APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Tellico Village Property Owners Association, Inc. (“TVPOA”) sued Health Solutions, LLC; Tellico Senior Living, LLC; Citizens National Bancorp, Inc. d/b/a Citizens National Bank of Tennessee; Home Federal Bank Corporation d/b/a Home Federal Bank; and NBN Corporation d/b/a National Bank of Tennessee (“National Bank”) with regard to a failed development project. TVPOA asked the Trial Court to declare that TVPOA’s option agreement concerning real estate in the development project had priority over certain recorded deeds of trust. National Bank appeals the Trial Court’s grant of partial summary judgment to TVPOA raising issues about whether the Memorandum of Agreement and Development Agreement between TVPOA and the Developer and the Developer Company violated the statute of frauds, and the Trial Court’s grant of TVPOA’s motion in limine to exclude evidence on National Bank’s claim of unjust enrichment. We find and hold that National Bank was not a party to the Memorandum of Agreement or the Development Agreement and, therefore, may not raise a statute of frauds defense. We further find and hold that the Trial Court did not err in excluding evidence on National Bank’s claim of unjust enrichment.

Fred V. Wilson and his wife, Anna R. Wilson, were the initial plaintiffs. They filed suit against Monroe County and the City of Sweetwater alleging that the amputation of Mrs. Wilson’s left leg was proximately caused by the negligence of those responding to an emergency call to her home. Mrs. Wilson died before trial and the case proceeded with her husband as the sole plaintiff, individually and in a representative capacity. At a bench trial, the court found that the injury to Mrs. Wilson’s left foot occurred during the ambulance ride from the Wilsons’ home to the hospital emergency room. It further found that the injury, which did not heal, necessitated the amputation of her leg. The court entered judgment against Monroe County. The claims against Sweetwater were dismissed. Monroe County appeals. The plaintiff, by way of a separate issue, challenges the sufficiency of the court’s award of damages. We affirm.

Plaintiff motorist was seriously injured when a padlock was hurled from beneath a lawn mower operated by a City of Memphis Parks Services employee and through the window of her vehicle, striking her in the head and resulting in the loss of her left eye. The motorist and her husband filed an action for damages against the City, which was adjudicated pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and the City appeals. We affirm.

This case involves the issue of retroactive child support and whether the trial court appropriately denied Wife’s request. Husband’s divorce petition was pending for more than three years before Wife answered. During that time the parties were separated, and Husband made monthly car payments on Wife’s vehicle in an amount that exceeded what would have been his child support obligation. We conclude that Husband satisfied his child support obligations based on the unique facts of this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Harold Dean McDaniel (“Husband”) sued Kimberly Ruth McDaniel (“Wife”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). After a long and contentious legal battle, including an earlier appeal to this Court and subsequent remand for a new trial, the Trial Court entered its supplemental final decree of divorce. Wife appeals, raising a number of issues. We hold that the Trial Court did not adequately compute child support, and, therefore remand for its proper computation. We also modify the allocation of guardian ad litem fees. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified, in part, and vacated, in part.

Claimant filed a claim against the estate of his first cousin, seeking repayment of $47,300 in loans he made to the Decedent in the months before his death. The trial court sustained the claim, and the administrator of the estate appeals. We affirm.

A bank filed a complaint against husband and wife to recoup money owed on a credit agreement after a foreclosure sale failed to produce sufficient funds to repay the loan in full. The trial court entered a judgment against the couple, and the couple appealed. We reverse the trial court’s judgment because the bank relied on two different versions of a credit agreement, thereby failing to prove the existence of an enforceable contract with definite terms.

Robin M.G. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor children, Daniel E.S. and Jacob A.G. (“the Children”). At separate times, the Children 1 were removed to the custody of the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and were placed in foster care. DCS took custody of Daniel after he pleaded “true” to disorderly conduct and was adjudicated unruly. A year later, DCS petitioned the court to declare both Children dependent and neglected in Mother’s care and took Jacob into immediate protective custody. After the Children were adjudicated as being dependent and neglected, DCS implemented a permanency plan for each and worked with Mother for two years in a failed effort to reunify the family. DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. After a bench trial, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple grounds for terminating Mother’s rights exist and that termination is in the best interest of the Children. Mother appeals. We affirm.

This is a declaratory judgment action wherein one insurance company, which provided general liability insurance coverage to the insured, asserts that another insurance company, which provided the same insured with automobile insurance coverage, had the primary duty to pay the cost of defending and to indemnify the insured in a third-party tort action filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-112. The plaintiff insurer asserts that the defendant insurer had the primary duty to provide and pay the cost of the defense in that action and to indemnify the insured pursuant to its automobile insurance policy because an additional insured was operating a “boom truck” owned by the insured that was listed under the defendant’s auto policy when the injury to the third-party plaintiff occurred.Both insurers filed motions for summary judgment.The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant insurer holding that the plaintiff, not the defendant, is liable for providing and paying the cost of the defense and for indemnifying the insured in the third-party tort action. We affirm.

