APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff, a public official, sued the defendants for libel and false light invasion of privacy. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the truth of the statements. The plaintiff sought to complete discovery before the motion was heard. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and plaintiff appealed. We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to the libel claims, but reverse the grant of summary judgment as to some of the false light claims.
 

The issue presented in this divorce case is which parent should be designated as the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor children. The trial court named the Appellee/Mother primary residential parent, and Appellant/Father appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Buyer purchased used automobile and signed contract stating the vehicle was being sold “as is” and without any warranties. After the transaction was completed and Buyer complained to Seller that the power steering was not working properly, Seller agreed to credit Buyer’s account with the cost of repairing the power steering. Buyer was unwilling or unable to pay for the repair out of his own pocket, and Seller ultimately repossessed the vehicle. Buyer sued Seller for breach of contract and trial court awarded Buyer damages. Seller appealed and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Seller modified the parties’ original contract when it agreed to compensate Buyer for the cost of repairing the vehicle.
 

The State filed a petition for child support against a father, on behalf of a non-parent caretaker who was caring for the father’s son. The juvenile court ordered the father to pay current and retroactive child support. The father filed a motion asking the court to rehear the child support matter and/or consolidate it with a separately pending child custody case. The juvenile court denied the motion, and the father appealed. We affirm.

This appeal involves a construction loan obtained by the plaintiffs for the construction of a new home. The loan proceeds were exhausted prior to the completion of the home. The plaintiffs then sued the lender bank for breach of contract, alleging that the bank had a duty
to inspect the construction prior to disbursing funds, and that its failure to complete inspections resulted in improper disbursement of the loan funds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank upon concluding that the bank had no contractual duty to
inspect the construction of the residence. The plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

Plaintiffs charged defendant with medical malpractice. The case was tried before a jury, resulting in a judgment for the defendant. An out-of-state medical doctor testified on behalf of the defendant, over the objection of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed to this Court, insisting that it was reversible error for the Trial Court to allow that expert to testify in violation of the "Locality Rule". On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

I do not believe the trial court went outside the parameters of its sound discretion when it increased father’s co-parenting time from 85 days to 143 days. Unlike many of the divorce cases we see, this one involves parents who, after the divorce, in the words of the majority opinion, “maintain[ ] a positive, cooperative relationship with one another regarding their co-parenting responsibilities.” Even more unique, this case presents a situation where father’s wife and his former spouse have a “positive relationship.”

The parties were divorced on September 2, 2009, and the Trial Court entered a Permanent Parenting Plan. On February 11, 2011, the father filed a Motion to Modify the PPP, alleging a change in circumstances. Following trial of the issues, the Trial Court increased the number of days the father would have the children and reduced the award of child support. The mother has appealed, we reverse the Trial Court.

Plaintiff filed this action in Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the Tennessee Retention Election Statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 17-4-1010 et seq. The Trial Judge held the statutes were constitutional, but concluded that intermediate appellate judges are subject to retention election only by the qualified voters of the grand division in which the judge resides. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm the Trial Court's decision that the statutes are constitutional, but reverse the Trial Court's holding that intermediate appellate judges are subject to retention only by the qualified voters of the grand division in which the judge resides.
 

This appeal involves retrospective insurance premiums on a workers’ compensation insurance policy. The defendant trucking company operates in several states, including Texas and Tennessee. Tennessee requires employers to maintain worker’s compensation insurance for certain employees, but Texas does not. The defendant trucking company purchased workers’ compensation insurance for its Tennessee employees from the plaintiff insurance company. The trucking company employed over-the-road truck drivers who were Tennessee residents. The trucking company decided to classify its Tennessee-resident overthe-road drivers as Texas employees whose on-the-job injuries would not be covered by the Tennessee workers’ compensation insurance policy. Consequently, the trucking company did not pay insurance premiums to cover those employees. The plaintiff insurance company conducted a retrospective premium audit; in the audit, it determined that the Tennesseeresident over-the-road drivers presented a risk of loss to the insurance company. Consequently, the insurance company notified the trucking company that it owed retrospective premiums based on those drivers. The trucking company refused to pay, so the insurance company canceled the insurance policy and filed this lawsuit for the retrospective premiums. The trialcourtgranted summaryjudgmentin favorof the insurance company,and the trucking company now appeals. We affirm, finding under the undisputed facts that the Tennessee-resident over-the-road employees presented a risk of loss to the insurer under the workers’ compensation insurance policy during the relevant policy periods.
 

