APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Edith M. Ramsey and Mary E. Horton filed a petition seeking a declaratory judgment with regard to the interpretation of the Last Will and Testament of Pauline Martin (“the Will”). Specifically, Ms. Ramsey and Ms. Horton sought an order establishing the location and width of a right-of-way granted in the Will. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment on October 11, 2011 finding and holding, inter alia, that the right-of-way referenced in the Will was a farm road with a width of twelve feet as shown on an August 25, 2009 survey. Charles E. Martin, another beneficiary under the Will, appeals to this Court. We find and hold that the right-of-way referenced in the Will is not the farm road, but is what is referred to as the Ramsey right-of-way as shown on the August 25, 2009 survey, and we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment as to the location. We affirm the remainder of the Trial Court’s judgment.

The biological father of the child at issue appeals the termination of his parental rights and the dismissal of Father and Step-Mother’s petition for custody and counter-petition for stepparent adoption. The petition for termination was filed by the partial guardians who were seeking to adopt the minor child. The trial court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that Father willfully failed to support the mother for the four months prior to the birth of the child and willfully failed to support the child for the four months prior to the filing of the petition. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We have determined that one ground for abandonment was established by clear and convincing evidence, however, we have also determined that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we reverse the termination of Father’s parental rights. We have also determined the trial court erred in dismissing Father and Step-Mother’s petition for custody and counter-petition for step-parent adoption and remand this issue for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this action for divorce the Chancery Court of Jefferson County awarded the parties a divorce, divided the marital property and awarded the wife alimony in futuro. On appeal, both parties attack the appropriateness of the alimony award. The wife also asserts that the court erred in classifying one asset as the husband’s separate property. We affirm.

I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights. However, it is my opinion that the Guardians failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father willfully failed to support the child in the four months prior to the filing of the petition. The evidence set out in the majority opinion does not, in my opinion, meet the Constitutionally required standard

This is an action to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease from an individual whom the lessor claims guaranteed the obligations of the corporate tenant. The only issue on appeal is whether the individual defendant signed the lease solely in his capacity as the president of and on behalf of the corporate tenant, or whether the parties also intended to bind the individual defendant as a guarantor of the tenant’s obligations. The trial court distinguished the facts of this case from those in the recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision in 84 Lumber Co. v. Smith, 356 S.W.3d 380 (2011), and summarily dismissed the claims against the individual defendant. We affirm.

This is an appeal from an order granting a Motion for Default and authorizing the clerk and master to sell the parties’ real property. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

A physician convicted of driving under the influence in another state was adjudged to have engaged in “unprofessional, dishonorable or unethical conduct”, as proscribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(1), by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners; the Board placed the physician’s medical license on probation and ordered him to obtain treatment and counseling. On petition for review, the Chancery Court held that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and reversed the Board’s decision. We reverse, holding that Tenn.Code Ann.§ 63-6-214(b)(1) provides sufficient notice to the physician that his conduct was subject to potential discipline by the Board.

In this divorce proceeding, Husband appeals the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro to Wife. Finding no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff, David Desgro, alleged that he hired defendant, Paul Pack d/b/a Resi Chek, to perform an inspection on a house plaintiff wanted to purchase. After defendant inspected the house and reported the house had no major problems, plaintiff purchased the house in reliance on defendant’s report. Plaintiff claims that he then discovered multiple serious issues with the house, including plumbing problems, insulation and heat pump problems, and inadequate floor support. Plaintiff filed suit 13 months after the inspection was completed, and defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff’s signed contract with defendant provided that plaintiff must file suit on any claims within one year of the date of inspection. The trial court found that plaintiff signed such an agreement and that the contractual limitations period of one year was reasonable. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, ruling that plaintiff’s claims were untimely. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This is an action for legal malpractice against a court-appointed attorney in a criminal case. The Circuit Court of Knox County entered a judgment for the defendant. We affirm.

This appeal concerns a termination of parental rights. Custodial Parents filed a petition for adoption and termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights to the Child. The trial court terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights, finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support several statutory grounds of termination and that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. The Parents appeal the court’s best interest finding. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

After he lost his job at the University of Tennessee, the plaintiff filed this action against UT and several of his coworkers. The complaint can be summarized thusly: the plaintiff had an intimate relationship with a female coworker and, after it ended, she and three of her friends, who were also coworkers of the plaintiff, set out to get him fired. He seeks to impose liability on the four individuals and UT under various theories. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted. The plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend which the trial court denied. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on four minor children (“the Children”) of the defendant, Tabitha W. (“Mother”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took the Children into custody in July 2010 because of Mother’s continuing drug use and the Children’s truancy problems. DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother in July 2011, alleging that numerous grounds for termination exist. Following a bench trial, the court granted the petition after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was in substantial noncompliance with her permanency plan, and that the conditions originally leading to removal still persisted. The court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Mother appeals. We affirm.

