APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is the second appeal from an action filed by Plaintiff against the Tennessee National Guard in which he contends Defendant violated the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) by refusing to rehire Plaintiff after he returned from active duty military service. In the first appeal, we affirmed the grant of Defendant’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon sovereign immunity from USERRA claims, noting that only the Tennessee General Assembly could waive the state’s sovereign immunity. See Smith v. Tennessee Nat. Guard, 387 S.W.3d 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). Shortly after we issued that opinion, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-208, which waives sovereign immunity for USERRA claims that accrue on or after July 1, 2014. Relying on the new statute, Plaintiff filed a Rule 60 motion seeking to have his original lawsuit reinstated. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff’s claim was still barred by sovereign immunity because it accrued before July 1, 2014. We affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, Mother appeals the trial court’s findings of abandonment by willful failure to support and the persistence of conditions as grounds for termination. Mother also appeals the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interest. Pre-adoptive parents appeal the trial court’s decision declining to find the ground of willful failure to visit. We affirm the trial court’s findings of willful failure to support and persistent conditions. Further, albeit for different reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision declining to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the ground of willful failure to visit. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that termination is in the child’s best interest, and therefore, affirm the termination of the Mother’s parental rights.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant in general sessions court. After the general sessions court entered judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court conducted a trial de novo, but the defendant failed to appear and defend. The circuit court entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff after she presented her proof. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment alleging that he never received notice of the trial date in circuit court. The circuit court denied defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment. We reverse the circuit court's ruling and remand for further proceedings.

Bank sued borrowers on a lost or destroyed promissory note. Borrowers, among other defenses, denied that the note was in default and the amount due. Borrowers also claimed that bank had destroyed the note with the intention of discharging the obligation. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of bank. Borrowers appeal, claiming the affidavits filed in support of the bank’s motion for summary judgment were deficient, the existence of disputed material facts, the indebtedness had been discharged, and that further discovery should have been permitted by the trial court. We vacate and remand.  

This case arises from a writ of mandamus issued by the Circuit Court for Henderson County. The writ of mandamus directed Appellant/Judge Robert Stevie Beal, of the Juvenile Court for Henderson County, to hold a hearing on Appellee’s motion for a show cause order in the underlying child custody case. Appellant appeals, arguing that the Circuit Court did not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the Juvenile Court because the Circuit Court and Juvenile Court have concurrent jurisdiction over custody matters. Before oral argument in the instant appeal, this Court entered judgment in Appellee’s separate, accelerated, interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. In re Adison P., No. W2015-00393-COA-T10B-CV, 2015 WL 1869456 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 21, 2015) (“Adison I”). In Adison I, this Court reversed Judge Beal’s order denying Appellee’s motion for recusal. Although not part of our appellate record in this appeal, we take judicial notice of our judgment in Adison I. Having removed Judge Beal from the underlying case, we conclude that the writ of mandamus, which is issued directly to “Judge Beal,” is rendered null by his removal from the case. Because no present ongoing controversy remains in this case, this appeal is dismissed as moot.

This appeal involves a child support order entered after an international adoption. The trial court found that the child's adoptive mother failed to pay child support as previously ordered by the court, and therefore, the mother was adjudged in contempt. On appeal, the mother argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the previous order requiring her to pay child support and also lacked jurisdiction to hold her in contempt of that order. Alternatively, she argues that she did not willfully violate the court's order. Finally, the mother argues that a separate injunction entered by the trial court is also void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or procedural irregularities. We affirm.

In this divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s finding that Husband did not dissipate marital funds, the award of alimony, and the division of marital property. Finding that the award of support and division of property is supported by the evidence and consistent with the applicable law, we affirm the judgment.

Petitioners Father and Stepmother filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment for failure to visit and failure to support. The trial court denied the petition upon determining that Petitioners failed to demonstrate willful abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

This is a will contest case.  The Decedent executed a will in 2006 and a codicil to the will in 2012.  The will specifically disinherited the Appellant, and the codicil removed one of the Decedent’s children as co-executor of the estate.  Appellant contested the will, arguing both that the Decedent lacked the testamentary capacity to execute either the will or the codicil and that the will was executed under undue influence.  The trial court found that the Decedent possessed the testamentary capacity necessary to execute both the will and the codicil and that the Decedent did not execute the will or codicil under undue influence.  On appeal, Appellant only challenges the trial court’s findings regarding the Decedent’s testamentary capacity.  Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, we affirm.

Homeowners sued the builder and others for defects in their home. The builder sought to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration except as to the fraudulent inducement claim. The builder appealed. We affirm.

In this premises liability action, Appellant Phyllis Smith (“Ms. Smith”) appeals the trial court’s finding that Shelby County (“the County”) is immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Because we conclude that the order appealed from is not a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal.

This case arises from the termination of parental rights of the father of two children, Ariana S., born April 2002, and Luis S., born February 2003. Father left his children and moved to Puerto Rico in 2007; he has been incarcerated since 2012. Father’s parental rights were terminated on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit or support and persistence of conditions; he appeals. We reverse the termination on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support and persistence of conditions and affirm the termination of Father’s rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit. 

This appeal involves the trial court's denial of a recusal motion. We affirm the trial court's decision to deny the motion to recuse, but vacate the order entered by the trial court while the recusal motion was pending.

A man was injured in an accident, and his relatives initiated conservatorship proceedings in the probate court of Rutherford County.  The conservators were dissatisfied with the probate court’s handling of the case and moved to have the case removed to the chancery court.  The probate court granted the motion to remove, but the chancery court determined the removal was improper and sent the case back to the probate court.  The conservators appealed the chancery court’s decision to review the probate court’s order granting the removal.  On appeal, we note that the probate court and the chancery court in Rutherford County have concurrent jurisdiction over conservatorship proceedings.  Neither court is inferior to the other, and an appeal from either court is to the Court of Appeals.  The chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine any issues in the conservatorship once the case was filed in the probate court.  We vacate the judgment by the chancery court and remand the case to the probate court for further proceedings.

