APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff, Trails End Campground, LLC (Trails End) and the defendant Brimstone Recreation, LLC (Brimstone) are competitors in an outdoor recreation-oriented market in and around Scott County. In 2012, the defendant Town of Huntsville executed a lease with Brimstone giving it “the exclusive use, control and enjoyment” of a centrally-located open area in the town, sometimes referred to as Town Square, during the weeks prior to and including Memorial Day and Labor Day. Trails End brought this action alleging (1) that the Town acted without authority under its charter to execute such a lease; (2) that it created a perpetuity and monopoly in violation of the state constitution; and (3) that it violated the Tennessee Trade Practices Act (TTPA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-101 to -112 (2013). The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. We hold (1) that, under its charter, the Town had authority to enter into the lease, (2) that the lease does not create an unlawful monopoly or perpetuity, and (3) that the TTPA is not implicated by the facts of this case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Juanita W. (“the Juvenile”) appeals an order of the Criminal Court for Knox County (“the Criminal Court”) finding her delinquent by committing the act of aggravated assault pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(B). We find and hold that the required element of bodily injury was not proven, and we, therefore, reverse the Criminal Court’s order finding the Juvenile delinquent and dismiss the case.

This appeal concerns a guardianship proceeding for four children. The mother of the children (“Mother”) was killed while on duty as a police officer. The children’s maternal grandmother and the father (“Father”) of three of the children sought custody of all four children. The trial court ultimately awarded custody to the children’s maternal grandfather “Grandfather”), although Grandfather was not a party to the proceedings and did not request guardianship of the four children. Father appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in not awarding custody to him. We have determined that the trial court erred in awarding Grandfather guardianship of Father’s three biological children without first determining that there would be a substantial risk of harm to the children should Father be appointed guardian. Furthermore, we find that the trial court erred in awarding Grandfather guardianship of Mother’s fourth child without conducting a thorough best interest analysis. Therefore, we vacate the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The question presented on this appeal is whether a covenant, i.e., a promise, by a grantor to pay – in a deed conveying an undivided one-third interest in a piece of property – all property taxes and other expenses associated with the 100% interest in the property is binding on successor grantees of her remaining two-thirds interest. Sonja Taylor conveyed an undivided one-third interest in the property to Fred T. Hanzelik. Taylor agreed to pay “all taxes, expenses and obligations regarding” the property, including those on Hanzelik’s portion. Taylor later conveyed her remaining two-thirds interest to Shane Coughlin, who later conveyed it to Fifth Project, LLC, which later conveyed it to defendants Ilya Dyskin and Tatiana Dyskin. Hanzelik argues that Taylor’s covenant to pay property taxes for the entire ownership interest, including Hanzelik’s one-third interest, is binding on the Dyskins. The trial court agreed and ordered the Dyskins to pay the entire property tax bill. After examining the deeds in the chain of title, we find no evidence of an intention that Taylor’s covenant would run with the land and bind successor grantees of the two-thirds interest. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This is a parental termination case regarding R.L.M., the daughter of unmarried parents, V.R.G. (Mother) and J.M. (Father). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of (1) a failure to provide a suitable home and (2) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal. The court also found, again by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. He contends 1 generally that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the grounds for termination and best interest. The Department of Children Services (DCS) takes a different approach. It concedes that an essential element of its case was not established by the proof. It contends that, as a consequence, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. Because we agree with the State, we (1) reverse the judgment of the trial court terminating Father’s rights and (2) dismiss the petition in this case.

