APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

James Edward Williams and Gladys Pineda Williams were divorced on December 13, 2004, following a very contentious proceeding in the Chancery Court of Knox County. Mr. Williams filed the action at bar against his former attorneys and also against attorneys representing his former wife. He alleges against these attorneys various acts of tortious activities, malpractice and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court dismissed all of his claims, and Mr. Williams appeals. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This case involves a commercial lease. During the lessor’s divorce, his wife brought suit against the tenant to collect its current rent payments. The wife claimed that the underlying realty was marital property and she was entitled to the rent. The husband-lessor filed a motion to intervene in that case, but the trial court never addressed his motion. The husband signed some consent orders in the case and filed a motion on his own behalf, but he was never formally named as a party. After that case had concluded, the husband brought suit against the tenant for past due rent and other damages under the lease. The tenant claimed that his suit was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, but the trial court disagreed. After the trial court entered a judgment for the husband-lessor, the tenant appealed to this Court.  For the following reasons, we affirm.

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.

Bobby Lee Brooks has appealed, seeking dismissal of an Order of Protection entered by the Trial Court. No record of the evidence has been filed. We affirm the Trial Court.

The plaintiff filed this action against Williamson County alleging the County failed and/or refused to return her dog and cat for which she sought monetary damages. The County filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, contending the negligence claim asserted pertained to a discretionary function for which the County was immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Finding no error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the issue we address is which trial court – the Rhea County Family
Court, the Williamson County Chancery Court, or the Rhea County Juvenile Court – has jurisdiction to adjudicate the parties’ post-divorce disputes. We hold that pursuant to the prior suit pending doctrine, the tribunal where the first petition was filed, the Rhea County Family Court, has subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the later-filed actions in Williamson County Chancery Court and Rhea County Juvenile Court, and vacate the orders entered by those courts.

This is a child custody dispute. The biological parents of the child involved in this action met in Georgia, where the child was born in December 2002. The parties lived together with the child, but never married. Initially, the parties moved several times with the child, following job opportunities for the father. When the child was about nine months old, the parties moved to Jackson, Tennessee.  Not long after that, the mother and the child returned to Georgia to live with the mother’s parents in Georgia, in order for the mother to seek professional help for depression. About nine months later, after an altercation between the mother and the child’s maternal grandmother, the mother told the father that she could not care for the child and asked him to assume custody. Accordingly, the father took the child to live with him in Jackson. About two months later, the father filed the instant petition for legitimation of the child and to seek custody. The mother opposed the father’s petition and filed a counter-petition for custody. After a hearing, the trial court determined that the father was comparatively more fit than the mother and designated him as the primary residential parent.  The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination.

This is an insurance case. The plaintiff cargo company entered into a carrier agreement with an independent trucking company to transport freight, in which the trucking company agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss or damage to the freight transported.  The trucking company obtained a motor truck cargo liability insurance policy, which insured property while in due course of transit. In the process of transporting a shipment of tires for the plaintiff, the driver for the trucking company parked the trailer portion of the tractor-trailer behind a shopping center and left it overnight.  During the night, the cargo was stolen.  The trucking company submitted a claim against its cargo insurance policy and the claim was denied.  The plaintiff sued the trucking company and the cargo insurance company for breach of contract, seeking to recover the value of the stolen cargo.  The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant cargo insurance company and, in response, the defendant insurance company filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the cargo insurance company, finding that the shipment of tires was not “in transit” when it was stolen and that, consequently, there was no coverage under the policy.  The plaintiff cargo company appeals.  We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

This is the second appeal of a property case involving the ownership of three parcels of real property held by tenants-in-common.  We dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the trial court's order did not constitute a final judgment.  On remand, the trial court entered a supplemental decree.  After reviewing the record and the supplemental decree, we find that there is still not a final appealable judgment.  We must, therefore, dismiss this second appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a negligence case brought under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.  The plaintiff’s minor daughter slipped and fell at a public swimming facility and broke her arm.  The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant swimming facility, alleging that her minor daughter slipped
on a wet concrete floor in the dressing room area and that the swimming facility created and maintained a dangerous and defective condition that caused her daughter’s injury.  At trial, the defendant swimming facility moved for an involuntary dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s proof.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the trial court applied an adult standard of care to her minor daughter, and that she established a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant.  We affirm, finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence.

