APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals the trial court’s visitation determination and classification of previously awarded attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for entry of a parenting plan.

The plaintiff sued the university and two of its representatives for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the placement of special credits on his transcript in contradiction to the school’s policies and procedures rendered his transcript without value and, consequently, damaged his future applications for employment or graduate school. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals both the trial court’s refusal to approve an agreed upon parenting arrangement reached between the parents and the trial court’s finding that father should be designated the primary residential parent. Finding the trial court was required to make an independent determination of custody issues and that the court acted within its discretion, we affirm.

Appellant filed a motion to quash garnishment of his individual retirement accounts to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees to Appellee, asserting the accounts were exempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 26-2-105 and 26-2-111. The trial court denied the motion to quash. We reverse.

This is an appeal from an Order Establishing Parentage and Support entered by the Juvenile Court for Maury County on June 1, 2010. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.

In this action to enforce a contract for the sale of real estate against defendant buyer, the Trial Court held that defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain a loan in accordance with the requirement to obtain a mortgage for 100% financing, and awarded damages to plaintiff for breach of the contract since the plaintiff had sold the property before trial. On appeal, we hold that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Judge's finding that the defendant failed to put forth reasonable efforts to obtain a loan which was a condition in the contract for purchase of the property, and remand.

This is an appeal by Norman Lee Robinson from a summary judgment granted against him and in favor of his lender, Citizens Bank, and GMAC Mortgage, LLC, the assignee of Robinson’s secured note. Robinson filed this action against Citizens Bank and GMAC, as well as others, to stop what he alleged was a wrongful foreclosure. He also demanded compensatory and punitive damages. The substance of the action is that the defendants should not be permitted to require Robinson to pay into escrow, funds that had been improperly refunded to him. The trial court held that Robinson was in default and that the foreclosure was not wrongful because, despite some dispute as to certain facts, there was no genuine dispute concerning the facts material to the outcome of this case. We affirm.

This case stems from the divorce of Freda Michelle Humbard Miller (“Wife”) and Steven Dwayne Miller (“Husband”). The Trial Court, among other things, granted the parties a divorce, designated Wife the primary residential parent, and awarded Wife child support and alimony. Husband appeals, raising a number of issues. We hold that the Trial Court erred in setting child support without entering supporting worksheets in the record as required. We further hold that the Trial Court did not err as to the other issues. We vacate, in part, and, affirm, in part, and remand for the Trial Court to set child support utilizing the worksheets as required.

In this dispute concerning the use of real property located in a common interest community, we have concluded that summary judgment based on the amendments to the restrictive covenants was not appropriate. We also find that the new owner has the authority to act as developer.

This is a wrongful termination case. The plaintiff senior management employee of a public utility was passed over for the position of president of the utility. In the meantime, federal law enforcement authorities were investigating matters involving the utility, and federal officers interviewed the plaintiff employee. Subsequently, the new president of the utility eliminated the plaintiff’s job position and his employment was terminated. The plaintiff employee filed suit against the utility, alleging violation of Tennessee’s Public Protection Act, and against the new president of the utility, in his individual capacity, alleging tortious interference with his employment and conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff employee appeals. We affirm.

I concur in the decision of the majority opinion to vacate so much of the trial court’s judgment as pertains to the issue of child support. I also concur in the majority’s decision to remand this case to the trial court with respect to the issue of child support. I write separately to express my view that the absence of the supporting worksheets in the record transmitted to us does not necessarily mean that the trial court failed to utilize these worksheets in arriving at the respective amounts of child support decreed in the court’s judgment. If such worksheets were utilized, and employed correctly, in arriving at the trial court’s child support decrees and if those worksheets are still available, there is no reason for the trial court to again make the necessary calculations. All that would be required is the filing of the worksheets “as part of the official record.” See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. ch. 1240-2-4-.04(1) (2008).

This appeal addresses an award of attorney fees to the attorney for a decedent’s estate for services rendered on appeal. The appellant administrator of the estate is also the estate’s attorney. The administrator/attorney’s final accounting was approved by the trial court, and two of the estate’s beneficiaries appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s approval of the final accounting. On remand, the administrator/attorney filed a motion for the approval of all attorney fees incurred in the administration of the estate, including attorney fees for services rendered in the first appeal. The trial court declined to approve the attorney fees incurred on appeal, holding that such fees may be awarded in the first instance only by the appellate court. The administrator/attorney now appeals. We reverse, concluding that attorney fees for the administrator/attorney’s services rendered on appeal constitute an administrative expense of the estate, and so the request for such fees must be made in the first instance in the trial court.

Wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce and child support from Husband. Husband filed no answer or counterclaim, but caused to be served upon Wife a summons directing Wife to defend a civil action against her. Husband then filed and served upon Wife a notice of a hearing for default divorce. The trial court entered a Final Decree of Absolute Divorce awarding Husband a divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct and entered Husband’s proposed parenting plan designating Husband as the primary residential parent. Nearly a year later Wife filed a Rule 60.02 motion seeking to have the Final Decree set aside on the grounds of (1) mistake, inadvertence or surprise, (2) fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct, and (3) the judgment was void. The trial court denied Wife’s Rule 60.02 motion, and Wife appeals. Because the Final Decree of Divorce was not void and because of the circumstances surrounding Wife’s motion, we affirm the trial court.

