APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal arises from the trial court’s determination that Defendant Taxpayer was entitled to a refund in the amount of $323,596.14. We affirm the  trial court’s determination that Taxpayer is entitled to a refund, but vacate the judgment with respect to the amount of refund due Taxpayer. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

This appeal focuses on a public request for juvenile court records. Morristown Certified Properties General Partnership (“Petitioner”) was sued in a civil action by the victim of an assault that took place on its property. In preparing for its defense, Petitioner filed a motion in the Juvenile Court for Hamblen County seeking access to the juvenile court records of Jaylen J. and Adrian H (“the juveniles”), the two individuals who allegedly perpetrated the subject assault. Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted Petitioner access to a portion of the records, but refused to release the remaining records based upon its finding that they were not relevant to the civil suit. On further review, the trial court adopted the juvenile court’s ruling and denied further inspection of the records. Petitioner appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, the issue of whether Petitioner is entitled to access the court records has become moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff appeals judgment in favor of Defendant apartment complex. We affirm.

This action presents the question of whether a claim properly may be brought against the City of Knoxville (“the City”) pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) under circumstances where a tree located on the real property of a private landowner fell and caused the death of a motorist traveling on a city street. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that the City maintained immunity pursuant to the GTLA and the public duty doctrine. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the claim.

Megan A.A. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her rights to her children, Kayla N.A. and Haylei M.A. (“the Children”). The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition alleging that the Children were dependent and neglected as a result of both parents’ drug abuse. On the same day, the juvenile court entered an ex parte order awarding temporary custody of the Children to Teresa W., the Children’s paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”). After later entering an agreed order that adjudicated the Children as dependent and neglected, the court awarded temporary legal and physical custody to Grandmother. More than a year after the Children came into her custody, Grandmother filed a petition in the trial court to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Following a bench trial, the court granted the petition based on its finding that Mother abandoned the Children by willfully failing to visit and support them. The court further found that termination of Mother’s rights is in the Children’s best interest. The court stated that it made both findings by clear and convincing evidence. Mother appeals. We affirm.

This is a breach of contract claim brought by the appellant road paving contractor, APACAtlantic, Inc., Harrison Construction Division (“APAC”), after the defendant, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”), refused payment of $221,998.36 pursuant to a special “rideability,” or smoothness, provision of the parties’ written contract. The Claims Commission, William O. Shults, Commissioner, finding the special provision language to be unambiguous, denied the claim. APAC appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Two executive employees of Continental Car Club, Inc., resigned in order to start a business in competition with their former employer. The issues on appeal are (1) whether the employees resigned for “Good Reason” as that term is defined in their employment agreements; (2) whether the employees violated their employment agreements by copying all the data on their work computers to personal computers shortly before resigning; (3) whether the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions of their agreements are enforceable; (4) whether the trial court correctly found the employees liable for conversion; and (5) whether the employees violated the Tennessee or Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act. We hold that the employees did not establish that they resigned for “Good Reason.” We further hold that they violated their employment agreements, and, accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment awarding them severance pay and benefits. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on the conversion claim but modify the judgment to award the former employer the value of tickets to a football game that one of the employees converted by sending the tickets to business clients, then renting a bus and taking the clients to the game several months after the employee’s resignation. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that the covenants not to compete were valid and enforceable and that the agreements are reasonable in time and geographic limits but overbroad in scope. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment in part and modify it in part. With respect to the portion of the trial court’s judgment not reversed, we affirm, as modified.

