APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves post-divorce modification of alimony. When the husband and wife were originally divorced, the husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro. At the time of the divorce, the wife was undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. After the divorce, the wife’s treatment resulted in a dramatic improvement in her health. Meanwhile, the husband lost his job and ultimately found employment at a reduced level of compensation. Citing his decreased income and the wife’s improved circumstances, the husband sought modification or termination of his alimony obligation. The trial court found a material change in circumstances, but nevertheless denied the husband’s petition to modify. The husband appeals. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Parents of disabled child sued county board of education and several employees for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and negligent failure to train employees. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). We conclude that the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to the plaintiffs’ state law claims. We further conclude that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a valid claim for negligent failure to train because the IDEA provides the exclusive remedy for such claims, but their claims for assault and battery and false imprisonment are not precluded by the IDEA.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether an amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122, which became effective July 1, 2009, and requires the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action to file a certificate of good faith at the time of filing suit, was properly applied to an action initiated prior to the effective date of the amendment, voluntarily dismissed and refiled after the effective date. We also consider whether the requirement that the plaintiff file a certificate of good faith applies to an action for medical battery. We affirm the judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

In a landlord-tenant dispute, the tenant plaintiff claims that before the parties entered into a lease for commercial property, the landlord defendants misrepresented estimated operating expenses that the plaintiff was expected to pay as part of its rent pursuant to the lease terms. The plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its claims for fraud and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We find that the defendants misrepresented estimated operating expenses after entering into the initial lease with the plaintiff but before entering into an agreement for expansion space. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court on the plaintiff’s claims for fraud and violation of the TCPA and remand for determination of an appropriate remedy for damage the plaintiff suffered after agreeing to lease the expansion space.

Wife filed a complaint for divorce. Husband did not file an answer. Wife sought and received a default judgment. Husband filed a motion to set aside the default judgment based on excusable neglect as a result of depression. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.

An inmate filed suit, claiming that he was discriminated against in job assignments and that his First Amendment rights were violated in that he was retaliated against for making complaints. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

Plaintiff appeals a jury’s determination that she was 60 percent at fault for the injuries she sustained. We find there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Therefore, we affirm the judgment entered in accordance with the jury’s findings.

Appellant, who was not placed on fall observations until after his fall, suffered a fall while under the care of the Western Mental Health Institute. A CAT scan performed three days after the fall revealed no hemorrhaging, however, a repeat scan performed approximately one month later revealed a subdural hematoma for which Appellant subsequently underwent two surgeries. Appellant, by and through his next friend, filed suit against the State in the Claims Commission alleging medical negligence. Following a trial, the Claims Commission found that a Western nurse breached the standard of care in completing the initial fall risk assessment, but that Appellant had failed to prove that such breach was a proximate cause of his fall. Additionally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove that Western’s failure to later place Appellant on fall observations was a proximate cause of his fall. Finally, the Commission found that Appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Western’s failure to order repeat brain imaging prior to January 26, 2006, was a breach of the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the Commission.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother on the grounds of persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the terms of the permanency plans, and mental incompetence. The mother appeals, arguing that the Department of Children’s Services did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child, the requirements of her permanency plans were not reasonable and related to the conditions that required her child’s removal, and the alleged failure to appoint her a guardian ad litem in the prior dependency and neglect proceedings precluded termination of her parental rights for persistence of conditions. Finding no error in the decision of the trial court, we affirm.

Plaintiff/Appellant filed an action alleging breach of contract and retaliatory discharge. Defendant moved for summary judgment on both claims, and asserted the action was barred by a contractual limitations provision in the application for employment. The trial court awarded summary judgment to defendant with respect to the retaliatory discharge claim, and denied summary judgment with respect to defendant’s assertion that the matter was time-barred. Plaintiff appealed. We dismiss this appeal for failure to appeal a final judgment where the trial court has not entered an order adjudicating or otherwise disposing of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, and plaintiff has failed to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed.

Plaintiff was injured when Defendant Madden drove his vehicle at a high speed and in the wrong direction on an exit ramp of I-40/240 and collided head-on with plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Defendant Madden and against the City of Memphis pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. In his complaint, plaintiff asserted Memphis City police negligently pursued Defendant Madden, and that this negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court found plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely by the acts of Defendant Madden and entered judgment in favor of the City of Memphis. We affirm.

This is the second appeal of this wrongful death action, arising from a fatal shooting of a tenant at a Memphis public housing property. This Court granted Appellant, Memphis Housing Authority’s, Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal to address the trial court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of the Appellant. Finding that Appellees’ “failure to evict” claim is preempted by 47 U.S.C. §1437, and that Appellant retains its sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellant.  Reversed and remanded.

