Nucsafe, Inc. Et Al. v. Stephen Farber Et Al.
E2023-01809-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James W. Brooks, Jr.

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment wherein the trial court found that the plaintiff corporations were barred, based on a prior lawsuit between the same parties, from litigating their claim that a promissory note had been procured by fraudulent inducement. The defendants in the instant case, who were the plaintiffs in the prior action, had successfully moved for summary judgment in that prior action concerning the enforcement of a promissory note against the corporations, which were the defendants in the prior action. In that action, the trial court found that the corporations had waived their fraud defense b cause they had neither pled fraud as an affirmative defense in their answer nor requested permission to amend their answer. The trial court ultimately held that the promissory note was enforceable and entered judgment against the corporations. On appeal in the prior action, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, including its ruling that the defense of fraud had been waived. In the present action, the corporations—now plaintiffs—sought to repudiate the same promissory note, alleging that it was induced by fraud. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as well as expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff corporations have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Anderson Court of Appeals

Samuel Shawn Harvey v. Amy Elizabeth Harvey
M2023-01269-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Spitzer

This case involves a post-divorce petition for criminal contempt filed by the husband against the wife for alleged violations of the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The trial court determined that the husband had not met his burden of proof to establish criminal contempt. The husband timely appealed to this Court. Because the husband’s appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

Lewis Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Eric Lamar Caffey
M2023-01306-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Goodman, III

The Defendant, Eric Lamar Caffey, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of second degree murder. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether his due process rights to a fair trial were violated by the State’s failure to correct false testimony given by a material witness; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Montgomery Court of Criminal Appeals

John Doe v. Jane Roe
M2023-00045-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

This appeal arises out of the partial denial of a Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”) petition filed by the Appellant/Defendant, Jane Roe (“Roe”). This case was previously before this Court after Roe appealed the trial court’s determination that the TPPA was not applicable to the claims of Appellee/Plaintiff, John Doe (“Doe”). In the first appeal, this Court found that Roe’s filing of a Title IX complaint fell within the scope of the TPPA and remanded the case back to the trial court. On remand, the trial court granted in part and denied in part Roe’s TPPA petition. Roe now appeals the trial court’s partial denial on remand. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Davidson Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Vikash Patel
E2023-00953-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge Alex E. Pearson

A Greene County jury found the Defendant, Mr. Vikash Patel, guilty of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was suspended after service of ten days in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his conviction. He also asserts that the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for his blood sample and that, as such, the analysis of this sample should not have been admitted. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Greene Court of Criminal Appeals

Jeremy N. Miller v. Casi A. Miller
M2022-00759-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ted A. Crozier

A divorced father retired from the military.  Afterward, he received only disability pay due to service-related injuries.  The mother sought to hA divorced father retired from the military.  Afterward, he received only disability pay due to service-related injuries.  The mother sought to hold him in contempt, claiming she was denied a percentage of his military retirement benefits.  The father denied her allegations and petitioned to modify child support.  He argued that his disability pay could not be counted as income for child support purposes because federal law preempted the provision of the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines governing military disability benefits.  The trial court concluded that the father’s disability pay counted as income for child support.  On appeal, the father reiterates his preemption argument.  Because he failed to provide timely notice of his constitutional challenge to the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter, we consider the preemption issue waived.   old him in contempt, claiming she was denied a percentage of his military retirement benefits.  The father denied her allegations and petitioned to modify child support.  He argued that his disability pay could not be counted as income for child support purposes because federal law preempted the provision of the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines governing military disability benefits.  The trial court concluded that the father’s disability pay counted as income for child support.  On appeal, the father reiterates his preemption argument.  Because he failed to provide timely notice of his constitutional challenge to the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter, we consider the preemption issue waived.   

Montgomery Court of Appeals

Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. Nancy Strong et al.
M2024-01141-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J.B. Cox

The Petitioner sought recusal of the trial court judge. The trial court denied the motion. The Petitioner appeals to this court. Because the petition on appeal was not filed within twenty-one days of the entry of the order, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Lincoln Court of Appeals

Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. Nancy Strong et al.
M2024-01140-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. B. Cox

The Petitioner sought recusal of the trial court judge. The trial court denied the motion. The Petitioner appeals to this court. Because the petition on appeal was not filed within twenty-one days of the entry of the order, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Lincoln Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. William Roger Campbell
M2023-00779-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Ross Dyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Bateman

The defendant, William Roger Campbell, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder, and the trial court imposed consecutive life sentences. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting one of the victim’s cellphone records into evidence; the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and the trial court erred in ordering his life sentences be served consecutively. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we reverse the imposition of consecutive sentences and remand to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for consideration of the consecutive sentencing factors outlined in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995).

Montgomery Court of Criminal Appeals

Ronnie Bennett v. Tennessee Department of Human Services
W2023-01200-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge JoeDae L. Jenkins

This appeal arises from a decision by the Tennessee Department of Human Services denying a recertification application for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to a one-person household based upon the determination that the household’s income exceeded the eligibility requirements. After the petitioner questioned the finding, the trial court affirmed the decision of the agency and dismissed the petition for judicial review. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.

Shelby Court of Appeals

In Re Conservatorship of Susan Davis Malone
W2024-00134-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe Townsend

This second recusal appeal in the underlying conservatorship case is currently before this Court on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court. This Court had issued an opinion vacating, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, three orders entered by the trial court, including the trial court’s order denying the second motion to recuse that is the subject of this appeal. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that (1) the stay imposed by this Court during pendency of the first recusal appeal did not divest the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the case and (2) the proponents of the stay had waived any argument that orders entered by the trial court should be vacated because they were entered prior to issuance of the mandate. Accordingly, the second recusal motion is again before this Court. Upon thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the second motion to recuse.

