APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Respondent utility district commissioners appeal the trial court’s determination that a ground for removal from office added to Tennessee Code Annotated § 7-82-307(b)(2), as amended effective June 2009, may be applied retrospectively to acts occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment to remove them from office. They also appeal the trial court’s determination that the additional ground for removal of commissioners, “failing to fulfill the commissioner’s or commissioners’ fiduciary responsibility in the operation or oversight of the district,” is not unconstitutionally vague. We reverse retrospective application of the additional ground for removal contained in the statute, as amended; hold that the statute is not void for vagueness; and remand.

In this appeal we must determine whether an injured worker was an “employee” or a
“temporary worker” within the meaning of a commercial general liability insurance policy.
The policy excludes coverage for injuries to the insureds’ employees, but it covers injuries
to “temporary workers” who are not employees, as that term is defined in the policy. The
trial court granted summary judgment to the worker upon concluding that he was a
“temporary worker,” and therefore covered under the policy, and it denied the insurer’s
motion for summary judgment. We find that the worker was not a “temporary worker” as
that term is defined by the insurance policy. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the
worker’s motion for summary judgment and denying the insurer’s motion. We reverse and
remand for entry of an order granting summary judgment to the insurer.

In this appeal we are asked to construe the scope of the Tennessee Lemon Law and to determine whether it applies to Plaintiff’s vehicle. For the following reasons,we find the law applicable to vehicles with a “gross vehicle weight” of 10,000 pounds or less, and we affirm the trial court’s conclusions that Plaintiff is entitled to protection and relief thereunder.

This dispute arises from a fire that destroyed six adjoining buildings in 1997. The buildings were located along a single city block, running north to south, in downtown Memphis, Tennessee. Defendant owned the second building, sandwiched between one building to the north, owned by one of the Plaintiffs, and the four remaining buildings to the south, owned by the other Plaintiff. Approximately one month before the fire, a substantial portion of the second and third buildings collapsed, damaging all six buildings, and compromising the structural integrity of each building. Due to safety concerns, the parties were ordered not to enter the buildings and were required to ensure that their buildings were inaccessible to the public. The parties complied with the orders. Shortly thereafter, a trespasser entered the Defendant’s building and started a fire which spread to each of the adjoining buildings resulting in substantial damage. Plaintiffs filed negligence actions against the Defendant and argued that she was liable to them for their property damage caused by the criminal acts of the trespasser. Following a trial, the trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of the Defendant based on its conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to establish any of the requisite elements of their negligence claims. After throughly reviewing the record, we affirm.

The trial court granted Mother’s petition to waive mediation and modify custody, and modified the parties’ parenting schedule upon finding a material change of circumstance. We affirm.

Mary Fern Smith (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the trial court seeking the appointment of a conservator for her 90-year-old mother, Mary F. Stratton (“Mother”). Mother filed a motion to dismiss citing the provisions of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). The trial court held that it did not have jurisdiction of the petition because Mother was not a resident of Roane County. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-101 (2007). It dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves the modification of a parenting plan. The father filed a petition alleging a material change in circumstances and seeking to be designated primary residential parent for the parties’ minor son. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the mother had violated the parenting plan and held that this constituted a material change in circumstances. It changed the designation of primary residential parent from the mother to the father, held the mother in contempt, and awarded the father attorney fees as punishment for the contempt. The mother now appeals. The trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. After a careful review of the evidence, we affirm the finding of a material change in circumstances, but hold that the trial court erred in holding that it was in the child’s best interest to change the designation of primary residential parent from the mother to the father. We also vacate the holding of contempt against the mother and the award of attorney fees as punishment for the alleged contempt and remand for additional findings.

