APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a finding of contempt following the enrollment of a foreign decree. The issue presented is whether Mr. Pickern could be held in civil contempt of court for his failure to pay alimony upon the enrollment of the foreign decree when a petition for contempt had not been filed.  Following a hearing, the trial court enrolled the foreign decree, found Mr. Pickern in willful contempt of court, awarded Ms. Pickern judgment for the alimony arrearage and her attorney’s fees, and ordered the sale of Mr. Pickern’s real property to satisfy the alimony arrearage unless he paid the judgment within ninety days. We hold that the trial court properly enrolled the foreign decree, but its actions were premature regarding the civil contempt because no petition had been filed seeking this relief. Therefore, we affirm the enrollment of the foreign decree and the judgment for the alimony arrearage, but vacate the finding of civil contempt and the award of attorney’s fees.

This case involves a contract dispute between a retail seller and manufacturer of hair replacement products. The parties entered into an exclusive dealing contract, whereby the manufacturer agreed to sell four models of hair replacement units exclusively to the retailer within a geographically defined area of Tennessee. In return, the retailer agreed to purchase all hair replacement units from themanufacturer and paya $10.00 premium for the units purchased. The manufacturer subsequently sold hair replacement units to a competitor of the retailer in Tennessee. The retailer filed a complaint against the manufacturer for inducement of breach of contract, pursuant to section 47-50-109 of the Tennessee Code, and breach of contract. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion as to both causes of action alleged in the complaint.  We affirm.

This appeal involves a trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Tennessee Department of Revenue. The taxpayer operates a brick and block business on a ten-acre tract of land in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on which is located a block manufacturing facility and retail sales office. Upon undertaking an audit of the taxpayer, the department inspected the property in Murfreesboro. The department subsequently assessed a sales and use tax liability against the taxpayer for the Murfreesboro property. The department determined that the Murfreesboro property constituted one location, and sales of concrete blocks manufactured at the facility constituted less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross sales at this location. The taxpayer filed an action in the trial court alleging it was entitled to a sales tax exemption under section 67-6-206 of the Tennessee Code because it operated two "locations" at the Murfreesboro property under the fifty-one percent (51%) test used by the department. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the department's motion and denied the taxpayer's motion. The taxpayer filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm.

This is a parental termination case involving a mother with a documented history of severe mental illness. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her minor son in February 2002, alleging the grounds of persistent conditions and failure to substantially comply with the permanency plans. The department filed an amended petition in August 2002, seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her minor daughter based upon the same grounds. In September 2002, the department filed another amended petition alleging as an additional ground for termination the mother’s mental incompetence. Following a hearing over two non-consecutive days, the chancery court entered an order finding the department had proven all the grounds it alleged for terminating the mother’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, and terminating the mother’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interest. While we disagree with the trial court’s finding that DCS proved each ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the chancery court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

This appeal involves the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for Davidson County over a dispute regarding custodial accounts established for the benefit of a divorced couple's children. The father moved to dismiss the mother's suit on the ground that the Circuit Court for Williamson County where the divorce had been granted had jurisdiction over the claim. The trial court denied the motion but permitted the father to pursue an interlocutory appeal to this court. The parties have now filed a stipulation for an accelerated civil appeal in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 13. We granted the interlocutory appeal, and now we vacate the order denying the father's motion to dismiss, and remand the case to the trial court with directions to transfer the case to the Circuit Court for Williamson County.

This is a divorce proceeding in which the parties accused each other of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted both parties a divorce, and custody of the parties' child was awarded to Husband along with child support. Marital property, mostly debts, was allocated in part to Husband and in part to Wife. The trial court declined to assess attorney fees. Wife appealed claiming that she should have been granted the divorce and custody of the child. Wife also claimed that the marital debts were not allocated equitably and that she should have been awarded her attorney fees. We modify in part and affirm.

This case arises out of a will contest filed by Appellants. At trial, Appellants alleged that Appellee
unduly influenced Decedent and that Decedent’s Last Will and Testament is a product of that undue influence rendering the Will invalid. After a hearing, the trial court determined that Decedent’s Will was not the product of undue influence and dismissed the will contest. Appellants now seek review by this Court, and, for the following reasons, we affirm.
 

