APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves an inmate’s petition for common law writ of certiorari. The petitioner inmate was convicted of disciplinary offenses by the respondent prison disciplinary board. The inmate filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of the convictions for the disciplinary offenses. The trial court found that the inmate’s petition was not timely filed, and therefore that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition. We affirm.

Appellant corporation appeals the trial court’s rulings finding it liable for breach of contract damages, prejudgment interest, and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, the corporation’s president appeals the trial court’s action in piercing the corporate veil to hold him personally liable for the contract damages. We reverse the trial court’s finding with regard to veil piercing, but affirm the trial court in all other respects.

The Bureau of TennCare filed a petition to open Fred F. Crumley, Sr.’s estate in order to file a claim against the estate for medical assistance rendered. The court appointed an administrator, and the Bureau of TennCare filed a claim. Administrator argued that the statute of limitations barred recovery on any claim filed by the Bureau of TennCare. The trial court agreed with Administrator and dismissed the claim. The Bureau of TennCare appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court.

I agree fully with the majority’s analysis in this case. I concur separately only to add a comment as to the portion of the opinion on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This is a termination of parental rights case in which Guardian, along with Custodial Parent, sought to terminate the parental rights of Father to the Child. Following a hearing, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights, finding that Father abandoned the Child by failing to visit and by failing to provide child support and a suitable home; that the conditions which led to removal persisted; and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Father appeals. We affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights.

This appeal involves claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and misappropriation of image. The plaintiff, a customer of the defendant store, brought clothing into the store’s dressing room to try it on. While in a state of undress in the dressing room, the customer noticed in the reflection of her dressing-room mirror a globe on the store ceiling that appeared to contain a surveillance camera. Store employees initially told the customer that the globe contained a camera, but a store manager later told the customer that the ceiling globe did not contain a camera. Eventually, the plaintiff customer filed this lawsuit against the defendant store, seeking damages for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and misappropriation of image. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant store. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse, finding that the standard for summary judgment under Hannan v. Alltel Publishing has not been met in this case.

In this action the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds the statute of limitation had run on plaintiff's cause of action. The Trial Court overruled the Motion on the grounds that the tolling provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201(c) was applicable to GTLA actions and granted permission to appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. On appeal, we hold that the tolling provision does not apply because the statute did not expressly extend it to GTLA actions.

Plaintiff received serious injuries in an automobile accident, when she turned left in front of the oncoming vehicle operated by defendant. The suit resulted in a jury trial wherein the jury returned a verdict for defendant, which was approved by the Trial Judge. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Judge's Judgment.

This appeal involves claims against a decedent’s estate. After claims were filed against the decedent’s estate, the co-executors filed exceptions to the claim and attached a letter previously sent to the claimant discussing their objections to the claims. The probate court held that the co-executors had excepted to the claims only on the basis of timeliness, and that objections in the attached letter would not be considered additional exceptions. The co-executors argued that the claims were void and unenforceable irrespective of whether exceptions were filed; the probate court did not expressly rule on this contention. The claims against the estate were found to be timely filed, so the claims were reduced to judgments against the estate without a hearing on their merits. The co-executors appeal. We affirm in part and remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52.01 on the issue of whether the claims against the estate are unenforceable or void on their face.

Plaintiff's action for retaliatory discharge resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and an award of $120,000.00. Defendant appealed. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court upholding the jury verdict.

This is a termination of parental rights case involving the biological father, David R. (“Father”), of the minor child, Leland C.L. The child was taken into custody on June 14, 2010, at two months of age, due to the biological mother’s drug use and the fact that he tested positive for opiates and hydrocodone at birth. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights naming the father as a respondent on January 7, 2011. Following a bench trial, the Court granted the Petition upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father had abandoned the child by failing to provide a suitable home for him, and also that the father was in substantial noncompliance with his permanency plans. The Court further found that termination was in the child’s best interest. The father appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a mother and father as to their three children. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services became involved after it was reported that the father sexually abused the parties’ older daughter. Initially, the children were permitted to stay in the mother’s custody under a protection agreement and a restraining order which prohibited the father from any contact with the children. In violation of both, the mother and father fled the state with the children. As a result, the children were taken into protective custody. In the ensuing dependency and neglect proceedings, the children were found to be the victims of severe child abuse by both the father and the mother, and this finding was not appealed. The father eventually pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery of the child. The Department filed this petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. The trial court found several grounds for termination, including severe child abuse and abandonment by failure to support, and terminated the parental rights of both parents. The mother and father now appeal. We reverse the finding that the father abandoned his children by failure to support, but affirm all other grounds for termination and affirm the termination of the parental rights of both parents.

