Jeromy Tyson Ratcliff v. Melody Leann Ratcliff Neal
In this child support dispute, the mother filed a petition to extend child support for an adult child due to the child’s severe disability. The father filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order determining that the parties’ adult son was severely disabled and directing the father to pay child support “going forward” and retroactively. The father sought to amend the final judgment, again raising the issue of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and also requesting that the final order be set aside until the child could undergo a vocational evaluation. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Upon consideration, we decline the mother’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Vidafuel, Inc. v. Kerry, Inc.
in which the Plaintiff-Appellant agreed to order beverage products manufactured by the |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alexis Danielle Rapp v. Christopher George Rapp
This case stems from a mother’s request to relocate outside the state with the parties’ minor child. The father filed a petition opposing relocation, and a trial was held on the matter. The trial court determined that allowing relocation was not in the child’s best interests and granted the father’s petition. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Seth Holliday v. Elizabeth Frances Holliday
In this divorce action, the trial court distributed the parties’ assets and liabilities, determined the amount of the husband’s child support obligation with regard to the parties’ two children, and awarded alimony in futuro to the wife. The husband timely appealed. Upon our thorough review, we vacate and remand to the trial court the issues of the husband’s child support and alimony obligations for further determination. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper
After declaring the parties divorced, the trial court fashioned a permanent parenting plan for their minor child. The plan designated the mother as the primary residential parent and gave the father 80 days of parenting time each year. The father argues that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting a parenting plan that failed to maximize his parenting time. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Parker v. Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development
Appellant appeals the chancery court’s decision to affirm the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s determination that he was overpaid unemployment benefits. Because we have determined that the appellant failed to comply with the applicable rules regarding appellate briefing, we dismiss this appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Christopher Walton v. Rebecca Guess Walton
In this post-divorce matter, the parties dispute the interpretation of a provision of their marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) concerning one of Husband’s retirement plans. On the parties’ cross petitions to enforce the MDA, the trial court found the MDA to be unambiguous and agreed with Wife’s interpretation of the disputed provision. Discerning no error, we affirm. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is granted pursuant to the terms of the MDA; her request for frivolous appeal damages is denied. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Fairway Capital Partners, LLC v. Tamaryn Gause, et al.
The assignee of a contract for the sale of real property appeals the dismissal of its claims against a third party for civil conspiracy to commit breach of contract, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and statutory inducement of breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant third party based on its conclusion that the third party had no notice of the contract at issue and did not act maliciously. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Mejia v. Samina Wazir
A homeowner appeals from a jury verdict in a breach of contract action. The homeowner complains of errors in the conduct of the trial, including the exclusion of key evidence. Because the homeowner did not present these issues to the trial court in a motion for a new trial, the issues are waived. And we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Devon MacPherson v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
A property owner filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of metropolitan government ordinances that prevented him from obtaining a permit for a short-term rental property with more than four bedrooms. We have concluded that the property owner’s claims are barred by res judicata. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Epik W. Et Al.
The present appeal originates out of a Juvenile Court dependency and neglect proceeding. During the pendency of the case in the Juvenile Court, the Nenana Native Association filed a notice of intervention and averred that the two children at issue in this appeal are “Indian Children” under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Nenana Native Association requested that the Juvenile Court enter an order acknowledging its status as these children’s tribe, and the Juvenile Court subsequently did so. Although the Nenana Native Association was allowed to intervene as a party in the case, the Juvenile Court later entered an order denying a request that the case be transferred to a tribal court. An appeal was thereafter pursued in the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court, considering the matter de novo under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(a), also entered an order denying transfer. Although the Nenana Native Association now pursues an appeal of the Circuit Court’s order in this Court, we conclude that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the Juvenile Court. Accordingly, we vacate the Circuit Court’s judgment and remand the case back to the Circuit Court with instructions that it remand the matter back to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings. |
Unicoi | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ethan W.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s and father’s parental rights to their minor child, the trial court found that three statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights and two statutory grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Both the mother and father have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Meigs | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Destiney J. Et Al.
