APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Wife in this divorce action takes issue with the grounds upon which the trial court granted the divorce, the distribution of marital property, the calculation of Husband’s monthly income and the designation of life insurance. We affirm.

This case arises from a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. In the contract, Appellee Sellers made no warranty concerning the exact acreage of the tract. Appellant Buyer was given the right to have the tract inspected and surveyed prior to closing; however, he did not exercise that right. At the closing, Appellant also executed a waiver to any claims arising from a determination that the assumed acreage was incorrect. A survey performed after the closing indicated that the tract was approximately three acres less than the parties thought. Appellant Buyer brought suit against Appellee Sellers on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is a post-divorce action seeking a change in child custody. The initial action was filed by the natural mother, the Appellee herein, and the trial court determined that primary residential custody should be with her. The paternal grandparents, the Appellants herein, also moved the court for custody of the two minor children. The trial court denied the grandparents’ petition for custody. The grandparents appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a decedent’s testamentary obligation to distribute his estate in accord with a marital dissolution agreement. The trial court determined that the decedent’s codicil obligated his estate to pay joint debts that the decedent incurred with his fiancè, and his estate could not seek contribution from fiancè for paying more than half of the debts. The trial court also determined that this distribution did not violate the marital dissolution agreement that decedent had negotiated with his ex-wife. We affirm the trial court on these two determinations. We, however, reverse the trial court’s finding that the estate was not required to reimburse fiancè for payments that she made on the debts after the decedent’s death and before the trial court ordered the estate to pay the debt.

The Father, C.E.S., and Mother, L.L.S., were not married at the time of the birth of their minor child, A.C.S., on September 27, 2006. The birth certificate was initially caused to reflect the child’s surname as that of Mother. On November 17, 2006, the Father filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, to establish parentage for joint custody. An Order of Parentage, reserving the issue of changing the child’s surname, was entered by the Juvenile Court, through Special Referee, on February 27, 2007. The Juvenile Court Referee subsequently ordered that the child’s surname be changed to that of Father by Order entered December 13, 2007. Following an appeal of the Referee’s decision, the Juvenile Court, by Special Judge, affirmed the Referee’s decision and ordered that the surname of the child be changed to that of Father. Mother appealed, claiming that Father failed in meeting his burden of proof of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that changing the minor child’s surname was in the best interest of the child. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

After Lawrence County landowners installed a gate across an unpaved rural road, the County filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights of all the parties whose properties adjoined that road, as well as the right of the County to remove the obstruction. The landowners who installed the gate argued that the road had never been legally declared a county road and that the gate was necessary to prevent their neighbors from trespassing on their property. After a hearing, the trial court found (1) that the road was a county road and (2) that its entire length was contained in an easement which no one was allowed to obstruct. The court accordingly ordered the landowners to remove the gate. We affirm.

Shelby County Sheriff’s Deputy appealed the termination of his employment for violation of SOR-104–Personal Conduct to the Civil Service Merit Board. The Board modified the punishment to suspension without pay. The Sheriff’s Department appealed the Board’s modification to the Shelby County Chancery Court, which upheld the Board’s decision. The Sheriff’s Department appeals. We affirm.

Appellant hospital filed suit against Appellee insurance company for damages arising from Appellee’s alleged impairment of the Appellant’s hospital lien. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellant hospital, finding that Appellant had perfected its lien under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101, and that the Appellee had impaired that lien pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-104. The trial court, however, limited Appellant’s recovery to the amount of coverage under the insurance policy. We affirm as modified herein.

This is an wrongful death action arising under a theory of premises liability. Plaintiff’s husband died as a result of injuries he sustained after tripping over a piece of concrete embedded in a dirt path. Plaintiff alleged that two of the defendants, who were under a separate maintenance contract with the owner of the property, failed to exercise the required due care in the maintance, inspection, and repairs of the path. The trial court granted directed verdicts for both defendants after finding that neither owed a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. We agree that defendant Brooks Shaw did not have a duty to maintain the path. However, we have determined that defendant Town and Country did owe a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact for the jury to decide. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from a nuisance case. The plaintiff landowner filed a complaint alleging a continuous nuisance caused by grading completed on adjacent property. The plaintiff alleged that the grading had altered the natural drainage pattern, causing damage to her house. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The defendants sought summary judgment, raising the statute of limitations as a defense. The trial court agreed and granted defendants’ motion. Finding that a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute, we reverse. 

