APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the termination of a biological father's parental rights with regard to his nine-year-old daughter. After determining that the child had been sexually abused by her father, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Grundy County seeking to terminate the father's parental rights. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the father had committed severe child abuse and that his daughter's interests would be best served by terminating his parental rights. The father asserts on this appeal that the Department failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he had committed severe child abuse. We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the father committed severe child abuse and that terminating his parental rights is in his daughter's best interests.

City of Memphis challenges judgment of trial court finding the city liable, under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, for negligence of a police officer that proximately caused injuries to a criminal suspect who was being placed under arrest. City contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the statement of police officer taken during a police department internal investigation; in finding that the officer’s actions were negligent instead of intentional; and in failing to apply properly the correct standard of care. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents of A.R.G., DOB 12-26-2000. Only Mother, C.S., appeals. Grounds for termination were substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan and failure to remedy conditions in her life permitting the child's return in the near future. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case wherein J.R.R., who is neither the biological father of the twins nor the husband of the mother of the twins, resists the termination of his parental rights. The trial court terminated his parental rights, and we affirm the judgment.

Allstate Insurance Company paid a fire loss to the landlord then brought an action against the tenant asserting subrogation rights. The trial court held the tenant to be blameless as to the fire but found him liable under the terms of the lease, which provided that the tenant would be "responsible for all damages to the apartment, intentional or non intentional". Since we find the tenant to be an additional insured under the Allstate policy, no subrogation rights exist, and we reverse the trial court.

A grandmother, who lost custody of her grandchildren in Juvenile Court proceedings, sued the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") and its employee in Circuit Court alleging defamation. The trial court dismissed the suit based upon immunity. We affirm the dismissal of DCS and affirm the employee's dismissal on alternative grounds.

Glenda Emmit ("the plaintiff") brought a petition seeking to annul her marriage to Richard Emmit. She alleged that, unbeknownst to her, her prior marriage to James Randall Medley had not been dissolved at the time of her attempted marriage to Mr. Emmit. She claims that this prior marriage prevented her from contracting a valid marriage with Mr. Emmit. The trial court held that the co-administrators of Mr. Medley's estate (collectively "the co-administrators") were indispensable parties and ordered the plaintiff to amend her complaint to add them. Following a bench trial, the court below entered a judgment denying the plaintiff's petition for annulment on the ground that she had "unclean hands" and was therefore estopped from averring either that her marriage to Mr. Emmit was invalid or that her marriage to Mr. Medley was not dissolved. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Denise Wassom ("Plaintiff") loaned her car to her ex-boyfriend who then had a single-car accident while making a beer run. Plaintiff's vehicle was a total loss. Fearing that her ex-boyfriend might be arrested for DUI, Plaintiff reported to the police that her car had been stolen. Plaintiff's vehicle was insured through State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Plaintiff also reported to State Farm that her car had been stolen. Approximately two weeks into State Farm's investigation, an adjustor for State Farm interviewed the witnesses whom Plaintiff claimed to have been with at the time her vehicle was stolen. Immediately after these interviews, Plaintiff "came clean" and told State Farm the truth. State Farm denied Plaintiff's claim and Plaintiff filed suit claiming State Farm was in breach of contract. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the undisputed material facts demonstrated that Plaintiff had made material misrepresentations with the intent to deceive. The Trial Court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves enforcement of a divorce decree incorporating a marital dissolution agreement and the obligation of a parent to support a child beyond the child's majority in certain circumstances. The trial court determined that the former husband's alimony obligation had terminated upon the payment of the entire amount of alimony in solido created in the order and MDA. The court also held that the father had a continuing obligation to support his adult son because the son was disabled. We affirm both holdings.

This action for specific performance was filed following a foreclosure sale of real property. The foreclosure was prompted by a prior purchaser's default. Rena Mae Blair ("the plaintiff"), the holder of the first deed of trust in default, acting through her daughter and substitute trustee, Linda Caraway, advertised and conducted the foreclosure sale with the assistance of an attorney. At the sale, the property was sold to Rollin C. Brownson and his wife, Mary Ann Brownson ("the defendants") for $77,642.05. There was no writing at the time of the sale memorializing its terms, but Mr. Brownson did provide Ms. Caraway with an earnest money check. Subsequent to the sale, the attorney conducting the sale drafted a deed which purports to set forth the terms of the sale. The defendants refused to go through with the sale when they learned that the property was reputed to be worth only $50,000. In response to the plaintiff's complaint for specific performance, the defendants raised the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense, contending that there was no written memorandum reflecting the terms of the parties' oral agreement. Following a bench trial, the court below granted the plaintiff's request for specific performance. The defendants appeal. We affirm.

This is an unemployment compensation case. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development ("the Department") denied the claim of Becky Elliott for unemployment benefits, finding that the plaintiff quit her job without good cause connected to her employment. After exhausting her administrative remedies to no avail, the plaintiff sued James G. Neeley, the Commissioner of the Department, seeking judicial review in the trial court, which court affirmed the Department's denial of benefits. The plaintiff appeals, essentially arguing that the Department's decision is not supported by substantial and material evidence. We affirm.

This is a child custody dispute. The parties were married and had one child. When the child
was approximately three years old, the father filed a petition for divorce and was granted temporary
custody. A year and a half later, the trial court granted the parties a divorce by stipulation, but
reserved the issue of permanent custody. After a hearing, the trial court granted the father primary
residential custody, with the child to reside with the mother three weekends out of the month plus
additional time. The mother now appeals, arguing that the trial court failed to engage in a
comparative fitness analysis and failed to consider evidence that the father had abused the mother during their marriage. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
 

This case arises from the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s Tenn. R. Civ. P.  12.02 Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the Tennessee long-arm statute and the relevant case law, we find that the criteria for personal jurisdiction over Appellant are met. Consequently, we reverse and remand.

