APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a divorce case about division of marital assets, on appeal for the second time. Initially,
the trial court divided the marital assets by granting each party approximately half. The husband
appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the wife should not receive a share of his separately owned
business or a share of the appreciation in value of his separately owned securities. This Court
held that the wife was not entitled to a share of the appreciation in value of the husband’s
separately owned securities. As to the business, this Court held that the wife was entitled only to
a share of any appreciation in its value, and remanded to the lower court for a determination of
the amount of any such appreciation in the value of the business. On remand, the trial court
eliminated the wife’s award of a share of the increase in value of the securities, as ordered by
this Court, and found that there was no evidence of any increase in the value of the business. No
other changes were made to the division of marital property, with the result being that the wife’s
award, while smaller in value, was proportionally larger than the husband’s award. The husband
appealed a second time, arguing that this new division was inequitable. We affirm.
Rule 3 Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed
 

Following a hearing in October of 2000, three out of seven members of the Board of Paroles voted to parole a prisoner who was serving a life sentence for murder. Because of a 1997 statute that requires four members of the Board to concur on the parole of prisoners convicted of certain grave offenses, parole was denied. The prisoner did not seek review of that decision. Parole was again denied after a March 2003 hearing, with only two Board members voting for parole. The prisoner filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, contending that the Board's refusal to release him after the 2000 Board vote violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto enactments. He argued that he was entitled to the benefit of an earlier statute which allowed prisoners to be paroled, regardless of offense, if they could obtain the positive votes of three members of the Board. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that it was untimely, and that in any case, the application of the 1997 statute did not implicate any ex post facto concerns. We affirm the trial court.

The majority’s analysis of the Consumer Protection Act is just excellent, however, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion that All American did not violate the Act in its representations made to this plaintiff. I agree with the majority’s detailed history of the TCPA and that it is much broader in scope than common-law fraud, that it must be construed liberally to protect consumers, and that the plaintiff must prove an “unfair” or “deceptive” act by the defendant. I also agree that “the essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant’s statements, silence, or actions.” I disagree with the majority’s conclusion, however, that All American did not act deceptively in its dealings with Ms. Tucker, and I believe that the majority opinion overlooks certain key facts in this regard. The majority neither accords the Trial Court the presumption of correctness in its fact finding as required by Rule 13(d), nor does it defer to the Trial Court on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses.¹

In a single proceeding, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of a mother to her three children and the parental rights of the father of one of those children, ruling that they had abandoned the children. The mother and the father filed separate appeals, which we have consolidated for decision. We reverse because the proof at trial did not rise to the level required to establish abandonment as defined by applicable statutes.

I agree with the result reached by the majority. With respect to the motion to amend, I believe the trial court should have entered an order allowing the amendment; after which it could have entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim. I believe this is the better practice under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15. However, since the trial court addressed the merits of the complaint, as if it had been amended, any error in refusing to formally allow the amendment is harmless in nature. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36 (b).

This appeal involves a dispute stemming from the shoddy construction of a modular house. The property owner filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County against the contractor who constructed the house and the manufacturer of the house modules. The trial court granted a default judgment against the contractor and, following a bench trial, awarded the homeowner a $49,506.94 judgment against the manufacturer. The manufacturer has appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred when it held that the manufacturer engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and that the manufacturer was vicariously liable for the negligence of the contractor.

The Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiffs for damages, but refused to permit plaintiffs to amend the complaint to claim defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act, and disallowed plaintiffs’ Rule 11, Tenn. R. Civ. P. Motion for Sanctions. On appeal, we affirm.

Following a hearing, the Knox County Sheriff's Department Merit System Council ("the Council") voted to uphold Sheriff Tim Hutchison's termination of the plaintiff, James Edward Dunn. Dunn filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. He also filed a separate complaint in the same court alleging that the Council had violated the Open Meetings Act. Each side filed a motion for summary judgment on this latter issue. The trial court denied both motions. The trial court then held that the Council's decision to uphold Dunn's termination was supported by material evidence; but the court remanded the case to the Council, because the court held that the Council had failed to follow one of its procedural rules. Both parties have raised issues on appeal. We affirm.

