APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is petition to modify custody. The mother and father of the minor child were never
married. In April 2002, when the child was seven years old, the trial court entered a consent order designating the mother as the primary residential parent of the child and giving the father residential time. During the summer of 2002, the parties became embroiled in a dispute over which school and in what grade the minor child should be enrolled for the upcoming school year. Against the father’s wishes, the mother took the child out of the third grade at a public school and enrolled her in the second grade at a private school. The father filed a petition for contempt, and the trial court ordered the mother to return the child to her class at the public school pending a final resolution of the father’s petition. The mother did not do so. The father then sought a change in custody. The trial court granted the father temporary custody pending a final resolution. The father retained temporary primary custody for the remainder of the school year. The trial court then held a hearing on the father’s request to be permanently designated primary residential parent. After a hearing, the trial court restored the mother as primary residential parent, determining that the circumstances did not warrant a change in designation as primary residential parent. The father now appeals. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the father did not show sufficient change in circumstances to remove mother as primary residential parent.
 

The issue for jury resolution was whether Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company refused in bad faith to settle a damage suit against Johnson by Moore within his policy limits of $25,000, and exposed him to a final judgment of nearly $200,000.00. Johnson’s defense entirely focused on his asserted non-liability, not withstanding that Moore’s medical expenses exceeded $75,000, and his injuries were serious and permanently disabling, thus reasonably indicating that if Johnson was found to be negligent, the percentage of his fault necessarily would have to be minimal in light of his insurance limits. An unidentified van forced Johnson to crash head-on into Moore, and the jury allocated 50% of Moore’s damages to Johnson and 50% to the van. After this allocation was affirmed on appeal, Johnson sued Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, claiming that Moore’s claim could have been settled for his policy limits. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company presents a host of issues, beginning with the refusal of the court to direct a verdict, and continuing with complaints of the trial judge commenting on the evidence and refusing corrective jury instructions. The judgment is reversed for the latter two reasons. 

The attorney for the petitioner was held in contempt for failing to appear as ordered and failing to advise the Juvenile Court of a Chancery action. We hold the evidence does not support a finding of criminal contempt.

This is a zoning case involving a free-standing sign. The plaintiff seeks to replace it with another sign which does not conform to a new sign ordinance. The plaintiff seeks the protection of the grandfather statute. The Chancellor held that the grandfather statute did not apply. We affirm.

I agree with both Judge Inman’s and Judge Lee’s Opinions that Tennessee Farmers
Mutual Insurance Company was not entitled to a directed verdict in this case.

This appeal arises from a divorce in which the husband appeals the trial court's classification of separate and marital property as well as the division of these assets. The trial court reserved the issue of the wife's request for attorney's fees. Since all issues were not adjudicated by the final decree, the order was not final pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, we hold that this appeal is premature and dismiss and remand to the trial court.

A.N.W., Sr., father, alone appeals the termination of his parental rights as to two children, A.Y.M. and A.N.W., Jr., the youngest of which had been removed from parental custody at birth due to the child's addiction to cocaine. A.N.W., Sr., challenges the trial court's findings that DCS exercised reasonable efforts to provide family services, that A.N.W., Sr., failed to substantially comply with permanency plan goals, that A.N.W., Sr., had abandoned these two children, and that the best interest of the children required termination of parental rights. We affirm the trial court's findings in all respects and remand the case for such other proceedings as may be necessary.

This is a divorce case. In contemplation of a divorce grounded on irreconcilable differences, Husband and Wife entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement. Subsequently, Husband filed a complaint for divorce, and the complaint, inter alia, disavowed the prior executed Marital Dissolution Agreement. The divorce case proceeded to trial, and the trial court granted the divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct and enforced the Marital Dissolution Agreement,  dividing the marital property and debt. Husband appeals. Because Husband-Appellant repudiated the Marital Dissolution Agreement prior to the entry of the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce, there was no agreement between the parties, and the Marital Dissolution Agreement should not have been enforced. We reverse and remand.

Appellant challenges trial court’s dismissal of his petition, under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(4), seeking to rescind his voluntary legitimation of child, modify custody, set aside paternity order and modify child support arrearage, based on results of DNA test that conclusively proves that he is not the father of the child. We reverse.