In this parental termination case, the father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children. The trial court found that two grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the court terminated the father’s parental rights. The father appeals. We affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Jacqueline Hall Johnson
Before taking his own life, the Defendant’s husband shot and killed another individual, resulting in a civil suit brought by the victim’s family. An insurance company with whom the husband had a policy brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Defendant’s husband’s actions were not covered by the insurance he had obtained. A sheriff’s deputy tried to serve process. The Defendant, however, was not home, and the deputy left a contact card. The Defendant called the deputy, and, after discussion, she instructed the deputy to leave the documents with a particular individual at her home. The deputy followed these instructions. The Defendant did not respond to the suit and a default was entered. Months later, the Defendant, alleging the deputy failed to effectuate valid service of process, sought to have the default set aside. The trial court disagreed and declined to set aside the default. The Defendant then asked the trial court to alter its order, asserting for the first time that she was not a proper party to the Company’s suit. The trial court declined. The Defendant appealed. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Cinda Haddon v. Ladarius Vanlier et al.
A driver was injured in a car accident with an uninsured motorist and filed a negligence suit against the uninsured motorist. The driver served her uninsured motorist insurance carrier with notice of the lawsuit. After the driver could not obtain service of process on the uninsured motorist, the case proceeded against the insurance carrier. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of the driver. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, awarding damages to the driver. The trial court denied the driver’s post-trial motion for prejudgment interest based upon its determination that the suit was a personal injury action and that, therefore, the court could not award prejudgment interest. We have concluded that the trial court erred in classifying the claim against the insurance carrier as a personal injury action. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying prejudgment interest and remand for a determination of the proper amount of prejudgment interest. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James L. Davidson et al v. Jeremy Howard Johnson et al.
Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and breach of contract to enforce a purchase and sale agreement, which was allegedly entered by and between Appellants and Appellees. In their answer, Appellees asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Appellants had no standing to enforce the contract because they were not parties to it. On Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Appellants were not parties to the contract and had no standing to bring an action to enforce it. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Nicholai L. Et Al.
A putative father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a child. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of several statutory grounds for termination. It also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. Following thorough review, we conclude that not all grounds for termination were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Still, we affirm the termination of parental rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Shacrysta B. Et Al.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on June 6, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until July 16, 2024, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kalos, LLC v. White House Village, LLC et al.
The trial court granted Appellees’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03 motion to dismiss Appellant’s lawsuit for unjust enrichment because Appellant did not exhaust its remedies in contract. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Abraham Anderson v. Alice Musick Et Al.
The Plaintiff sought specific performance related to a real estate transaction. The trial court denied relief, concluding that the series of papers introduced by the Plaintiff as a purported real estate contract between the parties did not constitute a valid contract. Furthermore, the trial court concluded that specific performance was inappropriate because the court could not discern the terms of the purported contract. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Elmore v. Travis Mills Et Al.
