In the matter of: April F. (d.o.b. 11/20/98), Dylan F. (d.o.b. 3/30/00), and Devin F. (d.o.b. 7/24/06 et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the father on the grounds of persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the terms of the permanency plans, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The father appeals, arguing that the Department of Children's Services did not clearly and convincingly show that it made reasonable efforts to help him address his addiction to methamphetamine, clearly and convincingly prove grounds for termination, or clearly and convincingly demonstrate that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Because DCS did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with his children, we reverse. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
Limmie R. Walls v. Bobby G. Hopkins
This tort action arises out of a two-vehicle accident. Plaintiff sued defendant under a negligence theory and sought damages. After a jury trial, the jury equally allocated fault between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the jury's verdict is not supported by material evidence and that the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding plaintiff's intention to use a shortcut. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Katrina Martins, et al. v. Williamson Medical Center
Katrina B. Martins and her husband filed suit against Williamson Medical Center for injuries sustained when Ms. Martins fell in her hospital room. The trial court held that the complaint stated a claim based on medical malpractice and dismissed the lawsuit for failure to comply with the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. Plaintiffs appeal, asserting that the complaint sounded in common law negligence. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda Carrol Bivens vs. Donald Eugene Bivens
Brenda Carrol Bivens ("Wife") filed this divorce action against Donald Eugene Bivens ("Husband") in the Hamilton County Circuit Court in the Eleventh Judicial District. At the time of the parties' separation, they lived in Grundy County in the Twelfth Judicial District. Husband has lived in Grundy County his entire adult life. Husband filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue which he claims was granted orally by the trial court. No order dismissing the case ever was entered. The trial court later entered a final decree and marital dissolution agreement submitted by Wife and signed by Husband. Husband filed a motion to set aside the final decree. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that Husband had waived any objection to venue and refused to set aside the final decree. Husband appeals. We conclude that Husband did not waive his objections to venue and that the proper venue in this case never has been Hamilton County. Accordingly, we vacate entry of the final decree and remand this case to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County with instructions to transfer this case to an appropriate court in Grundy County. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Keri C.
This is a termination of parental rights and adoption case. The mother of the child tested positive for cocaine when the child was born, and DCS removed the child from the mother's custody and developed a safety plan for the mother. The child was eventually placed in the custody of the petitioners, who are the mother's cousin and her husband. During the time period at issue, the mother's visitation with the child consisted primarily of attending family gatherings and visiting with the child at these gatherings. She paid no child support. After the mother went to the petitioners' home to say that she intended to seek custody of the child, the petitioners filed this petition for termination of the mother's parental rights and for adoption of the child. After a trial, the trial court terminated the mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit. The mother now appeals. We affirm the trial court's finding of abandonment for failure to support and for willful failure to engage in more than token visitation with the child during the four-month time period preceding the filing of the termination petition, and affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Albert J. Hale vs. James Neeley, Commissioner, et al
Claimant, an employee of Wal-Mart, was charged with possession of cocaine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor possession, and was then discharged for violating company policy. Claimant was not at work nor on Wal-Mart's property when the offense occurred. The agency found that claimant was discharged under disqualifying conditions and denied unemployment benefits. Throughout the appeals process, denial of benefits was upheld. On appeal to this Court, we hold that claimant violated Wal-Mart's policies by failing to report his conviction under a criminal drug statute to his employer within three days as required under the employer's policy. We affirm the denial of unemployment benefits to claimant. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Paul Hopkins vs. Bradley County, Tennessee, et al
Plaintiff was incarcerated in jail on an arrest warrant that authorized bail of $1,500.00, which defendants failed to honor until the elapse of a 12 hour period. The trial judge held the defendants violated the statute governing the arrest warrant, and that the violation amounted to a constitutional violation entitling the plaintiff to damages. We granted an interlocutory appeal on these two rulings by the trial judge. We uphold the trial judge's determination that the defendants violated the statute by holding plaintiff for 12 hours before allowing bond, but reverse the trial court's holding that plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated and remand the case to the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Boyd's Creek Enterprises, LLC., et al vs. Sevier County, Tennessee, a Governmental Corporate Entity, et al
The question before this Court is whether the issuance of a beer permit in violation of a county's distance rule is non-discriminatory if it results from an agreed order resolving litigation. We conclude that a beer board's decision to effectively exempt a single premises or subset of premises from the enforcement of a valid distance rule is impermissibly discriminatory, even if it results from an agreed order. Because the discriminatory issuance of a single permit in violation of a county's distance rule may invalidate the rule, we reverse and remand. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Joy C. Lindsey vs. Walgreen Company, et al
Joy C. Lindsey ("Plaintiff") sued Walgreen Company ("Walgreen"), Robert Cortney ("Cortney"), and Kane David Stackhouse ("Stackhouse") after David Z. Lindsey, Sr. was shot and killed by Stackhouse in a Walgreen's parking lot. Approximately ten months after filing their answer to Plaintiff's complaint, Walgreen and Cortney filed a motion to amend to add a cross-claim against Stackhouse. The Trial Court denied Walgreen and Cortney permission to amend. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal on the sole issue of whether Walgreen and Cortney should be granted leave to amend to add a cross-claim against Stackhouse. We reverse the Trial Court's order and grant Walgreen and Cortney permission to add a cross-claim against Stackhouse. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Earl Faulkner and Faye Faulkner v. Tom Emmett Construction Company
