APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the foreclosure of real property owned by the Appellants. The Appellants filed a request for a temporary and permanent injunction, alleging that the Appellee bank that held the mortgage on the property had violated the Appellants’ rights. After the Appellants testified at the temporary injunction hearing, the Bank moved for involuntary dismissal and the trial court dismissed the case. Both parties filed post-trial motions regarding possession of the subject property. The appellate record contains no record that either of these motions was adjudicated by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is not final, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Dismissed and remanded.

This appeal concerns the requirements for a petition for certiorari. This case is on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Board of Professional Responsibility v. Cawood, 330 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2010). After reviewing the petition for certiorari in light of the requirements set forth in Cawood, we find that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s decision and dismiss the case.

This appeal focuses on State Farm’s ability to claim an offset of uninsured motorist coverage for workers’ compensation benefits paid to its insured. The trial court construed the case of State Farm Insurance Company v. Schubert, et al., No. E2000-02054-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 584206 (Tenn. Ct. App. May, 31, 2001) so as to preclude offset. We reverse and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves a contempt finding against a closely-held corporation. The defendant closely-held corporation owned real property located on a highway. The trial court held that the corporation had violated zoning ordinances by maintaining and operating a trucking terminal and salvage yard in an unauthorized area. The trial court enjoined the corporation from maintaining a trucking terminal at this location and directed the corporation to remove junk from the property. The corporation then leased the property to a business associate who continued to operate a trucking terminal on the property and failed to remove the junk. A contemptpetition wasfiled againstthe defendantcorporation. The trialcourtdetermined that the defendant corporation had violated the injunction and was in contempt of court. The defendant corporation now appeals, arguing that the corporation cannot be held in contempt for the actions of the tenant on the property. We affirm.
 

This appeal arises out of a custody dispute over Amber D. Brewster and Nicholas Galloway’s minor child. When presented with a petition to establish paternity and set child support, Nicholas Galloway acknowledged paternity but filed a petition to be named the primary residential parent. The trial court denied Nicholas Galloway’s petition, designated Amber D. Brewster as the primary residential parent, and granted Nicholas Galloway co-parenting time. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

I concur in the result reached by the majority and, with one caveat, its rationale in reaching that result. While I agree with the majority that “[t]he record before this [C]ourt does not reflect that Father ever raised an issue regarding Mother’s ability to recover attorney fees because she was never his spouse,” I disagree with the majority’s holding, in dicta, that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-103(c)(2010) supports such an award.

A neighborhood association president, fearing that members conspired to improperly oust him at an upcoming meeting, filed suit, requesting declaratory relief regarding the proper procedure for removal of a president. Prior to a hearing, the members voted to remove him from office and filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court dismissed the complaint and denied a subsequent motion to alter or amend its judgment. The president appeals. We affirm.

The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding, among other things, that Defendants were entitled to GTLA immunity. Because we find a question of fact exists as to whether Defendants acted within the scope of their employment in communicating with Plaintiff’s teaching supervisor, in communicating with the named individuals, and in ordering destruction of the surveillance video tapes, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ slander, false light, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium claims with regard to such conduct. The decision of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Peggy Giffin d/b/a Re/Max Realty Center and Racia Futrell (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued Anthony Sawyer and Hope Sawyer alleging, among other things, that the Sawyers had breached a real estate sales agency contract. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the Sawyers did not breach the sales agency contract and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to collect a commission under the sales agency contract. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings, and we affirm.

Wife appeals the trial court’s division of marital property and award of alimony among other issues. The trial court granted Wife a divorce on the ground of Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct. Wife was awarded 51% of the marital assets and Husband received 49%. Wife was awarded $5,000 month in alimony in futuro until she reached the age of 65, at which time the amount would be reduced to $2,000 until Wife’s death or remarriage. Wife contends that the trial court erred in its determination as to the division of marital property, its award of alimony, its denial of her request for an additional $170,000 as alimony in solido due to Husband’s alleged dissipation of assets, its denial of Wife’s request that Husband pay her medical insurance following the end of an eight-year employment agreement with Husband’s company, and its denial of her request for attorney’s fees and expert witness fees in the amount of $115,528.88. For his part, Husband contends the trial court made a mathematical error regarding the parties’ 2010 tax liability. We affirm the trial court in all respects except for the tax liability and remand the issue of the parties’ 2010 tax liability. Although Wife does not challenge this issue, we are unable to determine the correct amount; thus, we remand this issue for the court to determine whether a mathematical error exists and, if so, to modify the decree accordingly.

