APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

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.

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.
 

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child. The trial court found two groundsfortermination,abandonmentby wantondisregard and persistence of conditions leading to the child’s removal from the mother’s home.The trial court also found termination was in the child’s best interest. The record contains evidence that clearly and convincingly established the ground of persistent conditions and that termination is in the child’s best interest; therefore, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
 

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.
 

The appellant has appealed from a final judgment entered on December 28, 2012. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.
 

Plaintiff sued defendant mortgage company that held a mortgage on his home, on which defendant foreclosed. Plaintiff's alleged cause of action was that defendant had received money from the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and that defendant failed to properly consider him for a home loan modification pursuant to the federal acts and regulations. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and the Trial Court dismissed part of plaintiff's complaint, but denied defendant's motion as to plaintiff's third party beneficiary claim, the negligent implementation of the HAMP claim and the wrongful foreclosure claim. Defendant sought a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 appeal, which was granted by the Trial Court and this Court and we hold that under the federal acts and regulations, there was no provision for a private right of action claim, and reverse so much of the Trial Court's judgment that holds otherwise.

In this divorce proceeding, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification and division of marital property. Wife appeals the trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of certain expert testimony and the grant of Husband’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion to vacate the award of alimony. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court in all respects.
 

This post-divorce appeal involves parenting issues. The parties had one child; they divorced in 2005. Initially, the mother was designated as the primary residential parent. The father filed a petition for modification, seeking to be designated as primary residential parent. The modification petition cited, inter alia, the mother’s attempts to frustrate the father’s visitation and alleged physical assaults by the mother. The trial court entered an order temporarily designating the father as primary residential parent and requiring that the mother’s visitation be supervised. The mother’s attorney was to supervise her client’s visitation, but was disqualified after it was alleged that the attorney failed to supervise the visitation. After a three-day hearing, the trial court granted the father’s petition to modify and held the mother in contempt for the unsupervised parenting time. The mother now appeals, representing herself. The trial court declined to approve the mother’s proposed statement of the evidence because a court reporter was present at the trial, citing the provision in Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure indicating that an appellant is to have a transcript prepared where a stenographic report is available. The mother proceeded with the appeal with neither a transcript nor a statement of the evidence. We vacate the finding of criminal contempt because the record does not show that the mother was advised of her right to appointed counsel on the contempt. We also vacate the award of attorney fees and expenses insofar as it relates to the vacated contempt finding, and affirm as to the remainder of the trial court’s ruling.

This appeal arises out of a change of custody petition filed by the father of a minor child. The Juvenile Court magistrate found a material change of circumstances but retained the mother as primary residential parent. Father filed a request for rehearing before the Juvenile Court judge. Before the rehearing could be held, the guardian ad litem filed a motion requesting that the magistrate review the parenting plan and stay its prior order based on the mother’s drug use, domestic abuse, and marital problems. Thereafter, the magistrate entered an order staying its prior order and naming father the primary residential parent. The Juvenile Court judge held a trial de novo and entered an order finding that a material change in circumstance had occurred and that it was in the child’s best interest for the father to be designated the primary residential parent. The mother was ordered to pay the father’s attorney fees and a portion of the guardian ad litem’s fees. The mother appeals. We affirm the court’s decision to designate the father as the primary residential parent, its award of attorney fees to the father, and the award of fees to the guardian ad litem. We remand for determination of the amount of attorney fees to be awarded.
 

Sevier County Bank (“the Bank”) sued Eileen M. DiMeco, CitiMortgage, Inc., and First American Title Company seeking specific performance with regard to a Grant of Right of Way and Agreement to Dedicate (“the Agreement”) concerning a right of way to be used as a public road. The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment and after a hearing the Trial Court granted the Bank summary judgment. Ms. DiMeco appeals to this Court. We find and hold that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Bank is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and we affirm. We further find this appeal frivolous and award the Bank attorney’s fees on appeal.

The defendant ran off the road and struck an expensive vehicle on a used car lot. The lot owner sued the defendant for the damages to the vehicle plus the lost profits he would have made with the proceeds of the sale if the accident had not happened. The trial Court awarded the plaintiff $10,482.12, plus prejudgment interest at 5% per year from the date the vehicle was sold at wholesale in a damaged condition. The Court did not make any findings as to the basis for the award. The defendant asserts on appeal that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. The plaintiff assigns as error the trial Court’s failure to award him more damages for his lost profits. We hold that the plaintiff did not make a case for lost profits or the before and after retail value of the automobile. We reduce the award to $4,766.47, the estimated cost of repairs to the vehicle and we reverse the award of prejudgment interest.
 

Mother challenges the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She asserts that the Departmentof Children’sServicesfailed to makereasonable efforts to find a suitable relative placement. We find no merit in Mother’s arguments and affirm the decision of the trial court.

Zona Mayo (“Plaintiff”) sued Donna L. Shine, M.D., Fort Sanders Obstetrical and Gynecological Group, P.C., and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“the Hospital”) alleging medical malpractice in connection with Plaintiff’s birth. After a jury trial, the Trial Court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict finding and holding that neither Dr. Shine nor the Hospital were legally responsible for any harm suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals raising issues regarding alleged jury misconduct and alleged errors with regard to admission of evidence, among other things. We find and hold that Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial due to errors in the admission of specific evidence and the improper limitation of Plaintiff’s cross-examination of Dr. Shine, among other things. We vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand this case to the Trial Court for a new trial in compliance with this Opinion.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found four statutory grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights, persistence of conditions, mental incompetence, substantial noncompliance with the provisions of the permanency plan, and abandonment by failure to maintain a suitable home. The trial court also found that termination of her rights was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm.
 

The plaintiff from a case that was dismissed in 2002 by agreed order filed a motion nine years after the dismissal to “extend the judgment” from that case and for injunctive relief. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The plaintiff appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying the motion.

Wife appeals the final decree of divorce, asserting that the trial court erred in failing to make findings as to what property constituted separate property and what constituted marital property; Wife also appeals the amount of alimony awarded to her. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to classify the property and, accordingly, vacate the division of marital property and remand the case for the court to classify the parties’ property and debt and to modify the division of marital property if necessary. We affirm the trial court’s holding that an award of alimony to Wife is appropriate, but vacate the award of alimony in futuro and remand for the court to reconsider the nature and amount of alimony.
 

I concur in the Opinion and Judgment of this Court to reverse the Judgment of the Circuit Court. I agree with the Opinion that Ms. Leath’s “judgment of conviction cannot be used for collateral estoppel purposes because the judgment of conviction is not a final judgment.” Likewise, I agree with the Opinion that under current Tennessee law, Ms. Wilkerson “cannot assert the doctrine of collateral estoppel because she was not in privity with the State” and, therefore, the mutuality of parties as required in Tennessee for offensive collateral estoppel is missing. Sullivan v. Wilson County, No. M2011–00217–COA–R3–CV, 2012 WL 1868292, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2012), no appl. perm. appeal filed.