APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a divorce decree that was initially entered in 2017, but the divorce action was not finalized until 2022. In this appeal, Wife argues that the trial court should not have divorced the parties because there were no valid grounds for divorce. Because the parties executed a valid marital dissolution agreement agreeing to be divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences, we affirm the trial court’s decision to declare the parties divorced. We modify the divorce decree, however, to provide that Wife is awarded the divorce on that ground, consistent with the parties’ agreement. We further award Husband his attorney’s fees as required under the marital dissolution agreement.

The plaintiffs, a prospective adoptive couple and six other Tennessee taxpayers, brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147, which allows private child-placing agencies that receive state funding to deny services to prospective foster or adoptive parents based upon the agencies’ religious beliefs. A three-judge panel concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. We have determined that the plaintiffs have standing and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel.

A husband and wife each had multiple children from prior relationships. After their marriage, the husband and wife agreed to a contract that would control the distribution of their estates, with funds passing first to the surviving spouse and then to be distributed after the second spouse’s death among their children. Both husband and wife have since died. Husband’s children brought suit, arguing that the distribution of assets in husband’s final will is contrary to the contract. Awarding summary judgment to husband’s children in this declaratory judgment action, the trial court determined that the distribution of the husband’s estate is controlled by the terms of the contract. The wife’s estate appealed. We vacate and remand.

A husband and wife entered into a marital dissolution agreement in 2019. Part of the agreement provided that once the husband retired from the United States Army, he would pay the wife alimony in futuro in an amount equal to the amount of military retirement to which the wife was entitled under the agreement. In 2021, the wife filed a motion for contempt alleging, inter alia, that the husband was not complying with the alimony requirements. The husband argued that the parties’ agreement was unenforceable because it is pre-empted by federal law. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the husband had failed to comply with the agreement but that the contempt was not willful. The husband appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. We also grant the wife’s request for her appellate attorney’s fees.

This appeal concerns divorce-related issues. In October 2019, Michael Grande
(“Husband”) filed for divorce against Dr. Kimberly Grande (“Wife”) in the Circuit Court
for Knox County (“the Trial Court”). In March 2021, the Trial Court entered its Final
Judgment for Divorce, which incorporated the parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement
(“the MDA”). In September 2021, Husband filed a petition for civil contempt against Wife.
In its June 2022 final order, the Trial Court found among other things that Wife was in civil
contempt of court. Wife appeals. Husband raises his own issues as well. We find, inter
alia, that Wife is not in civil contempt for pre-MDA conduct when the MDA purported to
resolve the very issues subject to the contempt petition and Husband has not asserted a
claim of fraud. We reverse the Trial Court’s findings of civil contempt against Wife, as
well as the judgments against Wife in the amounts of $27,000 and $11,171.80, respectively.
We also reverse the Trial Court’s award of attorney’s fees to Husband, and decline to award
either party attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal. Otherwise, we affirm the
judgment of the Trial Court. We thus affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

This is an action for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and damages under the Tennessee Educator’s Protection Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants falsely accused him of being a “sexual predator” and “pedophile” who sexually harassed his female high school students. The defendants responded to the complaint by filing petitions to dismiss the action under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. The trial court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for each of his claims and dismissed the action. This appeal followed. We affirm.

The appeal is dismissed due to the fact that Appellant’s brief wholly fails to comply with
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a). In addition, there is no transcript or
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c) statement of the evidence, thus negating this
Court’s ability to review the trial court’s substantive findings.

Clifford Leon Houston (“Appellant”) filed a motion to stay foreclosure proceedings in
2010 in the Chancery Court for Roane County (the “trial court”). In September of 2022,
Appellant filed a motion to recuse the new Roane County Chancellor. The trial court
denied the motion to recuse and dismissed Appellant’s action for failure to prosecute.
Appellant appealed to this Court. Because his brief fails to comply with Tennessee Rule
of Appellate Procedure 27, Appellant’s issues are waived, and the trial court’s ruling is
affirmed.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Tennessee, filed by the plaintiff, Karen Elizabeth Phillips Lowe (“Former Wife”),
seeking to recuse the judge in this post-divorce case. Having reviewed the petition for
recusal appeal filed by Former Wife, and finding no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises out of a claim filed by a decedent’s wife against his estate. Of note, the decedent’s will contained a provision bequeathing his wife all of his clothing, personal effects, automobiles, and all of his other tangible personal property. During an inspection of the decedent’s home following his death, the decedent’s relatives located a checkbook with a sizeable amount of money contained in it, while also locating a large sum of money left in his clothing and in a wallet taped to a pipe in the decedent’s bathroom. The decedent’s wife argues that this money constitutes tangible personal property left to her in the decedent’s will. The trial court rejected this argument, determining that the money constituted intangible personal property. Having reviewed the record, we affirm.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her eldest child on a number of grounds. We reverse the trial court’s finding that Mother engaged in only token visitation with the child during the relevant time period. We vacate the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to parent because the trial court failed to make findings as to whether the return of the child would pose a risk of substantial harm. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to the remaining grounds, as well as the trial court’s finding that termination is in the child’s best interest.