This is an estate case in which Bobbie Bryant appeals the trial court’s affirmation of the fifth and final accounting of the deceased’s estate. Having concluded that the issues raised on appeal do not pertain to the fifth and final accounting of the estate, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the cancellation of a homeowner’s insurance policy. The plaintiff homeowner asked the defendant insurance agent to obtain a homeowner’s insurance policy for a home that was not her residence. The agent contacted the defendant intermediary insurance agency, and an insurance policy was issued. The homeowner paid the insurance premiums to the insurance agent, who failed to pay them to the intermediary insurance agency. The policy was cancelled for nonpayment. The cancellation notice was sent to the insurance agent and to the insured address, but not to the residential address of the homeowner. A fire occurred and the homeowner’s claim was not paid. The homeowner sued the intermediary insurance agency. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant intermediary insurance agency. The homeowner appeals. We reverse in part, holding that the intermediary insurance agency did not negate the homeowner’s claim based on the apparent authority of the insurance agent.

This parental termination case concerns the child’s surname. The appellant biological father consented to the termination of his parental rights so that the child could be adopted by the appellee adoptive parents. At the conclusion of the telephonic hearing in which the biological father confirmed that he consented to the termination of his parental rights, the adoptive parents requested that the child’s surname be changed. This request was granted. The biological father now appeals the trial court’s decision on the child’s surname. We affirm.

This appeal involves the release of ballots for a condominium association election. The plaintiff condominium owner was a candidate for a position on the board of directors for the defendant condominium association. After losing the election, the plaintiff condominium owner requested to audit the vote and see the other members’ written ballots. The condominium association provided a tally sheet reflecting the number of ballots cast for each candidate but declined to release the actual ballots. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit, contending that the condominium association had a statutory obligation to release the ballots to him. The plaintiff later filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the summary judgment motion and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff condominium owner now appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff condominium owner does not have a statutory right to see the association members’ written ballots.

Father and Mother filed a joint motion to modify a parenting plan entered by the trial court in 2010. In their motion, Father and Mother asked the court to reduce Father’s child support obligation, to modify the parenting time schedule, and to amend the plan to permit a known registered sexual offender to be in the presence of their children. The trial court denied the motion with respect to allowing a sexual offender to be in the presence of the children, and otherwise granted the motion. Mother appeals. We affirm.

This case concerns the application of the medical malpractice notice requirement to a lawsuit that was previously nonsuited and then re-filed pursuant to the saving statute. The children of a woman who died due to alleged medical negligence filed suit against the defendant medical providers. The children subsequently nonsuited the lawsuit. Within one-year of the nonsuit, the children sent notice of a potential claim to the medical providers. Within one year and 120 days from the nonsuit, the children re-filed their claim. The medical providers moved to dismiss on the ground that the claim was not filed within the one-year period provided by the saving statute and, as such, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the action and the children appealed. Concluding that the saving statute, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-1-105(a) is not an “applicable statute[] of limitations or repose,” we hold that the saving statute is not extended by compliance with the medical malpractice notice requirement, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(c). Affirmed and remanded.

The married parents of two minor children are involved in custody/visitation litigation in the trial court. The most recent decision by the trial court was prompted by a petition filed by he children’s father. The trial court denied the father’s attempt to obtain custody and suspended his visitation rights pending his completion of anger management and parenting classes. The father appeals. Because the trial court’s judgment is not a final judgment, we dismiss the father’s appeal.

The executor of the estate of Dana Ruth Johnson Gregory waited approximately 14 months after her death before seeking to open her estate. The Bureau of TennCare filed a claim approximately four months later, shortly after receiving the executor’s notice of the death and the opening of the estate. The executor objected to the claim as untimely under the statute of limitations applicable to claims by the state. The trial court rejected the objection and held that the claim was valid. The executor appeals. We affirm.

