APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant filed suit against the county alleging violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Approximately three years later, Appellant filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion for relief from the order of dismissal. The trial court denied the motion, and Appellant appeals. We affirm.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court correctly granted the Defendant Insurance Company of North America ("ICNA") summary judgment based on its finding that the claimant, Jason Simms, failed to follow the loss provisions of the insurance policy and that ICNA's agent did not possess authority to waive the loss provisions. We hold there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding the apparent authority of ICNA's agent, and therefore vacate the summary judgment and remand for trial.

This appeal involves a prisoner's challenge to a decision of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. After the Board denied the prisoner parole and scheduled his next hearing for the year 2016, the prisoner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The Chancery Court dismissed the petition on the grounds it was not timely filed and was not verified. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

This appeal involves the parental rights of a father to his eight-year-old daughter. When the child was approximately 17 months old, the mother moved with the child to Ohio. The father did not know their whereabouts for many months. In the parties' divorce, the mother was awarded custody of the child and the father was awarded specific visitation privileges. The father failed to exercise his visitation rights and failed to visit or support the child for more than four months. The mother, who had remarried, filed a petition to terminate the father's rights on the grounds of abandonment. Father presented proof at trial of his meager earnings due to a physical impairment, limited education and the loss of his job. Father also presented proof that he had tried to contact the child by telephone but was unable to do so. The trial court declined to terminate the father's parental rights because there had not been proof by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment or that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we agree with the trial court that the father's lack of visitation and support was not willful and that termination of the father's parental rights was not in the child's best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this suit by an employee, Craig Dunn, against his former corporate employer, Matrix Exhibits, Inc., for breach of written employment contract, the trial court entered judgment for Dunn based upon a finding Matrix anticipatorily breached the employment agreement. The trial court awarded Dunn three of six categories of damages he sought but denied the other claimed damages based upon a finding Dunn’s proof of the amount of such damages was speculative. Both parties appealed.  Finding Matrix in actual breach of the employment contract, we affirm the award of damages for moving expenses, car allowance, and salary, but reverse the finding that Dunn’s proof of damages for 5% of Matrix’ value was too speculative, and award Dunn an additional $282,500. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Orders of Protection were either largely ignored or scornfully defied by the defendant with the sometime quiescense of the plaintiff who was possibly afflicted with the Stockholm Syndrome. Her father intervened and presented a motion for contempt against the defendant which resulted in the defendant's conviction of eleven (11) instances of criminal contempt. The defendant refused to attend the trial because of his later asserted and ill-based fear that he would not have a fair trial, and he was tried in absentia. Days later, he was tried and convicted of another nine (9) discrete violations of the Order of Protection. The defendant assails the first convictions as violative of his constitutional rights. In light of State v. Far, 51 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 2001) "that a trial in absentia [is allowable] only when the defendant is first present at trial" the eleven (11) convictions at the first trial are reversed. The nine (9) convictions at the second trial are affirmed.

Plaintiff filed an action to compel arbitration. Defendant filed an action for damages. The Trial Court combined the actions and denied arbitration and the parties proceeded to trial and final judgment. The Trial Court inter alia held that plaintiffs waived issue of arbitration. On appeal, we affirm.

This case arose from the divorce of Tina M. Lunsford and Robert W. Lunsford, his untimely death, and a dispute between the estate of Robert W. Lunsford and Tina M. Lunsford as to the right to a pre-retirement death benefit provided by the Young Men’s Christian Association Retirement Fund in which Mr. Lunsford participated. Even though Tina M. Lunsford was the designated beneficiary of the death benefit at the time of Mr. Lunsford died, the trial court determined the intent of the parties evidenced by their marital dissolution agreement was to divest Tina Lunsford of any interest in his retirement plan. The trial court, by qualified domestic relations order, directed the death benefit be paid to the contingent beneficiaries and Tina M. Lunsford appealed. Because of the specific language of the marital dissolution agreement, we affirm.

Testator's two children, individually and as co-administrators of testator's estate, brought a suit against alleged transferee to whom testator purportedly conveyed real property, seeking to set aside the deed evidencing such transaction on the grounds of forgery. The Chancery Court for Robertson County, Tennessee, Judge Carol A. Catalano, held that the signature of testator was forged and set aside the deed. The Court affirms the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

The Trial Court, while finding a material change in circumstances, refused to change custody of the minor child on the ground that it would not be in the best interest of the child.

The City of Memphis terminated the employment of Jack Vincent, a police officer. The Civil Service Commission reversed, and Memphis appealed to the Shelby County Chancery Court under a writ of certiorari. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the Commission, and Memphis appeals. We reverse.

