APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellants, home and community based service providers and their professional trade organization, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Tennessee Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. The case, which was filed as a declaratory judgment action, involves financial sanctions levied against Appellant providers by Appellee for billing for day services in excess of the 243-day limit imposed by a federal waiver. Appellants assert, inter alia, that the imposition of these fines exceeded Appellee’s statutory and/or contractual authority. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against Appellants on all counts of their petition.

A wife filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(3) to set aside a final decree of divorce granted on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The trial court denied the motion, finding that she failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment was void. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

This is an appeal from the entry of an order dismissing an order of protection, which had already expired by its own terms. Because the order of protection has expired, we affirm the decision of the trial court and dismiss the appeal as moot.

This is an unlawful detainer case. U.S. Bank initiated an action against Letitia and Roderick Robertson in the general sessions court seeking possession of a residential property it had purchased at a foreclosure sale after the Robertsons defaulted on their home loan. The general sessions court issued U.S. Bank a writ of possession, and the Robertsons appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment and writ of possession. The Robertsons appealed to this Court, arguing that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer claim. Because we have concluded that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, the Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of B.B. (mother) and J.T. (father) with respect to J.T., Jr. and H.T. (the children). The trial court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported two grounds for termination: (1) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (2) persistence of conditions. By the same quantum of proof, the court determined that termination is in the best interest of the children. We vacate the trial court’s judgment with respect to the ground of persistence of conditions. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating the parental rights of the parents because termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan and is in the best interest of the children. 

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and persistence of conditions. Upon our review, we conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which led to the children’s removal from Mother’s home persisted and that termination of her rights is in the children’s best interest; however, the evidence of abandonment by failure to support is not clear and convincing. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part and affirm the termination of her rights.  

This is a divorce case in which the trial court designated the mother as the primary residential parent, awarded her child support and a portion of her attorney’s fees as alimony, and awarded her retroactive child support. The father appealed, arguing the trial court erred in numerous ways. We decline to address the father’s arguments, however, and affirm the trial court’s judgment because the father’s brief does not comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a) or Court of Appeals Rule 6. We grant the mother’s request for frivolous appeal damages pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122.  

A plaintiff filed a health care liability complaint in 2015 against several physicians and entities that he later non-suited in order to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a). The plaintiff then filed a second complaint against the same defendants, relying on the saving statutes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1- 105 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c) to extend his statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s wife joined him as a plaintiff in the second complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, alleging non-compliance with the pre-suit notice requirements and the statute of limitations. The trial court granted all of the defendants’ motions and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint against the physicians. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint against all three of the physicians on statute of limitations grounds. We also affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the wife’s claims against all of the defendants.

This is a legal malpractice case. Appellant filed suit against Appellee, who had previously served as Appellant’s attorney in a divorce matter. Appellant alleged that she suffered monetary damages and was convicted of criminal contempt as a result of the negligent legal representation she received from Appellee in her divorce case. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Appellant’s claims were, among other things, barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel as a result of the sworn statements Appellant made in conjunction with her divorce settlement. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. We affirm.      

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (2) persistence of conditions; (3) substantial noncompliance with permanency plans; and (4) failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody of the child. We reverse the trial court’s ruling with regard to substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, but affirm the remaining grounds, as well as the trial court’s determination that termination is in the child’s best interest. The termination of Mother’s parental rights is therefore affirmed.

The issue on appeal is whether the commencement of a dependency and neglect action in the juvenile court deprived the chancery court of subject matter jurisdiction to rule on a pending motion to modify a parenting plan. Shortly after Father filed his petition to modify the parenting plan in the chancery court, the Department of Children’s Services filed a dependency and neglect petition in the juvenile court. After the juvenile court held a preliminary hearing on the dependency and neglect petition and assumed jurisdiction, the chancery court modified the parents’ child support obligations and awarded the father the federal income tax exemption for the child. Months later, the mother filed a motion to vacate the chancery court’s judgment on the basis it was void ab initio for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The chancery court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-103 vests juvenile courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over dependency and neglect proceedings and, once a juvenile court has exercised jurisdiction in a dependency and neglect proceeding, its exclusive jurisdiction continues until the case has been dismissed, the custody determination is transferred to another court exercising domestic relations jurisdiction, or a petition for adoption is filed. Because none of the jurisdiction exceptions had occurred prior to the chancery court modifying the parenting plan, the chancery court’s order was void ab initio for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the chancery court’s order modifying the parenting plan is hereby vacated.

This appeal follows prior appeals in this litigation that has spanned a decade. In this latest appeal, the trial court determined that the motions filed by the administrator ad litem for the estate of the third-party plaintiff should be denied. We affirm.