The issues presented in this divorce case are whether the trial court erred in calculating Mr. Troglen's child support obligation; and whether the trial court erred in awarding Ms. Troglen transitional alimony. The trial court established Mr. Troglen's monthly child support obligation at $755. Additionally, the trial court ordered Mr. Troglen to pay to Ms. Troglen transitional alimony in the amount of $400 per month for a period of five years. We hold that the child support was properly calculated at $755 per month and that the trial court properly awarded Ms. Troglen alimony. However, we modify the alimony award from $400 per month transitional alimony for five years to $400 per month rehabilitative alimony for five years.

During surgery to repair a bilateral hernia, Yung Gil Lee, M.D. ("Defendant") also performed an orchiectomy and removed Darrell Massingale's ("Plaintiff") left testicle. Plaintiff sued Defendant claiming, in part, that Defendant had committed both medical malpractice and medical battery. The Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the claim of medical battery. The claim of medical malpractice went to the jury and resulted in a mistrial. The Trial Court then reconsidered Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the claim of medical malpractice and entered an order granting a directed verdict on that claim as well and dismissing the case. Plaintiff appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in directing a verdict as to both the medical battery claim and the medical malpractice claim. We affirm the directed verdict on the medical malpractice claim, reverse the directed verdict on the medical battery claim, and remand for a new trial on Plaintiff's medical battery claim.

Lee Ketchersid, a tenured teacher in the Rhea County School System, appealed her dismissal to the Rhea County Board of Education (“the School Board”). Following a hearing, the School Board determined that the evidence supported the charges against Mrs. Ketchersid of insubordination, incompetence, and inefficiency under the Teachers’ Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-501, et seq., and voted to terminate Mrs. Ketchersid as a tenured teacher. Mrs. Ketchersid appealed the School Board’s decision to the trial court, which, following a de novo review, held that her dismissal was supported by sufficient evidence. Mrs. Ketchersid appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in this determination. We affirm.

J. Stephen Amison and wife, Pamela G. Amison ("the plaintiffs"), purchased a house from Jack D. McCarty and wife, Bertha B. McCarty ("the defendants"). Thereafter, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages and, in the alternative, for rescission of the contract of purchase. The plaintiffs alleged that, unbeknownst to them when the contract was signed and when the sale subsequently was closed, the house was infested with termites; that the defendants had prior knowledge of the termite infestation; and that the defendants intentionally or negligently misrepresented the true condition of the house. Following a bench trial, the court decreed rescission, awarded the plaintiffs discretionary costs, and denied the plaintiffs' request for their attorney's fees. Both sides raise issue on appeal. We affirm.

This appeal involves a sales and use tax assessment issued by the Tennessee Department of Revenue against a taxpayer engaged in the business of fabricating steel products for use in various structures. The taxpayer obtained purchase orders from three churches for raw materials to be used in the fabrication of steel products which were to be incorporated into the churches then under construction. The taxpayer secured the raw materials, fabricated the steel products, and installed them in the churches. The taxpayer did not pay sales or use tax on any of the raw materials used in the fabrication process. The department subsequently audited the taxpayer and assessed a tax liability for taxes owed on the materials. The taxpayer paid the amount assessed and filed suit in the chancery court to contest the assessment. Specifically, the taxpayer asserted that it was entitled to an exemption under section 67-6-209(b) of the Tennessee Code. After both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the chancery court granted the department's motion and denied the taxpayer's motion. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves a dispute between two brothers over the use of a roadway that lies on their adjacent tracts of property. The issue presented is whether Walker Gray Haun has an easement across the property of his brother, Louis Eugene Haun, Jr. The trial court granted Walker Gray Haun an easement either by prescription or by implication which allowed him to use the roadway that had existed for at least fifty years and provided the only vehicular access to a rental house on his property. We hold that Walker Gray Haun did not establish a prescriptive easement, but that his proof satisfied the elements of an easement by implication, and therefore we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal involves a dispute between a former employee and her employer. Becky Elliott filed suit in Blount County Circuit Court alleging that Donna Akey failed to properly train and supervise employees at her restaurant in Loudon County, Tennessee resulting in an unsafe workplace. Because the workplace was unsafe, Ms. Elliott claims she had to quit her job and was damaged. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff resided in Blount County, the Defendant resided and operated the business in Loudon County, and the cause of action arose in Loudon County. The trial court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue and awarded sanctions to the Defendant. After careful review, we hold that 1) the trial court properly granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue, 2) the trial court properly denied the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, and 3) the trial court erred in awarding sanctions to the Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court in part and reverse in part.

