APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner was convicted of criminal contempt of the Juvenile Court of Williamson County, and sentenced to 590 days for 59 comtempts. She fled the State and apparently is a resident of California. A direct appeal was rejected because of her fugitive status. She now seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus, on the theory that the conviction and sentence are void. She remains a fugitive and the court dismisses her petition on appeal.

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.

In this divorce case, the trial court designated Adrienne Scaife ("Mother") as the primary residential parent of the parties' children, Laniesha Scaife (DOB: August 10, 1992) and Kevin Scaife, Jr. (DOB: July 18, 1996). The children's father, Kevin Scaife ("Father"), appeals. We affirm.

Grethy Hirt ("Wife") filed for divorce from Ernst H. Hirt ("Husband") after twenty-seven years of marriage. The parties had five financial accounts. Two of these accounts clearly were marital property, were divided evenly by the Trial Court, and are not at issue on appeal. As to the three remaining accounts, the Trial Court concluded two were marital property with the third being Wife's separate property. After making these findings, the Trial Court distributed the property with Husband receiving 54% of the marital property, and Wife receiving the remaining 46%. Husband appeals claiming the Trial Court erred when it classified two of the accounts as marital property and the third as Wife's separate property. Both parties claim the Trial Court's overall distribution of the marital property was inequitable. We conclude the Trial Court properly classified the three accounts at issue and did not abuse its discretion when distributing the marital property. The judgment of the Trial Court is, therefore, affirmed.

This appeal involves a prisoner's concerns about overcrowding at the correctional facility in which he is incarcerated. The prisoner filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking an order compelling the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole to advance his release eligibility date. The trial court granted the Board's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, and the prisoner appealed. We vacate the judgment and remand the case with directions to dismiss the petition because it was filed in the wrong county.

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff, Alice Holden, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgement to defendant, Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over the enforcement of non-compete and confidentiality agreements in an employment contract. A company selling satellite telephone and GPS equipment filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement against a former employee who was allegedly interfering with its business relations with customers and suppliers. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court determined that the employee had breached the agreements and enjoined the employee from competing with his former employer for one year in North America. The employee has appealed, asserting that the non-compete agreement is unenforceable or, in the alternative, that its geographic coverage is too broad. We have determined that the non-compete agreement is enforceable but that its geographic coverage should be limited to the United States rather than to North America.

This appeal involves a prisoner who desires to rescind a waiver he signed in 1986 to become entitled to earn sentence reduction credits. The prisoner filed a pro se petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County requesting an order directing the Tennessee Department of Correction to permit him to withdraw his waiver. The Department moved to dismiss the prisoner's petition because it was not timely filed. The trial court granted the motion, and the prisoner has appealed. We vacate the judgment and remand the case with directions to dismiss the petition because it was filed in the wrong county.

This appeal involves the construction of a will. The decedent died owning farmland in excess of twenty acres in size. Wife admitted the decedent's properly executed will, which named her as executrix, into probate. The decedent's children by a prior marriage filed an action in the probate court asking the probate court to construe conflicting provisions in the decedent's will. One section of the decedent's will purported to devise to his children the entire farm subject to the wife's life estate, while the second provision purported to devise to the wife a life estate in the "homeplace." The decedent's children argued the term "homeplace" encompassed something significantly less than the entire farm. The probate court disagreed, interpreting the term "homeplace," as used by the decedent, to mean the entire farm. In addition, the probate court ruled that, pursuant to section 66-1-106 of the Tennessee Code, the decedent's will created in his wife an unlimited power of disposition as to the farm. The decedent's children have appealed the interpretation of the decedent's will reached by the probate court to this Court. We affirm the decision of the probate court in all respects.

The trial court denied the parties a divorce upon finding the Wife failed to prove inappropriate marital conduct. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The parents appeal from the order of the Juvenile Court of Lauderdale County, terminating their parental rights. Specifically, Appellants assert that the grounds of abandonment for failure to support and severe child abuse cited for termination are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record and that termination of their parental rights is not in the best interests of the child. Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings, we affirm.

M.B. and P.B. were husband and wife with four children born during the marriage. L.C.B., the fourth of these children, was born in 1997, nine years after M.B. had undergone a vasectomy. P.B. had engaged in an extramarital affair with R.D. and subsequent to the divorce of M.B. and P.B., the relationship between R.D. and P.B. ripened into marriage with P.B. becoming P.D. In the case at bar, R.D. and P.D. sued to establish R.D. as the biological father of L.C.B. and to terminate the parental rights of M.B. An answer and counterclaim was filed by M.B. denying the allegations of the complaint and seeking to terminate the parental rights of R.D. Holding that the claim of R.D. was barred by laches, the trial court dismissed the complaint. We hold that the complaint of R.D. is not barred by laches but affirm the action of the trial court.

The plaintiff sought a common law writ of certiorari to review the action of a prison disciplinary board. The Circuit Court held that the correction of the Board's decision was not subject to judicial review. We affirm.

