APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This action concerns a petition for custody filed by the maternal grandmother of three minor children. The juvenile court denied the petition, and the circuit court affirmed the denial on appeal following a de novo hearing. The maternal grandmother now appeals to this court. We dismiss the appeal in light of the adoption of the children during the pendency of this appeal.

In this health care liability action, the plaintiffs disagree with a number of the trial court’s rulings upon which it based its decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The trial court excluded the plaintiffs’ life care planner due to their failure to provide a complete disclosure of the life care planner’s opinions in a timely manner. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs’ sole standard of care expert, a neurosurgeon, was not competent to testify as to the standard of care of the defendant nurse practitioner. Furthermore, the trial court precluded the plaintiffs’ standard of care expert from testifying at all due to the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to comply with the court’s orders regarding discovery. We find no abuse of discretion with respect to the trial court’s decisions and affirm the judgment.  

This action concerns a petition to set aside a tax sale as void for lack of notice to the original property owner. The purchaser of the property filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the original owner was not entitled to notice, that the petitioner received actual notice as the current owner, and that the petition was untimely. The petitioner countered with a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner received actual notice of the sale and that the time for filing such actions had passed. The petitioner appeals. We affirm.

The former administrator of an assisted living facility appeals the summary dismissal of his claim for retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304, and common law. Plaintiff contends he was fired in retaliation for initiating an internal investigation and submitting an internal report to his supervisors concerning an incident that arose when the son of an elderly resident observed an old bandage stuck to the bottom of his mother’s foot, which was revealed when her sock was removed in order to check the dressing for a wound on her ankle. Defendants contend Plaintiff’s claims are legally deficient because there was no neglect or illegal activity to report, and that Plaintiff grossly overreacted after being informed that an old bandage was found on the ball of a resident’s foot in a sock when the resident’s wound, which was on her ankle, was properly dressed and bandaged. Defendants also rely on the fact that Plaintiff did not file a qualifying internal or external report of neglect until after he was fired. The trial court summarily dismissed the TPPA claim stating “leaving a bandage in a sock, where a patient’s wound is in fact otherwise sufficiently bandaged, is not illegal activity as defined by the statute. Leaving the bandage in the sock is not ‘abuse and neglect’ as defined in the statute.” The court dismissed the common law whistleblower claim because Plaintiff did not show that Defendants engaged “in illegal conduct or in any way . . . posed a threat to an important public policy of the State when all that was done was to leave an old bandage in a patient’s sock.” Plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of his claims under the TPPA and common law. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children's Services (DCS) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of A.C.P. (Mother) with respect to her three minor children, ages twenty-two months to six years at the time of trial. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds. The court found the same quantum of evidence supporting the conclusion that termination of Mother‟s rights is in the children's best interest. Mother appeals. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The majority Opinion concludes that a reasonable juror (1) could not find that Mr. Richmond had reasonable cause to believe the presence of the soiled bandage was connected to “illegal activity,” as required by the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”), and (2) could not find that Mr. Richmond could demonstrate that his termination for reporting the incident violated any clear public policy under his common law claim. Because I conclude that a reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Richmond had reasonable cause to believe that the presence of the soiled bandage stemmed from neglect of the patient, I must respectfully dissent. 

This action was originally filed in general sessions court against three defendants and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. Two of the co-defendants appealed to circuit court. The remaining co-defendant successfully sought to have the general sessions judgment set aside for insufficient service of process. Thereafter, the general sessions court transferred the claim against the one remaining co-defendant to circuit court to be consolidated with the pending appeal filed by the other co-defendants. The plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed the action. One co-defendant filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting that the circuit court should not have allowed the plaintiff to voluntarily nonsuit the action. The circuit court denied the motion, and the co-defendant timely appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