Lonnie Elmore (“Decedent”) died on July 5, 2020, a few weeks after being treated by Travis Mills, CRNA, (“Mills”) an employee of Lakeway Regional Anesthesia Services, PLLC (“Lakeway”) (collectively “Defendants”) and Angelo J. Sorce, M.D., (“Sorce”), an employee of Tennessee Valley Orthopaedics, LLC (“TVO”).1 On July 2, 2021, Robert Elmore, as Executor of the Estate of Lonnie Elmore, (“Plaintiff”) sent pre-suit notice to Defendants. Relying on the 120-day extension provided for by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 26-121(c), Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging wrongful death on November 1, 2021, in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), claiming that the accrual of Plaintiff’s cause of action arose no later than June 21, 2020, and Plaintiff, accordingly, provided pre-suit notice past the one-year statute of limitations, rendering his complaint untimely. The Trial Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, followed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Lakeway Real Estate2, LLC v. ERA Franchise Systems, LLC
This appeal arises out of a contract dispute between Lakeway Real Estate2, LLC f/k/a Lakeway Real Estate, LLC (“Lakeway”), and ERA Franchise Systems, LLC f/k/a ERA Franchise Systems, Inc. (“ERA”). Lakeway filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Jefferson County (the “trial court”) seeking declaratory relief and a ruling that a noncompete provision within a Franchise Agreement (the “Agreement”) is unenforceable as a matter of law. ERA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the Venue and Jurisdiction clause (the “Clause”) of the Agreement makes the trial court an improper venue. The trial court granted ERA’s motion to dismiss. Because the Clause, when read in context with no disproportionate emphasis on one portion, provides permissive, but not mandatory, jurisdiction and venue in New Jersey, we reverse. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Rachel Cayson v. Patrick Cayson
In this divorce, the husband claims the trial court erred in its classification of certain separate property and valuation of certain marital property. The trial court found that the equity held in the marital home attributable to the sale of property owned by the wife prior to the marriage had been transmuted into marital property, but then treated that property as separate despite its initial finding due to what it believed the wife’s intent would have been under an alternative set of circumstances. The husband argues this was improper. The trial court also valued certain marital property, including the home and Wife’s 401(k) retirement account, as of several years prior to the divorce proceedings. The trial court reasoned that the divorce proceedings had been delayed by the husband’s criminal proceedings and subsequent incarceration arising from his theft of funds from the wife during the marriage. Husband filed this appeal. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Dickerson v. United Medical Transportation, LLC, et al.
After suffering an injury, patient alleged that in-patient facility was negligent in failing to inform medical transportation company of his physical limitations prior to his discharge from the facility. In response to the facility’s summary judgment motion, patient relied on the testimony of an “expert in passenger ground transportation.” The trial court found that issues of fact remained as to patient’s ambulation needs, but granted summary judgment as to standard of care and breach because patient’s expert was not competent to testify under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, and the common knowledge exception did not apply. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Gersper v. Jonathan Turner
This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101 to -110, challenging the denial of the petition to dismiss all three claims asserted by the plaintiff. After the defendant filed his TPPA petition, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed two of his three claims, leaving only his claim for malicious prosecution. While the TPPA petitioner sought to adjudicate all three claims under the TPPA, the trial court ruled that the only remaining issue was whether the plaintiff “has properly plead a claim for malicious prosecution and whether this action should be dismissed pursuant to TPPA.” Following a hearing limited to the malicious prosecution claim, the trial court denied the petition to dismiss without setting forth the reasons for its decision. On appeal, the TPPA petitioner contends he was wrongfully deprived of a decision on his petition concerning the two claims the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed. He also contends the trial court erred in denying his TPPA petition to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim. Relying on the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling in Flade v. City of Shelbyville, ––– S.W.3d ––––, No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV, 2024 WL 4448736, at *5 (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2024), we affirm the trial court’s determination that the TPPA petitioner was not entitled to a decision on the two voluntarily dismissed claims. As for the trial court’s denial of the petition to dismiss the remaining claim, malicious prosecution, we have determined that the TPPA petitioner established that the TPPA applies to the claim presented, which shifted to the plaintiff the burden to establish “a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105. We have also determined that the plaintiff failed to establish an essential element of his malicious prosecution claim, that the proceeding brought against him by the defendant “terminated in the plaintiff’s favor.” See Mynatt v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, Chapter 39, 669 S.W.3d 741, 746 (Tenn. 2023). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision to not adjudicate the first two claims after they were voluntarily dismissed but reverse the trial court’s decision denying the TPPA petition to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim and remand with instructions to dismiss that claim. Further, the TPPA states that, “[i]f the court dismisses a legal action pursuant to a petition filed under this chapter, the court shall award to the petitioning party . . . [c]ourt costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, discretionary costs, and other expenses incurred in filing and prevailing upon the petition.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-107(a), (a)(1). Accordingly, we remand with instructions for the trial court to make the appropriate award as it pertains to the costs and fees incurred in the trial court and on appeal that pertain to the TPPA petitioner’s efforts to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