Earl and Faye Faulkner ("Plaintiffs") hired Tom Emmett Construction Company ("Defendant") to construct a new driveway at their home in Knox County. Plaintiffs refused to pay $ 8,000 of the total $ 18,000 contract price because they were dissatisfied with the workmanship of the driveway. Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking as damages what it would cost to remove and replace the allegedly defective driveway. Defendant asserted that the driveway was properly constructed and filed a counterclaim for the remaining $ 8,000 balance owed on the oral contract. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court [*2] concluded that any problems with the driveway were not sufficient to require that it be removed and replaced. Because there was a problem with how the concrete on one portion of the driveway had been poured, the Trial Court required Plaintiffs to pay Defendant only $ 5,000 of the remaining $ 8,000 owed on the contract. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm as modified. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Sammie Maness and SKM Wood Products, LLC v. Joannie Collins, Mike Smith, Josh Smith, and SKM, LLC
This appeal involves an employment contract. The plaintiff employee owned a manufacturing business. He sold the business to the defendant new owners, and agreed to stay on as a management-level employee. To that end, the plaintiff entered into a three-year employment agreement with the company, and signed a non-competition agreement. After a few months, the company's new owners terminated the plaintiff employee on the basis that he had not fulfilled his job duties. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the company and the new owners, alleging breach of the employment agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the company breached the employment agreement by terminating the plaintiff's employment without cause, finding that one of the new owners prevented the plaintiff from performing his job duties. However, the trial court declined to award damages to the plaintiff employee because the plaintiff did not seek other employment, and thus failed to mitigate his damages. Both parties appeal. We affirm the trial court's finding that the company breached the employment agreement, finding that one of the new owners prevented the plaintiff from performing his job duties, and therefore the plaintiff's failure to perform under the employment agreement was excused. We reverse the trial court's holding on mitigation of damages, finding that the defendant company and the new owners were required to prove the availability of suitable and comparable substitute employment, and failed to do so. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Rent-N-Roll v. Highway 64 Car and Truck Sales
Appellee sold a vehicle to a third party, retaining a security interest duly perfected on the vehicle's certificate of title. Appellant later leased custom wheels and tires to the third party without the knowledge or consent of appellee. After the lease was signed, appellant modified the body of the vehicle to accommodate the custom wheels and tires, installed the custom wheels and tires on the vehicle, and gave the third party the old wheels and tires. The third party defaulted on both the security agreement with appellee and the lease with appellant. Appellee repossessed the vehicle and refused to relinquish the custom wheels and tires to appellant. The third party could not be located for service of process or recovery of the old wheels and tires. Appellant sued for recovery of the custom wheels and tires. The trial court found that, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 47-2A-310, the wheels and tires became accessions at the point of installation, Appellant's leasehold interest in the accessions was superior to appellee's security interest in the vehicle as a whole, and appellant was liable for physical injury it caused to the vehicle when installing the accessions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
James Daniel Marshall v. Jenine Estelle Marshall
Husband appeals the entry of a default judgment and the resulting Final Decree in a divorce action. Wife filed a complaint for divorce; Husband filed an answer and counter-complaint. Later in the proceedings, Wife filed a motion for default judgment and other relief against Husband due to his failure to comply with the court's discovery deadline. The trial court entered an order granting a default judgment against Husband, striking his pleadings, and deeming Wife's discovery requests admitted. Husband timely filed a motion to set aside the order on the ground he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, which the trial court denied. We have determined that Husband did not receive proper notice; as a consequence the order granting the default judgment and other relief is void. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Husband's motion to set aside the order. The court's failure to set aside the order also greatly impaired Husband's right to assert the defenses and affirmative claims that were stricken. Accordingly, the Final Decree is also reversed and we remand for a new trial of the issues properly raised by the parties in their pleadings subject, of course, to Husband complying with discovery and the trial court's orders. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
First Horizons Home Loan Corporation d/b/a First Tennessee Home Loans, et al.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald and Helen Lilly, Individually and as Guardians and Next of Kin of Tadarius M. Moore, Deceased v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.
Plaintiffs, the guardians and grandparents of a fourth-grader at Amqui Elementary School filed this wrongful death action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. While at school, the decedent became ill. After school employees cared for him for a period of time, his condition worsened; school employees then called 911 and performed CPR while awaiting for the paramedics. Tragically, the child died on the way to the emergency room. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not properly train or supervise its school employees and that Defendant's employees were negligent in failing to secure proper medical care. The trial court summarily dismissed the action upon findings that Defendant had not breached a duty to the decedent and that its actions were not the proximate cause of decedent's death. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse finding there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Steven Davidson, Jr. v. Mary Molteni Davidson
Wife appeals the trial court's designation of Husband as primary residential parent of the parties' two children and reduction of Wife's parenting time with one of the children. We vacate the trial court orders at issue and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Valenti Mid-South Management, LLC v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
Plaintiff filed suit in chancery court to challenge an assessment of Plaintiff's franchise tax liability by the Department of Revenue. The chancery court upheld the assessment. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Oscar Paul Guess, III v. City of Manchester, a Tennessee Municipality, et al.