Shelby Court of Appeals

SH Nashville, LLC Et Al. v. FWREF Nashville Airport, LLC
M2023-01147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Anne C. Martin

This appeal arises out of a contract for the sale of a hotel property near the Nashville airport.
After numerous amendments to the purchase and sale agreement, the seller declared the
prospective buyer to be in default, sold the property to a different buyer, and retained over
18 million dollars in earnest money. The prospective buyer filed suit against the seller for
a declaratory judgment that the liquidated damages provision in the contract was
unenforceable and for conversion. The trial court dismissed the conversion claim and ruled
in favor of the seller on summary judgment. We have concluded that the trial court erred
in its disposition of both causes of action.

Davidson Court of Appeals

In Re Conservatorship of Susan Davis Malone - Dissent
W2024-00134-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe Townsend

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding that recusal is not justified in this case. Like Judge Armstrong, I believe that the majority “fails to consider the cumulative effects of the trial court’s actions, and wholly fails to consider the fact that the ultimate result of these actions is usurpation of the autonomous decisions Ms. Malone made for her own care when she was competent to do so.” Malone v. Malone, No. W2023- 00843-COA-T10B-CV, 2023 WL 8457951, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023) (Armstrong, J., dissenting).

Shelby Court of Appeals

Ron Jobe Et Al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange
E2023-01157-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Katherine Leigh Priester

This is a dispute over homeowner’s insurance coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insuror, finding that the insureds made a misrepresentation on their application for insurance which voided the policy pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-103. Because whether the insureds made a misrepresentation is a question of fact for the jury in this case, we reverse.

Sullivan Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Cedric Anton Taylor
M2024-00192-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

Defendant, Cedric Taylor, was indicted for possession with intent to deliver 26 grams or more of cocaine (count one), possession with intent to deliver between one half ounce and ten pounds of marijuana (count two), and resisting arrest (count three). He entered an open guilty plea as charged in counts one and three, and the State agreed to nolle prosequi count two. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of fourteen years for count one and six months for count two to be served in confinement as a Range II multiple offender. 1 On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion denying his request for community corrections. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Kathy Garbus v. Lazaro Ramos
W2022-00334-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge William A. Peeler

This appeal arises from an order establishing the amount of retroactive child support owed by the father for the care of two of his children. The father challenges the trial court’s decision to impute income to him for the purposes of instituting that order. Finding no error, we affirm.

Tipton Court of Appeals

Emily Gordon Fox v. Robert Gordon
M2024-01083-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stanley A. Kweller

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B section 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal.

Davidson Court of Appeals

In Re Lynell S.
E2024-00243-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy E. Irwin

This appeal concerns the termination of a father’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Charles S.(“Father”) to his minor son, Lynell S. (“the Child”). Father pled guilty to aggravated assault on the Child’s mother. After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child on grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. Father appeals, arguing among other things that he addressed his domestic violence issues by taking certain classes, even though he assaulted Mother after having taken these classes. We find that all three grounds found for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence. We find further by clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm.

Knox Court of Appeals

Angelia Juanita Carter (Stroud) v. Troy Stroud
E2023-01699-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Marie Williams

Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Jimmy Moats v. State of Tennessee
M2023-01296-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William A. Lockhart

The Petitioner, Jimmy Moats, appeals from the Coffee County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions to kidnapping and evading arrest. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, which he asserts resulted in unknowing and involuntary guilty pleas. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Coffee Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Francisco Oliva
W2023-01572-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Francisco Oliva, of second degree murder, and the trial court ordered him to serve a twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Jackie Lee Kirby
E2023-00545-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andrew M. Freiberg

Defendant, Jackie Lee Kirby, was convicted after a bench trial of attempted aggravated kidnapping. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that structural constitutional error occurred when the trial court left the bench three times while defense counsel refreshed the victim’s recollection using audio recordings. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

McMinn Court of Criminal Appeals

In Re Lilah G.
E2023-01425-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri Bryant

In this termination of parental rights case, the trial court determined that (1) the father had abandoned his child by willfully failing to pay child support and (2) termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The father has appealed, contending that his failure to pay child support was not willful because the mother intentionally blocked his access to the child and because he was actively seeking visitation rights with the child in two separate juvenile court actions when the petition for termination was filed. The father also argues that the trial court did not properly evaluate and weigh the evidence in its analysis of the best interest factors.
Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Bradley Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Kavaris Javon Booker and Clifton Donnell Craig
M2022-01329-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

Defendant Kavaris Javon Booker and Defendant Clifton Donnell Craig were each charged in separate indictments of first degree premeditated murder (count one), felon in possession of a firearm (count two), and aggravated assault resulting in death (count three). The trial court granted the State’s motion to join the two cases and in a joint trial, a jury convicted Defendant Booker as indicted in count two but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of first degree murder in count one and facilitation of aggravated assault in count three. The jury convicted Defendant Craig of all the indicted charges. Defendant Booker received an effective seventeen-year sentence; Defendant Craig received a sentence of life imprisonment. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant Booker claims that the trial court denied him a speedy trial, the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his case from Defendant Craig, and that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for facilitation of first degree murder. Defendant Craig likewise claims the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the weight afforded to circumstantial evidence. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable authority, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Maury Court of Criminal Appeals

In Re Derek S. ET AL.
W2023-01001-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Steven W. Maroney

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights with respect to her two children. The trial court concluded that three grounds for termination were established, and thereafter, it determined that it was in the best interests of the children for the mother’s rights to be terminated. Because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the establishment of three grounds for termination as well as the finding that termination was in the best interests of both children, we affirm.

Madison Court of Appeals