James Todd Harris v. Amy Price Harris
This appeal arises from a dispute over the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a magistrate’s order on child support. Amy Price Harris (“Mother”) filed a petition to increase child support from her former husband, James Todd Harris (“Father”), for their minor child. Two hearings were held before a magistrate, resulting in, among other things, an increase of child support. The trial judge did not confirm the magistrate’s order. This case later was transferred from the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County to the Circuit Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”). Several months later, Father filed a motion to correct the magistrate’s order concerning child support. The Trial Court held that it lacked jurisdiction at that point to change the prior child support arrearage judgment or hold a rehearing on that issue. Father appeals. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph J. Levitt, Jr. v. City of Oak Ridge, et al.
This appeal involves the efforts of Oak Ridge’s Board of Building and Housing Code Appeals to demolish buildings in Applewood Apartment Complex pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-21-101, Tennessee’s Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Statute. Owner filed a petition for writ of certiorari when the Board voted to demolish the buildings. The trial court granted the petition but granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment. Owner appeals. We reverse the grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether the Board acted without material evidence but affirm the grant of summary judgment on all other issues. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis R. Massengale et al. v. City of East Ridge
The plaintiffs in this case allege that they are adversely affected by a statute that legalizes the sale of fireworks inside the city limits of East Ridge, despite a general ban on the sale of fireworks in any county with a population of greater than 200,000, e.g., Hamilton County. They allege that the statute is unconstitutional. There are two distinct groups of plaintiffs (both groups being collectively referred to as “the Plaintiffs”). One group alleges that they are residents of the city and own property or businesses in the city (“the Citizens” or “the Citizen Plaintiffs”). The Citizen Plaintiffs allege that the sale of fireworks will result in diminished property values and an increased risk of fire or explosion with attendant increases in fire insurance premiums. The second group alleges that they are either in the business of selling fireworks, or are members of a purported “association” of persons or entities in the business of selling fireworks (“the Sellers”). They allege that they have put forth much effort and expense to establish businesses outside East Ridge, where fireworks sales are legal, only to see their efforts thwarted by the enactment of an unconstitutional statute permitting illegal competition. The Plaintiffs moved the trial court to enter judgment on the pleadings by decreeing the statute to be unconstitutional on its face. Instead, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, but did so without prejudice. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Bradley County, Tennessee v. The City of Cleveland, Tennessee
The plaintiff in this action is Bradley County (“the County”). The sole defendant is the City of Cleveland (“the City”). The County’s complaint seeks a determination that the proceeds of a 2009 local option county sales tax increase, enacted shortly after an identical increase by the City, is to be distributed between the parties according to a contract (“the Contract”) the parties signed in 1967 as opposed to a statutory provision for distribution based on the site of collection of the tax. The City filed a counterclaim which, as amended, seeks a determination that the Contract is void; that the Contract does not control distribution of the proceeds of a 1982 tax increase; that the Contract does not control distribution of the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase; and that, by statute, the City is entitled to all of the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase on sales made inside the city limits through the City’s 2010 fiscal year. The trial court upheld the validity of the Contract and further held that the Contract, as amended twice, i.e., in 1972 and in 1980, controls distribution between the parties of the proceeds of the County’s 1982 tax increase. The court held that the applicable statute, rather than the Contract, controls distribution of the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase; this latter holding is not at issue in this appeal. The court further held that the City’s statutory right to the proceeds of the 2009 tax increase on sales in the City ended June 30, 2009, which equates with the City’s 2009 fiscal year. The City appeals. We affirm that part of the judgment upholding the validity of the Contract and that part applying the Contract to the distribution of the 1982 tax increase. We reverse that part of the judgment that held the City’s statutory right to proceeds from the 2009 tax increase ended June 30, 2009. We hold that the City is entitled to the 2009 tax increase on sales in the city through the City’s 2010 fiscal year. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Candace Young v. Washington County, Tennessee
The plaintiff, a probationer, charged Washington County with negligent oversight and supervision, after she was sexually assaulted and raped by a private entity’s probation officer. The trial court ruled in favor of the county, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Pediatrix Medical Group of Tennessee, P.C., v. Victor J. Thomas, M.D., et al
This action arises out of a dispute between the parties on issues arising out of an employment contract. The parties have been before this Court previously on this contract, and we ruled that they were required to arbitrate the issues, and remanded the case. Plaintiff employer filed a declaratory judgment action as a dispute arose over the selection of arbitrators. The employer had selected its arbitrator, and the Trial Judge ruled that its selection was appropriate and that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the selected arbitrator was proper under the American Health Lawyers Association rules of procedure for arbitration. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Mulugeta Abebe, et al. v. Solomon Haile Birhane, et al.