This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff finance broker and the defendant church entered into an agreement under which the plaintiff broker was to assist the church in obtaining a loan, and the church would pay the plaintiff a 3% broker’s fee for this service. The plaintiff broker negotiated a financing arrangement as requested by the church. Independent of the plaintiff, the church obtained financing from a different lender. The plaintiff then claimed a right to its broker’s fee under the parties’ agreement, claiming that it had an exclusive arrangement with the church. The church refused to pay the fee, denying that it had an exclusive arrangement with the plaintiff broker. The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the church to recover its broker’s fee. The trial court held in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the parties’ agreement was exclusive. The church now appeals. We affirm, finding that the issue turns on the credibility of the witnesses.

This case involves an automobile accident that occurred on a road maintained by Madison County.  The plaintiff sued the negligent driver who struck his vehicle, the other driver’s parents, and Madison County. Relevant to this appeal, the plaintiff alleged that the design of the road and inadequate signs and road markings contributed to the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to Madison County, finding that it was immune from suit under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.  We affirm.

Appellants Augustus and Sheila Beasley (the Beasleys) seek to challenge the denial of their request to appeal an adverse unlawful detainer judgment to circuit court and to set aside the foreclosure of their residence. Specifically, the Beasleys appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to CitiFinancial Mortgage, Inc. (Citi) and denial of their petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, filed after the deadline for appealing the judgment as of right. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it did not set forth sufficient merits for removal to circuit court for a trial de novo. In the petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas, the Beasleys advanced as grounds for review the insufficiency of funds for filing a timely appeal and premature foreclosure on their residence in violation of the deed of trust. On appeal, they contend these allegations constituted sufficient merits as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-129.  We reverse and remand.

Petitioner/Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his appeal under a writ of certiorari arising from the decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board to terminate his employment with the Criminal Court Clerk’s Office.  We affirm.

Appellant appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his appeal from the Juvenile Court of Shelby County. The Criminal Court found that Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under T.C.A. § 37-1-159. Finding that the Appellant’s appeal was timely, we reverse and remand.
 

The sole issue in this appeal involves the division of property upon the divorce of the two parties. Having reviewed the record, we modify the division as to one specific finding of fact and affirm the judgment as modified.

In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the petition of Lee Alan Haines (“Father”) to change the custody of the parties’ two minor children from Lisa Dawn Winton Haines (“Mother”) to Father. The change in custody followed a bench trial at which the trial court heard, in chambers, the testimony of the children as elicited by the leading questions of the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”). The examination took place outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. Mother appeals, (1) challenging the change of custody; (2) questioning evidentiary rulings by the trial court; and (3) asserting that the trial court erred in allowing the children to be questioned in chambers by the GAL outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. We hold that the in-chambers proceeding, as designed and conducted by the trial court, constitutes error. Because we deem the error to be a violation of due process and prejudicial to the judicial process, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in toto and remand for a new trial before a different judge.

Although I concur in the result and reasoning of reached by the majority opinion, I think it important to emphasize one point. I agree with the trial court that none of the allegations regarding Ms. Stinson’s stay at the nursing home prior to January 1, 2000, state any cause of action warranting relief. They were properly dismissed because there was no causal connection between those alleged incidents or omissions and the injuries suffered by Ms. Stinson due to the assault by Mr. Johnson.  That determination eliminates most of the allegations supporting the TAPA claims that Plaintiff wanted to add.

In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court granted the petition of Lee Alan Haines (“Father”) to change the custody of the parties’ two minor children from Lisa Dawn Winton Haines (“Mother”) to Father. The change in custody followed a bench trial at which the trial court heard, in chambers, the testimony of the children as elicited by the leading questions of the Guardian Ad Litem (“the GAL”). The examination took place outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. Mother appeals, (1) challenging the change of custody; (2) questioning evidentiary rulings by the trial court; and (3) asserting that the trial court erred in allowing the children to be questioned in chambers by the GAL outside the physical presence of counsel for the parties. We hold that the in-chambers proceeding, as designed and conducted by the trial court, constitutes error. Because we deem the error to be a violation of due process and prejudicial to the judicial process, we vacate the trial court’s judgment in toto and remand for a new trial before a different judge.

