APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a termination of employment case. Appellant Shelby County Board of Education appeals the trial court’s decision to reinstate a tenured teacher whose employment was terminated for inefficiency. The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of inefficiency. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s determination that Appellee, who was born in 1992, is an heir-at-law of the Decedent, who died intestate. Appellant argues that the Appellee, as a child born out of wedlock, was required to file a claim against decedent’s estate within the statutory period in order to inherit. However, the Decedent is listed on Appellee’s birth certificate. Under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 68-3-305(b) (1992), in order for his name to be listed on Appellee’s birth certificate, the decedent would have signed an “affidavit . . . acknowledging paternity.” With the enactment, in 1994, of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 27-7-113, such “affidavits” were deemed “voluntary acknowledgment[s] of paternity,” which constitute a “legal finding of paternity.” It is undisputed that the decedent’s estate consists only of real property. Because the inclusion of decedent’s name on Appellee’s birth certificate evinces the execution of a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity that constitutes a legal finding of paternity, Appellee’s portion of the estate vested, upon decedent’s death, in Appellee pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 31-2-103 and the laws of intestate succession, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 31-2-104. Affirmed and remanded. 

This is a divorce case. Wife appeals the trial court’s order concerning the division of property and award of various fees and expenses. Because the trial court did not enter an order on Wife’s motion for reimbursement of certain fees and expenses, the judgment of the trial court is not final and appealable as of right. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  

An “affidavit of complaint” was issued against Lisa Odom for custodial interference. Deputies from the Claiborne County Sheriff's Office visited Ms. Odom for the purpose of taking custody of her child and returning her to Ms. Odom's ex-husband, Scott Odom. Ms. Odom objected to the removal of her child, and William Phipps, Ms. Odom's father, asked to see a warrant prior to the removal of the child. After a prolonged standoff, the deputies called Assistant District Attorney General Amanda Sammons, who explained over a speakerphone that a warrant was not necessary because there was a court order for Ms. Odom to return the child to Mr. Odom. During the course of the phone call, Ms. Odom overheard General Sammons use derogatory language when referring to her. Ms. Odom was ultimately arrested for custodial interference. Nearly a year later, Ms. Odom and Mr. Phipps (collectively the plaintiffs) filed a complaint against General Sammons alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. General Sammons filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The petitioner is seeking to recover a motor vehicle he claims to own that was seized due to “illegal alterations to the vehicle’s identification numbers.” It is undisputed that the petitioner was never the registered owner of the vehicle, that he was not in possession of the vehicle when it was seized, and that he did not receive notice of the seizure of the vehicle or the issuance of the notice of forfeiture. More than 60 days after the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security issued the Order of Forfeiture, which constitutes the Department’s final order, the petitioner filed his petition for judicial review. His primary contention was that the Department of Safety failed to provide him with proper notice of the issuance of forfeiture warrant. The chancery court rejected this contention, concluding that he was not entitled to notice because he was never the registered owner. The court also found the petition for judicial review was untimely filed because administrative orders become final pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(b)(1)(A) if a petition for judicial review is not filed within 60 days from the entry of the order. Concluding that the 60-day limitation period is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute arising from the plaintiff’s attempted exercise of an option to purchase a tract of land. In part, the contract provided that “a fair and equitable price for said property will be established at a later date.” The trial court held that the option was not enforceable because it was too vague with respect to price. The plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. 

This lawsuit centers on allegations that the Plaintiff received improper medical care at the hands of several Defendants. However, the present appeal concerns only the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against a single Defendant, Dr. Jeffrey Kutsikovich (“Dr. Kutsikovich”), a resident physician employed by the University of Tennessee. The trial court was of the opinion that the Plaintiff's amended complaint stated only “tort medical battery claims” against Dr. Kutsikovich and that these claims were barred by the applicable one-year limitation period. On appeal, the Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in classifying his claims and in determining that they were barred by the statute of limitations. Dr. Kutsikovich contends that the trial court's dismissal was proper, not only for the stated grounds, but also due to waiver under Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b) and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us, we conclude that the Plaintiff waived his claims against Dr. Kutsikovich in this case by asserting a claim against the State under the Tennessee Claims Commission Act. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of Dr. Kutsikovich from this case, albeit for a different reason than held by the trial court.