This complex litigation arises out of a series of disputes between two former partners and members in more than twenty partnerships and limited liability companies that were in the business of real estate development. Following a tumultuous six year business relationship, in an attempt to extricate themselves from their business relationships, the parties executed a Membership Interest and Exchange Agreement, which distributed the entities so a portion were solely owned by one former partner/member and the others were solely owned by the other former partner/member. After closing on the Exchange Agreement, the plaintiff commenced this action against his former business partner alleging fraud, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent transfer of which most, but not all, of the claims arose from the Exchange Agreement. The complaint was later amended to add additional claims. The defendant filed a Counter-Claim alleging that the plaintiff was also in breach of the Exchange Agreement. The trial court dismissed several of the plaintiff’s claims on summary judgment. The remaining issues were tried. At the close of the plaintiff’s proof during the jury trial, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant on some, but not all, of the remaining claims. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury entered a verdict for the defendant on the remaining claims. Although the jury found the defendant in breach of three provisions of the Exchange Agreement and a partnership agreement of a jointly owned company, the jury awarded no damages based upon the plaintiff’s prior knowledge and acquiescence of the breaches. Thereafter, each party sought to recover their respective attorney’s fees pursuant to § 11(l) of the Exchange Agreement. The trial court held that defendant was the prevailing party; therefore, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to recover his attorney’s fees pursuant to § 11(l) of the Exchange Agreement and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant. The trial court also awarded the defendant indemnity under the bylaws of one corporation and the partnership agreement of another.The trial court also assessed discretionary costs against the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff raises numerous issues relating to the dismissal of his claims on summary judgment and directed verdict, the instructions given to the jury, the trial court’s ruling on a post-trial motion to amend the defendant’s answer, attorney’s fees and costs, and indemnity. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment and directed verdict in all respects. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on attorney’s fees and costs under the Exchange Agreement, holding that as the trial court correctly determined the defendant was the prevailing party for those purposes. We also affirm the trial court’s determinations that the defendant was entitled to indemnification under the provisions of the Partnership Agreement and indemnification under the bylaws of IS Investment, Inc.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on the minor children (“the Children”) of Tammy S. (“Mother”). Upon order of the Campbell County Juvenile Court entered September 19, 2011, the Children were taken into emergency protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) due to unsanitary conditions in the family home and concerns regarding inappropriate supervision and medical neglect of one of the Children. DCS filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights on July 11, 2012. The petition alleged several statutory grounds for termination, including abandonment based on willful failure to visit the Children, abandonment based on failure to provide a suitable home, persistent conditions, and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan. Following a bench trial conducted October 4, 2012, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights after finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Mother had abandoned the Children due to her failure to provide a suitable home, (2) Mother had failed to substantially comply with the permanency plan, and (3) the conditions leading to the Children’s removal persisted. The trial court further found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. We affirm.

The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on several grounds and determined that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We affirm.
 

Plaintiff filed a complaint against a hospital in which she asserted claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death. She later amended her complaint to add a party and did not contemporaneously file a certificate of good faith. The trial court dismissed the second complaint with prejudice based upon the court’s determination that plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. We affirm the trial court.
 

Wife was awarded rehabilitative alimony in 2004 that was to terminate in 2012. In 2009 Wife filed a petition to increase the duration and amount of her alimony, or, in the alternative, for an award of alimony in futuro. The trial court found Wife was in need of support, but it denied Wife’s petition, finding Wife had not used all reasonable efforts to rehabilitate herself. On appeal we find Wife’s inability to be rehabilitated as that term has been defined by the legislature warrants a modification of Wife’s alimony award. We reverse the trial court’s judgment denying Wife’s petition for alimony and conclude Wife is entitled to alimony in futuro but in a lesser amount. We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Wife’s request for attorney’s fees.
 

In this divorce action, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification of property, specifically the appreciation in value of farm property he owned in his own name prior to the marriage as marital property and of a life insurance policy owned by Wife as her separate property. Finding that the court erred in its classification of the increase in value of the farm property, we reverse the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings.
 

The Department of Children’s Services filed two petitions to terminate the parental rights of a mother to each of her two children after they were found to be dependent and neglected. The mother was served with both petitions, but she failed to appear at the proceedings where the court heard evidence about her persistent drug use and the Department’s attempts to help her overcome the problems that prevented her from safely parenting her children. The trial court found that the Department had established two grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence that applied to both petitions: persistence of conditions and substantial failure to comply with parenting plans. The court also found that it was in the best interest of the children that the mother’s parental rights be terminated. Mother appealed. We affirm.