In April of 2008, Lowell Shelton and Stella Shelton (“the Sheltons”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Jeffrey T. (“Father”) and Lisa T. (“Mother”) to the minor children, Jeffrey T. and Justin T. (“the Children”), and to adopt the Children. After a trial, the trial court entered an order on May 7, 2010, that, inter alia, terminated the parental rights of Father to the Children, and granted the adoption of the Children by the Sheltons. Father appeals to this Court raising issues regarding res judicata, whether the trial court erred in not requiring a home study, and whether the final order of adoption conformed to the statute, among others. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of the father’s petition to be named the minor child’s primary residential parent. Finding that the father met his burden to show a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant the requested modification and that the change was in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

Plaintiff foreclosed on defendant's property and filed suit in Sessions Court to obtain possession of the property. Defendant appealed the Judgment for possession to Circuit Court, which granted plaintiff summary judgment. Defendant has appealed to this Court and we affirm the Judgment of the trial court, awarding possession of the property to plaintiff.

The trial judge ruled against defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because there were disputed issues of material fact. The trial court authorized an interlocutory appeal, which we granted. Upon consideration of the case, we conclude, as did the trial judge, there are disputed issues of material fact, affirm the Judgment of the trial court and remand.

This appeal arises out of a complaint to dissolve a partnership. The plaintiff alleged that she and the defendant, an unmarried couple, acquired real property through joint efforts. She further alleged that she contributed to the improvement of the property and an increase in its value, giving rise to a partnership for profit and a right to a distribution of the partnership’s assets following dissolution. The defendant denied that a partnership existed and counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees arising out of the plaintiff’s refusal to vacate the property following their break-up. At the ensuing bench trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the plaintiff’s claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, specifically finding that the plaintiff was unable to prove the existence of an express or implied partnership for profit between the parties. We affirm.

This appeal involves a doctor’s challenge to disciplinary charges brought against him by the Department of Health, Division of Health Related Boards. After the trial court denied the doctor’s request for a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with a hearing on the disciplinary charges, the doctor filed a notice of appeal to this court. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims raised by the doctor, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

Petitioner filed to establish his parentage of the child born to defendant, Lori Jane Martin. He asked to have his parentage established, that he share parenting time, and expressed the desire to provide child support, as well as pay half the medical expenses for the mother and child. He also asked that the child then bear his last name. In a series of motions, the mother moved to relocate to Hawaii, which the trial court denied. She then moved the Court to allow her to move to North Carolina to allow her to pursue a graduate degree. The trial court then allowed this move, and entered a series of orders relating to visitation, travel, etc. The mother appealed to this Court and we remand to the trial court because the remaining issues that the petitioner raised in his Petition have not been ruled upon by the trial court. The appeal was premature.  Case remanded.

After Husband and Wife filed cross petitions for orders of protection, they entered Consent Injunctions restricting communications between them. Subsequently, the parties filed competing petitions for contempt, alleging violations of the Consent Injunctions. On appeal, Husband argues that the Consent Injunctions were improperly entered, and therefore, that the trial court’s criminal contempt conviction, which was based upon violations of such injunctions, cannot stand. We affirm the decision of the chancery court, and finding the appeal frivolous, we remand for a determination of damages.

After eighteen years of marriage, Jennie F. Ingraham (“Wife”) sued Patrick Garrett Ingraham (“Husband”) for divorce. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Judgment on December 7, 2009, inter alia, granting Wife a divorce and dividing the marital property. Husband appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the valuation and distribution of the marital property. Wife raises additional issues concerning the property distribution and attorney fees. We affirm as to the Trial Court’s valuation of items of marital property, the determination that the Exxon stock is Husband’s separate property, and the denial of an award to Wife of attorney’s fees. We, however, remand this case for proof on the issue of whether Husband’s combined SEP and IRA fall under the definition contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) pursuant to our Supreme Court’s Opinion in Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2009).

Leta V. Myers (“Mother”) and Robert A. Myers (“Father”) were divorced in 1999. Approximately ten years later, Father filed a petition seeking to have his child support payment reduced after the oldest of the parties’ four children became emancipated. Mother responded to the petition. Mother also filed a counter-petition seeking a modification of the parenting plan as well as to have Father found in contempt of court for willfully violating numerous provisions of the final decree. When Father failed to respond timely to the counter-petition, Mother filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion for default. Approximately three hours after the order granting the default judgment was entered, Father filed a response to the counter-petition. The trial court eventually found Father in contempt of court for numerous violations of the final decree. After Father’s motion to set aside the default judgment was denied, Father appealed challenging only the initial entry of the default judgment. We affirm.

The father of a minor child appeals his conviction of eighteen counts of criminal contempt for willful failure to pay child support. He contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions because the State failed to present evidence he had the ability to pay or that his failure to pay was willful. We agree and reverse the holding of the trial court.

The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident in which their car collided with a stolen car. They sued the City of Murfreesboro and its police department, arguing that the stolen car was being pursued by the police immediately prior to the accident. The plaintiffs also sued the person who was using the car with its owner’s permission prior to the theft, arguing that he had acted negligently in leaving the keys in the car. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants. With respect to the city and its police department, we affirm. With respect to the user of the offending car prior to its theft, we reverse and remand.

Plaintiff filed a cause of action asserting breach of contract and violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Acts. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant Memphis Light Gas & Water Division based on the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.