APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In the divorce action, the Trial Court awarded wife a divorce, alimony, child support, and divided marital property and debts of the marriage, and awarded fees for the wife's attorney. The husband's issues on appeal are valuation and division of property, alimony, attorney's fees and amount of child support. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment.

Plaintiff Julie Nahon (“Plaintiff”) filed for divorce from Defendant Isaac Nahon (“Defendant”). The parties later entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”) whereby Defendant agreed to obtain a loan and pay off certain marital debts. Four days later, Defendant repudiated the MDA after failing to obtain his anticipated loan. Plaintiff sought to enforce the MDA as a contract. The trial court held that the MDA was a valid and enforceable contract, and subsequently incorporated the MDA into the parties’ Final Decree of Absolute Divorce. Defendant appealed. Defendant subsequently failed to adhere to the financial obligations set forth in the Permanent Parenting Plan and MDA. As a result, Plaintiff filed several contempt petitions against Defendant. The trial court eventually entered an Order on Petition for Contempt against Defendant which granted Plaintiff final and enforceable judgments against Defendant for all delinquent obligations under the Permanent Parenting Plan and MDA. Defendant now appeals both the final divorce decree and the Order on Petition for Contempt. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

This is a divorce and child custody case. After thirteen years of marriage, the wife filed a complaint for divorce and sought custody of the couple’s two minor children, alleging irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. The husband admitted irreconcilable differences, but argued that the wife had committed the inappropriate marital conduct. After a lengthy trial, the trial court designated the wife as primary residential parent, ordered the husband to pay child support, divided the marital property, ordered the husband to pay the wife $70,000, awarded the wife attorney’s fees, and taxed the costs of the litigation against the husband. The husband appeals. We affirm.

This is an action to enforce a settlement agreement. In the underlying lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant foster care provider for the wrongful death of their daughter. The defendant had an insurance policy with “withering” limits, in which the policy limits are reduced by the amount expended in defending the lawsuit. The week before trial, counsel for the defendant sent a letter to counsel for the plaintiffs offering to settle the case for the remaining policy limits which, at the time, were $575,000. The plaintiffs asked the defendant to allow the offer to remain open for forty-eight (48) hours. The defendant agreed, but the defendant’s trial preparation continued. Two days later, the plaintiffs accepted the defendant’s offer. By that time, the policy limits had eroded to $450,000. The plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement in the amount of $575,000. The trial court granted the motion. The defendant now appeals. We reverse, concluding that the parties’ correspondence does not reflect a meeting of the minds on the settlement amount.

Derrick Lawrence and Kim Lawrence ("Plaintiffs") sued Trees-N-Trends (the "Store") alleging outrageous conduct and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. While Plaintiffs were shopping at the Store, a customer reported to the Store's manager that Plaintiffs had a gun and intended to commit a robbery. The Store's assistant manager, Whitney Finnell ("Finnell"), called 911 indicting there was a possible armed robbery but then clarifying that the report was based solely on information provided by a customer. Plaintiffs purchased some items and were confronted by police officers as they exited the store, made to lie on the pavement, and were handcuffed while the officers ascertained whether Plaintiffs were armed. Plaintiffs were not armed. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to the Store, and Plaintiffs appeal claiming there are genuine issues of material fact. We affirm.

The plaintiff and the defendant were riding double on a motorcycle with the defendant in front. The parties were proceeding south on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Williamson County when a deer came from the left and struck the side of the motorcycle, causing the plaintiff to sustain multiple fractures of her left leg. The plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier, who was served with process in the case, moved for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s suit. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. We affirm.

The Trial Court terminated the parental rights of both parents to the three minor children. On appeal, we affirm.

Allstate brought this subrogation action to recover amounts it paid to its insured for damages to a computer and printer following a power surge against which a surge protector manufactured by TrippLite allegedly failed to protect. The trial court denied TrippLite’s Rule 41.02 motion for involuntary dismissal and entered judgment for Allstate. TrippLite appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a final order granting the parties an absolute divorce and dividing the marital property. The Final Order also incorporated a permanent parenting plan for the parties’ minor child.  Husband appeals and asserts, inter alia, that the division of marital property is inequitable and that the chancellor abused his discretion. We affirm and remand.