The plaintiff left the defendant's residence through her kitchen which opened into a carport, three steps lower. The defendant had left a pair of shoes on the steps which the plaintiff did not see owing to darkness because he failed to turn on the light. The undisputed evidence reveals evidence of negligence on the part of each party, but under McIntyre, the negligence of each should be compared. Summary judgment for the defendant is reversed.

The appellant claims, inter alia, that the Board of Parole, as constituted in 2002 not only denied him parole, but unconstitutionally ordered no further review for fifteen (15) years. The policy of Board was later changed. We affirm, as modified.

In 2003, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed a claim in the Tennessee Claims Commission against the State of Tennessee for medical malpractice. In 2001, the prisoner underwent surgery to install a colostomy due to the alleged negligence of the prison medical staff in improperly diagnosing his condition. The Commissioner granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, finding the statute of limitations barred the prisoner’s claim. Since the prisoner was aware that the State’s negligence caused his injury at the time of his surgery, the discovery rule does not toll the running of the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.
 

This appeal involves a protracted dispute over the payment of child support. Following a job-related injury, the father requested the Circuit Court for Davidson County to reduce his child support obligation, but then unilaterally reduced his child support payments. After the trial court dismissed the father's petition for failure to prosecute, the mother filed a petition seeking a judgment for the child support arrearage. The husband responded by renewing his request to reduce his child support obligation. Following a hearing, the trial court awarded the mother a $13,472 judgment against the father without considering his request for a reduction in his child support payments. We have determined that the order dismissing the father's petition for failure to prosecute was not properly entered. Therefore, the trial court erred by awarding the mother a judgment for the child support arrearage without considering the father's petition to reduce his child support.

All parties sought declaratory judgment as to whether or not driver Michael George Eberly was an omnibus insured under the permissive user provisions of his employer's policy of insurance at the time of the accident in issue. The Chancellor in non-jury trial found that Eberly had only engaged in a "minor deviation" from employer restrictions on his permissive use of the vehicle, and required National Union Fire Insurance Company to protect Eberly as an omnibus insured under the policy. We reverse the action of the trial court.

Husband appeals a trial court judgment awarding permanent alimony to the Wife, asserting in the appeal that the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute over the conservatorship of an elderly woman suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. The woman’s son moved his mother to Tennessee against the wishes of his stepsister who had been appointed guardian in Florida, and filed an action in the Rutherford County Probate Court to be named conservator. The stepdaughter objected to her stepbrother’s petition and demanded an accounting of her stepmother’s property. The probate court dismissed the son’s petition and ordered an accounting. The son asserts on this appeal that the probate court had jurisdiction over his petition. We have determined that the probate court properly dismissed the son’s petition for the appointment of a conservator and properly ordered the son to account for his use of his mother’s assets.

Defendants U. S. Professionals, LLC and Satya B. Shaw and Rajashree S. Shaw, individually, appeal the judgment of the trial court awarding Plaintiff Neeraj Chopra compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation. We affirm.
 

Sweetwater Hospital Association ("the Hospital") entered into a contract with its then-employee, Anita Houser Carpenter ("the defendant"), by the terms of which the Hospital agreed to provide tuition assistance to enable the defendant to attend school. The contract further provides that if the defendant works for the Hospital for a period of five years following the completion of her studies, her loan would be forgiven. At the conclusion of a course of studies to become a nurse anesthetist, the defendant sought employment elsewhere because it appeared to her that there were no nurse anesthetist positions available at the Hospital. The Hospital brought this action for breach of contract, seeking repayment for the monies furnished to the defendant under the contract. The defendant responded that the Hospital breached the contract by failing to offer her a position as a nurse anesthetist. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment for the Hospital. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order imposing Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions, which includes dismissal with prejudice of Appellant’s post-divorce “Motion for Rehearing of Child Support” and “Petition to Modify Custody and/or Visitation.” Finding no evidence on which to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in applying these sanctions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, and remand for determination of damages for the filing of a frivolous appeal.

This appeal involves a civil contempt sanction against a former husband for failing to make payments required by the parties' marital dissolution agreement. The former wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Williamson County seeking to hold her former husband in either criminal or civil contempt. Following a hearing, the trial court awarded the former wife a $26,378 judgment for the arrearage and a $2,000 judgment for attorney's fees. The trial court also found the former husband to be in civil contempt and ordered him incarcerated for six months or until he made the payments required by the martial dissolution agreement. The former husband appealed. We affirm the portions of the judgment awarding the former wife $28,378; however, we vacate the civil contempt judgment against the former husband because the trial court failed to make an affirmative finding that he was presently able to meet his financial obligations under the marital dissolution agreement.

Paternal grandparents, the legal guardians of their granddaughter, filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights and to adopt their granddaughter. The child’s father joined in the petition.  The trial court found that the mother had abandoned the child by her willful failure to provide financial support; however, the trial court denied the grandparents’ petition based on its finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was not in the best interest of the child. Grandparents appealed. We affirm.