APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Over ten years ago, Commerce Union Bank, d/b/a Reliant Bank (“the Bank”) obtained a deficiency judgment for a property owned by Dr. Byron V. Bush and Kelly D. Bush (“Plaintiffs”) that Plaintiffs used to secure a loan. Since then, Plaintiffs have filed and lost four appeals related to this case. In March 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for fraudulent breach of contract against the Bank; the late Devan D. Ard, Jr., the former Bank president; Rick Belote, Senior Vice President of the Bank; and William Ronald DeBerry (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.03. The Chancery Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”) granted the motion, dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, awarded Defendants attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in filing the motion, and imposed a screening mechanism on any future filings by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellant asks this Court to order the trial court to remove certain allegedly disparaging comments from the trial transcript and two court orders. Appellant also asks this Court to issue a “letter of reprimand” to the trial judge for the allegedly disparaging comments. Due to the deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, and because we cannot grant Appellant the relief he seeks, we dismiss the appeal.

The defendant landowner appeals the trial court’s finding that the restrictive covenants applicable to her property prohibited the construction of a second residence.  We affirm. 

This appeal concerns Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e), an ethics rule requiring that a division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm be agreed to by the client in writing.  Trinity Clark (“Clark”) entered into a retainer agreement with attorney Troy Jones (“Jones”) on a 1/3 contingency fee.  Jones brought Clark’s matter to attorney Lance Baker (“Baker”), who was not in a firm with Jones.  Clark later entered an agreement with Baker on a 45% contingency fee.  The Clark-Baker agreement provided, in writing, that Baker could associate other attorneys on the case, but that Clark’s overall fee obligation would not increase.  The agreement neither identified any other attorneys nor specified how fees would be divided between them.  After Clark’s case settled, Clark sued Baker in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”), alleging Baker’s fee was unreasonable.  Jones joined the lawsuit, arguing he was entitled to a share of the fees (“Plaintiffs,” Jones and Clark collectively).  Baker filed a motion for summary judgment.  The Trial Court denied Baker’s motion, finding that both the Clark-Jones agreement and the Clark-Baker agreement were invalid for noncompliance with Rule 1.5(e).  This interlocutory appeal followed.  We find the Clark-Jones agreement invalid.  However, with respect to the Clark-Baker agreement, we find that the entire arrangement and Clark’s assent thereto satisfied Rule 1.5(e).  We reverse on this issue and find that the Clark-Baker agreement is not invalid for failure of compliance with Rule 1.5(e).  We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

This appeal arises from a complaint filed by a faculty member against The Vanderbilt University (“Vanderbilt”) after Vanderbilt rejected her applications for promotion and tenure during the academic years 2015-16 and 2018-19. The faculty member initially alleged one count each of gender discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract but subsequently amended her complaint to omit the gender discrimination and retaliation claims. Concerning her breach of contract claim, the faculty member alleged that Vanderbilt had not followed its own policies and procedures for promotion and tenure when reviewing her tenure file and had shown bias against her, thus exhibiting a substantial departure from accepted academic norms and procedural regularity. After discovery, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court adopted this Court’s deferential standard for reviewing promotion and tenure decisions by academic institutions as set forth in Figal v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2012-02516-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 5459021 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013), and determined that Vanderbilt had not exhibited a substantial departure from accepted academic norms or procedural regularity in denying tenure to the faculty member. The trial court then determined that Vanderbilt had met its burden of negating an essential element of the breach of contract claim because the evidence was insufficient to establish that Vanderbilt had failed to follow its own tenure review process. The trial court further determined that the faculty member had failed to establish undisputed material facts that would entitle her to summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court denied the faculty member’s motion for summary judgment, granted Vanderbilt’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The faculty member timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The owner of a Pitbull mix canine appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside the judgment entered in favor of the canine’s victim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This matter involves an ongoing dispute between a landlord and a tenant in Pulaski, Tennessee. Following a detainer action in General Sessions Court over unpaid rent, the tenant, representing himself, filed the present case against the landlord, alleging numerous causes of action. The trial court dismissed all the tenant’s claims against the landlord, finding that the tenant erred in failing to join his claims in the original detainer action. The tenant, still representing himself on appeal, challenged the trial court’s dismissal of his claims. Due to the deficiencies in his brief, we conclude that he has waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal.

Thirty-one days after entry of the trial court’s final order, Appellants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rules 59.02 and 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellants subsequently filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02, requesting that the court consider their untimely Rule 59 Motion due to their attorney’s excusable neglect or mistake. The basis for the alleged excusable neglect was Appellants’ counsel’s admitted calendaring error, which resulted in counsel filing the Rule 59 Motion one day late. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied Appellants’ Rule 60.02 Motion, determining that the circumstances did not constitute excusable neglect. Upon review of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The mother of the minor child at issue appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found that four grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the minor child’s best interest. Although we vacate the finding that the ground of persistence of conditions was established, we affirm the finding that three grounds for termination have been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the minor child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

The appellant has filed a late notice of appeal together with a request to waive the late filing. Because the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal with the appellate court clerk is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, we deny the request to waive the late filing and dismiss the appeal.

On December 13, 2022, David Johnson was struck by a vehicle driven by Dylan Clark. Dylan Clark’s automobile insurance carrier was Appellee, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company. Appellee negotiated a settlement and paid $50,000.00 on Mr. Clark’s behalf for his role in the accident. The $50,000.00 check was made payable to both Appellant Beverly Johnson and Medicare. On May 1, 2024, Appellants filed suit. Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and the trial court granted the motion. Appellants appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a healthcare liability action against a surgeon and the hospital where the surgeon practiced. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.