Romina Jessica Clifton (“Mother”) and Dwight Cain Jemison (“Father”) are the parents of a six year old daughter. In 2004, Father filed a petition to modify custody of the child by seeking to be designated the child’s primary residential parent. Following a hearing, the Juvenile Court concluded that there had been a material change in circumstances and that it was in the child’s best interest to designate Father the primary residential parent. The Juvenile Court also set forth Mother’s coparenting schedule as well as her monthly child support payments. Mother appeals challenging the propriety of the Juvenile Court’s decision to designate Father the primary residential parent as well as the amount of her child support. We affirm the designation of Father as the primary residential parent but modify the amount of Mother’s monthly child support.

This is a contract action. The sellers sold to the purchasers a loan company dealing in sub-prime residential loans and mortgages and third-party finances, as well as equity interests in a related limited liability company. After closing the transaction, numerous financial and operational problems became apparent. The purchasers attempted to rescind the transaction, as the business foundered. Eventually, the sellers took back the business and sued the purchasers for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging that the sellers fraudulently induced the contract through multiple oral and written misrepresentations. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the sellers had committed fraud in inducing the contract. The purchasers were granted rescission of the sale agreement, as well as compensatory damages. The trial court dismissed the sellers' breach of contract complaint. The sellers appealed. We affirm.

This is a dependency and neglect action. The four children at issue were in the custody of a nonparent.  The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition in juvenile court for protective custody of the children, alleging physical abuse. After an evidentiary hearing, the Juvenile Court concluded that the children were dependent and neglected, and transferred custody to the children’s biological mother. The non-parent temporary custodians appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court determined that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that the children were dependent and neglected. The circuit court then ordered that custody of three of the four children should remain with the biological mother, and that custody of the remaining child should be transferred back to the non-parent custodians. The biological mother appealed. We conclude that, once the circuit court found that the children were not dependent and neglected, it no longer had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the custody of the children. Therefore, we vacate the custody determination of the circuit court.

In this appeal we are called upon to review a trial court's grant of summary judgment to a county in a lawsuit filed by an injured motorist pursuant to section 29-20-203 of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff was unable to prove, as a matter of law, that the county had actual and/or constructive notice of the condition of the roadway at the time of the plaintiff's accident. The plaintiff appealed to this Court. We hold that the plaintiff established that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the condition of the roadway constituted a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition, and whether the county had actual and/or constructive notice of such condition. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.

The Trial Court granted the parties' divorce, divided the marital property, awarded alimony and fees. Issues on appeal are division of marital property, alimony award and fees. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment, with modifications.

This appeal involves a petition for adoption and termination of the biological father’s parental rights filed by biological mother and her current husband. There is no transcript of the trial proceeding, and the record contains a statement of evidence filed by the biological father and objections thereto with an additional statement of the evidence filed by the petitioners, neither of which were signed by the trial court. The statements are different in several respects. The trial court granted the adoption and termination of the biological father’s parental rights on the ground of willful abandonment, but failed to make specific findings of fact as required by T.C.A. § 36-1-113 (k) (2005). The biological father has appealed. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

This case concerns the payment of income taxes, including penalties and interest, incurred by an estate. The trial court held that the taxes and interest due were to be prorated among the various heirs, devisees and distributees in proportion to the amount of the distribution that each party received. The trial court further held that all penalties on the taxes were to be paid by David Leath, executor of the Estate of Richard L. Leath, individually. Lastly, the trial court ordered that the court costs were to be paid one-half by the executor and one-half by the other heirs and distributees. The parties appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The Metropolitan Davidson County Board of Zoning Appeals ("the BZA") granted Richard A. Demonbreun ("the Landowner") a special exception permit to use his residentially-zoned property as a special event site. The Landowner filed a petition for writ of certiorari and supersedeas, challenging the validity of several restrictions imposed upon the permit. The trial court held that several of the restrictions were unsupported by material evidence, and thus, according to the trial court, were arbitrarily imposed by the BZA. The BZA appeals the trial court's determination with respect to the conditions found to be arbitrary. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine multiple issues including  whether the chancery court erred when it granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiff contends that there were numerous claims made in his complaint sufficient to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, acting pro se, filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

The majority has provided a well reasoned opinion, based upon a strict interpretation of In
re Estate of Hume, 984 S.W.2d 602, 605 (1999), concluding that the sale and reorganization of other assets and bank accounts by the court appointed conservator effected an ademption by extinction of several of Mr. Greenamyre’s testamentary bequests. I, however, submit a strict interpretation of Hume is not required.