The plaintiff purchased a house that was marketed by the defendant realtors. The house had been described as including over 5,800 square feet of living space. After the purchase, the plaintiff discovered that the actual square footage of the house was considerably less, depending on what was included. He sued for unfair or deceptive practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and for intentional misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed his complaint on summary judgment, and ordered the plaintiff to pay all the defendants' attorney fees. We affirm the dismissal, but modify the award of attorney fees.

Property owners filed suit against neighbors for trespass. Trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $13,740, applying the "mild rule" for calculation of damages for trespass. Trial court also made rulings establishing the boundary lines between property of plaintiffs and defendants, and confirmed the plaintiffs' continuing right of ingress and egress through defendant's property to their own property. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that trial court erred in failing to award damages based on "harsh rule" rather than mild rule; in failing to find that the boundary lines were in keeping with plaintiffs' expert's survey; and in granting summary judgment to defendant water utility district. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the water utility district. In all other respects, we affirm.

This case arises out of a long-running dispute between Steven Travis Dorrough and his former wife, Susan Diane Jones over possession of the parties' former residence which was awarded to Ms. Jones in the divorce, but was subsequently leased to Mr. Dorrough. Ms. Jones first filed suit against Mr. Dorrough and his new wife for possession of the residence and for unpaid rents, penalties, interest and attorney's fees. The Dorroughs counterclaimed asserting that Ms. Jones had agreed to sell them the property and that they had paid her in full and were entitled to specific performance. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Ms. Jones, awarded her possession of the property, judgment for unpaid rents and attorney's fees, and dismissed the counterclaim. The Dorroughs appealed and we affirmed the trial court's decision as to the dismissal of the Dorroughs' counterclaim and remanded for further findings as to the funds allegedly paid by Mr. Dorrough. The Dorroughs then filed suit against Ms. Jones and this suit was consolidated with the remanded suit. In the second suit, the Dorroughs alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and outrageous conduct. The trial court granted Ms. Jones' motion for summary judgment on the contract and tort claims. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the remanded issue as to whether Mr. Dorrough was entitled to a set-off based on alleged payments by him to Ms. Jones of $192,000. The trial court denied the set-off and awarded judgment to Ms. Jones for rents, late fees, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The Dorroughs appealed this adverse decision. After a careful review of the record, we hold that 1) the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Ms. Jones was proper as to the breach of contract claim because the Dorroughs' contract claim was a compulsory counterclaim that they were required to have presented in the original case, 2) the trial court's grant of summary judgment was proper as to the claims for outrageous conduct and fraudulent misrepresentation since the claims were time barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, 3) the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding of fact regarding the rents due, payments made by Mr. Dorrough, and the award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Plaintiffs obtained a permit and built a "garage and storage building" on their property. The zoning officer received complaints after the building was built, and the Board of Zoning Appeals determined that plaintiffs' use of the building was not allowed in the zoning classification. On certiorari, the Trial Judge affirmed the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision and enjoined plaintiffs from using the building in violation of the zoning ordinance. On appeal, we affirm.