This case involves the contest of a will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity. The Probate Court, Davidson County, found that the evidence failed to establish that the Testator lacked the requisite testamentary capacity to execute his will. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute arising from the sale of a used motorcycle. After discovering that the motorcycle was not new, the purchaser filed suit and then settled with the dealer from whom he had purchased the motorcycle. Later, the purchaser filed suit against the motorcycle's manufacturer in the Circuit Court for Davidson County alleging that the motorcycle's aluminum frame was defective. The trial court granted the manufacturer's summary judgment motion and dismissed the purchaser's products liability and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. The purchaser has appealed. We have determined that the manufacturer was entitled to a summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court.

Plaintiffs, certified low voltage electricians, filed a personal injury action against university for negligently informing them that university's switchgear cabinet was low voltage, when in fact, it was high voltage, for failing to provide a conspicuous high voltage warning sign on the high voltage switchgear and for obscuring the manufacturer's identifying product plate. Plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result of university's alleged negligence. The Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, Judge Walter C. Kurtz granted university's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs appealed. The decision of the trial court is reversed and case remanded.

Former lessee appeals grant of summary judgment dismissing her wrongful ouster lawsuit against former landlord. We affirm.

I find it necessary to dissent, respectfully, as to two parts of the majority’s Opinion.  I concur with the majority’s Opinion except as further expressed herein.

Plaintiff sued defendants for sexual harassment, assault and battery and retaliatory discharge. A jury returned a verdict for various damages, as well as punitive damages. The Trial Judge, acting as 13th juror, essentially approved the jury’s verdict, but reduced the punitive damages from $500,000.00 to $150,000.00, and awarded plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $282,964.50, as well as discretionary costs. On appeal, we affirm in part, vacate in part and remand with instructions.

This appeal involves a dispute between the parents of an eleven-year-old boy over child support and private school tuition. The child’s mother filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking to obtain an increase in child support and to hold the father in contempt for failing to pay medical bills. The father responded by filing a petition seeking a deduction in child support because of reduced earnings. Following a bench trial, the trial court reduced the father’s child support and denied the mother’s request to require the father to pay the child’s private school tuition. The child’s mother has appealed. We have concluded that the trial court properly decreased the father’s base child support obligation because of his reduced income. However, we have also concluded that the trial court erred by failing to require the father to pay a reasonable portion of the child’s private school tuition.

This case involves a boy whose mother placed him in the care and custody of an aunt when he was two months old because she could not take care of him. The aunt furnished all the child's needs and raised him as if he were her own. After he reached the age of ten, the mother filed a petition to have custody of the child restored to her. The aunt subsequently filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and persistence of conditions. After a hearing, the trial court denied the mother's petition for custody and terminated her parental rights. We affirm the denial of the petition for custody, but we reverse the termination of parental rights because the grounds were not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

This divorce action was dismissed by the trial court after the parties resumed cohabiting. This ruling was not appealed. The issues on appeal involve Grandparents’ right to intervene, joinder of third parties, the appointment of an attorney ad litem and the assessment of fees of the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem. We affirm.

This Court reversed a judgment of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the court entered judgment for Plaintiff, as authorized by the appellate court, and also, on motion of Plaintiff, awarded attorney fees for the appeal. Defendant-Appellants appeal, asserting that the award of attorney fees was not authorized by the appellate court and, therefore, the trial court did not have authority to award same. Appellants also assert that the award of attorney fees was excessive, and Appellee asserts, in a separate issue, that the award of fees was inadequate. Both parties appeal. We affirm.

Plaintiff, a tenth grade high school student, was attacked while riding the school bus. She was seriously injured by another student using a razor provided by the school as part of the cosmetology curriculum. Plaintiff filed this action against the school system alleging negligence for failure to properly supervise students using dangerous instructional instruments and for violation of the school's zero tolerance policy by permitting students to take razors to and from school, thereby permitting the attacker to have the razor on the school bus where the attack occurred. Following a bench trial, plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $80,000 from which defendant appeals. Finding the school system is not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing the action.

This appeal arises from a dispute between an investor and the owners of several failed business ventures. The investor filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County against her erstwhile business colleagues seeking to recover damages for breach of contract and conversion. A jury awarded the investor $86,691.82 in compensatory damages and $40,000.00 in punitive damages. One of the defendants appealed. We have determined that the judgment must be reversed because of inconsistencies in the jury's verdict caused by ambiguous special interrogatories.

This is a post-divorce modification of child support case. The trial court reversed the Divorce Referee and found that the provisions of a Marital Dissolution Agreement unambiguously obligated Father/Appellant to pay child support based upon his stated earning capacity for 1998.  Finding that the Marital Dissolution Agreement, by its plain language, is modifiable, we reverse and remand.

The parties filed Motions for Summary Judgments. The Trial Court granted defendants' Motion which stated defendant was not a proper party and insurance policy issued to plaintiff did not cover plaintiff's damages. On appeal, we affirm.