This is the second appeal of this conversion case. Appellant bank holds a perfected security interest in three pieces of equipment used as collateral for a loan made to its debtor, John Chorley. Appellees acquired this equipment from Mr. Chorley before he defaulted on his loan with Appellant bank. Appellees did not perform a UCC check, instead relying on Mr. Chorley’s representation that there were no liens on the equipment. Appellees subsequently sold the equipment to parties not involved in this case. After Mr. Chorley defaulted on his loan, Appellant bank sued Appellees for conversion, seeking compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. The trial court awarded judgments against both Appellees, but denied attorney’s fees and punitive damages. All parties assert error on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

This appeal arises from a petition in juvenile court to modify custody. In December 2006, the juvenile court issued an order granting Mother primary residential custody of the parties’ two children and granting Father visitation. In May 2013, Father petitioned the court for custody of the children. A hearing was conducted in October 2013. The court found that Father met his burden of showing a material change of circumstances but determined that the children’s best interests would not be served by granting Father custody. We affirm.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant medical providers on the basis that the plaintiffs’ health care liability complaint was filed after the expiration of the Governmental Tort Liability Act statute of limitations. Because we conclude that, under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(c), plaintiffs were entitled to a 120-day extension on the applicable statute of limitations, we reverse and remand.

In this post-divorce appeal, the husband seeks reversal of the trial court’s classification of a certificate of deposit as marital property and the grant of alimony. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal concerns an allegation of child sexual abuse against a parent. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) against Alan O. (“Father”) alleging that he had sexually abused his then three year old daughter Emmalee O. (“the Child”). The Child had disclosed that Father had “poked” and “rubbed” her vagina. For his part, Father asserted that he touched the Child’s vaginal area only as part of his normal parenting duties, and that he never touched her in an inappropriate manner. After a trial, the Juvenile Court found that the Child was a victim of severe child abuse by Father. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”). After a new trial, the Trial Court found that the Child was a victim of severe child abuse by Father. Father appeals to this Court. We hold, inter alia, that the evidence rises to the level of clear and convincing sufficient to establish severe child abuse. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.

Two South Carolina insurance companies challenged their Tennessee retaliatory tax assessments. The Tennessee Claims Commission held that the Departmentof Commerce and Insurance did not calculate the South Carolina tax burden correctly because it did not include reimbursements received by the insurance companies from South Carolina’s Second Injury Fund. The Commission also denied the Department’s motion to strike portions of an affidavit. The Department appealed. We find that the Department’s calculation of the South Carolina tax burden was correct and reverse that decision of the Claims Commission. We affirm the Commission’s denial of the Department’s motion to strike.

This is an action by a prospective member of a start-up limited liability company for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duty and fair dealing against the company and its managing member. Plaintiff claims to have an enforceable agreement to acquire a five percent interest in the limited liability company in consideration for her intangible capital contributions, that being her sweat equity rendered during the formative phase of the company. Defendants deny all claims and insist that Plaintiff knew she would have to contribute $30,000 in cash as her capital contribution in exchange for the agreed upon membership interest in the company.The trial court summarily dismissed all claims upon the conclusion that Plaintiff could not prove a prima facie case for any of her claims as she could not show any contract or enforceable promise existed, that she was compensated as an employee, and that the remaining claims failed as a matter of law. We affirm the dismissal of the claims of promissory estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty; however, we have determined that material facts are disputed concerning the existence of a contract which precludes summary dismissal of the claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

This appeal stems from an action filed by the State of Tennessee ex rel. Bradley County regarding delinquent real property taxes. The property at issue was sold during a tax sale in 2006. The owners of the property at the time of the tax sale subsequently filed an action to set aside the tax sale, alleging that they were not afforded due process and were never notified of the delinquent tax action. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owners and voided the tax sale due to lack of proper notice. The party who purchased the subject property at the tax sale has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, from the trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse in a divorce proceeding. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by the Wife, Leslie A. Muse (“Wife”), pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, along with the motion to dismiss this appeal filed by Husband, Robert L. Jolley, Jr. (“Husband”), we conclude that the petition was not timely filed. Accordingly, we grant the motion, and dismiss this appeal.