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the fate of specific bequests in a will prepared by a college professor without the assistance of counsel. The professor’s mental capacity declined after he prepared the will, and the Chancery Court for Putnam County appointed a conservator for the professor who, with the court’s approval, auctioned off his personal property, including property subject to specific bequests in the professor’s will. After the professor died, his executrix petitioned the trial court to construe several provisions of his will. The trial court heard the matter without a jury and, relying on In re Estate of Hume, 984 S.W.2d 602 (Tenn. 1999), concluded that several of the specific bequests had been adeemed by extinction. The trial court also concluded that the parties attorney’s fees and the court costs should be paid from the intestate funds in the estate. On this appeal, one of the beneficiaries of an adeemed bequest takes issue with the court’s conclusion that she was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property bequeathed to her and that she was not entitled to recover all of her attorney’s fees. The professor’s sole surviving heir at law takes issue with the trial court’s decision to award this beneficiary any attorney’s fees. We have determined that the trial court’s decision regarding the fate of the specific bequests of personal property is correct but that the trial court erred with regard to the award of attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff Lipman Brothers, Inc. purchased 1,156 cases of French wine and hired Italia Di Navigazione, S.p.A. (“Italia”) to ship the wine to the United States from France. Italia subsequently hired Defendant Arete Agencies, Inc. (“Arete”) to transport the wine to Plaintiff’s Nashville warehouses. Arete placed the wine on a train bound for Nashville but, after reaching its destination, the wine was never delivered to Plaintiff and ultimately spoiled after sitting outside in the summer heat for thirty-six days. Arete’s insurance provider, The Hartford Insurance Company (“Hartford”), denied coverage for the incident. Plaintiff later obtained a judgment against Arete and, after learning that Arete was unable to pay, issued a writ of garnishment against Hartford. The trial court subsequently quashed Plaintiff’s writ after concluding that the debt was “contingent” because Plaintiff failed to first institute a declaratory judgment action to interpret the disputed insurance contract before seeking garnishment. We reverse.

Former client appeals summary judgment dismissing his malpractice claim against former attorney and refusal of trial judge hearing malpractice case by interchange to grant recusal request. We affirm the trial court on both issues.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the homeowners’ suit against the State of Tennessee was timely filed. The homeowners filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission against the State of Tennessee for the alleged unconstitutional taking of their property in connection with the State’s issuance of a permit to the homeowners to install a subsurface sewage disposal system. The Claims Commission ruled in favor of the State, finding among other things that the homeowners’ claim was time barred. The applicable statute of limitations allows a landowner one year within which to commence an action for the taking of land after the landowner realizes or reasonably should realize that his or her property has sustained an injury that is permanent in nature.  The homeowners contend that they did not realize that they had suffered permanent injury until the State eliminated the possibility that the injury to their property could be resolved. We affirm the judgment of the Claims Commission upon our finding that the homeowners should have reasonably realized that the injury to their propertywas permanent over one year prior to the time they filed their claim.

This application for an interlocutory appeal arises out of a condemnation action filed by the City of South Pittsburg. The sole issue on appeal concerns the landowners' use of an unrecorded and unapproved plat of a proposed subdivision to establish the fair market value of the property. The City filed a motion in limine to disallow the use of the plat. The trial court, relying on Davidson County Bd. of Ed. v. First Am. Nat. Bank, 202 Tenn. 9, 301 S.W.2d 905 (1957), determined that the landowners could not introduce the plat into evidence nor could their expert use the plat in his testimony to establish fair market value. The trial court subsequently granted the landowners an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur with the trial court that this is an appropriate case for an interlocutory appeal. We also conclude that the plat may be introduced and used in ways consistent with Davidson County Bd. of Ed., and we thus vacate the trial court's order categorically prohibiting its introduction and use.

This matter finds its genesis in a divorce action filed by John D. McMahan ("Husband") against his wife, Katherine C. McMahan ("Wife"). The parties agreed to mediate their differences. At the time of the mediation, the parties ostensibly reached an agreement as to the division of their property and spousal support. Their agreement was reduced to longhand and, in that form, signed by both parties. Shortly after the mediation, Wife repudiated the writing, arguing that it was not a binding agreement because of (1) duress; (2) Wife's lack of mental capacity to enter into a contract; and (3) the parties' intention that the longhand document would be followed by a more formal document in which the parties would express their final agreement. Husband filed a motion to enforce the document in longhand form. The trial court granted Husband's motion, holding that the writing was a valid and enforceable contract. Wife appeals. Husband seeks damages for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but decline to award damages for a frivolous appeal.