In this post-divorce matter, numerous issues arose after the former wife, the primary residential parent, sought to relocate with the minor child. The trial court allowed the wife to relocate with the child to Pennsylvania and adopted her proposed parenting plan with certain modifications. On the issues raised in this appeal, the trial court ruled in the husband's favor. The wife appeals. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds for terminating the parental rights of R.P.G. II, (father) to K.J.G. (the child). By the same quantum of proof, the court found that termination was in the child‘s best interest. Father appeals. We hold that the trial court‘s final judgment does not include or incorporate written findings of fact justifying its decision as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(k) (2014). For this reason, we vacate the trial court‘s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. I cannot agree with the majority as to the issue of what constitutes written findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to satisfy the requirements of ...

Wendy Rose filed suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract and misrepresentation by defendants Lisa Bushon and Innovative Risk Management, LLC. Later, on October 13, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of “voluntary nonsuit” in the trial court.  She also faxed the notice to opposing counsel.  A hearing on a pending motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel had been previously scheduled for October 14.  The hearing was held as scheduled.  Plaintiff, assuming that the case was concluded with the filing of her notice, did not appear at the hearing.  On October 20, 2014, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiff a voluntary nonsuit and dismissing the case without prejudice.  Defendants filed a motion to modify or amend the order of dismissal.  On December 17, 2014, the trial court entered an order disqualifying plaintiff’s counsel and awarding defendants attorney’s fees of $7,779.  We hold that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01 grants plaintiff the free and unrestricted right to take a voluntary nonsuit.  Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in ordering the disqualification of counsel and awarding attorney’s fees after plaintiff filed the notice of voluntary dismissal and the trial court entered an order of dismissal.  We reverse the trial court’s judgment, which disqualified plaintiff’s counsel and awarded attorney’s fees to defendants.

This is a conversion case. The appellant bank perfected a security interest in collateral for a loan made to its debtor. The debtor subsequently sold the collateral to appellee companies, representing that there were no liens on the collateral. The appellee companies subsequently resold the collateral. Later, the debtor defaulted on the loan, and the appellant bank obtained a default judgment against him. The debtor then filed bankruptcy. The appellant bank filed this lawsuit against the appellee companies for conversion, seeking the proceeds from the sale of the collateral. The trial court awarded judgments against both appellee companies, plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date of the appellant bank's prior default judgment against the debtor. The appellant bank appealed arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining the date from which prejudgment interest began to accrue. The appellee companies contend that the appellant bank should not be awarded prejudgment interest. On appeal, we affirm the trial court's decision to award prejudgment interest but modify the amount of the award.

Father seeks to declare a child support arrearage judgment entered in January 2005 void ab initio for lack of service of process. The dispositive issue is whether the petition for civil contempt and summons issued in August 2004 were properly served on Father. It is undisputed that the 2004 petition and summons were delivered to an attorney’s office and left with the receptionist. After learning that a summons and petition had been “served on Father” at her office, the attorney promptly notified Mother’s attorney she was not authorized to accept service on Father’s behalf and that she did not represent Father in the pending matter. When the petition came on for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of Father, and the juvenile court entered an arrearage judgment for the amount owed. Several years later, Father filed a motion seeking to set aside the 2005 judgment as void for lack of service of process. The motion was supported by affidavits from the attorney and Father. The attorney testified that she was not authorized to accept service on Father’s behalf and that she did not represent Father in the pending matter. In his affidavit, Father confirmed the testimony of the attorney and he further stated that he was in the United Kingdom when service of process was attempted. The juvenile court held that Father was properly served and denied the motion. Father appealed, insisting the January 2005 arrearage judgment was void ab initio for lack of service of process. The State, acting on behalf of Mother in this appeal, admits in its brief that service of process was not properly effectuated, and that the judgment obtained on January 2005 is void. We agree. Accordingly, the judgment of the juvenile court entered on November 25, 2014, is reversed, and this matter is remanded with instructions for the juvenile court to enter an order declaring the January 2005 arrearage judgment void.