This case involves competing claims for breach of a commercial lease agreement. The tenant commenced this action seeking to recover the security deposit and pre-paid rent, contending that the landlord breached the lease by failing to comply with the notice-and-cure provision in the lease before leasing the premises to another tenant. The landlord denied any breach and filed a counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees contending that the tenant breached the lease by not paying rent. Each party moved for summary judgment, seeking affirmative relief as well as dismissal of the other party’s claims. After ruling that the tenant was the first to materially breach the lease by failing to pay rent and holding that the landlord failed to comply with the notice-and-cure provision in the lease, the court summarily dismissed the tenant’s complaint and the landlord’s counterclaims. Both parties appeal. We affirm the dismissal of the tenant’s complaint but reverse the dismissal of the landlord’s counterclaims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The mother of a minor filed suit against a county and county employees, alleging that the minor was sexually assaulted by a county employee while in custody at a county-run juvenile detention center. The trial court granted the county’s motion for summary judgment on several grounds, including that the county retained immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act because the claims against the county arose out of civil rights claims. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the filing of a detainer warrant in general sessions court. The
plaintiff sought to remove the defendant and her mobile home from his real property. The
general sessions court granted possession of the real property to the plaintiff but ordered
him to pay for the removal of the mobile home. The defendant appealed to the circuit
court. The circuit court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief requested and
awarded him possession of his real property. However, contrary to the general sessions
court, the circuit court ordered the defendant to remove her mobile home from the
plaintiff’s real property at her expense. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

In this appeal, the circuit court determined that the plaintiff had failed to timely perfect her
appeal from an order of the juvenile court. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the
ruling of the circuit court.

In this lawsuit between former law partners, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees.
The instant appeal involves Appellees’ attempt to collect their judgment. The trial court
held that Appellant’s qualified rollover IRA is not exempt from garnishment, attachment
and execution under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 26-2-105, 26-2-111(1)(D), 26-2-
26, and 56-7-203. The trial court also determined that a recreational vehicle was not held
as a tenancy by the entirety and was subject to attachment and execution as Appellant’s
individually-owned property. We reverse.

This appeal involves a personal injury action arising out of a car accident in a state parking lot. The original defendants raised the defense of comparative fault by the State of Tennessee, and the plaintiff filed a notice of claim in the Division of Claims and Risk Management and, later, filed a complaint in the Claims Commission. After the Claims Commission transferred the matter to circuit court, the State moved to dismiss based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the court granted the motion. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119, the complaint initiating a suit against the State was filed in the Claims Commission after the expiration of the 90-day grace period provided by the statute. Furthermore, we find the plaintiff’s argument that the State waived the statute of limitations defense unpersuasive.

This appeal arises from a divorce action filed in 2018. The wife appeals from the trial
court’s order finding her guilty of two counts of criminal contempt. Because one count of
criminal contempt was alleged as civil contempt, we vacate the trial court’s finding of
criminal contempt on that count. We affirm the finding of criminal contempt on the second
count. We vacate the punishment of community service and remand for determination of
an appropriate punishment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-103.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered on April 5, 2023. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

This is the second appeal in this matter involving a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 23, 2019, in Nashville. Upon remand, following dismissal of the first appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a final judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual tortfeasor and subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against his underinsured motorist insurance carrier. The plaintiff has appealed. Determining that the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his negligence claim, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the tortfeasor. We further vacate the dismissal of the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist claim against his automobile insurer. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The plaintiff made a claim for the return of bond money he paid to a private bonding company to secure his release from jail for charges that were pending and then nolled nearly 22 years before the filing of the present cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court held that the complaint, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences, fails to articulate any facts or legal authority showing a right to relief against the defendant. Further, the court determined that if the gravamen of the claim is a tort action for conversion, the claim was also properly dismissed because it would have accrued long ago and is therefore barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a former CEO seeking funds owed to him from his company and two of its subsidiaries. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises out of the chancery court’s affirmance of the decision of the administrative law judge granting a Line of Duty Disability (“LODD”) pension to a Memphis Firefighter. The appeal hinges on a question of law concerning the meaning of Memphis Code of Ordinances § 25-1(27), which states that an employee is eligible for a LODD pension if:

[A] physical . . . condition arising as the direct and proximate result of an accident sustained by a participant, . . . while in the actual performance of duties for the city at some definite time and place . . . which totally and permanently prevents him or her from engaging in the duties for which he or she was employed by the city. The determination of the line-of-duty disability of a participant shall be made on medical evidence by at least two qualified physicians.

City of Memphis Code of Ordinances, § 25-1(27) (emphasis added).

Three qualified physicians testified, but only one of them found that both factors were established. In ruling in favor of the firefighter, the administrative law judge and the chancellor both held that it was not necessary that each qualified physician state that the injuries were caused while in the actual performance of duties for the City at a definite place and time and that he was permanently disabled from continuing in his chosen role as a consequence of that injury. The City of Memphis insists that this was error, contending that “the ordinance clearly requires at least two physicians to opine that the employee sustained a work-related injury which caused his/her disability.” Based on the plain language of the ordinance, we agree with the City’s interpretation of the evidentiary requirements for a LODD pension; we therefore reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the decision of the Pension Board of the City of Memphis, which denied the application for a LODD pension.

The plaintiff brought an action seeking damages for diminution of real property value,
alleging that the defendant’s steam pipe exploded, causing toxic debris, including asbestos,
to fall on the plaintiff’s real property. The plaintiff’s claims included strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activity, ordinary negligence, negligence per se, public nuisance, trespass,
continuing private nuisance, and medical monitoring. The trial court dismissed the entire
amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure
12.02(6) after finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the Tennessee Asbestos
Claims Priorities Act. The trial court also dismissed the claims for strict liability,
negligence per se, trespass, and medical monitoring with prejudice. Upon review, we
affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the entire complaint without prejudice, as well as the
dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence per se, trespass, and medical monitoring claims with
prejudice. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the strict liability claim with prejudice.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother appeals the trial court’s order
terminating her parental rights, arguing that the trial court erroneously found that grounds
existed for termination and that such termination was in the child’s best interest. Having
carefully reviewed the record, we affirm.