This is a case alleging negligence by defendant, Mountain States Health Alliance, which resulted in injury to a patient, Ruby Williams. Ms. Williams fell off a table while she was undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging, also known as a nuclear stress test. Mountain States Health Alliance asserted that Ms. Williams’s complaint sounded in medical malpractice instead of ordinary negligence, and asked for summary judgment because Ms. Williams had not complied with the filing requirements of the medical malpractice statute. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the case involved a medical malpractice claim rather than an ordinary negligence claim. Ms. Williams’s Estate appeals. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

A townhome owner and her tenant challenge an amendment adopted by the owner’s townhome association prohibiting the owner from leasing her unit to a third party. The owner purchased her unit before there were any restrictions on leasing individual units. The amendment was adopted in accordance with the Horizontal Property Act and in accordance with the documents governing the units where she lives. The trial court granted the association’s motion for summary judgment enjoining the owner from renting her townhome to a third party and requiring the tenant to vacate the unit. On appeal we conclude the amendment is enforceable and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute over whether the parties’ MDA required the payment of alimony in futuro or alimony in solido. The Wife remarried shortly after the parties’ divorce, and the Husband filed a motion to terminate his alimony obligation, claiming that the obligation was for alimony in futuro, which automatically terminates upon remarriage. The trial court concluded that the obligation was for alimony in futuro, and therefore, the court granted the Husband’s motion to terminate his alimony obligation. Wife appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed this action against the instructor of a motorcycle safety course and his employer for injuries she sustained when she drove off of the designated course site and collided with a parked pickup truck.The trial court found that the plaintiff’s negligence claims were barred because she signed a valid written waiver/release from liability document prior to starting the course. The trial court also dismissed the plaintiff’s gross negligence claims, finding there was nothing in the record which would allow a reasonable juror to conclude the defendant exercised a conscious neglect of duty or a callous indifference to consequences. We affirm.

The father in this termination of parental rights case, who was incarcerated at all times material to this case at Riverbend Maximum Security Prison and is indigent, appeals the termination of his rights contending he was denied due process because he was not informed of his rights as required under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f), he did not sign a waiver of his rights, and he was not provided a court-appointed attorney. The father, who did not file a responsive pleading to the petition, contends, inter alia, that the trial court failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f), which mandates that he be informed that he has the right to participate and contest the allegations and, if he wished to contest the petition, that a court-appointed attorney would be provided to assist in contesting the petition. The record does not contain a signed waiver by the father nor does it reflect that the juvenile court made the requisite determination that he was informed of his rights and, after being informed, voluntarily waived his right to a court-appointed attorney to assist in contesting the petition, or that, if he did not participate after being informed of his rights, the court may proceed with such action without the parent’s participation as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f)(5). We, therefore, vacate the judgment of the juvenile court as it pertains to the father’s parental rights and remand with instructions for the juvenile court to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(f) and, if the father wishes to contest the petition, that a court-appointed attorney be provided and the case set for a new trial once his attorney has had a reasonable opportunity to prepare.
 

Former administrator of decedent’s estate appeals order denying his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, which sought relief from an order requiring him to reimburse the estate for fees incurred by the successor administrator. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

While I agree with the majority opinion in this case, I write separately to say that I view the question of whether to affirm the trial court’s decision to be a much closer question than is indicated by the majority opinion. I concur only because of the high standard of appellate review of the trial court’s decision.
 

This appeal arises from a divorce action in which the trial court named Mother the primary residential parent and entered a permanent parenting plan limiting Father’s parenting time to one hundred and eight (108) days a year. Father appeals. We affirm.
 

Upon the parties’ divorce, Mother was named the children’s primary residential parent. Years later, Mother petitioned to increase Father’s child support, and Father filed a countercomplaint seeking to be named the primary residential parent. The trial court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the entryof the parties’ parenting plan. The trial court further found that certain best interest factors weighed in favor of,and against, both parties; however, it determined that the children’s best interests would be served by Mother remaining the primary residential parent. Father appeals and, discerning no error, we affirm.
 

The appellant, a juvenile, appealed the juvenile court’s revocation of his probation and commitment to the custody of the Department of Children’s Services. The trial court, upon the juvenile’s timely appeal, affirmed the ruling of the juvenile court. We affirm.

Many years prior to the decedent’s death, he was ordered to pay child support. Upon his death, the decedent’s ex-wife filed a claim against his estate seeking recovery of child support arrearages. The personal representative filed an exception, and the trial court denied the claim. The ex-wife appeals. We reverse.

This case involves the status of the parties with respect to a baby conceived pursuant to a surrogacy agreement. The juvenile court determined that there was a valid surrogacy agreement and denied the surrogate’s requests for relief from a final order ratifying the surrogacy agreement. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

The Metropolitan Government issued a parking citation to the driver of a vehicle parked at an expired meter; upon his failure to pay the $11.00 fine within the requisite 45-day period, the fine was increased to $50.00 and costs were assessed. Driver challenged the fine as a violation of the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause of Article VI, Section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Metropolitan Government’s authority to increase the fine, and asserted that the parking citation was unconstitutional for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-3-501. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee mental health facility, effectively dismissing the case. Having determined that the trial court failed to state the legal grounds upon which it was granting summary judgment, we vacate the orders at issue and remand for entry of orders that comply with Rule 56.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

This interlocutory appeal involves comparative fault and amending to add a defendant. The plaintiff suffered slip-and-fall injuries at the defendant airport. The day before the statute of limitations ran, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the airport, alleging negligence. The airport’s answer asserted comparative fault but did not identify an additional tortfeasor. In later discovery, the airport identified its janitorial service. The plaintiff amended her complaint to add the janitorial service as a defendant, citing T.C.A. 20-1-119. The defendant janitorial service filed a motion to dismiss, citing the statute of limitations. The trial court declined to dismiss the claims against the janitorial service, holding that the disclosure of the identity of the janitorial service in discovery triggered the 90-day statutory period under Section 20-1-119 in which the plaintiff is permitted to amend the complaint to add a defendant. We reverse, holding that, by the express terms of Section 20-1-119, the statutory 90-day period is not triggered by a defendant’s response to a discovery request.

Respondent Convention Center Authority appeals the trial court’s determination that the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors contained in payroll records submitted by the contractors to the Convention Center Authority aren ot exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Petitioners cross-appeal the trial court’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.