The Department of Children’s Services filed two petitions to terminate the parental rights of a mother to each of her two children after they were found to be dependent and neglected. The mother was served with both petitions, but she failed to appear at the proceedings where the court heard evidence about her persistent drug use and the Department’s attempts to help her overcome the problems that prevented her from safely parenting her children. The trial court found that the Department had established two grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence that applied to both petitions: persistence of conditions and substantial failure to comply with parenting plans. The court also found that it was in the best interest of the children that the mother’s parental rights be terminated. Mother appealed. We affirm.

Lessor and Lessee executed a lease agreement that gave Lessee an option to purchase the rented property during a two-year period. A purchase and sale agreement was executed the same day outlining the terms of the sale if the option were exercised. Lessee did not exercise the option during the period specified, and Lessor sued the Lessee for breaching the purchase and sale agreement. Lessee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted. Lessor appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint. Because Lessee did not exercise the option to purchase the property, the purchase and sale agreement did not become operative.
 

This appeal arises from a dispute over the calculation of jail time credits. Henry J. Nagorny (“Nagorny”), an incarcerated individual, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Grainger County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to compel Sheriff Scott Layel to award him jail behavior credits that allegedly were due him. The Trial Court dismissed Nagorny’s petition sua sponte, stating that the calculation of credits is an administrative matter. Nagorny filed this appeal. We hold that the Trial Court, stating no compelling substantive basis for its decision, erred in dismissing Nagorny’s petition sua sponte. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for proceedings consistent with our Opinion.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of an inmate’s petition for common law writ of certiorari. Because the inmate 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.

We granted Robert Ledford Funeral Home, Inc.’s (“the Funeral Home”) application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 10 to consider the issue of whether the Funeral Home was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law if the undisputed material facts demonstrate that its “on call” employee, Johnny Tipton, was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with the Funeral Home when the vehicle accident causing injuries to the plaintiffs occurred. We find and hold that the undisputed material facts demonstrate that Mr. Tipton was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with the Funeral Home, and that the Funeral Home is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

In this dispute concerning a real estate sale contract, we have concluded that the gravamen of the action is for injury to property and that, under the applicable legal principles, the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding as to when the statute of limitations began to run. Because the action is barred by the statute of limitations, we reverse the decision of the trial court.

Andrew Spencer (“Plaintiff”) sued Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Railroad”) for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. After a jury trial, the Trial Court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict finding and holding, inter alia, that the Railroad was not at fault for Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff appeals raising an issue regarding jury instructions concerning foreseeability and notice. We find that the jury instruction regarding foreseeability and notice was misleading, and we vacate and remand for a new trial.

Mother appeals the designation of Father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ two minor children and the parenting schedule which gave Father substantially more parenting time. We affirm the trial court’s designation of Father as the primary residential parent finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision which was primarily based on the importance of continuity in the children’s lives. As for the parenting schedule, which awards Father 245 days and Mother only 120 days a year, we find that the evidence preponderates against such a disparity of parenting time; therefore, we reverse the parenting schedule and remand this issue for the trial court to adopt a revised parenting schedule that permits each parent to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the children’s lives that is consistent with the factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a).

Following a trial where Plaintiffs were awarded compensatory and punitive damages, Defendants filed a motion seeking a new trial based on juror misconduct. Defendants alleged the jurors arrived at the punitive damages amount using a quotient, or gambling, verdict. The trial court denied Defendants’ motion for a new trial and Defendants appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment because the jurors’ affidavits indicate that not all jurors agreed in advance to be bound by the mathematical process involved in arriving at a quotient verdict.

Father in child custody and support proceeding appeals the trial court’s findings: (1) that he was in criminal contempt of court; (2) that he was in civil contempt of court and setting the amount necessary to purge himself of contempt; (3) in suspending his parenting time; (4) modifying his child support obligation; and (5) ordering him to pay Mother’s attorney fees. We have determined that the finding of criminal contempt, the order modifying his child support obligation, and the order that Father pay Mother’s attorney fees should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings in connection therewith. In all other respects we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A painting contractor filed a complaint against Nashville’s Metropolitan Housing and Development Agency (MDHA) alleging that the agency had violated its own rules by failing to choose him as the lowest bidder on a painting contract. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an administrative decision, such as the award of a painting contract, can only be challenged through a petition for writ of certiorari, and the contractor had filed his complaint after the sixty day time limit for filing the writ had passed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102. We affirm.