This appeal involves a juvenile court’s subject matter jurisdiction to address a post-divorce matter of child support. The parties were divorced through judgment entered by the Knox County Fourth Circuit Court. Although the Circuit Court initially ordered the mother to pay child support for the parties’ three children, the Circuit Court subsequently entered an agreed order in 2008, directing that neither party would be obligated to pay child support from that date forward. The father commenced the instant action on June 7, 2010, by filing a petition in the Knox County Juvenile Court, alleging dependency and neglect as to the mother. Following a hearing conducted on February 14, 2011, the Juvenile Court entered an agreed order awarding “custody” to the father and finding the children dependent and neglected as to the mother. The father subsequently filed a petition to set child support. Following a hearing conducted on June 1, 2012, the Juvenile Court magistrate entered findings and recommendations, setting the mother’s child support obligation.

We granted an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9 in this case to consider whether the signature of the trustee of the Alexis Breanna Gladden Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”) on an investment/brokerage account agreement agreeing to arbitration binds the minor beneficiary of the Trust to conduct arbitration of unknown future disputes or claims. We find and hold that while the plain language of the trust agreement does allow the trustee to agree to arbitrate claims and disputes that have arisen, it does not allow the trustee to agree to arbitration of unknown future disputes or claims. Therefore, the signature of the trustee of the Trust on an investment/brokerage account agreement agreeing to arbitration does not bind the minor beneficiary to conduct arbitration of unknown future disputes or claims.

Former state university police officer brought suit against the university, its governing board, and the university’s chief of police asserting causes of action under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”), the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); the officer alleged that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his sex and in retaliation for filing a complaint of discrimination with the university and charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and constructively discharged. At a hearing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all causes of action the trial court orally granted the motion in full; in the final order the court adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law which had been prepared by counsel for defendants. The officer appeals the dismissal of all causes of action except for sex discrimination; he also asserts that the findings and conclusions do not comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04. Holding that the findings and conclusions adopted by the court reflect the court’s independent analysis as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 with respect to the incidents which were alleged to violate the TPPA, we review the grant of summary judgment and affirm the judgment. As to the causes of action arising under Title VII and the THRA, we conclude that TSU was only entitled to summary judgment on the claim that the officer was constructively discharged and on all claims of retaliation except those arising from his transfer to the downtown campus and from multiple warnings the officer received for tardiness, and from his claim of a hostile work environment with respect to numerous write-ups he received. Accordingly, we remand the case for further proceedings related to those claims.    

Mother and Father were married for eight years and had three children when they divorced in 2009. Mother was named the primary residential parent, and each party was awarded equal residential time with the children. In 2010 Mother moved from Spring Hill, where the parties had lived during their marriage, to Goodlettsville. When Mother attempted to remove the children from Maury County schools and enroll them in Robertson County schools, Father filed a petition to modify the parenting plan and to be named the primary residential parent. Following a trial, the court found that the parties’ failure to follow the parenting plan constituted a material change of circumstances and that it was in the children’s best interest for the primary residential parent designation to change from Mother to Father. Mother appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In 1979, a property owner (“Owner”) was notified that his property was in violation of the zoning ordinance, which allowed a maximum of two dwelling units in that area. The property contained five dwelling units. Owner appealed the zoning administrator’s decision to the board of zoning appeals (“BZA”), which permitted him to retain the five units for as long as he owned the property. In 2014, when Owner decided to sell the property, he petitioned the zoning administrator to remove the ownership condition so that another owner could maintain the five units. The administrator denied this request, and Owner appealed to the BZA, which removed the ownership condition. Five nearby property owners filed a writ of certiorari in chancery court challenging the BZA’s decision. The chancery court vacated the BZA’s decision, finding that the BZA acted arbitrarily in removing the ownership condition and then failing to consider the effect of this decision, namely, the creation of a new permanent variance without a determination that the property met the statutory standards. The chancery court remanded the case to the BZA for further consideration. Owner appeals, and we affirm the chancery court’s decision.