The estate of a former nursing home resident brought this wrongful death action, asserting sundry claims against the nursing home arising out of an attack on Mrs. Stinson by another resident. As a result of the attack, Mrs. Stinson was hospitalized and treated for injuries including a broken hip.  She died four months later of pneumonia. Initially, the claims against the nursing home sounded principally in medical malpractice, with the plaintiff contending the attack, injuries, and death were the result of a variety and series of acts and omissions of the nursing home, including failing to properly screen and/or subsequently discharge the resident who attacked Mrs. Stinson. The plaintiff additionally asserted claims against Genesis of Jackson, Inc., a provider of psychiatric services, and the State of Tennessee, contending they, along with the nursing home, were responsible for determining whether the resident who assaulted Mrs. Stinson should have been admitted or retained as a resident at the nursing home. The plaintiff’s claim against Genesis was dismissed by the trial court, and the claim against the State was denied by the Claims Commission. The plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add a claim for attorney fees against the nursing home under the Tennessee Adult Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the TAPA claim finding the plaintiff’s claims sounded in medical malpractice and therefore, by statute, the exclusive remedy was under the Medical Malpractice Act. The plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against the nursing home went to the jury. Following a six-day jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded $130,000 in compensatory damages against the nursing home. The plaintiff and the nursing home appeal. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the surviving claims for a new trial.

A former spouse challenges the extension and modification of an Order of Protection, contending the proof was insufficient to justify either the extension or modification. Finding the record contains sufficient evidence from which the trial court could determine an extension and modification of the Order was necessary, we affirm.

I respectfully both concur and dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I agree with the majority that the Trial Court’s judgment should be modified to award alimony in futuro to Wife because Wife is not capable of being totally rehabilitated and that the amount of alimony awarded should be altered. However, I cannot concur with the amount awarded by the majority. 

My difficulty with the amount of alimony awarded by the majority is two fold. First, the majority operates under the assumption that this fifty-five year old adult, well educated and in good health, must be assumed, not proved but assumed, to have absolutely zero earning capacity.  This assumption, I believe, is contrary to both the evidence in this case and to the public policy of this state as established by the Tennessee Legislature by the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions related to alimony. Second, I believe the majority’s award of $9,000 per month in alimony in futuro exceeds Wife’s proven needs.

The majority correctly notes that Wife seriously inflated her stated expenses by literally thousands of dollars. For example, despite the fact that Wife testified that the marital home awarded to her in the property division is in “sound” condition, her claimed necessary expenses for
“home maintenance, labor, and repairs” run over $31,000 a year. This does not include the almost $5,000 per year for “equipment and replacement fund for the residence” that Wife claims is necessary. Nor does it include the over $14,000 per year for “lawn and garden maintenance” that Wife has included. Wife also includes $45,000 per year for her “savings fund.” Clearly the record shows that Wife’s proven expenses, and therefore her resulting need, is far less than the $9,000 per month awarded by the majority. Additionally, what should not be forgotten is that Wife, according to the majority, received assets totaling $1,468,758.00 in the property division. 

Of even greater concern to me is what I believe to be the majority’s failure to give effect to the Legislature’s stated public policy for this state. It is clearly the public policy of this state that where an economically disadvantaged spouse may be able to be rehabilitated, such a rehabilitation is the goal. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(2). Likewise it is clear that alimony in futuro is appropriate to, in effect, make up the difference “where a spouse may be only partially rehabilitated....” See Teen. Code Ann. § 36-5-121(d)(4). I believe it is the clear public policy of this state, as shown by the statutes enacted by our Legislature, that each divorcing adult has to accept, to the extent feasible for that adult, responsibility for his or her own support. 

Despite the complete absence of any supporting evidence, the majority assumes that Wife, a healthy and well educated adult, has absolutely zero earning capacity and will always have zero earning capacity. It is equally clear from the evidence in the record and in the majority’s
opinion that Wife has made no effort to obtain gainful employment, while continuing to work virtually full time at her avocation, the animal shelter. While I believe the majority is correct that Wife cannot be sufficiently rehabilitated so as to obviate the need for any alimony in the future, there is absolutely nothing in the statutes or case law that requires or even permits this Court to assume that this healthy, well educated, fifty-five year old adult who has displayed the ability to work long
hours by her volunteer work at her avocation has zero earning capacity.