This is a grandparent visitation case, in which Mother appeals the trial court’s award of specific visitation to Appellee grandparents under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6306. Specifically, Mother argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that she opposed visitation, that she had failed to rebut the presumption of substantial harm under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306(b)(4),and that grandparent visitation was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal in a writ of certiorari action arises from a dispute over the authority of a pension board. The City of Knoxville (“the City”) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) challenging an action by the City of Knoxville Pension Board (“the Pension Board”). The City alleged that the Pension Board exceeded its authority in allowing a number of employees (“the Respondents”) to select a new retirement plan option despite the fact that the Respondents already had made their onetime selection for a different and now less attractive retirement plan option. Knoxville voters previously had rejected by referendum an ordinance that would have given the Respondents this opportunity for a new selection. The Pension Board argued that it merely was correcting an inadvertent error that had disadvantaged the Respondents. The Trial Court held that the Pension Board exceeded its authority and reversed the actions of the Pension Board. The Respondents appeal to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.

Former owner of condominium unit whose unit was ordered sold after being determined, due to unsanitary conditions and offensive odors, to constitute a nuisance, appeals the trial court’s order permanently enjoining her from acquiring a unit in the condominium. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Sarah Hurst (“Hurst”) sued Colman S. Hochman (“Hochman”) and Hochman Family Partners, L.P. (“the Partnership”) alleging that Hochman had committed a battery upon her, and seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree that, inter alia, awarded Hurst damages of $2,500 against Hochman for battery; denied Hurst’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst’s claims against the Partnership. Hurst appeals raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in denying her claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. We affirm.

This appeal involves a claim of retaliatory discharge. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant shipping company, working in a job position that required physical labor. The plaintiff seriously injured his back in the course of his employment. As a result, he underwent surgery and took an extended leave of absence. After his leave of absence, the plaintiff returned to his former position with no restrictions. A month later, he suffered another back injury that necessitated another leave of absence. Pursuant to its medical leave policy, the defendant company terminated the plaintiff’s employment. Eight months after his employment was terminated, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging that he was discharged in retaliation for his workers’ compensation claim. The plaintiff’s employment contract included a contractual six-month limitations period. The defendant company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the six-month contractual limitations period, and also asserting that it was entitled to judgment on the merits based on the undisputed facts. The trial court declined to grant the company’s motion for summary judgment based on the six-month limitation period, but it granted summary judgment in favor of the company on the merits. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse in part but affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on a different basis than that upon which the trial court relied, holding that the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit is time-barred under the contractual limitations period in the plaintiff’s employment contract.

This appeal arises from the denial of Plaintiff/Appellant’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm.

Mother of two children appeals the trial court’s finding of a material changeof circumstances and modification of the parenting plan; Mother also appeals the requirement that she reimburse Father for certain costs incurred. Finding no error, we affirm.

A homeowner sued builders for the defective construction of a house, alleging breach of contract, intentional misrepresentations, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims, but found the builders liable for intentional misrepresentations and breach of the contract by failing to build the house in a workmanlike manner. The trial court awarded the homeowner the full amount she paid to have the house built as well as her attorney’s fees. The builders appealed, claiming the evidence did not support the amount of damages awarded, the evidence did not support the court’s finding of intentional misrepresentation, and the homeowner was not entitled to attorney’s fees. We modify the damages awarded to the homeowner to conform to the evidence presented. We reverse the court’s award of attorney’s fees, and we reverse the court’s finding that the builders intentionally misrepresented material facts.

This is a divorce case in which the husband challenges the award of alimony. After the divorce trial, the trial court awarded the wife transitional alimony and alimony in futuro. It also awarded the wife a monetary amount per month for her share of the husband’s military pension benefits. The husband filed a motion to alter or amend arguing inter alia that the military would not make direct payments to the wife from his military benefits because the marriage did not overlap the husband’s active-duty military service for the requisite number of years. Based on the husband’s argument, the trial court modified the alimony award by deleting the requirement that the husband divide his military pension benefits with the wife, but increasing the husband’s in futuro alimony obligation by an equal amount. The husband now appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The parties, owners of adjoining rural property in Hickman County who shared a single driveway that was used as access to their respective properties, filed competing pleadings to establish the common boundary line and to quiet title. On the day of trial, the parties announced their agreement to settle the dispute; the agreement was read in open court, counsel for both parties acknowledged their client’s consent to the settlement as read, and a diagram of the new boundary line was made an exhibit to the transcript of the evidence. The court approved the parties’s settlement in open court; however, before the judgment could be entered, Plaintiffs’ withdrew their consent to the settlement. Over Plaintiffs’ objections, the trial court entered judgment based upon the settlement announced in open court. Plaintiffs filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60.02 motion to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the motion. In this appeal, Plaintiffs contend the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow Plaintiffs’ to withdraw from the agreement or, alternatively, in failing to conduct a hearing on the issue of whether or not Plaintiffs were bound by the agreement. Finding no error, we affirm.

Mother of two children appeals an order terminating her parental rights. Both children were taken into Department of Children’s Services custody after they tested positive for cocaine. The trial court found several grounds for termination and determined that termination is in the children’s best interests. Mother contends the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that termination of her rights is in the best interest of the children. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is a libelous defamation case. Appellant, a public figure, filed suit against Appellees for publication and distribution of allegedly defamatory comments. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees upon its finding that Appellees had negated the essential element of actual malice, and that Appellant had not met her burden to provide sufficient countervailing evidence so as to survive summary judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

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