantors’ interest in the lessee. The case proceeded to trial against one guarantor and, after a bench trial, the court dismissed the action, finding that the guaranty lacked consideration and that the guaranty was invalid and unenforceable because only the guarantor signed it. On appeal, the landlord contends that the trial court erred in both respects. Upon a de novo review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for entry of a judgment against the guarantor in the amount of $60,037.97 and for a determination of interest on the judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Roderick R. Et Al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Upon the petition of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, the trial court terminated the parental rights of both the mother and father of two children. Clear and convincing evidence supports each ground relied upon by the trial court and the trial court’s conclusion that termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Marilyn (Reso) Ramsey v. Warren A. Reso, Jr.
This is a post-divorce case dealing with numerous issues of interpretation of the parties’ marital dissolution agreement and permanent parenting plan. The plaintiff wife appealed one portion of the on-going case. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Conservatorship For Ralph C. Williams
This is a conservatorship action in which the wife sought appointment as her husband’s conservator. Following a hearing, the court found that the husband was fully disabled and in need of a conservator to manage his personal and financial affairs. The court appointed the wife to serve in that capacity and awarded her spousal support. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Ludye N. Wallace v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee Et Al.
We assumed jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-3-201(d)(1) and Rule 48 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court and ordered expedited briefing and oral argument. The issue we must determine is whether the vacancy in the Office of Mayor of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County may be filled at the August 2, 2018 election, or whether it must be filled at a special election pursuant to section 15.03 of the Metropolitan Charter. We conclude that section 15.03 of the Metropolitan Charter requires that a special election be set, that the Davidson County Election Commission therefore acted in contravention of the Charter in setting the election on August 2, 2018, and that the trial court erred in denying Mr. Wallace’s claims for relief and dismissing this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. The Commission is hereby ordered to set a special election in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-14-102(a). This opinion is not subject to rehearing under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39, and the Clerk is directed to certify this opinion as final and to immediately issue the mandate. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lascassas Land Company, LLC v. Jimmy E. Allen, Et Al.
This appeal involves a dispute between two limited liability companies (and an individual with an interest in both companies) over four lots in a residential subdivision. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court awarded the plaintiff-company $116,151.87 in proceeds from the sale of lots that were originally owned by the plaintiff. However, the trial court ruled that the defendant-company was entitled to recover $512,795.07 for the amount it expended constructing homes on those lots. The plaintiff-company has appealed, challenging numerous rulings made by the trial court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Lara C. Stancil v. Todd A. Stancil
In this post-divorce dispute, Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time and obtained an ex parte restraining order based upon Father’s physical altercation with his wife during parenting time with the parties’ children. After a hearing in December 2015, the trial court suspended Father’s parenting time until he took steps to address his anger management issues. At a review hearing in August 2016, the trial court determined that the suspension of Father’s parenting time was no longer in the best interest of the children and adopted the recommendations of Father’s psychologist concerning the reintegration of Father into the lives of the children. The trial court subsequently awarded Mother her attorney fees and discretionary costs incurred throughout the case. On appeal, Father asserts that he should have been awarded his attorney fees for the period of time after the December 2015 hearing and that the trial court erred in awarding Mother her discretionary costs for the same period. Both parties seek their attorney fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s award of attorney fees in full. With respect to discretionary costs, we affirm the trial court’s award with the exception of the costs of preparation and travel, which are not authorized by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04. Each party shall pay his or her own attorney fees and costs on appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Sharda R., Et Al.
This is an appeal from an order entered on February 23, 2018, terminating the mother’s parental rights. The mother filed her notice of appeal on April 5, 2018, together with a motion to accept an untimely notice of appeal. Because the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, we deny the mother’s motion and dismiss the appeal. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Brandon Adams v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from an order entered on February 5, 2018, dismissing the appellant’s Petition for Writ for Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 2, 2018, together with a motion to accept a late notice of appeal. Because the thirty day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in civil cases and cannot be waived, we deny the appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Tegan W.
This is a termination of parental rights case wherein the trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights based upon the sole statutory ground of abandonment by incarceration. The court further found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother timely appealed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Randy Roberts v. Tennier Industries, Inc.
This appeal arises from a claim of retaliatory discharge. Randy Roberts (“Roberts”) was fired by Tennier Industries, Inc. (“Tennier”) for several stated reasons, including that he kept an unmarked bottle of pills at his desk and was insubordinate. Roberts contends that he was, in fact, fired for having complained about a manager who harassed him. Roberts sued Tennier in the Circuit Court for Scott County (“the Trial Court”). Tennier filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it fired Roberts for valid, non-pretextual reasons. Roberts filed a motion to continue in which he requested more time for discovery in order to probe Tennier’s practices in situations similar to his. The Trial Court denied Roberts’ motion to continue and granted Tennier’s motion for summary judgment. Roberts appeals to this Court. We hold, inter alia, that the information for which Roberts sought additional time for discovery could have assisted his case and that the Trial Court erred in denying his motion to continue. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Local TV Tennessee, LLC d/b/a WREG-TV v. N.Y.S.E. Wolfchase, LLC d/b/a The New York Suit Exchange
This is a breach of contract action in which both parties assert affirmative claims. Plaintiff, a Memphis TV station, sued one of its advertisers for breach of an advertising agreement to recover approximately $511,000 for past advertising services. Defendant Advertiser filed a counterclaim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, for constructive fraud, and for breach of contract. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings with respect to the breach of contract claim in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages of $510,000. Subsequently, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Second Amended Counter-Complaint in its entirety, finding that Defendant failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted. Defendant appealed. We have concluded that Defendant’s Answer constituted a denial that Defendant owed approximately $511,000 in unpaid advertising fees; therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should have been denied. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Defendant’s claims for constructive fraud; however, we have determined that the factual allegations in the Second Amended Counter-Complaint are sufficient to state claims for breach of contract, and claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of these claims and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Harlan, Et Al. v. Cornerstone Church Of Nashville, Inc.
This appeal involves a dispute over ownership of three easements and allegations of fraud stemming from the failure of Appellee to honor its alleged oral promise to purchase the disputed easements and an adjacent parcel of land owned by Appellants. The trial court, on Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, ruled that Appellants had no interest in the easements and that Appellants’ claim arising from the alleged oral promise to purchase the easements and the adjacent parcel of land was barred by the Statute of Frauds. We affirm the trial court’s judgment and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