This appeal questions the apportionment of attorney fees and costs. The plaintiff suffered a compensable on-the-job injury and by the negligence of a third party. He recovered workers' compensation benefits, and settled his tort action thereafter. The employer's subrogation rights were stipulated, but the parties could not agree upon a proportional allocation of fees.

The juvenile court and custodial party in a dependency and neglect proceeding were granted a Rule 10 application for extraordinary appeal from the chancery court’s order staying and restraining proceedings of dependency and neglect in the juvenile court. We reverse the order of the chancery court.

This appeal involves a post-divorce petition for a reduction or termination of alimony. Following a bench trial, the trial court ordered petitioner to continue paying $1,000 per month in alimony in futuro to Wife and granted Wife's request for her attorney's fees and court costs. Wife's counter-petition for an increase in alimony was denied. Both parties appeal. We affirm.

This case involves a surviving spouse’s attempt to set aside a financial transaction made by the decedent approximately one year prior to the decedent’s death. The trial court voided the transfer and awarded the proceeds to the surviving spouse, determining that the transfer was fraudulent and intended to defeat the interest of the surviving spouse. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse.

Helen Broyles ("Plaintiff") sued Emma Woodson and the Estate of H.Y. Woodson, Emma Woodson, Executrix ("Defendants") claiming that her husband and H.Y. Woodson entered into an agreement in 1990 for Plaintiff's husband to purchase a house located in LaFollette, Tennessee for $21,000. Both Plaintiff's husband and H.Y. Woodson had passed away when the complaint was filed. Plaintiff claimed Emma Woodson was not calculating interest properly and had not given Plaintiff proper credit for the house payments that had been made. Plaintiff requested the Trial Court examine the relevant documentation and establish the amount of Plaintiff's equity and the amount still owing. It was admitted by the parties that there was an agreement of some sort between their deceased husbands. However, that agreement was either an oral agreement or, if it had been reduced to writing, the written instrument appeared to be lost or destroyed. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to Defendants after concluding: (1) the Statute of Frauds rendered the agreement unenforceable; (2) the Dead Man's Statute precluded admission into evidence of any proof regarding the terms of the agreement; and (3) Defendants had negated an essential element of Plaintiff's contract claim which required her to establish the essential elements of the alleged contract with reasonable definiteness. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm as modified.

Two cases that pertain to the same child are consolidated on appeal. The child was placed in custody of the Department of Children’s Services at the age of two and one-half years due to filthy conditions at home, lack of supervision, exposure to pornography and drug paraphernalia and parents drug use when both parents were arrested at the family’s home. The Juvenile Court found the child to be dependent and neglected and a victim of aggravated sexual battery. Parents appealed and received de novo trial in Circuit Court which separately concluded the child was dependent, neglected and a victim of severe child abuse and sexual battery. In a separate action, DCS petitioned the Juvenile Court to terminate both parents’ parental rights. DCS investigator interviewed the mother while she was in custody on unrelated charge and after the mother had been appointed counsel. The DCS investigator had not consulted with nor been encouraged by DCS attorneys about questioning the mother. After being released from custody the mother was interviewed by detective. After being advised of her Miranda rights she signed a statement waiving the rights and admitted that she and the father sexually abused the child. The mother had been apprised of her rights against selfincrimination, yet she made a voluntary statement. Thus, she waived her rights against selfincrimination.  Juvenile Court terminated the rights of both parents based on abandonment, persistent conditions, and severe child abuse. Both parents appeal. We affirm.

In post-divorce proceedings, Husband/Appellant sought modification of his support obligation to Wife/Appellee. Divorce Referee found no change in circumstances on which to base a modification. The trial court affirmed the Referee’s findings. Husband/Appellant appeals. We affirm.

This is a dog bite case against an absent landlord. The plaintiff argues that owing to the pervasive publicity about the viciousness of the tenants' dog, the landlord had constructive notice of its propensity to violence and should therefore be held liable. Summary judgment was granted to the landlord . We affirm.

This appeal arises out of an action for divorce. The trial court awarded the wife a divorce from the husband on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct and denied the husband’s counterclaim for divorce. After classifying and valuing various items of property in the marital estate, the trial court divided the marital property between the husband and wife. Further, the trial court awarded the wife transitional alimony in the amount of $6,000.00 per month for three years and then $3,000.00 per month for the next three years. Finally, the lower court ordered each party to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this appeal, a roofing contractor seeks to reverse the trial court's finding that it breached express and implied warranties and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The contractor argues that its agreement was simply to perform insurance repair work and that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to expand the parties' agreement. There is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant violated its warranty. We affirm that finding, but reverse the trial court's finding that the contractor violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

This appeal involves a husband's obligation to provide rehabilitative support to his former wife following the dissolution of their twenty-one year marriage. The wife filed a divorce complaint in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County. After an attempted reconciliation failed, the husband filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce. The trial court conducted a bench trial and granted the wife a divorce on the ground of adultery. The trial court also ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,000 per month in rehabilitative spousal support for seven years. The husband appealed. We agree with the trial court's decision to award the wife spousal support for seven years; however we modify the judgment to clarify the support as transitional support rather than rehabilitative.

The plaintiff claims that a balance is owed on a contract for the production of catalogues. For the reasons hereafter recited, we affirm the dismissal of the case.