APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Tennessee LLC sued one of its members seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and his expulsion as an LLC member. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the defendant from misappropriating, using, or disclosing the LLC’s trade secrets and confidential and proprietary business information.  The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and dissolve the temporary restraining order based upon an arbitration provision, a choice of law provision, and a forum selection clause contained in the LLC’s operating agreement.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and held that it lacked jurisdiction and venue based on the forum selection clause and that the LLC failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to the arbitration provision.  We conclude that Tennessee law governs the operating agreement and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint based upon the arbitration provision. However, we reverse the trial court’s holding that it lacked jurisdiction and venue over the LLC’s claims for temporary injunctive relief.

A property developer purchased a portion of a two-story building without having fully examined the property prior to acquiring it. The only existing means of accessing the second floor of his property was via a staircase owned by his neighbor. The developer did not have an express easement to use the staircase, and disagreements arose between the developer and his neighbor over the developer’s use of his neighbor’s staircase. In response, the developer filed suit. The developer claimed an easement implied by prior use, an easement by necessity, and/or a prescriptive easement. At trial, the neighbor sought, in effect, an involuntary dismissal at the close of the developer’s proof. The trial court granted that motion, reasoning that the developer failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to all three of his easement theories. The developer appeals. We affirm.

Because the order appealed lacks finality based on the failure to comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and no good cause exists to waive the procedural deficiency, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that two statutory grounds existed to terminate mother’s parental rights to the two minor children: abandonment by failure to visit or support and persistence of conditions. The trial court found that three statutory grounds existed to terminate father’s parental rights to the minor children: abandonment by failure to visit or support, persistence of conditions, and abandonment due to father’s confinement of ten or more years. The trial court then concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests. We reverse the trial court’s findings on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit or support. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment.

This case involves the interpretation of a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA” ) in which the father was obligated to establish an irrevocable life insurance trust for his youngest child in an amount equal to the average of the after-tax funds received by his other children from four other trusts. He did not establish the trust before his death in 2021. Before he died, his youngest child sued to force him to create the trust. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the father’s estate and another trust he established, holding that the MDA trust was too vague and indefinite to enforce and that the father’s failure to establish the trust constituted a non-arbitrary disinheritance of the youngest child pursuant to the MDA. This Court, in Dunavant v. The William B. Dunavant, Jr. Revocable Living Trust, No. W2023-01213, 2024 WL 4211156 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2024), affirmed the trial court. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Rule 11 application for the Living Trust and the Estate, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals “for further consideration in light of Pharma Conference Education v. State, 703 S.W.3d 305 (Tenn. 2024).” We reverse the trial court.

A property owner granted a friend permission to live on his property while the friend was renovating the owner’s house. Five years later, the owner filed a successful detainer action against the friend in general sessions court. The friend appealed the adverse judgment to circuit court and, in that forum, filed a counterclaim asserting multiple causes of action including breach of contract and quantum meruit. After a bench trial, the trial court granted the property owner a detainer and dismissed the friend’s counterclaims. We affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed due to significant failures to comply with Rule 10B. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with a company to make certain improvements to
his existing home. According to the plaintiff, the construction done at the house was only
partially completed and that work was improperly and negligently performed. In his
complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, breach of contract, negligence, fraud and
intentional misrepresentation, and conversion. The plaintiff averred that the acts of the
home improvement company should be imputed to the defendant under the doctrine of
respondeat superior; in the alternative, he alleged that the defendant was in a partnership
or joint venture with the home improvement company. The trial court entered an order of
default against the defendant after she was served but failed to appear or file a responsive
pleading until after a default judgment had been entered. The trial court denied the
defendant’s motion seeking to set aside the default judgment. The defendant appeals. After
review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The guardian ad litem filed a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her child. After the mother failed to respond, the guardian ad litem moved for entry of a default judgment against her. The mother appeared pro se at the default judgment hearing and requested a continuance to allow for court appointed counsel. The court found the mother was entitled to appointed counsel but denied the continuance. After hearing the petitioner’s proof, the court found clear and convincing evidence of multiple grounds for termination and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court erred in denying the mother a continuance to consult with counsel. So we vacate the termination of the mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights to the minor child on two statutory grounds: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights to the minor child on two statutory grounds: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The family of a child bitten by a dog appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit at the summary judgment stage. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant owners knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 44-8-413(c)(1). The plaintiffs argue that (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without a hearing; and (2) they presented sufficient evidence to create a dispute of genuine material fact as to whether the defendant owners should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Juvenile Court for Hamblen County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated the parental rights of Josue O. (“Father”) to his daughter Neyra S. (“the Child”), finding multiple grounds applicable to a putative father, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9), and the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14).  Father does not contest the Juvenile Court’s findings of statutory grounds for termination but appeals the Juvenile Court’s determination that termination of his parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.   