This appeal concerns post-divorce matters. Mimi Hiatt (“Wife”) and Kevin L. Hiatt (“Husband”) divorced. Wife some years later filed a motion to modify the final decree of divorce in the Circuit Court for Blount County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to increase Husband’s child support and alimony obligations. Husband, in turn, filed a motion to recover claimed overpayments he made on the marital residence because Wife had transferred it to a trust. The Trial Court found, among other things, that Wife was voluntarily underemployed and declined to increase her spousal support for that reason. The Trial Court also ruled that Wife’s divestment of the marital residence constituted a “sale” under the Marital Dissolution Agreement (“the MDA”) and awarded a judgment to Husband for payments he made on the mortgage after Wife’s transfer of the marital residence to the trust. Wife appeals to this Court. We hold that Wife’s transfer of the marital residence to a trust constituted a sale per the MDA, and we affirm the Trial Court in its award to Husband for overpayment. However, we find that Wife proved a substantial and material change in circumstances, and we remand for the Trial Court to determine an increase in Wife’s alimony in light of this change and all relevant factors. We find further that the Trial Court erred in declining to award Wife her attorney’s fees relative to alimony. As a final matter, we award Wife her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal related to the alimony issue, and remand for the Trial Court to determine Wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees related to the alimony issue on appeal. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, in part, and, reversed, in part.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Sylvia Folger (“Wife”) sued Robert Folger (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court, among other things, awarded Wife transitional alimony. On appeal, Wife raises a number of issues. Because of Wife's pronounced economic disadvantage relative to Husband, we modify the judgment of the Trial Court to increase the amount of Wife's transitional alimony, and remand this case for the Trial Court to award Wife attorney's fees as alimony in solido as well as her reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., Dissenting.
In light of the facts that are presented by the pleadings in this case, I must respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the trial court's dismissal of this property dispute. The majority opinion places much emphasis on the fact that the local church has not “withdrawn” from COGIC, and by citing to Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Middle City Church of God in Christ, 774 S.W.2d 950 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), it suggests that judicial intervention would be improper at this time. Although the Appellees, an apparently vocal group within the local church, still claim that they want to remain a part of COGIC, they refuse to abide by the decisions of the hierarchal church's Ecclesiastical Council, thereby creating, if not an actual withdrawal from the hierarchal church, a schism between the members of the local church. The ecclesiastical decisions having, therefore, been made by the hierarchal church, I am of the opinion that the alleged facts of this case do not prevent judicial intervention to decide the property issues that have arisen between the hierarchal church and members of the local church. From my perspective, they necessitate it. Because resolution of the dispute among the parties is not dependent on the trial court's ruling on matters of conscience or religious doctrine or polity, the trial court should not be precluded from exercising jurisdiction over the case.

This appeal involves a lawsuit filed by an insured against his insurer due to the insurer's failure to pay a claim for a theft loss. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding no coverage under the policy. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The child at issue in this case was placed in foster care at age two. When the child was ten years old, the child‘s foster parents filed a petition in Dyer County Chancery Court seeking to terminate the parental rights of the child‘s parents and to adopt the child. The trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of the child‘s mother and father and granting the foster parents‘ petition to adopt the child. The mother has appealed the termination of her parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit in the four months prior to the filing of the petition to terminate her parental rights. The mother also appeals the trial court‘s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the child‘s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A hierarchical church filed a complaint against one of its local churches, seeking an order establishing the hierarchical church's control over the local church's real and personal property. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the basis of the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves the termination of a mother's parental rights to her three daughters. The children were previously adjudicated dependent and neglected due to physical abuse of the children by the mother's boyfriend. After the children were in foster care for about a year, the Department of Children's Services filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights on several grounds. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights.

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Aaliyah E., the minor child (“the Child”) of Wanda M. (“Mother”) and Christopher E. (“Father”). The Child was taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on November 19, 2013, upon investigation of the Child’s lack of legal guardianship while the parents were incarcerated. On October 30, 2014, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of both parents upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the parents abandoned the Child by failing to provide a suitable home, (2) the parents failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements of the permanency plans, and (3) the conditions leading to the Child’s removal from the home persisted. As to Father, the court also found by clear and convincing evidence that prior to incarceration, he had abandoned the Child by showing wanton disregard for the Child’s welfare. The court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother and Father have each appealed. Having determined that, as DCS concedes, Mother was incarcerated during the entire applicable four-month statutory period following the Child’s removal into protective custody, we reverse the trial court’s finding regarding the ground of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home as to Mother only. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child.

Barry Trent, the Executor of the Estate of Dennie Lamar Trent, appeals the order of the Chancery Court for Hawkins County (“the Trial Court”) finding and holding that the claim against the estate filed by Brenda Jefferson for an unpaid $50,000 debt as evidenced by a note is valid. We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's findings, and we affirm.