John W. McClarty, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. Michael Swiney, C.J., and Kristi M. Davis, J., joined.

Ira M. Long, Jr., Chattanooga, Tennessee, and William Cameron, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Susan Oakes and Randy Oakes.

Rachel Park Hurt, Devin P. Lyon, and Raymond Grant Lewallen, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Mark A. Fox, M.D. and Covenant Medical Group, Inc.

State employee received proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Insurance company denied authorization of the treatment as “investigational” and not “medically necessary” pursuant to the insurance plan and its medical policy. After exhausting administrative remedies, the employee submitted an appeal to the Tennessee Claims Commission, alleging breach of contract. The Claims Commission found that the treatment was not a covered expense, granting summary judgment in favor of the State. We now affirm.

The appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of a recusal motion pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. However, the trial judge has presented this case to the presiding judge of his district, pursuant to local rule, for another judge to hear the matter by interchange. Thus, we determine that the appellant’s Rule 10B appeal is moot and dismiss the appeal.

A property owner sued his neighbors, claiming that he acquired title to a part of their land by adverse possession or, in the alternative, that he held a prescriptive easement. He asserted additional causes of action against one of the neighbors, including private nuisance, trespass to land, and forcible entry and detainer. The neighbors sought dismissal of the action via Tennessee Rule of Procedure 12.02(6) motions. The trial court dismissed the claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement based on Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-2-110(a). It dismissed all other claims except for private nuisance based on deficiencies in the complaint. We vacate the dismissal of the prescriptive easement claim because facts warranting application of the statutory bar do not clearly appear on the face of the complaint. Because the appellant waived review of all other issues, we otherwise affirm.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to one of her five children. After a five-day termination trial, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that two grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child. We vacate one ground for termination but otherwise affirm the termination of parental rights.

This is the second appeal arising from this declaratory judgment action. The defendant died during the pendency of this action. After a suggestion of the defendant’s death was filed with the trial court, the defendant’s probate estate was substituted as the defendant. More than one year after the defendant’s death, the defendant’s estate filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the plaintiffs failed to properly revive the action against the defendant’s estate as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-320. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action on the ground the plaintiffs did not follow the procedures of Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-320 because they filed “neither an order of revivor nor the complaint [from] this case in the Decedent’s probate proceeding, In re Estate of Doris Etheredge, Putnam Co. Probate Court No. 20739 at any time, much less within one (1) year of the Decedent’s date of death.” We affirm.

This appeal concerns individual liability in the context of a limited liability company. John Olderman (“Olderman”) and Christopher Smith (“Smith”) are manager members of CCD Oldsmith Henry, LLC, and Oldsmith Group, LLC (“Oldsmith,” collectively). Oldsmith asked the Town of Nolensville (“the Town”) to rezone certain property so it could develop residential units on the property. This development would increase traffic at a nearby intersection. At a hearing before the Nolensville Board of Mayor and Aldermen (“the BOMA”), Smith said that Oldsmith could help pay to improve the intersection. The Town subsequently rezoned the property. Oldsmith later declined to pay what the Town said it owed, asserting it never agreed to pay so much. In response, the Town refused to issue building permits. Oldsmith sued the Town in the Circuit Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”). The Town filed a counterclaim and a motion to join Smith and Olderman. The Town alleged that Smith and Olderman fraudulently and negligently misrepresented what Oldsmith was willing to pay. The Trial Court denied the motion, ruling that the Town could obtain complete relief without Smith and Olderman. The Trial Court also ruled that Smith and Olderman could not be held individually liable based on these allegations. The Town appeals. We hold that the Town alleged nothing actionable against Olderman; that the Town sufficiently alleged promissory fraud against Smith; that Smith’s status as manager member of an LLC does not insulate him from liability for his own acts or omissions; and that the Trial Court’s denial of joinder as to Smith was an abuse of discretion. We affirm the denial of joinder as to Olderman. Otherwise, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A tenant was evicted by a housing authority for failure to permit access to his unit and failure to pay rent. The tenant appealed. Because the tenant’s pro se brief has severe deficiencies under the Rules of Appellate Procedure and because we are unable to determine the nature of the error asserted by the tenant, the appeal is dismissed.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against a doctor as time barred and for failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a father to his young daughter. The trial court found that the ground of failure to manifest an ability or willingness to assume custody of the child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court’s findings that (1) termination of Mother’s parental rights is supported by the grounds of persistence of conditions, mental incompetence, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and (2) termination is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This case concerns a dispute between a decedent’s daughter, acting in her capacity as the executrix of her father’s estate, and her father’s paramour. The Chancery Court for Campbell County (“the Trial Court”) found that the father’s paramour, the defendant, had exerted undue influence on him and converted approximately $241,000 from his accounts for her own benefit prior to his death. The defendant appeals. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff concedes that the order in the previous action filed in circuit court satisfied the first three of the four elements of the doctrine of res judicata but denied that the prior action had been adjudicated on the merits. As for the fourth element, the chancery court ruled that the judgment in the circuit court action constituted an adjudication on the merits because the dismissal was “with prejudice.” On this basis the chancery court dismissed the action at bar. The plaintiff appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

This interlocutory recusal appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal filed by the plaintiffs in the underlying action. The plaintiffs timely filed their petition for recusal appeal in this Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Upon thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for recusal. We deny as moot the plaintiffs’ request for a stay.