What is exceptionally telling is Wife’s statement in her brief, made with no citation to any supporting evidence, that “[a]t her age of 55, obtaining further education and training to improve her earning capacity to a reasonable level is not practical.” Apparently, the majority wholeheartedly accepts this conclusion despite all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, it appears to be Wife’s position, and apparently is a position accepted by the majority, that if she cannot improve her earning capacity to what she believes is a “reasonable level”, she has zero earning capacity and never has to work at a job for pay. Again, I believe there is a total absence of evidence in the record supporting this conclusion by Wife as accepted by the majority. I believe the conclusion that a healthy, intelligent, and well educated fifty-five year old adult has zero earning capacity is both patronizing and unsupported either by the evidence in the record or the law of this state. I am unaware of anything in Tennessee law that requires Husband to continue to cover 100%
of Wife’s living expenses so that she may devote her full time to her avocation, the animal shelter, no matter how worthy such a cause may be. 

Taking all the above into consideration, I would, respectfully, vacate the Trial Court’s award of alimony and remand this matter to the Trial Court to receive additional proof to determine the appropriate amount of alimony in futuro to be awarded to Wife. On remand, I would instruct the
Trial Court that the alimony in futuro award must take into consideration Wife’s actual needs and likewise must consider her earning capacity. I would further instruct the Trial Court on remand that Wife, a healthy, smart, and well educated fifty-five year old adult who, in effect, works full time at her avocation rather than a vocation, cannot be found to have zero earning capacity. I believe such instructions on remand to be both necessary and appropriate given the record before us and relevant
Tennessee law.

From the record before us, it is without dispute that Wife is a fifty-five year old healthy, smart, and well educated adult who is prevented in no way from earning at least some minimal amount of income at a some full time paying employment. While such employment may well prevent Wife from continuing to devote her full time to her avocation, the animal shelter, I am aware of nothing in Tennessee law that says Wife should be permitted to continue her avocation rather than a vocation all at Husband’s continued expense. I believe the public policy of this state
as established by our Legislature requires no less. I believe it is clear public policy that a divorcing adult must be responsible, to the extent feasible given that adult’s circumstances and situation, for supporting himself or herself, and that each such adult’s earning capacity must be considered in determining whether or not alimony is appropriate, and if so, the amount. I believe to hold otherwise treats that adult as a dependent child solely because she or he is now a former spouse. I believe such a result is contrary to the clear public policy of this state, and I therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion as to the amount of alimony awarded. I concur in the remainder of the majority’s opinion.

The owner of a tract of undeveloped commercial property in the city of Lawrenceburg asked the trial court to enjoin the lessees of that property from subletting it to the city for the purpose of building a retention pond. She claimed that such a use would constitute waste or create a permanent and private nuisance on the land. The trial court declined to issue the injunction and certified its decision as final for purposes of appeal. We reverse.

The plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her breach of contract action against her former employer, Harpeth Valley Utilities District. The plaintiff entered into a Deferred Compensation Agreement with Harpeth Valley at the beginning of her employment in 1998 that afforded her a retirement benefit if she remained employed until the year 2012. The plaintiff voluntarily left the employment of Harpeth Valley in 2003 after only five years of employment. One year later, she filed this action contending that a handwritten modification was made to the Agreement which provided that she was entitled to receive the retirement benefit and death benefit specified in the Agreement. The trial court dismissed her Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. We affirm.

This appeal involves a trial court’s distribution of marital property in a divorce proceeding. The parties owned their own business, and the husband generally ran its operations while the wife handled its financial aspects. After the business caught fire, the husband found $240,000 in the company safe. He took the money to a bank and placed it in a safety deposit box. The company’s head of security accompanied the husband to the bank and testified about these events at trial. The wife also had access to the box, and the bank records revealed that she accessed it over thirty times in the next five years. The husband and the security officer returned to the safety deposit box when he learned that the wife intended to file for divorce, but there was no cash remaining in the box. The trial court determined that the wife had dissipated the marital estate in the amount of $240,000 and subtracted half that amount, $120,000, from her award of the marital property. The wife appealed.  For the following reasons, we affirm.