This appeal involves a dispute between the biological father, Brett W. Woodroof, who filed a petition to establish paternity of the nine year old child, Taylor Leigh Fisher, and the stepfather, Nathan E. Fisher, with whom the child has lived since she was two years old. The trial court determined that Mr. Woodroof was the natural father and awarded him visitation rights, but did not award him custody. A review of the record indicates that Mr. Woodroof asked for custody initially in his petition to determine parentage, but subsequently withdrew his request in his amended petition, and repeatedly advised the court throughout the lengthy court proceedings that spanned sixteen months that he sought only visitation with the child, and not custody. Mr. Woodroof requested custody only at the end of the trial process, after the testimony of the medical experts and other persons had been presented, and after numerous assertions in court that he was not presently seeking custody. We hold that his request for custody came too late and therefore we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for further action consistent with this opinion.

This appeal arises out of an action for damages by a commercial tenant against a landlord. After a
jury awarded the appellee the sum of $168,000 in damages, the appellee sought pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The trial court awarded the appellee prejudgment and post-judgment interest calculated on the entire award of damages but denied the appellee’s request for an award of attorney’s fees. The appellant seeks review of the award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and the appellee cross appeals, seeking review of the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees. For the following reasons, we affirm and remand for any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

The unsuccessful Plaintiff, Kevin Easley, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Larry G. and Gary H. Baker, d/b/a Legend's Bar and Grill. On appeal, Easley argues that the record presents a genuine issue of fact on the question of whether Defendants provided adequate notice of a dangerous condition. We affirm the trial court.

Monica McPeek and Melinda S. Lockhart ("Defendant") were involved in an automobile accident. Monica McPeek and her husband, Eldridge McPeek, ("Plaintiffs" or "Ms. McPeek" and "Mr. McPeek" respectively) sued Defendant. The case was tried and the jury found Ms. McPeek to be 40% at fault for the accident and Defendant 60% at fault and awarded Ms. McPeek damages of $4,000 and Mr. McPeek zero damages. Plaintiffs appeal claiming the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant an additur or a new trial after the jury refused to award loss of consortium damages to Mr. McPeek and that the Trial Court erred by allowing the introduction of certain of Ms. McPeek's medical records. We affirm.

The trial court permanently enjoined the City of Memphis from modifying its health care plan to require enrollees to obtain prescription medications through a mail-order pharmacy plan. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

In the Divorce Decree Decedent was ordered to pay alimony "until remarriage or death of plaintiff". Decedent's estate refused to pay alimony. The Trial Court held the Decree required the payment of alimony after Decedent's death. On appeal, we reverse and dismiss.

In this action to terminate father's parental rights, the Trial Court refused to appoint counsel for father, despite his claim of indigence. On appeal, we vacate the Judgment and remand for further hearing on the issue of indigency.

Appellants, who were represented in a lawsuit by Appellees, appeal the dismissal of their attorney malpractice suit against Appellees on the ground, among other things, that the Appellants did not file suit within the one-year statute of limitations for attorney malpractice actions. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is an action for breach of contract filed by Plaintiff/Contractor against the State, together with a Counterclaim and a Third-Party Complaint against the surety company for Plaintiff/Contractor. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff as to liability because the State had failed to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in answering Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. After much procedural combat, the trial court adhered to its ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissed the Third-Party Complaint against the surety and the Counterclaim of the State against Plaintiff, held that Plaintiff had failed to prove any damages against the State, and sustained the Motion of the State for an involuntary dismissal of Plaintiff's entire claim, taxing the costs to Plaintiff. We find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff as to liability without considering documentation and evidence submitted by the State subsequent to the initial non-final order granting partial summary judgment as to liability. It follows that the court also erred in dismissing the Counterclaim and the Third-Party Complaint against the surety. The grant of partial summary judgment as to liability is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits.