Nancy F. Brown (Plaintiff) was walking through and contemplating the rental of a house owned by Nancy Mercer-Defriese and Spencer Defriese (Defendants) when she tripped over a three-inch threshold or step in the doorway between two rooms. She brought this premises liability action, alleging the step was an unreasonably dangerous and defective condition that caused her fall and resulting injuries. During the jury trial that followed, Plaintiff and Defendants presented the testimony of experts. Plaintiff's expert opined that the step was a “trip hazard.” One of the Defendants' experts agreed that the step was a trip hazard, while the other stated that “all stairs are trip hazards.” Plaintiff and Defendants each presented photographs of the doorway showing that the step and the floors on either side of the three-inch change in elevation are in a very similar color. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all of the proof, finding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiff would trip over the step; that the step was open and obvious; and that Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a duty to warn her of the condition of the step. We hold that the evidence before the trial court and now before us establishes a genuine issue of material facts as to the Defendants' negligence. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

A patient suffered a blunt-force trauma head injury when he fell while attempting to mount a wheelchair accessible scale at a dialysis clinic. Complications from this injury led to his death. Plaintiff, the patient’s former spouse, brought two wrongful death actions on behalf of the patient’s minor child. Each action eventually named as defendants the dialysis clinic and the owner of the property where the dialysis clinic was located. After the trial court consolidated the actions, the property owner filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, concluding the property owner had no liability under any legal theory asserted by Plaintiff. We affirm the dismissal of the claims against the property owner.

The issues in this case bring into sharp focus the question of whether or not the successful litigants below are entitled contractually to an award of attorney's fees and expenses against the losing side, i.e. the plaintiffs. This litigation began in 2010 when Kathleen Barrett and her husband, Gerald Barrett, filed suit against three LLCs and three individuals. The gravamen of the complaint is related to the purchase of, and the planned construction of a house on, a lot in a subdivision. Following a jury trial, the defendants now before us on appeal won a favorable verdict on all allegations and theories of the plaintiffs. Despite this outcome, the trial court denied their request for an award of attorney's fees and expenses. The defendants now appeal. The defendants contend that two of the LLC defendants are entitled to an award of fees and expenses based upon contracts in the record. Furthermore, they argue that the individual defendants also are entitled to attorney's fees and expenses (1) based upon a theory of judicial estoppel and (2) pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-115(c) (2012). The Barretts filed a motion in this Court seeking a dismissal of this appeal. They based their motion primarily on a lack of standing. We hold that the motion is without merit. On the issue of attorney's fees and expenses, we reverse the trial court's decision in part and affirm it in part. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Former husband filed a post-divorce petition seeking to hold former wife in contempt for her failure to pay and hold former husband harmless for indebtedness on the marital residence as required by the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. The trial court held former wife in contempt for her failure to pay, granted former husband a judgment of $2010.00 for the amount he paid in an attempt to keep the debt current, ordered former wife to sell the marital residence, and awarded former husband attorney’s fees. We hold the trial court’s ruling on contempt was in error because the trial court failed to make a threshold finding that former wife’s conduct was willful. On appeal, former wife asserts the trial court erred in requiring her to sell the former marital home. In support of its decision to require former wife to sell the home, the trial court reasoned that principles of equity demanded the result since former husband had no other remedy at law. We reverse the trial court, finding former husband was not without a remedy because he can file an action for breach of contract. The finding of contempt, judgment of $2010.00, and related award of attorney’s fees are vacated, and the portion of the order requiring former wife to sell the home is reversed.

This is a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff filed suit after the practice refused to honor the buyout provision in the partnership agreement. The practice filed a counter-complaint, arguing that the plaintiff was liable for his share of the partnership's outstanding financial obligations. Following a bench trial, the court ordered the practice to remit payment. The practice appeals. We affirm.

Property owner sought recognition that his property had a nonconforming use as a rock quarry. We have determined that the property owner’s previous appeal before the board of zoning appeals, for which he did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court, is res judicata as to the present matter.

This is a governmental tort liability action against Bradley County Fire Rescue and Bradley County (collectively Bradley County) arising out of a motor vehicle accident at a large intersection in Cleveland, Tennessee. Fire Rescue employee Matthew Mundall, responding to an emergency call in a Ford F-250 truck equipped with siren and emergency lights, began making a left turn against the red light after stopping or slowing in an attempt to make sure the oncoming traffic lanes were clear. Plaintiff Robin G. Jones, who had the green light and testified she did not hear or see the emergency vehicle, drove into the intersection and collided with the truck. After a bench trial, the trial court allocated 40% fault to Jones and 60% fault to county employee Mundall. The court awarded Jones a judgment against Bradley County in the amount of $207,366. Bradley County appeals, arguing that the court erred in its assessment of 60% fault against Mundall, and that the award of damages to Jones was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. We affirm.

This appeal involves a motion to set aside a declaratory judgment action involving a cemetery.  Service to the community at large was made by publication.  No answer, pleading, or response of any kind was filed within the time allowed by the court. Following a hearing, the trial court provided the Macedonia Cemetery Board of Trustees with the exclusive authority to oversee operation and maintenance of the cemetery.  The respondents filed a motion to set aside the judgment, claiming they had not received notice of the hearing.  The court denied the motion.  The respondents appeal.  We dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals, as such the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.