James Antony Wilson, Sr. sued East Tennessee Human Resource Agency, Inc. (“ETHRA”) individually, and as next friend and Personal Representative of the Estate of Callie Irene Wilson, on behalf of himself and all wrongful death beneficiaries of Callie Irene Wilson, Deceased. This suit involves a fall and injuries suffered by Callie Irene Wilson (“Callie Wilson”) while ETHRA was in the process of transporting Callie Wilson to a dialysis appointment, and her death resulting from these injuries. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order on July 29, 2010 finding and holding, inter alia, that the ETHRA driver acted appropriately and was not negligent. Mr. Wilson appeals to this Court. We find that the evidence in the record on appeal preponderates against the Trial Court’s finding that ETHRA’s employee, Mr. Clabo, was not negligent. We reverse, and remand this case to the Trial Court for a determination of comparative fault and damages.

An inmate at the Turney Center Industrial Complex filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the Turney Center Disciplinary Board convicting him of the disciplinary offense of possession of “security threat group material.” Acting sua sponte, the Hickman County Chancery Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm.

Jenna Lauren Heath Milner (“Wife”) initiated this action by filing a complaint for divorce against her spouse, Derrick Brandon Milner (“Husband”). The only ground for divorce alleged is “T.C.A. § 36-4-101(5), conviction of a felony.” Husband filed an answer pro se which, in substance, admits that he has been convicted but states that the conviction is “a miscarriage of justice” and that his attorney “botched the trial . . . and botched the direct appeal as badly as the trial.” He alleges that he is continuing to challenge the conviction and “there is a great chance of having the case reversed.” Husband denied that a divorce should be granted and alleged that he still loves Wife and their child. Husband, who was incarcerated, testified at trial by telephone, although there is no transcript or statement of the evidence. The trial court declared the parties “divorced pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-4-101(5).”  Husband appeals, arguing, for the first time, that the statute is unconstitutional under the Tennessee Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Georgia Constitution, the state in which he is incarcerated. The Tennessee Attorney General was served with a copy of Husband’s brief and has appeared in support of the constitutionality of the statute. We hold that any issue as to the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101(5)(2010) was waived by Husband’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court, and, pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 10 , we affirm the judgment granting an absolute divorce.

The trial court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement between the parties’ attorneys is appealed on the sole basis that the Statute of Frauds precludes enforcement since the parties never signed any agreement and the settlement pertained to real property. Because the Statute of Frauds concerns the sale of real property interests and not settlement agreements touching upon real property interests, it is not a bar to enforcement of a settlement agreement. The trial court is affirmed on that issue. The trial court’s assessment of court costs, however, is reversed as it differs from the parties’ agreement.

In this boundary dispute, the defendant property owners argue that the trial court erred in its reliance on the survey of the plaintiffs’ expert and in concluding that the road in front of the plaintiffs’ property is a public county road. We have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision to credit the survey, but that the trial court erred in concluding that the disputed part of the road was a public county road.

This is a post-divorce modification of child custody case. The trial court modified custody upon its finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred such that primary residential custody with the Appellant Mother was no longer in the child’s best interest. The court granted primary residential custody to the Appellee Father and Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves an election contest. The appellant was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor in a municipal election. After the election, the appellant filed this lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and contesting the election. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.

Father appeals trial court finding of substantial and material change of circumstances and resulting modifications to parenting plan. Finding that the record does not support failure of parties to attempt mediation of parenting plan issues prior to seeking court intervention, the judgment is vacated and petition to modify parenting plan dismissed.

In this post-divorce proceeding, the father of the parties’ child seeks to reduce his child support obligation due to a decrease in his income, and each parent alleges the other is in contempt for various reasons. The trial court denied Father’s petition to reduce child support upon finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed. The trial court granted Mother’s petition to hold Father in contempt for failing to comply with the parenting plan and denied Father’s petition against Mother. Mother was awarded one-half of her attorney fees. Father appealed. We reverse the finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed and remand with instructions for the trial court to determine whether a significant variance exists in Father’s child support obligation based on his actual income without additional imputed income. If a significant variance exists, the trial court is to set Father’s child support obligation pursuant to the Guidelines. We also reverse the court’s finding that Father was in contempt, because the trial court did not specify a provision of the parenting plan Father allegedly violated and the evidence is insufficient to establish that any violation was willful.

This appeal arises out of a suit to recover the balance on a past due account for an advertisement in a telephone directory. Defendant disputed the authenticity and admissibility of the documents submitted by plaintiff to establish an enforceable and valid contract. The trial court permitted the documents to be admitted and entered judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in admitting the documents and in finding an enforceable contract. Finding no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves a suit for dissolution of a real estate partnership. The defendant-appellee also filed several counterclaims against the plaintiff, who is an attorney. After a bench trial, the trial court dissolved the partnership and found that the defendant-appellant was liable for one-half of the partnership’s debts and expenses. The court dismissed the counterclaims. We affirm.

The mother of a nine year old boy filed a Rule 60 motion to vacate an “agreed order” that granted extensive visitation rights to the boy’s father. The order in question was signed by the father’s attorney and was presented to the trial judge without the mother’s signature and without the mother being present. Earlier, the mother had refused to sign the order, claiming that its terms deviated significantly from the agreement the parties actually reached. The trial court signed the document and subsequently denied the mother’s Rule 60 motion. We reverse the trial court.