Mulugeta Abebe , Eshetu Yalemwossen, and Girma Ejegu (“Plaintiffs”) sued Solomon Haile Birhane and Frehiwot Tesfagzi (“Defendants”) seeking, in part, a declaration of the parties’ rights with regard to a Raceway Service Station (“the Raceway Store”) located in Hermitage, Tennessee. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Order on October 18, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiffs and Defendants are partners in the Raceway Store with each one of the five partners holding a 20% interest in the partnership, and that the parties had an agreement that once overhead was met the Raceway Store would repay Plaintiffs their capital contribution. Defendants appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Harold Tolley v. Attorney General of Tennessee, et al.
Appellant inmate filed a petition for Declaratory Judgment in the Davidson County |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Philip Wayne Hamby v. Myra Renee Wheeler
This appeal arises from a petition for contempt related to an underlying divorce judgment. Philip Wayne Hamby (“Hamby”) and Myra Renee Wheeler (“Wheeler”) were divorced by decree of the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”). As part of the terms of the divorce, Hamby was required to turn over to Wheeler a publishing company (“the Business”) the two then owned. Wheeler later filed a motion for contempt alleging that Hamby had failed to pay certain necessary taxes on the Business and should be responsible for that tax debt. Wheeler also alleged that, because of the resulting tax lien, the Business was encumbered and Hamby, therefore, owed alimony arrears pursuant to the Trial Court’s divorce judgment. The Trial Court held Hamby responsible for the IRS tax debt, and also ordered him to pay back alimony. Hamby appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Lori Gregory, in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of James ballentine v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This is a negligence claim under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act. The decedent was involved in a serious vehicular accident. A witness called the defendant municipality’s 911 emergency communications center for help. The 911 responders went to the accident scene and transported the decedent to a local hospital, where he died. The decedent’s mother filed this lawsuit against the municipality, alleging that the 911 operator was negligent in failing to summon emergency personnel from a neighboring county, because those responders were closer to the scene of the accident and could have provided aid to the decedent sooner. The municipality filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing inter alia that it owed no duty to summon aid outside of its jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D.
This post-divorce proceeding involves modification of the primary residential parent designation and contempt. The final decree of divorce designated the mother as the child’s primary residential parent. Subsequently, the mother was found in criminal contempt for failure to adhere to the parenting plan; her sentence was suspended provided there were no violations of the trial court’s orders. A few months later, the mother was found to have further violated the trial court’s orders. Consequently, the trial court ordered the mother to serve a portion of the suspended jail sentence imposed in the prior contempt order. In addition, the trial court held that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred, and it modified the parties’ parenting plan to designate the father as the primary residential parent. The mother now appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
City of Memphis, Tennessee et al. v. Tre Hargett, Secretary of State et al.
The City of Memphis and two persons who had to cast provisional ballots in the August 2012 election because they lacked sufficient photographic identification filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to have the photographic identification requirement for voting declared unconstitutional, or to have the Memphis library photographic identification card declared sufficient identification for purposes of the voting law. The trial court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing, that the photographic identification requirement was constitutional and that the Memphis library photographic identification card was not acceptable under the law as sufficient identification for voting. The plaintiffs appealed. We find that the plaintiffs have standing, that the law is constitutional and that the Memphis library photographic identification card is acceptable under the law as sufficient proof of identification for voting. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Courtney Anne Thompson v. Robert Harrison Thompson, III
The trial court declared the parties divorced, reserving the designation of primary residential parent for their nine month-old daughter. After a hearing the court adopted a parenting plan that designated the father as the child’s primary residential parent. The mother argues on appeal that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and made a decision contrary to logic and reasoning. We disagree and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, and that the court did not err in its application of the facts to the relevant legal principles. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Jessica Abeyta v. HCA Health Services of TN, Inc. d/b/a Parthenon Pavillion
This is an involuntary commitment case, in which we are asked to review the trial court’s grant of Appellee/Hospital’s motion to dismiss. The trial court found that all of the claims asserted in Appellant/Patient’s complaint sounded in medical malpractice. Because Appellant failed to provide a certificate of good faith as required under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-115, et seq. (“TMMA”), the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellant argues that not all of her stated claims sound in medical malpractice. We affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s claim asserting a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, we conclude that Appellant has stated a claim for medical battery, as well as a claim for negligence per se arising from alleged violations of the involuntary commitment statutes. Moreover, because Appellant’s negligence per se claims survive the motion to dismiss, she may also maintain the false imprisonment and invasion of privacy claims. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Chelsea Samantha Barnes v. Daniel Adam Barnes
This is a divorce appeal. The parties were married for two years and had one minor child. At the time of the divorce trial, both parties were unemployed. The trial court adopted the mother’s proposed parenting plan in its entirety, based on its review of the child support history. It awarded minimal alimony and calculated child support by imputing income to the father but not to the mother. The father appeals. We affirm the award of alimony, vacate the parenting plan and the award of child support, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Adryan L. B. and Brenden A. B.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. Mother’s rights were terminated on grounds of abandonment by failure to support the children within four months prior to her incarceration and wanton disregard for the children’s welfare, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Algernon Guthrie v. Karan Tracy Guthrie
This case involves the modification of child support. On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that Father was voluntarily underemployed, and erred in calculating Father’s child support obligation. Mother and Father argue that the trial court erred in denying their requests for an award of attorney’s fees and costs at trial. Additionally, Mother and Father request an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Anthony J. H.