While Beatrice Harmon Montgomery ("Plaintiff") and Terry Lane Montgomery ("Defendant") never married, they lived together for many years beginning in 1969. Plaintiff and Defendant had one child, Brian Montgomery. During their relationship, Plaintiff and Defendant accumulated substantial assets and operated several businesses. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking dissolution of her implied business partnership with Defendant. Brian Montgomery intervened claiming he also was a partner in two of the business ventures. The Trial Court concluded that Plaintiff and Defendant were equal partners in all of their business pursuits, and that Brian also was a partner in two of them. It is this ruling that forms the basis for most of the numerous issues raised on appeal. We reverse in part, vacate in part, affirm in part as modified, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

In this dispute, plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment as to use of their lake by defendant, payment of fees and injunctive relief. Defendant counter-claimed for a declaratory judgment as to its use of the lake, disputed any obligation to pay fees to the plaintiff, and sought monetary damages and attorney's fees. The Trial Court held that plaintiffs' owned the lake and the master deed provided for maintenance fee and membership fees, that defendant's members were required to pay. But if the defendants' members did not use the lake they would not be required to pay the fees. On appeal, we hold the Court correctly found that the lake was an amenity and that a lake use fee was required to be paid to plaintiffs pursuant to the master deed and exhibits. But the Court erred in holding that defendant owners could choose not to use the lake and not pay the fees. We otherwise affirm the Court's rulings on the issues raised on appeal.

This case involves the interpretation of a portion of the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503. The issue presented is whether the statutory exemption set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503(d)(1) is available to the Appellee which is a nonprofit joint municipal-county economic development commission. The trial court granted the commission’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the exemption was applicable and the commission did not have to provide its records to the Appellant. We hold that the commission is entitled to the statutory exemption, but that there is a genuine question of material fact as to whether the commission is the functional equivalent of a public agency. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Commission is not entitled to summary judgment on the record presently before us. I disagree, however, with the majority’s rationale for that conclusion. Specifically, I disagree with the assertion that the public’s access to the Commission’s records depends upon whether, in the words of the majority, “[the Commission] is the functional equivalent of a governmental agency.” I believe this concept of “functional equivalen[cy],” as promulgated by the Supreme Court in Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67, 79 (Tenn. 2002), is not material to the issue now before us.

Claimant sought reimbursement for child care under the Child Care Certificate Program. The Commissioner granted the State summary judgment on the grounds that the State was not contractually bound to reimburse claimant under the governmental immunity statutory scheme. On appeal, we affirm.

Shawn Smith died of aspiration of gastric contents while a patient at the University of Tennessee Medical Center. Shawn Smith’s mother, Patsy Smith (“Plaintiff”), sued the State of Tennessee (“the State”). The case was transferred to the Claims Commission (“the Commission”). After trial, the Commission entered a judgment for the State holding, inter alia, that there was no breach of the standard of care. Plaintiff appeals claiming that the Commission erred in holding there was no breach of the standard of care, that the Commission erred in making certain factual findings, and that the Commission erred in refusing to find that the integrity of the medical record had been compromised. We affirm.
 

Aunt and niece agreed that aunt would convey her residence to niece in exchange for the promise of niece to look after her in her declining years. The years passed, niece provided care and attention for a period of time, but eventually ceased doing so. Aunt sought to rescind the deed for failure of consideration. The trial judge held that while the proof established a contract, the action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Reversed on a finding that the contract was a continuing obligation.

Appellant seeks relief, ostensibly under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, from final orders establishing paternity and setting child support obligations. Because Appellant failed to timely file his petition to establish fraud and/or misrepresentation and because the equities in this matter do not support the disestablishment of paternity, we affirm.

The plaintiff in this case was employed as the director of schools for Campbell County, Tennessee, under a contract of employment which was deemed by the defendant Campbell County Board of Education to have terminated after four years. The plaintiff sued the Board for breach of contract asserting that the contract contained a clause which provided that if the Board took no action by April 15 of each year of the contract to either extend or non-renew, the contract was automatically extended one year. The plaintiff contended that, in view of this clause and accompanying non-action by the Board, the contract did not terminate upon the expiration of four years, but rather extended beyond that period of time. The plaintiff alternatively asserted that, pursuant to a prior order of the trial court entered in a matter unrelated to the present case, he was entitled to an annual salary of not less than ten percent below that of the director of schools. The Board filed a motion for summary judgment requesting a ruling that the automatic extension clause of the contract was invalid and that the contract expired according to its terms. The Board's motion also requested that the trial court rule that, upon expiration of the contract, the plaintiff enjoys no rights to salary beyond those of a classroom teacher. The trial court denied the Board's motion with respect to the automatic extension clause, declaring the clause to be valid and enforceable; however, the Board's motion was granted with respect to the matter of the plaintiff's rights to salary granted by the court's prior order. We hold that the automatic extension clause is invalid, but that the plaintiff retains those rights granted him under the prior order of the trial court subject to further review by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.