This is a lawsuit alleging unauthorized cremation. The plaintiffs’ mother, a Tennessee resident, died in Arkansas while visiting a friend. The plaintiffs hired a Tennessee funeral home to transport the decedent’s body back to her hometown of Medina, Tennessee, for an informal family viewing. The plaintiffs instructed the Tennessee funeral home operator that, after the viewing, the decedent’s body was to be taken to Nashville, Tennessee, to be cremated there. The Tennessee funeral home retained the defendant Arkansas funeral home to handle the matter. The Arkansas funeral home delivered the body to an Arkansas crematory. The plaintiffs’ mother’s body was cremated by the crematory in Arkansas, so the plaintiffs were deprived of the opportunity to view their mother’s deceased body in Tennessee. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against several defendants, alleging various causes of action arising out of the unauthorized cremation of their mother’s body in Arkansas. The defendant Arkansas funeral home filed a motion for summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Arkansas funeral home on all counts and certified the order as final under Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. 54.02. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

This appeal involves and Administrative Procedures Act proceeding in which the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners appeals an order of the trial court which vacated a civil penalty imposed by the Board on a licensed pharmacist when the Board found that the pharmacist illegally practiced naturopathy and practiced medicine without a license. We affirm the judgment of the trial court vacating the penalty and remand the case with instructions for the court to remand the case to the Board of Medical Examiners for reconsideration of the penalty.

The circuit court denied Appellants’ Rule 60.02 motion on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion. We affirm.

This is an appeal from an order of terminating a biological father's parental rights. Because the father did not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.

I concur fully in the result in this case as well as in the reasoning espoused to reach such. However, I write separately to clarify this Court’s holding in Jacob I. The majority implies that Jacob I required the filing of an appeal bond “with no monetary limit” to satisfy the requirements of section 27-5-103. Such was not the holding in Jacob.

This appeal calls into question the validity of a covenant not to compete. A former employee of a seller and distributor of brick brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that his agreement not to compete for two years with his former employer in the employee’s sales territory is unenforceable. Following a bench trial, the court held the covenant unenforceable and void. We hold that, because the employee had access to confidential pricing and profit margin information and was the sole commercial brick salesperson for the company in the Chattanooga area, the employer had a legitimate protectable business interest. We further hold that the terms of the non-compete agreement are reasonable under the facts of this case. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

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

This post-divorce appeal involves the suspension of parenting time. The mother made repeated allegations that the father was abusing their child; the father denied all of the allegations. After numerous proceedings, the father asserted that the mother was coaching the child to make false allegations of abuse and asked the trial court to terminate the mother’s parenting time. The trial court ordered a psychological evaluation of both parties and the child. After considering the evaluations and substantial testimony, the trial court determined that the father had committed no abuse and found that the child would be emotionally harmed by continued contact with the mother. The trial court then suspended the mother’s parenting time and enjoined all contact with the child until the mother obtains mental health counseling and treatment. The mother appeals. Based on our careful review of the record, we affirm.

In this divorce action, Stacy Ramsey (“Wife”) and Phillip Ramsey (“Husband”) stipulated grounds for divorce but proceeded to trial regarding several issues, including classification and division of the parties’ assets, as well as child support, spousal support, and attorney’s fees. Following a bench trial, the trial court valued the parties’ marital assets and divided the marital estate equally. The court awarded Husband both homes owned by the parties upon his payment to Wife of one-half the combined equity. The court found no basis to modify the parties’ mediated co-parenting agreement and set child support accordingly. The court also found that Wife was not entitled to alimony and awarded Husband $450 in attorney’s fees due to Wife’s failure to appear at a previous hearing. Wife appeals. We modify the trial court’s property division to correct mathematical errors, and we reverse the trial court’s calculation of child support. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Participant in protest action which took place at the Tennessee State Capitol brought an action alleging that former Governor and Deputy Governor retaliated against him for the exercise of his First Amendment rights during the protest. Participant appeals the grant of summary judgment against him and the trial court’s ruling that certain documents created by the Governor’s legal counsel were protected from discovery by the attorney-client and deliberative process privileges. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.
 