This case involves a petition filed in the Davidson County Juvenile Court to change custody of a minor child from his father to his mother. The Juvenile Court Magistrate conducted an extensive hearing, and ruled at the conclusion of the proof that there had been a material change of circumstances, but that it was in the child’s best interest that the father remain the child’s primary residential parent. The mother filed a timely request for a re-hearing before the Juvenile Court Judge. She appeared pro se at the de novo hearing, and did not present any witnesses or any proof. The Juvenile Court Judge declared that no material change of circumstances had been proved, but that the magistrate’s order should be affirmed. Because we cannot reconcile the internal inconsistencies in the Juvenile Court’s order, we vacate that order. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. v. Southern Trust Insurance Company
This is a dispute between insurance companies over coverage related to a car accident. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the driver’s auto policy covered damages resulting from the independent acts of negligence of the car owner. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Shawn M. Wylie, et al. v. Adam F. Driscoll
A mother and her husband filed a petition to enroll a foreign judgment regarding her former husband’s visitation rights with her child for the purpose of extinguishing her former husband’s rights to see the child. The former husband resides in Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin court declined to relinquish jurisdiction over the case. The trial court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Joan T. Williams et al. v. Bank of America et al.
Debtors on a promissory note and deed of trust who have not made a mortgage payment since October 2008 filed this action in October 2009 in an attempt to stay foreclosure proceedings and alternatively for damages based on unjust enrichment. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims and the plaintiffs did not appeal that order. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary dismissal and for stay of foreclosure pending the outcome of the motion for reconsideration; the motion was denied. The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from the order denying the motion for reconsideration and stay. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel A. Riley, C.N.A. v. John Dreyzehner, M.D., M.P.H., in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Health
Appellant nurse assistant’s name was placed on the Abuse Registry after the Appellee Tennessee Department of Health concluded that he had committed an act of abuse on an elderly person in his care at a nursing home. Appellant appeals, arguing that substantial and material evidence does not exist to show that he committed an act of abuse on the nursing home resident. Having determined that substantial and material evidence in the record supports the decision of the Tennessee Department of Health, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jane Field v. The Ladies' Hermitage Association
This is the second round in a long-running dispute over the provisions in a warranty deed conveying historic Tulip Grove to the Ladies Hermitage Association (LHA). In the deed LHA agreed to make certain payments to the grantor and her heirs. In a prior appeal this Court affirmed the chancellor’s ruling that the property did not revert to the heirs so long as LHA paid the heirs at least $600 every six months. On remand the chancellor held that LHA did not have an implied obligation to keep the property open for paid tours and that LHA did not have to share with the heirs the income derived from renting the property for special events. We affirm the chancellor on the implied obligation and reverse the holding on the heirs’ right to a portion of the special event income. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffery Charles Hayes v. Melissa Marie Hayes
This is a divorce appeal, primarily over property issues. The parties were married for approximately six years, with no children born of the marriage. During the marriage, they owned several homes, including the home in which they lived, but some went into foreclosure. Given the complicated state of the parties’ finances, the trial was lengthy. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court entered an order holding that the home in which the couple lived was the wife’s separate property and dividing the remainder of the parties’ assets and debts. The husband now appeals, raising numerous issues. We affirm in part, and reverse the finding that the home in which the parties resided was the wife’s separate property. In light of our holding that the home in which the parties lived was marital property, we remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of its division of the marital estate. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Susan Elaine Dunlap, Lady Bug Corporation, Trustee for BLF Land Trust, and BLF Land Trust
A judgment creditor sued the owners of two parcels of real property, who received the |
Warren | Court of Appeals |
