APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from a dispute over an easement for a private airstrip. The original owner of the land sub-divided it into six tracts, with the plan of selling them to buyers interested in purchasing property with access to the airstrip. Three of the tracts were sold to Appellant and one was purchased by Appellee. After unsuccessful efforts to sell portions of their land holdings, the original owner and Appellant executed and recorded a purported abandonment of the easement. Upon discovering that the purchasers of the final two tracts sold by the original owner were building fences across the airstrip, Appellee brought suit seeking to assert his easement rights, among other claims. The trial court found that an express and, in the alternative, implied easement for the airstrip had been created. However, because the purchasers of the two tracts had been informed that the easement was abandoned, the court terminated the easement where it crossed those two tracts. In addition, the trial court found that the original owner and Appellant had committed the tort of libel of title in executing and recording an abandonment of easement without joining Appellee as a party to the agreement. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves an incumbent candidate's attempt to challenge the election for the office of Sheriff of Monroe County based upon the ineligibility of the other candidate. The incumbent candidate sought to claim the office or void the election. The trial court voided the election following a bench trial. This appeal followed. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s grant of a motion for partial summary judgment as a result of the defendant’s failure to file a proper response. The defendant appeals. We reverse.  

This is an action by homeowners against the insurance company that provided their homeowners’ insurance coverage. At issue is whether the insurer violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-130(b) (2006) by failing to make available coverage for insurable sinkhole losses and whether the physical damage to the home was caused by “sinkhole activity.”
When the insurer denied coverage, Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that the insurer breached the policy and acted in bad faith when it refused to pay their claim. Plaintiffs also sought to hold the insurer liable for violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 56 7 130(b) because the insurer did not notify Plaintiffs that sinkhole coverage was an available option. At the time of the occurrence, the statute stated: “Every insurer offering homeowner property insurance in this state shall make available coverage for insurable sinkhole losses on any dwelling, including contents of personal property contained in the dwelling, to the extent provided in the policy to which the sinkhole coverage attaches.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-130(b) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that the insurer did not notify Plaintiffs that sinkhole coverage was available. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-130 did not require it to notify Plaintiffs that sinkhole coverage was an available option. The insurer also denied the factual assertion that sinkhole activity caused the loss and asserted that it was not liable because, if sinkhole activity caused the damage, the policy contained an exclusion for such an occurrence. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to a judgment that the insurer had violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 56 7 130 and that their insurance policy did not exclude coverage for the damage to their home. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-130, concluding it was undisputed that the insurer “did nothing to make the Plaintiffs aware of the sinkhole endorsement and, therefore, did not meet the requirements of [Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-130].” The trial court denied summary judgment on all remaining issues concluding that material facts were disputed concerning the cause of the damage to Plaintiffs’ home. On appeal, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-130 and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment to the insurer on that issue because the statutory language, “make available,” does not require insurers to give notice that sinkhole coverage is available. We affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment concerning whether the loss at issue is excluded from coverage because, as the trial court correctly found, material facts are in dispute.
 

This case stems from a proceeding in which the parental rights of the parents of a two year old child were terminated due to severe physical abuse of the child and upon the court’s finding that termination would be in the child’s best interest. Mother appeals the holding that termination of her rights was in the best interest and the court’s admission of the testimony of one witness. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

Doyle E. Dukes (“Doyle E.”) filed a petition for letters testamentary in the Chancery Court for Union County seeking to have the Last Will and Testament (“the Will”) of Doyle I. Dukes (“Deceased”) admitted to probate. Melbia Cooke (“Melbia”), Mary Lou Anderson (“Mary Lou”), and Ruth Jerline Hickey filed a complaint to contest the Will. The case was transferred from the Chancery Court for Union County to the Circuit Court for Union County (“the Trial Court”). After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order on September 19, 2014 finding and holding, inter alia, that a confidential relationship existed between Deceased and Doyle E., that the Will was invalid as the product of undue influence, and that Deceased died intestate. Doyle E. appeals to this Court raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in finding a confidential relationship and whether the Trial Court erred in finding undue influence. We find and hold that the evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings, and we affirm.

This appeal involves a non-probate asset, an individual retirement account. The decedent’s listed beneficiary on the asset predeceased him. The biological son of the decedent moved to collect the proceeds of the asset as the sole heir at law. Two stepchildren sought to be declared the decedent’s “children” in order that they might share in the account with the biological son. The decedent’s will provided for all three individuals to share equally in his real and personal property. The probate court found the term “children” in the retirement account agreement was ambiguous and determined the decedent considered all three individuals to be his “children.” Accordingly, the court ordered that the asset should be distributed equally to Sherry Diane Souder, Terry Ray Palmer, and Gregory Lynn Elrod as “children” of the decedent. The biological son appeals. We affirm.

The Final Decree of Divorce from which the pro se incarcerated appellant, Treavor E. Warren, seeks to appeal was entered on December 19, 2014. The Notice of Appeal was not timely filed even if the date affixed to the Notice by the appellant (January 30, 2015) is considered. See Tenn. R. App. P. 20(g). Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this termination of parental rights case, the minor child was taken into custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) in February 2014 shortly after Mother’s return to jail following the child’s birth during a furlough. In June 2014, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights alleging that she was mentally incompetent to parent the child under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(8) and that she had abandoned the child pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(1) and Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv). Following a trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights upon both grounds pled by DCS. Although on appeal we conclude that the abandonment ground was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

The Juvenile Court for Rutherford County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated the parental rights of Joshua L. (“Father”) to the minor children Kelsey L. and Karlie L. (“the Children”) after finding and holding that grounds to terminate had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that it also had been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the termination was in the Children’s best interest. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to the Children raising a single issue regarding the Juvenile Court’s finding as to best interest. We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s findings made by clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Children and that it was in the Children’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. We, therefore, affirm. 