The appellees claim ownership to two tracts of land listed as parcels 4.00 and 4.01 on the Union County Tax Map. They assert ownership through adverse possession as a result of members of their family allegedly farming and paying taxes on the parcels  ince 1917. The appellant was a bona fide purchaser of parcel 4.00 in 2003. The appellees filed a complaint to quiet title to determine ownership of the land; the appellant countered with a complaint for a declaratory judgment. The trial court consolidated the actions and concluded that the appellees held title to the parcels by adverse possession. The appellant appeals. We reverse.

Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit in the General Sessions Court. Following a trial, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff then attempted to raise his claim in Circuit Court, but the Circuit Court dismissed his claim on the basis of res judicata, finding no evidence that he had appealed the adverse General Sessions judgment to Circuit Court. Plaintiff then filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court. Because Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal to this Court is untimely, the appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This post-divorce appeal concerns the classification and division of property, namely a products liability settlement and a pension plan. Following the grant of the parties’ request for divorce, the trial court classified the proceeds of the settlement and the portion of the pension earned during the marriage as marital property. The court held that husband had dissipated the settlement proceeds without wife’s knowledge or consent. The court awarded husband the pension but awarded wife a judgment of $27,520.97 to equalize the division. Husband appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The order appealed is not a final judgment and therefore we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant is a prisoner challenging a decision of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. After the Board denied him parole, the appellant filed a common law writ of certiorari in the trial court. The trial court denied the appellant’s discovery motions and dismissed his petition with prejudice. We find no error in the trial court’s decision.
 

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father on the grounds of abandonment by incarcerated parents, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. On appeal, Mother and Father argue that DCS did not clearly and convincingly prove grounds for termination. Father further argues that DCS did not clearly and convincingly prove that termination was in the best interests of the children. Finally, Mother and Father argue that DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm.

On May 23, 2012, this Court entered an order directing Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Defendant”) to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Defendant responded to the show cause order and admitted that claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act remain outstanding. We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment.

The City of Etowah appeals a decision of the trial court leaving in place an injunction prohibiting the City from demolishing a house owned by the plaintiff, Edward Lee Carruth. The City’s Building Inspector, on behalf of the City, directed that the house be demolished. He acted pursuant to a city ordinance governing the clearing of unsafe structures. Carruth filed a complaint seeking (1) judicial review of the administrative ruling or, in the alternative, (2) review by writ of certiorari. The trial court issued the writ and entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting the City from demolishing or otherwise destroying the house. Following a bench trial, the court found that (1) there was inadequate proof to sustain the City’s action; (2) Carruth did not receive a hearing from the City prior to the City’s action; (3) the City failed to make findings of fact, as required by statute, in support of its decision; and (4) the cost of repairing the house was less than fifty percent of its value. The City challenges each of the trial court’s determinations and it further challenges the trial court’s conduct of a hearing on a common-law writ of certiorari. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal arises out of a lawsuit brought by the parents of a minor child who was struck by a school bus while riding his bicycle. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the trial court found that the child was 58% percent at fault for the accident and that the defendants were 42% at fault; judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. The trial court’s finding that the child was negligent was proper, and the evidence does not preponderate against the court’s allocation of fault between the parties; the judgment is affirmed in all respects.
 

In 1991, the parties divorced via a Final Decree which decreed that the husband was not the father of the wife’s expected child. In 2010, the State moved toestablish the husband’s paternity and for Rule 60.02 relief. The trial court denied the State’s requests finding the 1991 paternity determination res judicata. Because we find the paternity provision void as against public policy, we find the trial court erred in dismissing the State’s Motion to Establish Paternity and its motion for Rule 60.02 relief. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights and argues that the trial court erred in deciding the termination action while a de novo appeal of a dependency and neglect action was pending in circuit court. Finding no error in the actions of the trial court, we affirm.
 

I agree fully with the majority’s conclusions in this case. I write separately only because I would use different reasoning for holding that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of unclean hands.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court entered February 23, 2012, which order denied the motion of the plaintiffs below, as later supplemented, seeking to amend, alter or set aside a prior order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. The order appealed from is not a final order. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ appeal is hereby dismissed.

Defendant in a lawsuit filed in Williamson Countyappeals the dismissal of its separate action filed in Davidson County seeking a declaratory judgment; the Davidson County action was dismissed on the basis of prior suit pending. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

The defendants filed a notice of appeal in the trial court seeking to appeal the court’s order of May 11, 2012. That order is not a final judgment. Accordingly, the defendants’ putative appeal is hereby dismissed.