This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Appellants seeking to invalidate certain inter vivos
transfers made by Decedent as well as the Wills executed by Decedent while living with Appellees. After a hearing in which a jury received evidence from numerous witnesses and exhibits, Appellants sought a directed verdict on whether, as a matter of law, the burden to prove the validity of the Wills and the inter vivos transfers shifted to Appellees. The trial court denied this motion, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees, upholding Decedent’s Last Will and Testament and the inter vivos transfers. Review by this Court is sought by Appellants, and, for the following reasons, we reverse.
 

This appeal arises out of an action by Appellant for a claim of negligence. After the close of
Appellant’s proof, Appellee moved for involuntary dismissal based on the lack of evidence
concerning the actions of the emergency vehicle involved in the automobile accident. The trial court granted the motion on this basis, and Appellant now seeks review by this Court. We affirm.
 

This appeal involves the termination of a biological father’s rights to his non-marital child. When the child was almost five years old, his mother and her husband filed a petition in the Williamson County Juvenile Court seeking to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and to adopt the child. Following a bench trial, the juvenile court determined that the biological father had abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit him and that terminating the biological father’s parental rights would be in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, the court terminated the biological father’s parental rights and approved the adoption. The biological father has appealed.  We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the biological father abandoned the child and that terminating the father’s parental rights would be in the child’s best interests.

Christa A. Avenell,¹ sometimes referred to herein as “the plaintiff,” brought this action against James Allen Gibson (“the creditor”), seeking to recover funds taken out of the Avenells’ two joint accounts by their bank in response to a levy of execution. The trial court held that the 1988 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 45-2-703 (2000) changed the law with respect to bank accounts held by individuals as tenants by the entirety; that Mrs. Avenell failed to prove she was entitled to the levied upon funds; and that the creditor was entitled to retain the funds paid into court by the Avenells’ bank. The plaintiff and her husband appeal. We reverse.

This case involves a petition filed by the co-executors of the Estate of Billy F. Hawk, Jr. to approve a sale of real estate partially owned by the Estate. The issue presented is whether the trial court should have approved the private sale. The trial court held that the proposed sale was not in the best interest of all the beneficiaries of the Estate. The proposed buyer appeals. We hold that the trial court’s decision was not contrary to the preponderance of evidence, nor was it arbitrary or capricious, and therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We dismiss this appeal from a granting of summary judgment because the appeal was not from a final judgment and the issues are moot.

I agree with the majority opinion’s analysis until it undertakes consideration of the 1988 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 45-2-703(a). As quoted in the majority opinion, the amendment states:

Any balance so created, including, without limitation, any balance held by spouses, shall be subject to assignment by, or the claim of any creditor of, either depositor, as if such depositor were the sole owner of the funds; provided that is such creditor realizes its claim by any means other than enforcement of an assignment, pledge, or the grant of a security interest made by any one (1) of such depositors, any other depositor not indebted to the creditor may, by commencing a separate action against the creditor, establish such rights as that depositor may have in the funds.

This is a divorce case. The trial court granted Deborah Kay Parker Hoxit Ohme ("Wife") a divorce from Frederick Herman Ohme, IV ("Husband"), divided the parties' marital property and debts, and awarded Wife transitional alimony of $500 per month. In addition, the court approved Wife's parenting plan, in which she was designated as the primary residential parent of the parties' child, and ordered Husband to pay child support of $854 per month. Husband appeals the granting of the divorce to Wife, the division of debt, the award of alimony, and the trial court's decree regarding responsibility for transporting the parties' child to and from visitation. We affirm.

This case involves the alleged breach of a real estate sales contract. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant home builder is in breach of contract because he refused to sell them the house contracted for unless, in addition to the price stated in the contract, they paid him for costs attributed to changes in construction. None of these changes were implemented pursuant to written change orders as required under the contract. The builder countersued arguing that the changes for which he sought payment were agreed to orally after the contract was executed, that the written change order requirement of the contract was waived, and that the plaintiffs breached the contract by refusing to pay him the original contract price, plus the amount attributed to the changes. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

Plaintiff sued her employer for misrepresentation relating to health insurance coverage and sought to recover amounts incurred by her husband for medical bills. The trial court found for plaintiff awarding her treble and punitive damages. We reverse the trial court's finding of treble and punitive damages and affirm the trial court's award of a refund to plaintiff for amounts contributed as premiums.

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.

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.