This is a parental rights termination case.  Nathaniel D. (“the Child”) is the minor child of Haleigh D. (“Mother”) and Richard L. (“Father”).  Mother later married Zachary D. (“Stepfather”).  Meanwhile, Father sought to be a part of the Child’s life.  In an agreed order of paternity, the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) stated that “any and all issues related to Custody, visitation, and child support are reserved and referred to the Custody Magistrate.”  The issue of child support remained unaddressed.  Ultimately, Mother and Stepfather (“Petitioners,” collectively) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights.  The Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights on the sole ground of abandonment by failure to support.  Father appeals.  It is uncontested that Father failed to pay any support even though he had the means to do so.  However, Father has successfully asserted and proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his failure to support was not willful.  We reverse.

Although I agree that Father did sufficiently raise in his answer the affirmative defense of lack of willfulness regarding the statutory ground of failure to pay child support, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding and instead believe that Father’s failure to pay support was willful according to Tennessee law. As the majority points out, the proof was “undisputed that Father paid no child support during the relevant four-month period despite having the ability to pay.” Father argued that such failure was not willful because he had relied on the January 2021 agreed order of paternity entered by the juvenile court, which stated that “any and all issues related to . . . child support are reserved and referred to the Custody Magistrate,” and the fact that no further orders concerning child support had been entered.

This is an estate recovery action initiated by TennCare, the State of Tennessee’s Medicaid program. The trial court denied the estate’s administrator’s exception to TennCare’s claim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A landlord filed a detainer action in general sessions court against a tenant, seeking possession of the property and unpaid rent. The tenant agreed to move out, and the rent obligation was later discharged by a third party. The tenant filed an appeal to circuit court, and the circuit court dismissed the case, finding that the tenant did not appeal within ten days of the general sessions court’s judgment. The tenant appealed. On appeal, the tenant, appearing pro se, does not address the basis of the circuit court’s dismissal of the case, an untimely appeal from general sessions court to circuit court. Because the tenant has not challenged the basis of the circuit court’s ruling, we dismiss the appeal.

In proceedings to terminate his parental rights, a father who lived out of state claimed that he was not served with process.  The case went to trial based upon substitute service, and the father’s parental rights were terminated.  Because we conclude that the father was not properly served, we vacate the judgment terminating his parental rights.

An inmate at Turney Center Industrial Complex (“TCIX”) was convicted of introducing drugs into the complex by the prison’s disciplinary board. After failed administrative appeals, the inmate filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Hickman County. The inmate alleged that the TCIX Disciplinary Board and TCIX staff violated multiple disciplinary policies and that there was no material evidence to support his conviction. The trial court denied his petition. This appeal followed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this action, the plaintiff, through her conservators, asserted health care liability and breach of contract claims against the senior living facility where she resides and its parent corporation. Following some amount of discovery, the parties filed competing motions for partial summary judgment concerning the breach of contract and financial claims. The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the motions and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the senior living facility based on the terms of the contract signed by the plaintiff. The trial court further certified the judgment as final. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiff in this landlord-tenant dispute sought a temporary injunction in the general sessions court, asking the court to force the defendant landlords to repair an air conditioning unit. The general sessions court granted a temporary injunction and later held a final hearing, after which it awarded the plaintiff $24,793.63 in damages. The defendants appealed to the circuit court which, following a bench trial, dismissed the plaintiff’s case. The circuit court, inter alia, concluded that the plaintiff offered no proof of his damages. The plaintiff timely appealed the circuit court’s judgment to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this case involving termination of the adoptive mother's and father's parental rights to their child, the Greene County Juvenile Court ("trial court") determined that the statutory ground for termination—severe child abuse—had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest. The parents have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A woman sued a dog owner for injuries caused by the owner’s dog biting her while she was on the owner’s property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the dog owner based on the owner’s testimony that the dog had never bitten anyone and had never exhibited a dangerous propensity to bite. We have concluded that the woman presented evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to the dog owner’s credibility regarding his knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision.

The mother and father of Justice W., a minor, appeal the termination of their parental rights. The trial court found that multiple grounds for termination had been proven against each parent and that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court’s ruling that (1) the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, mental incompetence, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child supported the termination of her parental rights and (2) termination was in the child’s best interest. Although we reverse as to the ground of abandonment by failure to support, we affirm the remainder of the trial court’s ruling, including the termination of Mother’s rights.