APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court denied Appellant’s seventh and eighth motions to recuse. Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, the trial court denied Appellant’s multiple motions to recuse.  Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

More than thirty days after denying a motion to compel arbitration, the trial court granted an application for permission to appeal the denial under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Because an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, we conclude the appeal was untimely.

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

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant worked as a cashier for the Shelby County Trustee’s Office and was terminated after she experienced a cash shortage and attempted to force balance. The Civil Service Merit Board conducted a review hearing and upheld the termination. The appellant sought judicial review in the chancery court, which likewise upheld the termination. The appellant filed this appeal claiming that her procedural due process rights were violated, her termination was not in accordance with the policies and procedures of Shelby County, and that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellees filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and an injunction, pursuant to the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-14-101, et seq. (“the TVWA”), against a former employee, the appellant.  The appellees alleged, inter alia, that the appellant was committing unlawful violence at the workplace by stalking the corporation, the chief executive officer (“CEO”), and the employees.  The alleged stalking consisted mostly of public Facebook posts by the appellant.  The Chancery Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) granted the appellees a temporary restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction.  After the hearing, the Trial Court found that the appellant had committed unlawful violence at the workplace via stalking based upon the appellant’s persistent Facebook posts about the appellees and granted the appellees an injunction against the appellant.  The Trial Court also found the appellant in contempt for eleven violations of the temporary restraining order.  The Trial Court awarded the appellees their attorney’s fees. This appeal ensued.  Based upon our review, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her five children. The juvenile court found three grounds for termination and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests based on clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

A high school student suffered a serious injury when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye. The injured student sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable. The circuit court granted the School System’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the student’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm.

The trial court entered a final decree in a contentious divorce. Based on the proof at trial, the court classified, valued, and divided the marital estate. It also awarded the wife alimony in solido to equalize the division, alimony in futuro, and attorney’s fees. Both parties raise issues on appeal. Upon review, we conclude the court erred in omitting two marital assets from the division and in calculating a marital debt, which skewed the division in the husband’s favor. Because the court expressly intended to make an equal division, we modify the court’s equalization award. Otherwise, we affirm.

A mother appeals a juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to her child based on three statutory grounds. She also challenges the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This matter concerns criminal contempt and an order of protection. Jolene Renee (Scholl) Bauer (“Wife”) and Michael Ray Scholl (“Husband”) divorced in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). Husband was ordered not to go around Wife’s work or residence. Wife later filed a motion for criminal contempt against Husband alleging that he went around her residence, the parties’ former marital residence, in violation of the court’s order. She also sought an order of protection, citing Husband’s history of violence toward her. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Wife an order of protection. The Trial Court found Husband guilty on two counts of criminal contempt for texting Wife’s neighbor to ask what was happening with Wife and the house. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s granting Wife an order of protection. However, we find that Husband did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him and that the evidence is insufficient to support the criminal contempt findings by the Trial Court of Husband’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse the findings of criminal contempt against Husband. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of her motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm.

This appeal concerns a detainer action. Mekey Adem, Said Moammed, and Adem Homes, LLC (“Adem”) (“Landlords,” collectively) sought to evict Alexandria Hart (“Tenant”) for non-payment of rent. The General Sessions Court for Shelby County (“the General Sessions Court”) ruled against Tenant, who then appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”). Tenant attempted to post her birth certificate as the possessory bond to allow her to remain on the premises while her appeal was pending. The Circuit Court rejected this and granted Adem a writ of possession. Ultimately, Tenant was ordered to pay rent she owed plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Tenant appeals. We affirm. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Adem is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, the amount of which the Circuit Court is to determine on remand.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume custody of the children. Because the record shows that Father’s failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on the remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

In this divorce action, a husband challenges the trial court’s finding that the parties’ jointly owned real property transmuted into marital property during a nine-year marriage. The husband also asserts that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of the final decree before the decree became a final order. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court as to the finding that the parties’ home became marital property during the marriage. We reverse, however, the finding of contempt against the husband.

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his child, the Cannon County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determined that clear and convincing evidence supported termination as to five statutory grounds: substantial non-compliance with a permanency plan, persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal from the parents’ custody, severe child abuse, incarceration of a parent for more than ten years when the child is under eight years of age, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court further determined that termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The father has appealed. Upon review, we vacate the trial court’s determination concerning the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan. In all other respects, we affirm.

Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee/Father’s post-divorce petitions to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt. The trial court changed the children’s primary residential parent from Mother to Father. Although the trial court made a change in custody, it applied Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C), which addresses modification of a residential schedule. Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(B), which addresses modifications of custody, is the applicable statute. The trial court also charged Mother with one child’s tuition. In doing so, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the Child Support Guidelines. As such, we vacate the order: (1) modifying the permanent parenting plan; (2) modifying the Child Support Worksheet, and (3) charging Mother with the child’s private school tuition. The trial court also charged Mother with retroactive child support, found her guilty of three counts of civil contempt for alleged violations of the permanent parenting plan, and ordered her to pay Father’s attorney’s fees as punishment for the contempt. Because the record does not support the trial court’s findings of contempt, we reverse the contempt holdings and the award of attorney’s fees to Father. Because there is no basis for an award of retroactive child support, we also reverse that holding.

Appellants purchased a home without first personally viewing the property. Following the sale, Appellants discovered defects that they claim should have been disclosed to them prior to the sale. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the sellers of the house and the licensed home inspector. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court dismissed the appellant’s appeal from general sessions court on the basis that his notice of appeal was untimely. We affirm.

In this case involving the sale of a life insurance policy, the trial court conducted a hearing on the same day regarding the four defendants’ various motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.  The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Concerning three defendants, including the appellant, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability upon finding that those defendants had failed to respond to the summary judgment motion.  Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court found that the defendants had breached an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the life insurance policy directly to the plaintiffs, selling it to a separate trust instead, and that the defendants had done so through a “scheme to defraud” the plaintiffs.  Upon the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the trial court also found that the defendants had violated the Tennessee Viatical Settlement Act of 2009, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-50-101, et seq.  Finding the defendants to be jointly and severally liable, the trial court awarded to the plaintiffs a judgment in the amount of $418,450.87 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $252,867.19.  One of the defendants has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment with the correction of one mathematical error.  Pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement, we grant the plaintiffs’ request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.  We remand this case to the trial court for enforcement of the modified judgment and for a determination of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.  

Husband appeals the trial court’s judgment in his divorce action on the sole issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself because the judge’s comments and conduct at the trial establish that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Applying the objective standard, we find no basis for the trial judge’s recusal and affirm the decision of the trial court.

Following an incident in an operating room allegedly involving aggressive actions by a doctor toward a scrub tech, the scrub tech made oral and written statements about the incident to her employer, the police, and a state administrative body. In response, the doctor filed suit for defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship. The scrub tech filed a Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA) petition to dismiss, which the trial court granted after it found that the statements were within the ambit of the TPPA and that the doctor could not establish a prima facie case for all of the essential elements of his claims. The doctor appeals. We affirm.

In this automobile collision case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant challenges several rulings related to the admission and testimony of the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert. Because the defendant failed to file a motion for new trial raising these challenges, we conclude that they are waived, and so we affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

Father was held in criminal contempt for willful failure to provide Mother with the current address where he and their child resided. The court fined him $50 and sentenced him to serve 10 days incarcerated, though it suspended the incarceration upon good behavior and continued compliance with court orders. The trial court also granted Mother attorney’s fees related to the prosecution of that count of contempt. Father appeals. We affirm and remand for a determination of Mother’s attorney’s fees on appeal.