This appeal concerns entitlement to attorneys’ fees under a marital dissolution agreement after one party’s notice of rescission. Wife attempted to rescind her acceptance of the Marital Dissolution Agreement, claiming she was under duress when she entered into the contract. The trial court found that Wife was not under duress and that her attempted rescission was a breach of contract. The trial court also awarded Husband his attorney’s fees. On appeal, Wife maintains that her attempted rescission did not constitute a breach of contract and that, in any event, the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Husband was unreasonable. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a suit by a borrower against a servicing agent and law firm to enjoin a foreclosure sale and to set aside the assignment of the deed of trust. The action was ultimately dismissed on summary judgment. The trial court found that the borrower lacked standing to enjoin the sale because he no longer had an interest in the real property subject to the foreclosure sale. The trial court also found that, to the extent the borrower’s claims sounded in fraud, they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Cloey R. and Andrea H., the minor children (“Children”) of Leonard H. (“Father”) and Laura R. (“Mother”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on July 26, 2012, upon investigation of environmental neglect and the Children’s exposure to controlled substances. On May 16, 2013, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father and Mother. Following a bench trial conducted on November 7, 2013, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) both parents failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements set forth in the permanency plan, (2) Father failed to legitimate Cloey R., and (3) Mother abandoned the Children by willfully failing to visit them for at least four months preceding the filing of the termination petition. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of both Father’s and Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. Upon careful review 1 of the record, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights for two reasons: (1) no permanency plan was admitted into evidence upon which the trial court’s finding that Father failed to substantially comply with the plan could be based and (2) Father’s standing as a putative biological father precluded the application of the statutory ground of failure to legitimate a child.

This is a healthcare liability action. The trial court granted Defendants’ joint motion for a qualified protective order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(f)(1), but added several conditions not specifically provided in the statute. The trial court denied Defendants’ joint motion for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal, and we granted Defendants’ motion for an extraordinary appeal to this Court under Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I concur in the result reached by the majority Opinion that the trial court erred in imposing additional restrictions on Defendants’ counsel with regard to the requested ex parte interviews in this particular case.

Maston G. Lyons, III and Linda C. Lyons (“Plaintiffs”) sued attorney Fielding H. Atchley, Jr. (“Defendant”) alleging, in part, that Defendant had breached a duty that “cost the Plaintiffs their fair and complete hearing in Lyons v. Leffew et al.,” and that the alleged breach had “costs [sic] the Plaintiffs their fiduciary interest in said case.” Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing on the parties’ motions, the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) granted Defendant summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment and the award to Defendant of attorney’s fees for defending against Plaintiffs’ Rule 11 motion for sanctions. We find and hold that Plaintiffs sustained no damage as a result of the alleged action or inaction of Defendant and, therefore, the Trial Court did not err in granting Defendant summary judgment as a matter of law. We further find and hold that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding reasonable attorney’s fees to Defendant for opposing Plaintiffs’ Rule 11 motion for sanctions. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

This is a health care liability action in which Defendant sought summary judgment, claiming that Plaintiffs’ expert was not qualified to render an expert opinion because she was not practicing in her field during the year preceding the date of the injury. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court.

This is a premises liability action in which Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for injuries she sustained as a result of a trip and fall accident in a parking lot. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he owed no duty to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault for her injuries. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Employee of a contractor of alarm systems applied to be registered with the Alarm Systems Contractors Board. When his application was denied, the employee filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Board’s decision; on the Board’s motion, the trial court dismissed the petition pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). Finding that the petition alleges sufficient facts to establish a right to certiorari review, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal is from an order certified to be a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The order dismissed all of the claims made by the Plaintiff, SITEWORX, LLC (“SITEWORX”), against the Defendants, J & M Incorporated, Henson Construction Services, Inc., Clay Williams & Associates, Inc., Roane County, Tennessee, and Western Surety Company (“Defendants”). The order left unresolved the claims between Third-Party Plaintiff, J & M Incorporated, and Third-Party Defendant, Brian Mullins (“Mullins”). Because only Mullins appealed from the judgment and the judgment is not adverse to him, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Appellee medical providers on the basis of Appellant’s failure to comply with the health care liability notice provisions, expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and res judicata. We affirm as to the trial court’s ruling that Appellant’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.