A corporate officer responsible for paying over the sales taxes collected by a corporation pled guilty to attempted tax evasion under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-1-1440. As part of his plea agreement, the criminal court ordered the corporate officer to pay restitution in the amount of $17,500. After completing probation, the Department of Revenue notified the corporate officer of an individual sales tax assessment of $137,493.76 arising from the corporation’s operations. The corporate officer filed a complaint in the Davidson County Chancery Court challenging the assessment. The corporate officer argued that the amount of the criminal restitution, which he had already paid, was the full amount of his individual liability to the Department. The Department filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Concluding that criminal restitution and civil tax liability are separate and distinct, we affirm the dismissal.

This case concerns the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-12-119(c). When the trial court grants a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Section 20-12-119(c) requires the trial court to award the dismissed party his or her reasonable attorney’s fees. In this case, Appellant was dismissed from the lawsuit, but the trial court denied an award of attorney’s fees. Because the trial court’s orders do not specify on what grounds it dismissed Appellant, we cannot determine whether Section 20-12-119(c) was triggered in this case. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for entry of an order specifying the grounds for dismissal. 

This case involves a petition for grandparent visitation filed by the paternal grandparents of the child at issue. The trial court granted the petition for visitation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. Because the trial court did not make appropriate written findings in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, we do not reach the merits of this appeal. We vacate and remand for appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s complaint in a negligence case. After Appellant’s case was dismissed, he filed a notice of appeal pro se. Significant procedural shortcomings in Appellant’s brief on appeal prevent this Court from reaching any substantive issues. We therefore affirm.

Appellee commenced a lawsuit in the Shelby County Chancery Court seeking to invalidate a writ of possession that previously had been filed pursuant to an order of the Shelby County Circuit Court. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the Chancery Court entered an order granting Appellee her request for relief. Because we conclude that Appellee’s lawsuit constituted a collateral attack of the Circuit Court judgment, and there is nothing in the record indicating that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction, the Chancery Court’s order is hereby vacated. We remand the case to the trial court for the entry of an order dismissing Appellee’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff was terminated from his employment as a City of Clarksville police officer in August 2010. The trial court affirmed, and Plaintiff appealed. We determined that the City had failed to follow its disciplinary procedures when it terminated Plaintiff’s employment, vacated the termination, and remanded the matter. Upon remand, the City upheld termination of Plaintiff, and the trial court again affirmed. We affirm.

Dontavis K.W. (“Defendant”) appeals the order of the Criminal Court for Hamilton County (“the Criminal Court”) committing him to the custody of the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) for an indefinite term based upon findings of delinquency and violation of probation. We find and hold that pursuant to Tenn. R. Juv. P. 35 and Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-131(a)(4) and 37-1-137(a)(1)(A) the Criminal Court did not err in the probation revocation proceeding when it ordered a disposition which would have been permissible in the original delinquency proceeding. We, therefore, affirm.

This appeal arises from a termination of parental rights proceeding. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Ashley L. (“Mother”) and Aaron B. (“Father”) to their minor child Autumn L. (“the Child”) in the Juvenile Court for Claiborne County (“the Juvenile Court”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child on a number of grounds. Mother and Father appeal to this Court. In addition to challenging the termination of their parental rights to the Child, Mother and Father argue that the case should be remanded to the Juvenile Court because the Juvenile Court did not enter an order within 30 days of the hearing as required by statute. We hold, inter alia, that remand is not an appropriate remedy for this noncompliance with statute and would serve no purpose. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in all respects.

In this divorce case, Robert Allan Inman, Jr. (Husband) appeals the trial court's decision awarding Glenna Randolph Inman (Wife) alimony in futuro of $1,900 per month. We hold that the court's decision is supported by a number of relevant statutory factors, including the twenty-nine year duration of the marriage, Wife's age, sixty-three at the time of trial, her poor physical condition, Husband's good physical condition, his higher earning capacity, Wife's demonstrated need, and Husband's ability to pay. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this termination of parental rights case, J.L.B., Jr. (Father), appeals the order terminating his rights to his minor daughter, T.L.G. (the Child). The Department of Children's Services (DCS) removed the Child from the home of her mother, G.M.G. (Mother) after Mother was arrested for domestic violence. DCS took temporary custody and placed the Child in foster care. The Child was subsequently adjudicated dependent and neglected. Some eight months later, DCS filed a petition to terminate each of the parents' rights. After a trial, the court granted the petition.1 The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) multiple grounds for termination exist, and (2) termination is in the Child's best interest. Father challenges the finding of grounds for termination, but does not question the court's decision that termination is in the Child's best interest. We affirm.

An employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (“Goodyear”) fell while at work and suffered injuries; pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-101, et seq., she began receiving medical treatment. She subsequently relocated to Minnesota and made a request to Goodyear that she be provided a second panel of physicians in order to continue her treatment; Goodyear denied the request. At the employee’s request a workers’ compensation specialist from the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development ordered Goodyear to provide a second panel of physicians. Goodyear requested and received an administrative review of the specialist’s order; the Department affirmed the order. Thereafter, Goodyear filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Chancery Court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101 asserting that the Department exceeded its authority by ordering Goodyear to provide a second panel of physicians and a physician outside of Tennessee. The Department moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the court denied the motion and considered the merits of the petition. The court held that the Department did not exceed its authority in ordering the panel of physicians; Goodyear appeals. The Department of Labor also appeals the holding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to review its decision. Concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse the judgment of the court and dismiss the petition.