Discharged city employee filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging his termination by the city. The trial court remanded the case to the board of mayor and aldermen based upon the court's determination that there was evidence of bias on the part of one alderman and that the record did not allow the court to determine the grounds relied upon by the board in terminating the employee. We have determined that the trial court erred in remanding this case. The city employee waived the issue of possible bias on the part of one alderman by failing to raise it at any time during the hearing before the board. Moreover, the board was not required to make specific findings on the reasons for its decision. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Cascade Ophio, Inc., DBA C.W. Ohio, Inc. vs. Modern Machine Corporation, A Tennessee Corporation, et al
Machine Tool & Die, Inc., now known as CMTD, Inc. ("the Seller"), and Modern Machine Corporation, a Tennessee corporation ("Modern Tennessee" or "the Buyer"), regarding a machine that the Seller had agreed to build for the Customer. After the Seller agreed to build the machine, the Seller entered into an agreement with the Buyer to sell its assets to the Buyer, including the Seller's contract to build the machine for the Customer. The machine was never built, prompting this lawsuit. Following a bench trial, the court held that the Seller and Buyer were liable to the Customer for the down payment made on the machine purchase. The court further held that the Buyer was liable to the Customer under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"), trebled the Customer's damages, and held the Buyer responsible for the attorney's fees of the Customer. The court also held the Buyer liable to indemnify the Seller, including the attorney's fees of the Seller. The court also pierced the corporate veil of the Buyer and held parties related to the Buyer jointly liable with the Buyer. The Buyer and its related parties appeal. We reverse in part and modify in part. Except as modified or reversed, the judgment is affirmed. Case remanded. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Shedd, et al. v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al.
Father seeks to intervene in the wrongful death action filed by Mother for the death of the parties' daughter. The trial court found Father waived his right to intervene through inaction. We find the trial court abused its discretion in declaring Father's motion untimely, and therefore, we vacate the order denying Father's motion to intervene, and we remand for further proceedings. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Edwards, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
Appellants, police officers with the Memphis Police Department, filed suit against the City and the Director of Police Services, claiming that the City violated Memphis City Charter Section 67 by failing to promote the officers to the rank of Captain after thirty years of service. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the City, and the officers appeal. Finding that the relevant case law clearly establishes: (1) that Appellants have no legal right to work as Captains, a rank that no longer exists; (2) that the City's decision to abolish this rank for operational purposes was not discriminatory; and (3) that Section 67 of the City Charter is a retirement tool and not a guarantee of employment, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Millen v. Shelby County Sheriff's Department
After unsuccessfully appealing his worker's compensation lawsuit, appellant was assessed appellate court costs. A Fieri Facias/Writ of Execution was executed, and appellant's car was attached and sold at a sheriff's sale. Appellant then filed a lawsuit against the sheriff's office claiming he had been carjacked. The trial court dismissed appellant's complaint and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anne S. Phillips vs. Anderson County, Tennessee
This appeal involves a retaliatory discharge claim. Employee claims that she was discharged after reporting her supervisor's unlawful activities. Employer denied that employee was discharged, claimed that she quit, and demonstrated that the State terminated the grant funding the program overseen by employee. A jury trial commenced, and at the close of all proof, employer moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion for directed verdict and found that employee failed to prove a causal link between her discharge and her decision to engage in a protected activity. Employee appeals. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Pauline M., Stephen M., and Rachael M.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated both parents' rights to the children on grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); and (2)persistence of conditions as set out at Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-1-113(g)(3). The trial court also terminated Father's parental rights on the additional ground of abandonment by failure to support pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-102(1)(A)(i), and Mother's parental rights on the additional ground of mental incompetence pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-1-113 (g)(8)(B). Finding clear and convincing evidence in the record to support each of these grounds, as well as clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights is in the best interests of the children, we affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Cydnie B. O'Rourke v. James P. O'Rourke
In the last proceeding in this protracted post-divorce litigation, the trial court transferred custody, or primary residential placement, of three children of a divorced couple from the mother to the father. In this consolidated appeal, the mother claims that the trial court erred in a number of ways. However, a number of her arguments relate to orders or actions that have been rendered moot by the final order, including her challenges to the use of a"parenting coordinator." As to the final order modifying residential placement, we hold that the trial court did not err in declining to use Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-6-406 to limit the father's visitation with the children and that the court acted within its discretion in limiting the testimony of Mother's expert witness as a discovery sanction. We also hold that the trial court's award of $330,000 in attorney fees to the father was not error. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