This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of 3,876 lots at Hidden Valley Lakes Development, a residential development in Hickman County. Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages resulting from a breach of contract by the developer, National Development Company, Inc., and its alleged alter ego, Clyde W. Engle. Plaintiffs allege that National breached its contract by failing to provide the centerpiece of the development, a thirty-acre lake. The lake failed to hold water and thus became a thirty-acre hole in the ground. It was stipulated that the failure of National to provide the thirty-acre lake was a breach of contract. The trial was bifurcated into two phases. The first was limited to the plaintiffs' claim for damages against National, following which the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $2,540,867 against National. The second phase of the trial was limited to the plaintiffs' claim that Clyde Engle was the alter ego of National and thus liable for the damages assessed against National. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court pierced the corporate veil and held Engle personally liable for the judgment against National. The defendants appeal contending that the plaintiffs' proof of damages was neither competent nor sufficient, that the wrong legal standard was applied to pierce the corporate veil and that the proof was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil. Engle also appeals contending that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and thus the judgment against him is void. Finding no error, we affirm.

Mother appeals termination of her parental rights to her two minor children. She and her two infant children immigrated to the United States illegally in 1998 when the children were two and one years of age, respectively. In 1999, Mother was arrested on felony theft charges. Being unable to make bond, she remained incarcerated for over a year following which she pled guilty to a felony. She was then turned over to immigration officials and was detained for an additional two years only to be deported to Nigeria in December 2002, where she remains. The children have remained in foster care for more than five years. Mother appeals claiming the evidence to be insufficient to prove grounds for termination and that termination is not in the children's best interest. We affirm.

The issues presented in this divorce case are whether the trial court erred in awarding alimony in futuro rather than rehabilitative alimony; whether the alimony award to the wife was excessive; and whether the trial court erred by refusing to hear evidence regarding the relative fault of the parties.  The trial court awarded the wife $1,500 per month in alimony when the wife requested alimony of $1,248 per month and her income and expense statement showed a need of $1,248 per month. We hold that the wife was properly awarded alimony in futuro, but we modify the alimony award to $1,248 per month and affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

In this action arising from a motor vehicle accident, plaintiffs claimed damages for personal injuries and the jury returned a verdict finding defendants 100% at fault for the accident, but awarded no damages for personal injuries to plaintiffs. On appeal, we affirm.

On April 7, 2003, Amy J. Doss ("Mother") filed divorce and custody proceedings in the Circuit Court for Lake County, Illinois (the "Illinois Court"). On that same day, Timothy L. Doss ("Father") filed divorce and custody proceedings in the Family Court for Rhea County, Tennessee (the "Tennessee Court"). Both the Illinois Court and the Tennessee Court have asserted subject matter jurisdiction over the custody proceedings and inconsistent orders have been entered regarding child support and visitation. The issues on this Tenn. R. App. P. 10 interlocutory appeal by Mother center around whether the Tennessee Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the custody proceedings and, if so, whether it properly exercised that jurisdiction. We conclude that: 1) the Tennessee Court did not have "home state" subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) even if the Tennessee Court had "significant connection" subject matter jurisdiction, it nevertheless should have declined to exercise that jurisdiction because the Illinois Court clearly is the more appropriate forum. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Tennessee Court with regard to the custody proceedings.

The opinion of the Court asserts:

The heightened burden of proof required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c)(1) requires us to adapt Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)’s customary standard of review for cases of this sort. First, we must review the trial court’s specific findings of fact de novo in accordance with Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). Thus, each of the trial court’s specific factual findings will be presumed to be correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Second, we must determine whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by the preponderance of the evidence, clearly and convincingly establish the elements required to terminate a biological parent’s parental rights. Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d at 838; In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 548-49; In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d at 640; In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d at 654.