APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Intervenor in a suit to domesticate a foreign judgment and to levy on property of the judgment debtor appeals the failure of the trial court to grant its Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion and set aside an order dismissing its claim. Finding that Intervenor should have been granted relief, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
 

The dispute in this case is between siblings over whether an express trust was created at or before the mother, after the father's death, deeded the remainder of the parents' property to four of the children. Plaintiffs claim the four defendants created an oral express trust by agreeing to share the farm equally among all the children upon the mother's death. The Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment and plaintiffs have appealed. We vacate the Trial Court's Judgment on the grounds that there is disputed material evidence as to whether or not an express trust was created among the parties.

Administrator of decedent’s estate who was also the sole heir-at-law of decedent asserted
claim of breach of fiduciary duty against conservator for decedent. Following a trial, the
court held that the claim was barred by res judicata; estate and administrator appeal. We
affirm the dismissal of the action.

Petitioner, a police officer for the Memphis Airport Police Department (“MAPD”), was terminated by the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (“MSCAA”) for violating several of its policies and procedures. On appeal to this Court, Petitioner argues that MSCAA’s policies, and its application of those policies, violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner also argues that MSCAA violated his equal protection rights by applying its policies and procedures in a disparate fashion. After throughly reviewing the record, we find no basis for Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Bureau of TennCare filed a petition to appoint an administrator of Omer Stidham’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 its claim. The administrator found that the estate was insolvent but moved the court to determine whether real property held in a revocable trust could be used to satisfy the debts of the estate. The heirs objected, arguing that the claim was untimely and that the property could not be reached because it was held in a revocable trust. The court authorized the use of the property to satisfy the debts of the estate, finding that the claim was not untimely and that the revocable trust was subject to claims against the estate. The heirs appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, challenges the trial court’s decision to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Based upon the defendant’s initiation of a contractualrelationship with a Tennessee manufacturerand itsentry into a contractproviding that Tennessee law would control, we affirm the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction in this dispute arising out of the contract.
 

The father has appealed from an order entered on September 20, 2011, granting the mother’s motion to dismiss the father’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion but reserving several other matters for a final hearing. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
 

This appeal involves claims arising from a verbal exchange at a gas station. The plaintiff customer gave cash to a clerk employed at the defendant gas station to pay for gas. After a verbal exchange between the clerk and the customer, the customer left the gas station. The customer promptly filed this lawsuit, alleging a variety of tort claims, including defamation, false light in the public eye, and infliction of emotional distress. The complaint sought damages in excess of a billion – with a “b”– dollars. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant gas station. The customer appeals. We affirm.

In this conversionaction,the trialcourtentered judgmentagainstthe defendantupon findings that she abused a confidential relationship, exerted undue influence, and improperly converted funds of her sister while she had dementia. The defendant appeals contending the action is time barred; she also contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the deposition of her sister’s physician because she did not receive notice of the deposition. We have determined that the statute of limitations was tolled from the accrual of the claim of conversion until the death of the defendant’s sister due to the sister being of unsound mind and that the action was timely filed after her death. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the deposition into evidence because the trial court afforded the defendant the opportunity to depose the physician but she failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm.
 

This appeal arises from a dependency and  neglect petition originally filed by the Department of Children’s Services in the Juvenile Court for Shelby County in May 2010. We dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a premises liability case in which Karen Wright alleged that she slipped in a puddle of water and fell on the floor while exiting an Autozone store. She filed suit against Autozone Stores, Inc., claiming negligence. Autozone Stores, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Karen Wright could not prove that it caused the condition which led to her fall or that it had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to her fall. Autozone Stores, Inc. also alleged that Karen Wright could not recover because she was 50 percent or more at fault for her injuries. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Karen Wright appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
 

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of abandonment, persistence of conditions, and that termination is in the best interests of the children. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding persistence of conditions. However, we affirm the trial court’s finding of abandonment and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
 

Raymond T. Carriger (“Carriger”) filed a petition to terminate his child support obligation in the Chancery Court for Meigs County (“the Trial Court”). The State of Tennessee ex rel. Ronda M. Letner (“the State”) opposed Carriger’s petition. Carriger argued that he suffered from a disability and, as a result, was unable ever to pay off the arrearages he had accumulated. The Trial Court granted Carriger’s petition and absolved him of his child support arrearages. The State appeals, arguing that such a retroactive modification of child support is prohibited under Tennessee law. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

Jason C. (“Putative Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, Alexis M.M. (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) pursued termination after Putative Father was incarcerated and the Child was adjudicated dependent and neglected in the care of her mother, LeAnn M. (“Mother”). Following a bench trial, the court applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A), applicable to non-legal parents, and terminated Putative Father’s rights based upon multiple grounds, including the failure to provide child support, to visit, or to establish his paternity. Putative Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of these grounds. We affirm.