This is an appeal by Darlene H. from an order entered on May 21, 2013, which dismissed her petition for grandparent visitation on grounds that she lacked standing to intervene in the termination of parental rights and adoption proceedings involving her biological grandchild. A final order of adoption terminating the parental rights of Darlene H.’s daughter, Whitney H., to her daughter, Isabella S., was entered on April 24, 2013. The Notice of Appeal was not filed by counsel for Darlene H. until June 21, 2013, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the May 21, 2013 order. The adoptive parents, Jason O. and Rachel O., filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss.

Decedent passed away in 1999, and Husband filed a petition for an elective share and a year’s maintenance. Days before the trial was scheduled to begin in 2012 Husband discharged his attorneys and requested a continuance to find replacement counsel. The trial court permitted Husband’s attorneys to withdraw but denied Husband’s motion to continue. The trial court denied Husband’s petition for an elective share because Husband had already received the bequest Decedent left him in her will. The trial court also denied Husband’s request for a year of maintenance because Husband had transferred to himself over $250,000 from Decedent’s accounts shortly before her death, and the amount Husband transferred to himself exceeded the amount Husband sought as maintenance. Husband appealed the trial court’s judgment, and we affirm in all respects

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights based on abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home, abandonment as an incarcerated parent, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and incarceration under a sentence of ten years or more when the child was less than eight years old at the time of sentencing. Mother argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Mother also argues that none of the grounds for termination are supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the trial court erred in determining that termination was in the best interests of the Children. We affirm termination of parental rights on the enumerated grounds. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the Children.

This is a medical malpractice action arising from the death of Decedent. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal. We hold that section 29-26-121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms and that the failure to comply with the notice requirements does not mandate dismissal under the facts of this case. We vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings

Wife filed a petition to hold husband in criminal contempt for breaching provisions of their marital dissolution agreement that required husband to pay alimony, provide medical insurance, and maintain life insurance policies. Following a bench trial, husband was found guilty of criminal contempt for seventy separate violations of the agreement. The trial court awarded wife $157,850.00 for alimony arrearages, $8,075.25 to reimburse medical insurance expenses, and $11,801.19 for attorney’s fees. The trial court also sentenced husband to thirty days of incarceration, but stayed the sentence for ninety days pending husband’s compliance with the judgment. After reviewing the record, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises from the granting of an order of protection. Yenny Walker (“Walker”) dated Janek Pawlik (“Pawlik”). Walker broke off the relationship and later filed a petition for an order of protection against Pawlik. The general sessions court entered an order of protection.  Pawlik appealed to the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Walker an order of protection against Pawlik based on a finding of stalking. Pawlik appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court’s finding that he was stalking Walker.  After reviewing the record, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding of stalking. Also, in keeping with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-617 and relevant case law, we remand for the Trial Court to determine and award to Walker her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending this appeal. We affirm the Trial Court.

Defendants challenge only the Chancery Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order regarding a 444 acre farm located in Fayette County. For the following reasons, we find the Chancery Court acted with subject matter jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Chancery Court, therefore, is affirmed.

The issues on appeal in this financially catastrophic divorce proceeding include who is liable for the debt of $240,000 that Wife incurred after the complaint for divorce was filed. The trial court held Wife liable for the entire sum and Husband jointly and severally liable for $75,889.59 of that amount upon the finding that $75,889.59 was used to preserve the parties’ principal marital asset, the residence, pending its sale. Husband contends this was error for he expressly refused to be liable for this debt. The court also awarded a judgment against Husband in favor of Wife for $101,714 of expenses she incurred to maintain the marital residence. Wife was awarded one half of Husband’s pension and $75,000 of her attorney’s fees as alimony in solido, and sixty months of rehabilitative alimony, at $1,250 per month. Husband contends that all of these awards were error. Husband, however, provided no transcript of the evidence or statement of the evidence; therefore, there is no evidence before this court upon which to find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s findings of fact in all respects. Further, we find no error with the trial court’s legal conclusions or judgments by classifying the award as alimony in futuro. All other rulings by the trial court are affirmed.