This is a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal for a determination as to whether a person who has prevailed in a judicial election, but not yet assumed the office of judge, acts as a “state officer or employee” for purposes of the waiver provision set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b), when making administrative staffing provisions. The plaintiff filed this action alleging tortious interference with an employment relationship by the defendant, a newly elected circuit court judge. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that he was entitled to immunity based upon his position as a state officer. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the defendant did not enjoy any form of immunity and that the waiver provision did not apply because he was not yet a state officer or employee when the actions at issue took place before he took the oath of office and assumed his position. The court denied the motion to dismiss but granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9. We granted permission to appeal and now affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action filed by a musical performer after the defendant venue owner cancelled the show in which the plaintiff performed. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff performer and ordered the defendant to pay $70,744 in damages for breach of contract, $59,864.18 in prejudgment interest, and $90,000 in attorney’s fees. The defendant appeals, arguing that the awards of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees were erroneous according to Nebraska law, which the parties chose to govern their contract. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.      

This appeal arises from a long and turbulent custody dispute. Under the terms of the Permanent Parenting Plan, each parent was designated primary residential parent for one of the parties’ two minor children. A few months after the divorce, the father filed an emergency petition to be named the primary residential parent of the younger child. After a hearing, the trial court dissolved the ex parte restraining order but awarded temporary custody of the child to the father. Five months later, the father filed a second emergency petition to suspend visitation with the mother. After a hearing, the trial court dissolved the second restraining order but left the temporary custody order in place. Two years after the father filed the original petition to modify custody, the court conducted a final hearing. The court found a material change in circumstance had occurred sufficient to justify a change in custody and the custody change was in the best interest of the child. Because the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact concerning the issue of material change of circumstance, as required by Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and the credibility of witnesses is at issue, we are unable to conduct an effective appellate review. While normally we would remand this case to afford the trial court the opportunity to state its findings of fact, the judge who tried this case has retired. Therefore, we have no choice but to reverse the judgment and remand for a new hearing.   

The majority holds that because a reconsideration of child support is necessarily “[i]ncident to” the reconfiguration of a parenting plan, the trial court’s failure to rule on the child support modification action implicit in all successful modification of parenting time proceedings deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Because I cannot accept that an agreed upon change in a parenting plan automatically necessitates an unrequested reconsideration of the parties’ child support obligations, I must respectfully dissent.

This is an age discrimination case. The 50-year-old plaintiff worked for the defendant company as a manager. In 2007, an internal investigation revealed that the plaintiff had violated two of the company’s policies. The plaintiff was ultimately terminated for violating the policies. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging age discrimination. The company filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie claim for discrimination or that the company’s explanation for terminating him was a pretext for discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a contract to purchase real estate. Appellee contracted to sell Appellant the property at issue, subject to the property appraising at a certain value and the Appellant obtaining financing. Upon discovering that the property was subject to an easement held by the Tennessee Valley Authority, Appellant refused to purchase the property, contending that Appellee could not convey good and marketable title. Appellee filed suit for specific performance and also sought injunctive relief to prevent Appellant from purchasing other real property. In response, Appellant first filed a motion for summary judgment. Later, Appellant filed an answer and countercomplaint, seeking damages for breach of contract. Appellant then filed a motion for voluntary nonsuit of her countercomplaint and, on the same day, filed an amended motion for summary judgment. Appellee then filed a motion for leave to take a voluntary nonsuit. After Appellee filed his motion for nonsuit, Appellant filed a motion for attorney's fees, costs, and the return of earnest money. The trial court granted Appellee's motion for nonsuit, notwithstanding the Appellant's pending motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied Appellant's motion for attorney's fees and costs, but granted the motion for return of earnest money. Appellant appeals.

This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action. The plaintiff is a corporate entity that represents a musical group. The defendant is a venue owner that cancelled the show in which the musical group performed. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant venue owner to pay $195,741.86 in damages for breach of contract and $166,353.77 in prejudgment interest. The defendant appeals, arguing that the award of prejudgment interest was erroneous according to Nebraska law, which the parties chose to govern their contract. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.