APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an involuntary commitment case, in which we are asked to review the trial court’s grant of Appellee/Hospital’s motion to dismiss. The trial court found that all of the claims asserted in Appellant/Patient’s complaint sounded in medical malpractice. Because Appellant failed to provide a certificate of good faith as required under the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-115, et seq. (“TMMA”), the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellant argues that not all of her stated claims sound in medical malpractice. We affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s claim asserting a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, we conclude that Appellant has stated a claim for medical battery, as well as a claim for negligence per se arising from alleged violations of the involuntary commitment statutes. Moreover, because Appellant’s negligence per se claims survive the motion to dismiss, she may also maintain the false imprisonment and invasion of privacy claims. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

This is a divorce appeal. The parties were married for two years and had one minor child. At the time of the divorce trial, both parties were unemployed. The trial court adopted the mother’s proposed parenting plan in its entirety, based on its review of the child support history. It awarded minimal alimony and calculated child support by imputing income to the father but not to the mother. The father appeals. We affirm the award of alimony, vacate the parenting plan and the award of child support, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. Mother’s rights were terminated on grounds of abandonment by failure to support the children within four months prior to her incarceration and wanton disregard for the children’s welfare, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This case involves the modification of child support. On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that Father was voluntarily underemployed, and erred in calculating Father’s child support obligation. Mother and Father argue that the trial court erred in denying their requests for an award of attorney’s fees and costs at trial. Additionally, Mother and Father request an award of attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This case involves a petition filed in the Davidson County Juvenile Court to change custody of a minor child from his father to his mother. The Juvenile Court Magistrate conducted an extensive hearing, and ruled at the conclusion of the proof that there had been a material change of circumstances, but that it was in the child’s best interest that the father remain the child’s primary residential parent. The mother filed a timely request for a re-hearing before the Juvenile Court Judge. She appeared pro se at the de novo hearing, and did not present any witnesses or any proof. The Juvenile Court Judge declared that no material change of circumstances had been proved, but that the magistrate’s order should be affirmed. Because we cannot reconcile the internal inconsistencies in the Juvenile Court’s order, we vacate that order.

This is a dispute between insurance companies over coverage related to a car accident. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the driver’s auto policy covered damages resulting from the independent acts of negligence of the car owner.

A mother and her husband filed a petition to enroll a foreign judgment regarding her former husband’s visitation rights with her child for the purpose of extinguishing her former husband’s rights to see the child. The former husband resides in Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin court declined to relinquish jurisdiction over the case. The trial court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Debtors on a promissory note and deed of trust who have not made a mortgage payment since October 2008 filed this action in October 2009 in an attempt to stay foreclosure proceedings and alternatively for damages based on unjust enrichment. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims and the plaintiffs did not appeal that order. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary dismissal and for stay of foreclosure pending the outcome of the motion for reconsideration; the motion was denied. The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from the order denying the motion for reconsideration and stay. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is the second round in a long-running dispute over the provisions in a warranty deed conveying historic Tulip Grove to the Ladies Hermitage Association (LHA). In the deed LHA agreed to make certain payments to the grantor and her heirs. In a prior appeal this Court affirmed the chancellor’s ruling that the property did not revert to the heirs so long as LHA paid the heirs at least $600 every six months. On remand the chancellor held that LHA did not have an implied obligation to keep the property open for paid tours and that LHA did not have to share with the heirs the income derived from renting the property for special events. We affirm the chancellor on the implied obligation and reverse the holding on the heirs’ right to a portion of the special event income.

Appellant nurse assistant’s name was placed on the Abuse Registry after the Appellee Tennessee Department of Health concluded that he had committed an act of abuse on an elderly person in his care at a nursing home. Appellant appeals, arguing that substantial and material evidence does not exist to show that he committed an act of abuse on the nursing home resident. Having determined that substantial and material evidence in the record supports the decision of the Tennessee Department of Health, we affirm.

This is a divorce appeal, primarily over property issues. The parties were married for approximately six years, with no children born of the marriage. During the marriage, they owned several homes, including the home in which they lived, but some went into foreclosure. Given the complicated state of the parties’ finances, the trial was lengthy. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court entered an order holding that the home in which the couple lived was the wife’s separate property and dividing the remainder of the parties’ assets and debts. The husband now appeals, raising numerous issues. We affirm in part, and reverse the finding that the home in which the parties resided was the wife’s separate property. In light of our holding that the home in which the parties lived was marital property, we remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of its division of the marital estate.

A judgment creditor sued the owners of two parcels of real property, who received the
property from the ex-wife of debtor, and the ex-wife, to enforce a judgment lien on property
previously owned by debtor; debtor’s ex-wife, who was awarded the property in a final
divorce decree entered subsequent to the recording of the judgment lien, claimed that her
interest in the property had priority over that of the judgment creditor. The trial court granted
summary judgment to creditor; ex-wife and grantees appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the
trial court.

