APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a declaratory judgment action against the State regarding the use of an easement. The plaintiffs own a parcel of land next to a highway. By deed, the plaintiffs' predecessor in title granted a perpetual easement for “highway purposes” to the State for the Department of Transportation in the strip of land immediately next to the highway. Prior to this litigation, the Department of Transportation asked the plaintiffs to remove advertising signs posted on the land next to the highway because the signs encroached on the State's highway “right-of-way.” In response, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action against the State, seeking a declaration that the easement for “highway purposes” did not constitute a “highway right-of-way,” and that the State had no authority to require removal of the signs. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the deed conveyed to the State only an easement of ingress and egress and did not grant the right to use the land as a “highway right-of-way.” The defendant now appeals. We vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

A formerly licensed practical nurse appeals a default judgment revoking her license by the Board of Nursing and claims, inter alia, that the Board failed to comply with applicable notice requirements. Because the administrative record does not reflect consideration of the rule governing proceedings by default, we reverse.

Parris Roofing & Sheetmetal Co. (“Plaintiff”) sued SCR Electric, Inc. (“Defendant”) seeking, in part, payment for work Plaintiff had done pursuant to an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. The case was tried without a jury and the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff and Defendant did not have an enforceable agreement, but that Plaintiff was entitled to recover $3,613.50, from Defendant in quantum meruit. Plaintiff appeals to this Court claiming that the Trial Court erred in finding that the reasonable value of the work performed was only $3,613.50. We affirm.

We affirm the trial court’s award of summary judgment to Defendant physician in this medical malpractice action.

Client appeals the dismissal of its legal malpractice action against the attorneys who represented it in a bankruptcy proceeding. The trial court determined that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations and that there were no grounds upon which the trier of fact could find that the loss alleged by the client was caused by any negligent act or omission of the defendants. We affirm.

This is a divorce case. The parties had a long-term marriage and their children are now adults.  During the marriage, the husband worked in the telecommunications industry and the wife was primarily a homemaker. The parties’ marital estate consisted largely of real property. They had incurred a substantial debt to the Internal Revenue Service. After a three-day hearing, the trial court declared the parties divorced and ordered that the real property be sold to satisfy the debt owed to the IRS. The trial court equally divided the IRS debt and any remaining proceeds from the sale of the properties. The trial court also awarded the wife a lump sum judgment representing temporary support during the pendency of the action, ordered the husband to pay the wife transitional alimony for five years, and denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees. The wife now appeals the division of the marital estate, the decision to make the alimony award transitional rather than in futuro, and the denial of her request for attorney’s fees. The husband appeals the amount of the alimony award and the judgment for temporary support awarded to the wife. We modify the alimony to award alimony in futuro instead of transitional alimony, and affirm the remainder of the trial court’s decision.

Plaintiffs, parents and son brought suit against the University for injuries to the son sustained while practicing football, charging the coaches were negligent in allowing practice to continue under dangerous conditions. The Commissioner ruled in favor of the University, except as to the dispute over insurance, and awarded plaintiffs $3,600.00 under the contract of insurance with the University.

In this action for a judgment for fees for legal services rendered, the Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appealed. We affirm.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of F.R.G. (“Mother”) and R.K.B. (“Father”) with respect to their minor child, C.G.B. (“the child”) (DOB: December 31, 2003), upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that grounds for terminating their parental rights existed and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals, arguing procedural defects in the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. We affirm.

I concur with the court’s opinion. However, I have prepared this separate opinion to point specifically to the provisions of Mr. Smith’s employment agreement that undermine the summary judgment in this case. 

This case involves the alleged negligent administration of a trust. In 1964, the plaintiffs’ decedent established a $1.7 million trust and named herself as the sole beneficiary. The defendant bank was named as the trustee and was given sole discretion to manage the trust investments. From 1964 until the decedent’s death in 1999, the bank managed the trust fund and sent the decedent monthly statements describing the trust activities. When the trust terminated, it was worth approximately $880,000. The plaintiffs, co-executors of the decedent’s estate, brought this action on behalf of the estate for negligent administration of the trust, arguing that the bank negligently failed to maximize the rate of return on the trust assets. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment based on, inter alia, the doctrine of ratification, asserting that the decedent had ratified the bank’s management of the trust assets by failing to object to its decisions over the thirty-five-year life of the trust. The plaintiffs argued that the decedent was not sufficiently sophisticated in financial matters to ratify the bank’s actions. The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm, concluding that, in light of the undisputed facts that the decedent was legally competent and was fully informed of the bank’s actions in managing the trust investments, the decedent’s level of sophistication in financial matters is immaterial.

