APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The parties to this action were divorced in Bradley County, Tennessee, and the mother then moved to Florida with the children as the custodial parent under the agreed Parenting Plan. The father brought this action, charging the mother with contempt of court and petitioned the Court to modify the existing Parenting Plan by awarding the father custody of the minor children. Among the defenses raised by the mother was the lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this State, but the Trial Judge held that courts in Tennessee had subject matter jurisdiction over the issues in dispute. On appeal, we reverse on the basis that the courts of Tennessee do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the issues, and remand for transfer of the matter to the appropriate Florida court.

Shortly after the parties entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate, the seller refused to transfer possession and informed the buyer that he did not intend to close on the property. The buyer filed suit for breach of contract and demanded specific performance. The seller denied that the contract of sale was valid or enforceable and presented a number of different and inconsistent allegations to support his contention. The trial court granted summary judgment to the buyer. We affirm.

Betty L. Graham (“Plaintiff”) sued the Board of Director Lake Park Condo-Signal View^₁ (“Defendant”) in General Sessions Court for Hamilton County. The General Sessions Court granted summary judgment to Defendant on eight of Plaintiff’s ten claims and later dismissed the remaining two claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment to Defendant on the same eight claims as the General Sessions Court had but did so on the sole basis that the appeal to the Circuit Court was untimely as to those eight claims and, subsequently granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the remaining two claims. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We reverse the grant of partial summary judgment on the eight claims, and affirm the dismissal of the other two claims.

Plaintiff filed this action after the statute of limitations had run, and defendant moved to dismiss. Plaintiff attempted to invoke the discovery rule, claiming that his injuries had required surgery and he was sedated for a few days following the accident. The Trial Court granted the defendant summary judgment and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court on the grounds that the discovery rule was not applicable to the circumstances of this case.

This is an appeal from a divorce action in which both Husband and Wife challenge various findings and rulings of the trial court. Husband appeals claiming the trial court erred in not finding Wife a non-credible witness, finding Wife is unable to work due to a lengthy illness, awarding Wife alimony in futuro, and requiring him to pay Wife’s COBRA insurance. Wife appeals claiming that the trial court erred in its division of marital property and the amount of alimony awarded. We affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a suit filed by the City of Chattanooga (“the City”) to enforce a real property tax lien on property acquired by Custom Baking Company through a sale conducted by a bankruptcy court trustee. The previous owner of the real property, which was alleged to have been delinquent in payment of its city property taxes, filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware prior to this action. The City was listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy action and was notified of the proposed sale of the debtor’s assets by the bankruptcy trustee and filed no objection. After the sale of the property, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances, and retained jurisdiction “to determine any claims, disputes or causes of action arising out of or relating to the proposed sale.” The City brought this action in state Chancery Court several months after the entry of the Bankruptcy Court’s order. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide this case and that the City is barred by the collateral attack doctrine from bringing this action to circumvent the Bankruptcy Court’s prior valid final order.

This case involves the construction of a holographic will. Decedent died in 2006, and was survived by her four children. Her will states that one of her sons is to “have” the “home place.” Two of the other siblings, the Appellees, contest the trial court’s determination that the Decedent’s will transfers fee simple title in the Decedent’s real property owned at the time of her death to her son. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from an order terminating a father’s parental rights and granting a stepfather’s petition for adoption. Because the final order does not contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying the trial court’s decision, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal involves an arbitration agreement executed when the decedent was admitted to a nursing home. The trial court denied the nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

The real parties at interest in this action are Carol Silvey, plaintiff and Jeanette East, defendant. They are represented by their respective conservators. Investments were made in the parties’ joint names and when the investments matured, the conservator for Jeanette East made investments in a sole account of Jeanette East. The conservator for Carol Silvey brought this action for a declaration that the investments should remain in the joint estates. The Trial Judge approved the actions of the conservator for Jeanette East but on appeal, we order that the accounts be returned to the joint ownership status.

Maker and guarantors of promissory note brought action against various parties including the maker’s former loan officer, the former holder of the note, and the current holder of the note, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the maker, tortiously interfered with the maker’s negotiations to pay off the note at a discount and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted defendants’ summary judgment. Maker and guarantors appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a jury trial involving the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. A railroad employee was struck by a passing train belonging to another railroad. The employee sued both railroads, bringing a FELA claim against the employer railroad, and a negligence claim against the other railroad. The jury returned a verdict in the employee’s favor against the employer railroad, finding that the employer railroad was 100 percent at fault. The employee was awarded damages in the amount of $4 million. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This case involves allegations of intentional misrepresentation and associated causes of action all related to the sale of a spring for commercial development. Appellant contends that the output of the spring was misrepresented. The trial court granted summary judgment as to a number of causes of action, and the appellant then non-suited his remaining claims and appealed. For the reasons stated herein we affirm the trial court.