In this negligence action that arose from a tractor-trailer accident, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims following the court’s determination that a critical piece of evidence had been destroyed by the plaintiffs, resulting in severe prejudice to the defendant. The court further determined that dismissal was the only equitable remedy for the plaintiffs’ spoliation of evidence. The plaintiffs timely appealed the dismissal of their claims. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A husband and wife were divorced in 2016, and the divorce decree permitted the husband to purchase the parties’ real property, which was in the wife’s name. The parenting plan provided the parties the opportunity to travel domestically or abroad with their minor son. The husband filed a contempt petition against the wife based on her refusal (1) to provide information to his lender that was necessary for him to close on the purchase of the property and (2) to cooperate with him to renew their child’s passport when the husband wanted to travel with the child to Europe. The trial court found the wife in contempt on both grounds and awarded the husband damages. The wife appealed, arguing that she was not willful in refusing to cooperate with the husband’s lender. The evidence showed that the wife believed the husband was trying to refinance her loan and add his name to her deed rather than purchase the property outright. We hold that the trial court erred in finding the wife willfully disobeyed the court’s order that she cooperate with the husband’s lender. We affirm the trial court’s order holding the wife in contempt for failing to cooperate with the husband in renewing the child’s passport.

This appeal concerns the termination of two parents’ parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Stewart County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Joshua H. (“Father”) and Amie H. (“Mother”) to their minor children Justice and Alijah (“the Children,” collectively). After a trial, the Juvenile Court found the ground of severe abuse with respect to both parents. The Juvenile Court also found that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Mother and Father appeal to this Court. Neither parent contests grounds for termination, but both parents challenge the Juvenile Court’s finding that termination of their parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We find by clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court.

The trial court ordered the Appellant to pay its employee for the full twelve hours of a work shift excused due to the employee’s jury service. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and order that the case be dismissed.

This case involves an order of protection sought by the petitioner against the respondent, who is the petitioner’s husband, on behalf of the petitioner and her three minor children. The trial court initially granted an ex parte order of protection and scheduled the matter for hearing. Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court extended the ex parte order of protection for a period of one year, but it made no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the allegations in the petition or whether the petitioner had met her burden of proof. The petitioner timely appealed. Because the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, we hereby vacate the trial court’s order and remand for entry of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether the ex parte order of protection should be dissolved or an order of protection, not to exceed one year, be entered pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-605 (2017).

This is a slip-and-fall case. An employee of a catering company fell, injuring herself when leaving a private residence after dark as she attempted to traverse an outside staircase. The employee brought suit against the homeowners, and the homeowners filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the homeowners’ motion, concluding that the homeowners did not owe the employee a duty of care. Our review of the record has revealed that material, disputed facts remain which render this case inappropriate for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. 

This action involves a claim filed against the State of Tennessee with the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commissioner ultimately dismissed the claim with prejudice for failure to advance the case to disposition. The claimant filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The claimant then filed a notice of appeal before the Commissioner ruled upon the motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves a breach of contract action in which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and later dismissed a motion to alter or amend its judgment. The plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to alter or amend the judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A mother’s parental rights were terminated on the ground of abandonment by willfully failing to visit her daughter. Mother appeals, arguing that the petition initiating the proceeding did not include the notice required by Rule 9A of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; that the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that she abandoned her child; and that termination was not in the child’s best interest. Upon our review, we conclude that the proof does not clearly and convincingly establish the ground of abandonment by failure to visit. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the petition.

This appeal concerns the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act. After a citizen was disruptive at several city council meetings, the city filed a petition under the Act, seeking to enjoin the citizen from attending city council meetings and from contacting city officials. The trial court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order and, following an evidentiary hearing, granted an injunction for three years. On its own motion, the court also issued a three-year injunction “separate and apart” from the Act. Because the city failed to meet its burden of proof under the Act and there was no other basis on which to grant injunctive relief, we reverse. 

This case stems from an employee benefit board’s decision to change a former employee’s disability pension from “in-line-of-duty” to “medical.” The former employee appealed the board’s decision to the trial court. The trial court reversed the board’s determination on the ground that the board had misapplied the applicable legal standard. Determining that the board relied on the appropriate legal standard and based its decision on substantial and material medical evidence, we reverse the trial court’s decision

This is a personal injury action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages incurred in an automobile accident. Although several issues are raised, the principal issues on appeal are whether the trial court erred by ordering the plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination, and whether the court erred by sanctioning the plaintiff for refusing to submit to the examination by prohibiting her from offering any evidence at trial regarding medical bills or medical records related to future pain and suffering, future loss of enjoyment of life, and/or permanent impairment. The case was tried before a jury with the sanctions in place, and the plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $500.00 for her past pain and suffering. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. Father also appeals the termination of his rights on the ground of failure to provide prenatal support, and Mother also appeals the termination of her rights to her daughter on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. Upon a thorough review of the record, we reverse the termination of both parents’ rights on the ground of persistence of conditions, and the Father’s rights on the ground of failure to provide prenatal support; we affirm the trial court in all other respects.