The mother of an eleven year old boy asked his father to take care of the child for a few weeks because she was moving out of her apartment. The mother did not find a place of her own for the next six months. Meanwhile, the father enrolled the child in school, boy scouts and football, and filed a petition for change of custody. The father alleged that there had been a change of circumstances in that the mother’s unstable home life and frequent moves adversely affected the child at school and elsewhere, and that the child’s grades and his attitudes had greatly improved while he was under the father’s care. After a hearing, the trial court transferred custody of the child to the father. The mother argues on appeal that, contrary to the trial court’s finding, there had not been a material change of circumstances, and that the trial court’s decision placed too much emphasis on an incident when she was arrested for shoplifting in the presence of the child. We affirm the trial court.
 

Plaintiff in case alleging legal malpractice appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant attorney. Finding no error, we affirm.
 

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, a property developer. The underlying case is for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiffs in a motorcycle accident, which was allegedly caused by a pothole in the road. The question presented for determination is, as between Appellee and Appellant Hardin County, who owns the portion of the road where the accident occurred. After completing its development, Appellee dedicated portions of the roadway to Hardin County for public use. However, in cross-motions for summary judgment the Appellee and Appellant each claimed that the other owned the disputed portion of the road where the accident occurred. Although the disputed portion of the road was specifically excluded from the dedication, and Appellee maintained the road, the trial court determined that Appellee had implicitly dedicated the disputed portion to Appellant and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee developer. Based upon the evidence in record, we conclude that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions concerning ownership of the road and accordingly, reverse the grant of summary judgment.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute. We hold that, in light of the uncontradicted fact that Plaintiff was not properly served with notice of the trial date, the case should not have been dismissed.
 

In this divorce action the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, gave custody of the children to the father, divided the marital property and ordered a monetary judgment against the mother to the father, as an equitable distribution of the marital property. The mother has appealed and questioned the Trial Judge's award of custody of the children to the father, and the Trial Judge ordering a monetary judgment against the mother to the father. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
 

Blair Wood and Gary Wood (“Plaintiffs”) sued Tony Wolfenbarger and Brenda Wolfenbarger (“Defendants”) alleging, in part, that Defendants had wrongfully cut down six trees on Plaintiffs’ real property. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendants were liable for negligently cutting the trees, that the current market value of the timber cut was $840, and that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in double the amount of the current market value of the timber pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court alleging that the Trial Court erred in awarding damages based upon the timber value. We find and hold that the evidence preponderates against the finding that timber value was the correct measure of damages in this case. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment to award Plaintiffs damages of $62,100 based upon the trunk formula method of valuation and affirm the judgment as so modified.

Losing proposer for solid waste management services challenges Lawrence County’s decision to contract with another proposer. Because we find that the County acted arbitrarily and illegally in making its decision, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
 

Property of the appellants was seized following a traffic stop. Requests for return of the property were denied by the Knox County Sheriff’s Department. The appellants, who were not facing any criminal charges, filed an action in criminal court seeking the return of all the seized property. The Sheriff’s Department subsequently filed drug forfeiture warrants and property receipts. The appellants argued that the Sheriff’s Department was attempting to initiate Department of Safety jurisdiction in disregard of their earlier filing in criminal court. The criminal court dismissed the action, asserting lack of jurisdiction. The appellants appeal. We affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a permit allowing a proposed rock quarry to discharge storm water and wastewater into a nearby creek. Owners of property allegedly affected by the discharge filed an appeal challenging the issuance of the permit with the Water Quality Control Board, as well as a petition seeking a declaratory order construing the rules regarding the protection of existing uses of waters. The Water Quality Control Board refused to issue a declaratory order and the property owners appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested,we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for dismissal of this cause. Vacated and remanded.
 

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to have the appellees held in criminal contempt based upon their failure to comply with various subpoenas commanding them to appear at depositions and produce documents to be used by the appellants in the context of an administrative asset forfeiture proceeding on the docket of the Tennessee Department of Safety. The petition was filed in the Criminal Court for Knox County, Tennessee. It was denied on grounds that the court in which the petition was filed had no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The appellants appeal. We affirm.

Petitioner filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside a parental termination and adoption decree. The motion asked relief from the Judgment on the ground set forth in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.02(1) and (2). The Trial Court held that petitioner did not establish a basis to set aside the Judgment on the grounds relied upon in the Rule 60.02 motion. On appeal we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.