The plaintiff medical group loaned money to the defendant nurse for tuition at a school that trained its students to become nurse anesthetists. As part of the arrangement, the student promised to work for the group for three years after graduation. Seven months prior to graduation, the student notified the group that she would not be able to work for it upon completion of her training. She paid the loan back with interest, but the medical group filed suit to enforce a $15,000 liquidated damages clause in the loan contract. The student then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The court held that the sum demanded constituted an impermissible penalty rather than a valid provision for liquidated damages and, thus, that it was unenforceable as a matter of law. We reverse the grant of summary judgment to the student and affirm the denial of summary judgment to the medical group because we find that the undisputed facts do not show that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The defendants, homeowners, appeal an adverse jury verdict wherein the plaintiff, a heating, ventilation and air conditioning contractor, was awarded breach of contract damages plus discretionary costs.  Finding no error, we affirm.

This case arises from a dispute between a church and the estate of one of its former members over money given by the former member and her spouse to enable the newly-formed church to pay off a loan on its property. The estate contended that the money was a gift subject to a condition subsequent, with return of the gift required in the event the church ceased existence. The church admitted that it had accepted the gift, but argued that it never accepted any conditions. The court took note of a church resolution that ratified the alleged condition and ruled in favor of the estate. We affirm.

An employee of Clover Bottom Development Center appeals the summary dismissal of her action under the Tennessee Handicap Act. The employee alleged she was the victim of discrimination due to her medical limitations. The trial court dismissed the action finding the employee failed to show she sustained an adverse employment action, an essential element of her claim. We affirm.

This is a wrongful death case. On appeal, Ms. Theresa Diane Jones (Ms. Jones) and Ms. Johnnie Mae Hall (Ms. Hall) contend that two erroneous admissions of evidence unfairly influenced the jury’s award of damages for the wrongful death of Mr. Billy Wayne Jones (Mr. Jones). The jury found that Mr. Jones suffered damages in the amount of $100,000 but also found that he was 49% at fault. The jury’s verdict resulted in a net recovery of $51,000. Ms. Jones and Ms. Hall request a new trial of the action they instituted against Fullen Dock & Warehouse, Inc. (Fullen Dock), whose employee ran over Mr. Jones with a bulldozer, resulting in his death. Specifically, Ms. Jones and Ms. Hall argue that the trial judge abused her discretion in admitting evidence of Mr. Jones’s prior medical history during the cross-examination of their own medical expert and of Mr. Jones’s prior guilty plea and conviction for cocaine possession six years prior to his death. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

This is a divorce case involving the classification and division of marital property. The parties signed a prenuptial agreement. After they married, the parties operated a cattle and farming business, which was conducted in the wife’s name only. After three years of marriage, the wife filed a petition for divorce. A trial was held primarily on issues related to property distribution. The husband argued that the cattle and farming equipment was purchased with his separate funds and therefore was his separate property under the prenuptial agreement. The husband also alleged that the wife had discarded or destroyed numerous items of his separate property. The trial court found that the cattle and farming equipment was marital property and divided it equally, and declined to find the wife responsible for the items that had been discarded or destroyed. The husband now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision.

B.R.P. (“Father”) was sentenced to serve eighteen years in prison when his daughter was six years old. The trial court terminated his parental rights based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(g)(6), which provides for the termination of parental rights of a person who is incarcerated under a sentence of ten years or more if that person’s child is under the age of eight at the time of sentencing. In this appeal, Father argues that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(g)(6) is inapplicable because Father might not have to serve his entire sentence if he obtains postconviction relief. He also maintains that termination of his parental rights is not in the best interest of his daughter. After careful review of the evidence and applicable authorities, we hold that the possibility of postconviction relief is irrelevant to a trial court’s determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(g)(6) have been met. We further hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of his daughter. Therefore, we affirm.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. I would reverse the Trial Court and
remand this matter for entry of judgment as requested and as proven by the plaintiff.

Upon review under common-law writ of certiorari, the trial court affirmed disciplinary actions against Petitioner/Appellant by the Tennessee Department of Correction. We affirm in part and remand.

In this suit for breach of contract, the assignee of a loan agreement alleged that the defendant was in default of the agreement and requested judgment for monies advanced, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The defendant denied owing the debt. The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to carry its burden of proof and dismissed the case. Upon our determination that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial court, judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action immediately following a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sued her former employer on grounds of breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, and violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, as well as the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed and we affirm the Trial Court.

This is a petition for contempt for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the trial court entered
an order dismissing the petition and reducing the respondent’s child support arrearage by $2,000. The petitioner now appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously ordered a retroactive modification of the original child support order. We reverse.

This case involves accord and satisfaction. The defendants fraudulently transferred real property
owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendants for damages related to
the fraudulent transfer. The parties later agreed to settle the matter for approximately $6,000. The
defendants initially paid the plaintiff $3,000 pursuant to the settlement agreement. Before the
remainder was paid, the plaintiff repudiated the agreement in writing. Later, the defendants sent the plaintiff a check for the remainder of the settlement. The plaintiff kept the second payment, but told the defendants that she did not consider the payment to satisfy the debt and stated her intent to set the case for trial. At the subsequent trial, the defendants did not appear. A judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $58,000. The defendants filed a motion to set aside the judgment as well as a motion to dismiss the case, based on the original settlement agreement. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the case on that basis. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the parties’ settlement agreement was an executory accord which was not effectively repudiated and was properly enforced under the circumstances.