Appellant employee appeals from the denial of her claim for unemployment compensation. Because there is substantial and material evidence in the record to establish that the employee was discharged for work-related misconduct, we affirm.

This appeal involves post-divorce child support matters. Heather Russell Wilder (“Mother”) filed a petition in the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) for modification of child support against Joseph Chamblee Wilder (“Father”). Mother later alleged that Father had fraudulently misstated his true income, and that he owed more in support towards the parties' three children (“the Children”) than had been ordered. The Trial Court adopted the Magistrate's findings and recommendations and held that Mother could not obtain Rule 60 relief on her fraud claim as time had expired. Mother appeals to this Court raising a number of issues. We affirm the Trial Court.

This is a negligence action. The plaintiff sustained injuries to her foot and heel while attempting to use a water slide on the defendants’ property. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants exactly one year after her injury. The complaint, filed against “Robin Nichols and Willow Brook Lodge,” failed to include the proper name of the company, which is “Accommodations by Willow Brook Lodge, LLC.” Approximately fifteen days after filing the complaint, instead of serving Robin Nichols, the plaintiff served her son, Grant Nichols. The defendants’ answer made the errors known, but the plaintiff’s counsel was dilatory in filing a motion to amend. Upon the defendants filing a motion for summary judgment claiming that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations, the trial court granted the motion. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This post-divorce appeal arises from the trial court's denial of Father's petition to modify custody. Following a one-day trial, the court found that Father failed to demonstrate a sufficient material change in circumstances and denied his petition. We affirm.

Conservator appealed the trial court’s order adopting the special master’s report. We find merit in the conservator’s argument that the trial court was required to hold a hearing before acting on the special master’s report. As we are unable to ascertain from the record whether a hearing was held, we vacate and remand for a determination of whether a hearing was held by the trial court. If no hearing was held, the trial court must hold a hearing on the special master’s report in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.04(2).

Inmate at Wilson County jail, who fell from top bunk bed and injured his shoulder, sued the County under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for failing to assign him to a bottom bunk or provide him with a ladder to access the top bunk. Following a trial, the court held that the bunk assignment was a discretionary function, and consequently, the County was immune from suit; that the county owed no duty to provide a bottom bunk, and that the inmate was more than 50 percent at fault for his injuries. We reverse the trial court’s ruling that the County was immune and the court’s consideration of comparative fault; determining that the County was not negligent, we affirm the judgment in favor of the County.

The notice of appeal was not timely filed and therefore, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is an estate case involving the division of two properties used as collateral to secure a commercial note. When the decedent‟s beneficiaries sought to partition the properties, her former husband objected, asserting that he assumed sole ownership of the properties by fulfilling the note with proceeds from the decedent's life insurance policies. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the beneficiaries were entitled to a 70 percent share of the properties. The former husband appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court as modified.

Appellant did not timely file the Notice of Appeal and thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed.

This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Department of Correction regarding the Department’s classification of the prisoner as a member of a security threat group. The trial court dismissed the prisoner’s petition for writ of certiorari because it was not timely filed, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition. We affirm.

This appeal involves the assignment of a deed of trust. Plaintiff/Appellant purchased a home in Memphis in 2004 and later defaulted on her mortgage. Appellees advised of their intent to foreclose on the home, which prompted Plaintiff to file suit and obtain a temporary restraining order preventing foreclosure. Plaintiff asserted several legal theories, which were all dismissed by the trial court. Plaintiff appealed, and this Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal on all but one fraud claim. Upon remand, the trial court then granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment on the remaining fraud claim. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants appeal the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss a product liability lawsuit on the ground of forum non conveniens. Discerning no abuse of discretion by the trial court, we affirm.

This is a post-divorce case. Travis G. McCosh (Father) appeals the trial court’s judgment increasing his child support payment retroactively to the date that Jennifer Burns McCosh (Mother) filed a counterclaim seeking (1) to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan and (2) the recalculation of child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines. Father also appeals the trial court’s award of $500 in attorney’s fees to Mother. We hold that the proof establishes a significant variance between the amount of the current support order and the amount of the presumptive support based upon the relevant facts before the trial court. The significant variance is due primarily to the fact that Father’s income has increased significantly between the time of the last child support order and the filing of Mother’s petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

J.S.H. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, L.J., Jr. (the Child). Mother contends that the trial court erred in its finding – said to be made by clear and convincing evidence – that she abandoned the Child by willfully (1) failing to pay support and (2) failing to visit the Child in the four months immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition. She also challenges the trial court's holding that she failed to provide the Child a suitable home. Mother argues that the trial court erred when it held that termination is in the Child's best interest. Mother has three other children, B.H., J.T., and A.T. The Department of Children's Services (DCS) was awarded temporary legal custody of all of the four children on September 20, 2012, due to the trial court's finding that each was dependent and neglected. Mother's other three children now live with their paternal grandmother. Only Mother's parental rights with respect to L.J., Jr. are at issue on this appeal. We modify the trial court's judgment. As modified, the judgment terminating Mother's rights is affirmed.

This case involves a mother’s request for a change in the primary residential parent designation for her children. Following a one-day hearing, the trial court found that the mother failed to prove a material change in circumstance as necessary to change the primary residential parent designation. On appeal, the mother argues that the court’s order did not comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 and that the proof showed a material change in circumstance. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision.