APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiffs sued the defendant, alleging breach by defendant of the contract with defendant to purchase his dental practice. Included in the agreement was a restrictive covenant not to compete. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial Court held that the $75,000.00 that was paid for the restrictive covenant should be returned to the plaintiffs under the theory of unjust enrichment, because the covenant was not enforceable. On appeal, we hold that defendant abided by the terms of the restrictive covenant for five of the seven years that the covenant covered and, as a matter of equity, the Judgment of the trial court should be reduced proportionately.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father/Appellant appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child at issue in this case. Finding that the grounds of abandonment, unwillingness to assume custody, and failure to establish paternity are not established by clear and convincing evidence in the record, we reverse in part, affirm in part and dismiss.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its complaint for failure to state a claim. We dismiss the appeal for failure to appeal a final judgment.

A graduate student at Vanderbilt sued after the university terminated her graduate studies. She claimed that Vanderbilt breached its contract with her. The trial court granted summary judgment to Vanderbilt. We affirm.

The Charter of the City of Memphis provided for automatic promotion of police officers to the rank of captain after thirty years of service. In 2005, the rank of thirty-year captain was abolished, except for pension purposes. Plaintiffs, police officers with the City of Memphis, filed suit stating that they had been denied promotions to which they were entitled under the Charter, and asking the court to require that such promotions be given. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim, finding that the suit was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.

Father appeals order finding him in contempt of court and sentencing him to a total of 180 days incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm.

In this divorce dispute, Wife argues that the trial court erred in not awarding her the divorce, by characterizing her condominium as marital property, and in the division of marital assets, including funds that the court found Husband had dissipated from the marital estate. Finding that the Husband did not dissipate marital funds, we reverse. On all other issues, we affirm.

Sellers of truck appeal award of damages and attorneys fees awarded to purchaser based on finding that sellers violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of a minor automobile accident. The plaintiff filed suit individually and on behalf of his son, claiming that his son suffered whiplash in the accident. The defendant admitted fault for the accident but denied that she caused any damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented testimony from a physician who opined that the son was injured in the car accident. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves a medical malpractice action. In a motion for summary judgment, defendant physician asserted that plaintiff’s expert witness failed to satisfy the requirements of the locality rule. The trial court granted the motion finding that plaintiff’s expert failed to demonstrate a familiarity with the standard of care in defendant’s community or a similar community. In a motion to alter or amend the judgment, plaintiff attached a supplemental affidavit of the same expert in order to cure the deficiency. The trial court considered the expert’s supplemental affidavit and denied the motion because the new affidavit still failed to satisfy the locality rule. Plaintiff appeals. Reviewing the record, we find that the expert’s supplemental affidavit cured the initial deficiency by relating facts which showed the similarity of the two communities. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This is a dispute over lease agreements. The plaintiff outdoor advertising company leased two parcels of property from the defendant real estate development company for the purpose of erecting billboard signs. The defendant then cancelled the leases. The defendant had contracted to sell the property to another outdoor advertising company, and cancelled the leases with the plaintiff in reliance on a lease provision allowing cancellation in the event that the plaintiff’s signs interfered with the defendant’s sale or development of the property. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s cancellation was ineffective because this was not the type of interference that was contemplated in the agreement. The defendant counterclaimed, seeking damages allegedly suffered as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to remove its billboards. Meanwhile, the third-party outdoor advertising company that was supposed to purchase the property filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, alleging that the plaintiff was interfering with its contractual relations with the defendant real estate development company. A trial was held, and no proof of damages was submitted. The defendant real estate development company and the third-party advertising company that sought to intervene asked for a hearing on damages in their post-trial brief. The trial court issued a letter ruling finding that the defendant’s termination of the leases was effective. Years later, an order was entered reiterating the finding that the defendant effectively terminated the leases; the order set the matter for a special hearing on damages owed to the defendant real estate development company and the third-party advertising company. The third-party’s motion to intervene was never explicitly granted. Shortly thereafter, the trial judge assigned to the case died. A substitute judge was assigned to hear the remainder of the case. In response to a series of motions, the trial court determined that the trial was properly bifurcated, that the third-party advertising company did not transfer its right to damages in a sale of its assets, and that its motion to intervene was never granted by the previous trial judge, and it therefore could not recover damages. The thirdparty advertising company now appeals. We reverse the trial court’s decision that the motion to intervene was never granted, finding that the motion to intervene was implicitly granted in the order following the trial. We affirm the trial court’s holding that the bifurcation was proper, that the defendant real estate development company effectively terminated the leases, and that the third-party advertising company that sought to purchase the property retained the right to damages after the sale of its assets. The case is remanded for a hearing on the damages owed to the third-party advertising company, if any.

Plaintiff filed this action as a “qui tam claim” pursuant to the Tennessee False Claims Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-101 et seq. The Trial Court awarded plaintiff proceeds from the settlement under the Act and both parties have appealed. On appeal we hold that plaintiff did qualify under the statute as an original source, and the Trial Court had jurisdiction to award a recovery. However, we hold there is not sufficient evidence to affirm the award. We vacate the award and remand pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-3-128.

Owners of an insured vehicle that was damaged by fire filed suit against their insurance company for breach of contract, failure to pay insurance claim in good faith, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Insurer filed a counter-complaint alleging that one of the insureds had no right of recovery under the policy because she had no insurable interest in the vehicle and that the other insured was barred from seeking recovery under the policy because the insured failed to answer questions under oath when asked by the insurer. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. Finding no error, we affirm.

This case involves competing adoption petitions filed by a child’s maternal and paternal grandparents after the child’s father was sentenced to death for killing the child’s mother. The trial court simply compared the relative fitness of the two sets of grandparents and granted the adoption petition of the paternal grandparents. We conclude that the trial court erred in giving equal weight to both petitions because the paternal grandparents did not meet the requirements set forth in Tennessee’s adoption statutes. We also conclude that the maternal grandparents were fit persons to have the care and custody of the child, that they are financially able to provide for the child, and that adoption is in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the chancery court and remand for entry of an order granting the adoption petition filed by the maternal grandparents.

The appellant-defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Summary Judgment and the modification and enforcement of his non-competition agreement with appellee-plaintiff. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant-defendant’s motion for summary judgment; we affirm the trial court’s ruling modifying the territorial restrictions in the non-compete agreement; we further modify the terms of the non-competition agreement in order to be consistent with Tennessee’s public policy; and we reverse the trial court’s institution of a permanent injunction against the appellantdefendant.

At issue in this appeal are the respective rights of three parties concerning charitable gifts of 101 pieces of art given, subject to conditions, to Fisk University in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The collection has an estimated present value in excess of $60 million. Four of the pieces, including the painting Radiator Building - Night, New York, were the property of Georgia O’Keeffe and given to the University by Ms. O’Keeffe. The other ninety-seven pieces were part of a much larger collection formerly owned by Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O’Keeffe’s late husband. The ninety-seven pieces were gifted to the University by Ms. O’Keeffe as executrix of the estate and/or as the owner of a life estate in the ninety-seven pieces. All 101 pieces were charitable, conditional gifts that were subject to several restrictions, two of which are at issue here; the pieces could not be sold and the various pieces of art were to be displayed at Fisk University as one collection.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The appellant mother of four children has a history of mental illness and substance abuse. The children were taken into state custody based on the mother’s lack of safe and stable housing and her drug abuse. The children were then placed together in the home of their maternal grandmother and ultimately stayed in State custody for over eight years. For the first several years, the children’s permanency plans required the mother to obtain drug treatment, attend parenting classes, seek treatment for her mental health issues, and provide a stable home for the children. At various times, these goals were accomplished, but at other times they were not. In 2006, the state petitioned the trial court to permit the mother to regain custody of the children, indicating that the mother had fulfilled her responsibilities. Around the same time, however, the mother tested positive for illegal drugs. Soon thereafter, the state filed the instant petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. After a trial, the trial court granted the petition for termination based on the ground of persistent conditions, finding that the State had made reasonable efforts to assist the mother and that the children’s best interest would be served by termination. The mother as well as the children’s guardian ad litem now appeal the termination. We reverse, finding that DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to assist the mother, particularly with respect to her underlying mental illness, and dismiss the petition to terminate her parental rights.

Plaintiff sought a partition by sale of property she owned as a tenant in common. The defendants sought a partition in kind. The undisputed proof showed that the parcels were more valuable if sold together than if they were divided and sold separately. The trial court ordered the property sold. The defendants appealed. We affirm.

This is the second appeal in a legal malpractice case filed by Raymond Clay Murray, Jr. (“the Client”) against Jes Beard (“the Attorney”). In the first appeal, we affirmed the Trial Court’s sanction against the Attorney for discovery abuse which prohibited the Attorney from introducing any expert testimony at trial. However, a majority of this Court reversed the Trial Court’s issuance of a default judgment as a further sanction against the Attorney. We also affirmed the Trial Court’s determination that the amount of the Client’s damages totaled $16,697.38. We remanded the case on the sole issue of liability. On remand, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted the Client’s motion for summary judgment and found the Attorney 100% at fault for the Client’s damages. The Trial Court then denied the Attorney’s motion for summary judgment, found that motion was filed in violation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11, and awarded an additional $1,374.94 in damages. The Attorney appeals raising several issues. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment in all respects.

This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff college professor was asked by his employer college to teach a summer class. The class was cancelled after the professor had taught only two class sessions. The college said that the class was cancelled due to low enrollment; this reason was disputed by the professor. The professor filed a lawsuit against the college for breach of express contract, breach of contract implied in fact, breach of contract implied in law, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant college on all of the professor’s claims. The professor appeals, arguing that he was denied discovery and that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. We affirm the challenged discovery rulings and the grant of summary judgment as to the claims for breach of express contract, breach of contract implied in fact, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, and as to the claim for breach of contract implied in law with respect to the second class taught by the plaintiff. We reverse the grant of summary judgment as to the claim for breach of contract implied in law with respect to the first class taught by the plaintiff.

In this divorce action the Trial Court awarded primary custody of the children to the mother, refused to allow overnight visitation with the father until the children were one year old, and ordered standard visitation with the father. The father appealed, insisting that the Trial Court erred in applying the “tender years doctrine” and also erred in awarding standard visitation of the children. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Court.