APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This action involves the termination of a mother and father’s parental rights to their minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish several statutory grounds of termination as applied to each parent. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm.

This is an appeal from the denial of two class action certifications. The trial court found
that the classes proposed by the Appellants did not meet the requirements of Tennessee
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an action to enforce a 2020 arbitration award (the “Award”), which was confirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County in 2021. The subject of the arbitration was Chevy Chase ASC, LLC (“CCASC”), a two-member Tennessee limited liability company, which was formed and operated by Chevy Chase G.I. Investors, L.C. (“Plaintiff”), and AmSurg Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”). The Award stated, in pertinent part, that the voluntary dissolution of Plaintiff would “trigger the mandatory dissolution” of CCASC. Following Plaintiff’s voluntary dissolution, however, Defendant refused to dissolve or wind up the affairs of CCASC. Defendant contended that it had the statutory right under the “dissolution avoidance” provision of Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-245-101(b) to continue operating CCASC as a single-member limited liability company. Relying on the Award and the 2021 court order confirming the Award, Plaintiff commenced this action to compel Defendant to dissolve CCASC and wind up its business affairs. Finding the Award to be unambiguous, the Chancellor ordered “the immediate liquidation and dissolution of CCASC.” This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.  

In this divorce case, Father/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) allocation of parenting time; (2) inclusion of special provisions in the parenting plan; (3) finding that Father was willfully underemployed; (4) award of an upward deviation in Father’s child support obligation; (5) division of the marital estate; and (6) grant of Mother/Appellee’s petition for divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Discerning no error, we affirm. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted.

A mother appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights to three minor children. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. 1 Upon our review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability matter. The plaintiff first appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant physician. This court reversed that judgment in 2020. Upon remand, a trial before a jury resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff again appeals. We affirm.

In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. 1 Upon review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution case at the summary judgment stage on the basis that she had failed to establish an element of the cause of action. Like the trial court, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show that the nolle prosequi resolution of the underlying criminal matter constituted a favorable termination. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The trial court denied Appellant’s seventh and eighth motions to recuse. Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, the trial court denied Appellant’s multiple motions to recuse.  Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

More than thirty days after denying a motion to compel arbitration, the trial court granted an application for permission to appeal the denial under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Because an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, we conclude the appeal was untimely.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant worked as a cashier for the Shelby County Trustee’s Office and was terminated after she experienced a cash shortage and attempted to force balance. The Civil Service Merit Board conducted a review hearing and upheld the termination. The appellant sought judicial review in the chancery court, which likewise upheld the termination. The appellant filed this appeal claiming that her procedural due process rights were violated, her termination was not in accordance with the policies and procedures of Shelby County, and that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellees filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and an injunction, pursuant to the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-14-101, et seq. (“the TVWA”), against a former employee, the appellant.  The appellees alleged, inter alia, that the appellant was committing unlawful violence at the workplace by stalking the corporation, the chief executive officer (“CEO”), and the employees.  The alleged stalking consisted mostly of public Facebook posts by the appellant.  The Chancery Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) granted the appellees a temporary restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction.  After the hearing, the Trial Court found that the appellant had committed unlawful violence at the workplace via stalking based upon the appellant’s persistent Facebook posts about the appellees and granted the appellees an injunction against the appellant.  The Trial Court also found the appellant in contempt for eleven violations of the temporary restraining order.  The Trial Court awarded the appellees their attorney’s fees. This appeal ensued.  Based upon our review, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her five children. The juvenile court found three grounds for termination and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests based on clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

A high school student suffered a serious injury when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye. The injured student sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable. The circuit court granted the School System’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the student’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm.

A mother appeals a juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights to her child based on three statutory grounds. She also challenges the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This matter concerns criminal contempt and an order of protection. Jolene Renee (Scholl) Bauer (“Wife”) and Michael Ray Scholl (“Husband”) divorced in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). Husband was ordered not to go around Wife’s work or residence. Wife later filed a motion for criminal contempt against Husband alleging that he went around her residence, the parties’ former marital residence, in violation of the court’s order. She also sought an order of protection, citing Husband’s history of violence toward her. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Wife an order of protection. The Trial Court found Husband guilty on two counts of criminal contempt for texting Wife’s neighbor to ask what was happening with Wife and the house. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s granting Wife an order of protection. However, we find that Husband did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him and that the evidence is insufficient to support the criminal contempt findings by the Trial Court of Husband’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse the findings of criminal contempt against Husband. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court.

The trial court entered a final decree in a contentious divorce. Based on the proof at trial, the court classified, valued, and divided the marital estate. It also awarded the wife alimony in solido to equalize the division, alimony in futuro, and attorney’s fees. Both parties raise issues on appeal. Upon review, we conclude the court erred in omitting two marital assets from the division and in calculating a marital debt, which skewed the division in the husband’s favor. Because the court expressly intended to make an equal division, we modify the court’s equalization award. Otherwise, we affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of her motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm.

This appeal concerns a detainer action. Mekey Adem, Said Moammed, and Adem Homes, LLC (“Adem”) (“Landlords,” collectively) sought to evict Alexandria Hart (“Tenant”) for non-payment of rent. The General Sessions Court for Shelby County (“the General Sessions Court”) ruled against Tenant, who then appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”). Tenant attempted to post her birth certificate as the possessory bond to allow her to remain on the premises while her appeal was pending. The Circuit Court rejected this and granted Adem a writ of possession. Ultimately, Tenant was ordered to pay rent she owed plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Tenant appeals. We affirm. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Adem is entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, the amount of which the Circuit Court is to determine on remand.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume custody of the children. Because the record shows that Father’s failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on the remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.