Plaintiff, a nurse practitioner formerly employed by a staffing service and supplied to hospital emergency department, sued the service and the hospital for retaliatory discharge, gender discrimination, breach of contract and violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act. Trial court granted summary judgment to staffing company. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Appellant purchased a commercial truck from a merchant who dealt in goods of that kind. Before obtaining good title, Appellant entrusted the merchant with the truck to allow the merchant to make agreed upon repairs. While the merchant had possession of the truck, he sold it to the Appellee. Appellant filed suit to recover the truck. The trial court found that Appellee was a bona fide purchaser in the ordinary course of business and that under Tenn. Code Ann. §47-2-403, Appellant’s entrustment of the truck to the merchant provided the merchant the authority to transfer title to the Appellee. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, the crux of Appellant’s argument is that his local zoning board erred in determining that he could not use two structures on his property for human occupation. In support of this contention, Appellant argues that when reviewing the zoning board’s decision, the trial court applied the wrong standard of review, misconstrued the zoning ordinances, excluded admissible evidence, and should have applied the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel. On appeal, Appellee also asserted that Appellant’s argument was moot. Because we do not agree that Appellee’s case is moot, we review the merits of Appellant’s claim. Finding no error, however, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action, plaintiff charged that defendant had placed him on a “secret, government maintained ‘indicated’ perpetrator list”, without affording him due process of law. The Trial Judge, responding to a Motion to Dismiss, held that plaintiff’s action was not “ripe” for determination and dismissed
the action. On appeal, we affirm.

Plaintiff alleged that she was robbed at knife-point on Wal-Mart’s parking lot, and Wal-Mart was negligent in failing to provide security to protect her from the robbery. Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Trial Judge ruled due to the paucity of crimes in the parking lot, Wal-Mart owed no duty to the plaintiff to provide security where the crime allegedly occurred. Plaintiff has appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

We granted an appeal pursuant to Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. P., to determine the extent of discovery that would be allowed of an infection control nurse who had investigated the infectious rates at the hospital, because the investigation was prompted by the hospital’s Quality Control Committee. Defendants argued that the investigation was confidential and privileged, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 63-6-219. The Trial Court allowed discovery and we affirm, setting forth parameters of the discovery.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine: (1) whether there existed sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding Appellant guilty of indirect criminal contempt; (2) whether the circuit court erred in finding Appellant “willfully attempt[ed] to circumvent the requirements of the Act and Injunction Order of the Court[;]” and (3) whether the circuit court erred in fining Appellant for fifty contemptuous acts when the exact number of such acts is uncertain. We affirm.

This is a divorce case. The parties had a long-term marriage and enjoyed a high standard of living. The parties then filed for divorce. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court adopted the wife’s proposal for the distribution of marital property and ordered the husband to pay the wife substantial alimony in futuro and attorney’s fees. The husband now challenges the distribution of marital property as well as the award of alimony and attorney’s fees. Regarding the distribution of the marital estate, the husband argues that the trial court overvalued his law practice, undervalued the wife’s counseling business, and failed to give the husband credit for several tax liabilities that he assumed. He further argues that the trial court awarded the wife an excessive amount of alimony and attorney’s fees. We affirm in part as modified, determining that the facts as found by the trial court were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the distribution of marital property and award of alimony. We reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Appellant nursing home appeals the trial court’s award of a portion of the damages it sought from Appellee, the son of one of its residents. The Appellee had previously signed a guaranty to cover expenses that his mother could not meet on her own. At the initial hearing, Appellant failed to meet its burden of proof concerning damages, and the trial court re-opened the proof on its own motion to allow Appellant more time to produce the missing evidence. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in so doing, and that, in the absence of the new proof, Appellant failed to carry its burden, we reverse.

This is a will contest. The decedent had three children, two daughters who survived her and a son who predeceased her. Two months before the decedent’s death, she executed a will that left all of her property to her daughters and some of their family members, but left nothing to any of the six children of the predeceased son. After the decedent’s death, one of the daughters sought to probate the will. The deceased son’s children filed this petition to contest the will, arguing that it was procured through undue influence. After a jury trial, the jury found that the will had not been procured through undue influence and was, therefore, valid. The son’s children now appeal the jury verdict. We affirm, concluding that the evidence in the record supports the jury verdict.

This case addresses the allocation of funds received by a county from the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Tennessee Valley Authority is exempted from state taxation, but makes payments to the county in lieu of taxes. Historically, the county has earmarked these funds for education and has allocated a portion of them to the special school districts within the county. In 2003, however, the county decided to phase out the allocation of funds to the special school districts. Subsequently, the plaintiffs in this action, parents of children in a special school district located in the county, sued the county, arguing that the county’s decision to stop sending funds to the special school district violated several statutory provisions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm, concluding that the case is controlled by the decision in Oak Ridge City Schools v. Anderson County, 677 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984), and that the county is entitled to summary judgment.