Covered Bridge Resort on Waldens Creek, LLC (“Seller”) sold its interest in an ongoing resort development to Tennessee Covered Bridge, LLC (“Purchaser”). Seller agreed to finance the sale and Purchaser agreed to secure the debt with a mortgage on the property. Mountain National Bank (“the Bank”) agreed to loan Purchaser money to continue development of the property but required that its mortgage be in a first position. Seller agreed to subordinate its mortgage with the understanding that the members of Purchaser would personally guarantee the debt to Seller. Attorneys Charlie R. Johnson and Sherri E. Case of the firm of Johnson, Murrell & Associates, P.C. (collectively “the Lawyers”) prepared the documents and handled the closing. Purchaser soon defaulted and Seller learned that Purchaser’s members had refused to execute the guaranties. Seller filed this action against the Bank, the Lawyers and Purchaser . When Seller took the deposition of the Bank’s loan officer, the Bank, through counsel, instructed him not to answer several categories of questions on the ground of privilege. Seller filed a motion to compel which the trial court granted upon finding that the information at issue was not privileged. The trial court granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. This Court agreed to hear the appeal. We now affirm the order of the trial court (1) granting the motion to compel and (2) holding the Bank’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending completion of discovery.

This is an adoption case involving Shyann B. (“the Child”) (DOB: April 11, 2005). We are asked to decide a jurisdictional question. At an earlier time, a juvenile court adjudicated the Child dependent and neglected. She was placed in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and placed by it in the foster care of Teresa S. (“Foster Mother”). Louis F. B. (“Uncle”), the Child’s maternal great uncle, had also sought custody, but his petition was ultimately denied. After the parental rights of the Child’s biological parents were terminated, Foster Mother filed a petition to adopt in the 1 trial court. Uncle responded with a counterclaim seeking to intervene and adopt, or, in the alternative, to obtain custody of the Child. At trial, Foster Mother took a voluntary nonsuit of her adoption petition and, on the same day, refiled a petition for adoption in the Chancery Court for Greene County. In the trial court, Uncle contended that the trial court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate his counterclaim for custody. The trial court found that, by virtue of Foster Mother’s filing in chancery court, jurisdiction over the Child was then in chancery court. Accordingly, the trial court entered a judgment reciting “this cause is hereby dismissed.” Uncle appeals. We affirm.

This case involves an alleged breach of a construction contract. The plaintiff contractor entered into a fixed priced contract to build a custom home for the defendant homeowners. During the construction, the contractor told the homeowners that the project was under budget, and that they could apply the cushion in the budget toward upgrades. Many upgrades and additions outside the scope of the original contract were made. The project ended up over budget, and the homeowners refused to pay more than the fixed price of the contract. The contractor filed this lawsuit, alleging breach of contract. The homeowners counterclaimed for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the contractor some of the upgrade costs and dismissed the homeowners’ counterclaims. The homeowners now appeal. We reverse the award for the cost of the upgrades and remand for specific findings as to each upgrade or addition. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Plaintiff, Clerk and Master of Chancery Court, brought this action for an increase in compensation based on Tenn. Code. Ann. §8-24-102(j), which authorizes the County to increase the compensation for a clerk if the clerk is the clerk of two courts. Defendant County gave the Circuit Court Clerk a 10% increase in compensation pursuant to the statute, but denied the Clerk and Master a 10% increase in her compensation under the statute. The Trial Court held that the County did not abuse its discretion in denying the Clerk and Master the statutory increase in compensation. On appeal, we affirm.

This appeal involves an order of protection obtained by Wife against Husband in 2009 and the extension of that order of protection in 2010. We find no basis for Rule 60 relief with respect to the original order of protection. As to the child support provisions in the amended order of protection, we vacate and remand for a determination consistent with the child support guidelines.
 

Secured party brought action against debtors and guarantors, seeking recovery of deficiency which remained after sale of collateral. The trial court granted summary judgment to secured party. Because genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, we reverse.

The father of an eight year old girl filed a petition for divorce from the child’s mother. After the petition was filed, the court entered a standard restraining order, which among other things prohibited either party from relocating with a minor child outside the state without the permission of the other party or an order of the court. The wife asked the court to name her as the child’s primary residential parent and to allow her to relocate with the child to St. Louis,because that city offered her better employment prospects than did MiddleTennessee. The father opposed the mother’s request to relocate, and he asked the court to divide parenting time equally. After a three day trial, the court ruled that the mother’s proposed relocation was unreasonable and pretextual and that it was in the child’s best interest that the mother be named the primary residential parent, with the mother and child remaining in Tennessee. The mother argues on appeal that the trial court should have allowed her to relocate with the child because the criteria set out in the relocation statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108, did not preclude her from doing so. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition to relocate with the child.