In this interpleader action, plaintiff held an IRA account established by decedent. When decedent died dispute arose between his companion and his blood relatives, because he had designated his companion as the sole beneficiary of his IRA account, but in his Will he gave the IRA account to his relatives. The contending parties raised this dispute in their pleadings and after an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court ruled that the designee on the IRA account was entitled to the proceeds because the relatives did not carry the burden of proof to establish undue influence was exercised on the decedent when he established the IRA account. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand with the cost of the cause taxed to appellants.

This is a wrongful death action brought under a theory of medical malpractice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs filed their complaint after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. After careful review, we find that Plaintiffs had notice of their claim no later than February 27, 2003, and their lawsuit was not timely filed. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

A former inmate in the Davidson County jail filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction against the Davidson County Sheriff and the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office in which he alleged he had been mistreated while incarcerated. The defendants moved to dismiss the former inmate’s petition for injunctive relief on the ground that he was no longer incarcerated, and thus his action for injunctive relief was moot. The plaintiff failed to respond to the motion and did not attend the hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss from which the plaintiff appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding Appellant’s expert’s standard of care and causation opinions and in granting summary judgment to the Appellees as to Appellant’s medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims. We affirm.

The appellant filed this action against the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Lottery Commission alleging that the defendants breached a contract with him by failing to pay him the $171,000,000 grand prize for the December 8, 2004 Powerball drawing.2 The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

This appeal came on to be heard upon the record of the Chancery Court of Greene County and briefs filed on behalf of the respective parties. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Chancery Court should be vacated and this case remanded.

A home seller appeals a jury verdict finding that she intentionally misrepresented water conditions in the basement in connection with the sale of her home. According to the seller, the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and the trial court erroneously allowed opinion testimony from the contractor who repaired the water damage. We affirm, finding that material evidence supports that the jury verdict and that the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony.

Wife sued the insurance company for failure to pay on Husband’s life insurance policy and the insurance brokers for failure to procure an enforceable life insurance policy, various torts and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Wife settled with the insurance company before trial and won judgments against the brokers based on failure to procure an enforceable life insurance policy ($1,000,000.00); negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty ($300,000.00); and violation of the TCPA (an additional $300,000.00). Defendants appeal, claiming that they should receive a credit for the amount of the settlement with the insurance company and that the other awards were improper for various reasons. We affirm the $1,000,000.00 judgment but find that a credit for the settlement is appropriate. We affirm the tort award. We also affirm the finding of a violation of the TCPA and affirm the award of the additional $300,000.00.

Plaintiff, son and next-of-kin of decedent, appeals grant of summary judgment to hospital in negligence and wrongful death action. Finding no error in the action of the trial court, we affirm the decision.

Defendants appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, based on the trial court’s holding that the judgment rendered in Massachusetts was enforceable in Tennessee. Since Massachusetts had personal jurisdiction over defendants and the alleged fraud upon the court was not sustainable, we find no ground under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 that constitutes a defense to domestication of the judgment rendered in Massachusetts. The grant of summary judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiffs brought this action against Bradley County, alleging the county was negligent in failing to properly maintain a defective, unsafe and dangerous condition at the intersection of two county roads, which caused an accident wherein plaintiffs were injured. The county filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the trial court granted on the grounds the county was immune. On appeal, we hold the record before us does not support the judgment granted by the trial court as a matter of law. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A mother who had recently given birth was given someone else’s child to nurse, but realized the mistake after a short time. The mother and father filed suit against the hospital alleging, among other things, negligent infliction of emotional distress. The hospital admitted a breach of the standard of care, but argued on summary judgment that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the mother’s lack of emotional injuries as required by Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996). The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant hospital by limiting the mother’s claim for damages to those suffered within ten days of the hospital’s error while the couple awaited confirmation that the baby they brought home was their biological child. We affirm the trial court in part and reverse in part.
 

The minor plaintiff and his parents sued for damages for serious bodily injury resulting from an assault, and at the conclusion of the trial the trial judge held the defendants liable for the injuries and awarded damages. The defendants have appealed, insisting the assault was not foreseeable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a companion case to Filson v. Seton Corp. d/b/a Baptist Hospital, No. M2006-02301-COA-R9-CV. Both cases were brought by mothers of newborns against the hospital where the babies were born, and both arose from the same incident. Employees of the hospital mistakenly brought the wrong infant to a mother for feeding. In the case before us, Ms. Hobbs, the mother of the child who was mistakenly taken to the wrong mother, claimed emotional distress on her own behalf and negligence and battery on behalf of her child. The hospital admitted a breach of the standard of care, but argued that the plaintiffs did not suffer any actual damages because the mistake was corrected within a very short time after it was made. The trial court dismissed all the claims on summary judgment. Ms. Hobbs argues on appeal that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims for negligence and battery that she filed on behalf of her infant child. We affirm the trial court.