A prison inmate filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the chancery court, seeking review of a prison disciplinary action. Numerous respondents were listed in the complaint, and one respondent filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss because, among other things, the petition was not verified or sworn, and it did not state that it was the first application for the writ. The petitioner appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

James Bostic (“the Claimant”), an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction, filed a claim against the State of Tennessee and others seeking money damages. The claim against the State was transferred from the Division of Claims Administration to the Claims Commission pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(c) 2012). The State filed (1) a motion to dismiss raising several defenses and (2) the affidavit of Brenda Boatman. Based upon the affidavit, the Claims Commission granted the State summary judgment and dismissed the Claimant’s claim. We affirm.

This appeal turns on whether a commercial lease agreement requires the tenant to pay the landlord’s Tennessee excise tax. We agree with the conclusion reached by the trial court that the lease does require the tenant to pay the excise tax.

The orders of the trial court were designated as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because we find that certification of the judgment under Rule 54.02 was in error, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

This case involves the sale of a home in 1994. The purchaser and her husband filed a complaint against the seller, alleging that they discovered extensive fire damage to the home in 2010. The complaint alleged misrepresentation, mistake, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted the seller’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims were barred by various statutes of limitations, as the trial court found that the discovery rule was inapplicable. We find that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to survive a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, as they implicate the discovery rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. Therefore, we reverse in part the order of dismissal, to the extent that the purchaser’s claims were dismissed on the basis of the statutes of limitations, and we remand for further proceedings. We affirm in part the portion of the trial court’s order that addressed a separate issue, as that ruling was not challenged on appeal.

This is an action for breach of contract to purchase real property. The trial court found that a valid contract existed between the parties and that Buyer breached the contract. The trial court found that Seller failed to prove general damages, however, where Seller failed to prove the fair market value of the real property at the time of breach. The trial court further found that Buyer was entitled to a credit against special damages proven by Seller, and that Seller was not entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party where the provision for attorney’s fees had been crossed out on the standard form contract. Seller appeals and Buyer cross-appeals. We affirm.

In this post-divorce appeal regarding child support, we have concluded that the trial court erred in requiring mother to establish a trust account for gifts to the parties’ minor child. In all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Branch Banking and Trust Company (“BB&T”) provided financing for a construction project and recorded a deed of trust. The excavation contractor, Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., started work on the project and had done substantial work when Marshall & Ilsley Bank (“M&I Bank”) made a loan and recorded its trust deed. BB&T was paid off out of the proceeds of the loan from M&I Bank. Blalock was also paid current with the proceeds from the M&I Bank loan. BB&T released its trust deed. The developer later defaulted, and Blalock filed this action to enforce its statutory lien. M&I Bank’s assignee, Cay Partners, LLC, filed a counterclaim asserting that it should be entitled to the priority position of BB&T. Blalock and Cay filed competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Blalock’s motion. Cay appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Shelby County. Appellants, former employees of the Shelby County Department of Homeland Security, filed suit against Appellee for retaliatory discharge under both the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-1-304, and the Tennessee Public Employee Political Freedom Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 8-50-603. The trial court determined that Appellants had failed to meet their burden to show that the termination of their employment was causally connected to any whistleblowing activity and granted judgment in favor of Appellee. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff appeals a jury verdict awarding her damages in the amount of approximately $5,000 in her action for damages against her uninsured motorist insurance carrier. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on two minor children, Holly B.C. (DOB: December 22, 2005) and Kylie M.C. (DOB: December 6, 2006) (collectively “the Children”). Defendants, Angela C. (“Mother”) and Chad C. (“Father”), are the biological parents of the Children. The Children were taken into custody in September 2007, after the defendants left them with a church nursery worker for two weeks and did not return during that period. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate parental rights on September 25, 2008, and a hearing was held on the petition in September 2009. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The court later decided to hold the petition in abeyance to give the defendants an opportunity to make more progress with respect to their permanency plans. In July 1 2010, the defendants’ visitation with the Children was suspended due to alleged danger to the Children. A final hearing was held in September 2011. At that time, the Children had been in state custody for approximately four years. The trial court terminated the defendants’ parental rights. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents had failed to substantially comply with the permanency plan, that the conditions leading to removal still persisted, and that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Defendants appeal. We affirm.

This appeal concerns an inmate’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The petitioner inmate was convicted of disciplinary offenses, which were affirmed by the Tennessee Department of Corrections. The inmate filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of the convictions. The trial court found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the inmate’s petition because it did not include a recitation that it was his first application for the writ. We reverse and remand the cause for further consideration in light of Talley v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 358 S.W.3d 185 (Tenn. 2011).