Grandparents of a minor child who had raised the child since her birth, filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s Mother. The trial court held that the Mother had abandoned the child by failing to visit and failing to support her and that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. Mother appeals; finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Defendant/Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and violation of the implied consent law. At trial, Appellant and the arresting officer gave conflicting testimony as to whether Appellant refused to submit to a blood test. The jury acquitted Appellant of the driving under the influence charge, but the trial court, crediting the arresting officer’s testimony, found that the Appellant had violated the implied consent law. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in crediting the testimony of the arresting officer despite the acquittal by the jury. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Timothy Scott Marcum and Audrey L. Marcum (“Plaintiffs”) purchased real property containing a house originally constructed by Haskel “Hack” Ayers and Tomi Ayers (“Defendants”). After the purchase, Plaintiffs discovered problems with the house. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement. Subsequently, Plaintiffs discovered additional problems with the house. Plaintiffs sued Defendants. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendants summary judgment after finding that the settlement agreement constituted an unambiguous release of all claims past, present, and future. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We affirm.

The parental rights of Mother and Father to their two children were terminated based upon abandonment, persistent conditions, and non-compliance with the permanency plans. We affirm in part and we reverse in part; however, we affirm the termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father.

Jeffrey R. Cooper (“Cooper”) sued Phillip Glasser, Richard Glasser, and David Glasser (“the Defendants ”) in the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) 1 for, among other things, breach of contract. Cooper previously had filed two lawsuits arising out of the same underlying facts as those of this lawsuit. Both previous lawsuits, the first in a California state court and the second in a United States District Court in Tennessee, were voluntarily dismissed. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court held that the second voluntary dismissal in federal court was a judgment on the merits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, res judicata prevented Cooper from filing suit for a third time in Tennessee. Cooper appeals. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Father’s rights based on clear and convincing evidence that Father was sentenced to incarceration for ten (10) years while the child at issue was younger than eight (8) years of age. The trial court further found that it was in the best interest of the child for Father’s rights to be terminated in order for the child to establish a permanent home with his foster family. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its best interest analysis. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff/Appellant sustained injuries after she tripped over a steel post that was protruding just above the surface of a parking lot that is owned by the Defendant/Appellee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, finding that the Appellee owed no duty to the Appellant, and that Appellant was at least 50% at fault for her own injury, thus negating her negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Health filed civil charges against Nurse Jackson alleging that she had inappropriately prescribed medications for her daughter. Before a hearing on the merits was held, however, the Department filed a Notice of Nonsuit without prejudice. After an Order of Voluntary Dismissal was entered, Nurse Jackson filed a Petition in the chancery court seeking dismissal of the case against her with prejudice, as well as her attorney fees expended, claiming that the Board of Nursing had subjected her to an unwarranted investigation and prosecution which was “not well grounded in fact and was not warranted by existing law, rule or regulation[.]” She did not, however, seek a consideration of the merits of the charges against her. The chancery court dismissed Nurse Jackson’s Petition. We find that the chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider her Petition; therefore, the judgment of the chancery court is vacated and the case is dismissed.

In this post-divorce case, Mother sought to modify the existing custody arrangement relating to the Children that she shared with Father. At the time of divorce, the parties agreed to equal co-parenting time but designated Mother as the primary residential parent. Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Father objected. The trial court held that there had been a material change of circumstances and that it was in the best interest of the Children to modify the parenting plan as Mother requested. Father appeals the court’s modification decision. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is a divorce case. Prior to the parties’ marriage, the wife lived in Arkansas and the husband lived in Tennessee. When the parties married, the wife quit her job in Arkansas and the parties moved into a house in Tennessee. They separated after just seven months of marriage, and the husband filed this complaint for divorce. After a two-day trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced and equitably divided the parties’ marital property. The trial court awarded the wife transitional alimony, attorney fees as alimony in solido, and moving expenses for the wife to return to Arkansas. The husband now appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves a claim for attorney’s fees and costs under the Public Records Act. The
trial court declined to award fees and costs to appellant under Tenn.Code Ann. § 10-7-
505(g), which requires a finding of a willful and knowing failure to comply with requests
filed pursuant to the Act. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying an award of attorney’s fees and costs because the court made specific findings
concerning the willfulness of appellee’s failure to respond, and the evidence does not
preponderate against those findings. Affirmed.

This appeal involves an attempt to substitute parties after the original plaintiff in this wrongful death case died. The trial court struck the motion to substitute parties and dismissed the case. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves a claim for breach of a life insurance contract issued by Old Line. Father named his son, a minor, as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. When Father died, the proceeds of the policy were issued to minor’s older sister, who depleted the funds. Beneficiary filed suit against Sister and Old Line, alleging that Sister misappropriated the life insurance proceeds and that Old Line erroneously awarded the proceeds to Sister without proper documentation. A default judgment was entered against Sister. Following a trial on Beneficiary’s claim against Old Line, the court ordered Old Line to re-issue a portion of the proceeds to Beneficiary. Old Line appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.