Karen Gaye Thompson Bounds v. Kenneth Newton Bounds
After ten years of marriage, Karen Gaye Thompson Bounds (“Wife”) sued Kenneth Newton Bounds (“Husband”) for divorce. After a trial, the Circuit Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”), inter alia, awarded the parties a divorce, divided the marital property and debts, held that the marital residence was Husband’s separate property, awarded Wife alimony in solido, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees. Husband appeals raising issues regarding the award of alimony and the award of attorney’s fees. We find and hold that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion with regard to the award of alimony or the award of attorney’s fees. We, therefore, affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Ashley Elizabeth Sample v. Robert Shayne Sample
Husband, a member of the United States Army, and Wife divorced. The trial court awarded Wife a portion of Husband’s military retirement pay, including his VA disability pay. Husband took issue with the trial court’s method of calculating Wife’s share of his retirement pay, as well as its determinations as to the residential parenting schedule and child support obligations. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Sophie O., et al.
Elijah O. (“Father”) appeals the October 6, 2017 order of the Circuit Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) terminating his parental rights to his minor children, Sophie O., Micah O., and Samuel O. (collectively “the Children”). We find and hold that clear and convincing evidence was proven of grounds to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Children for abandonment by wanton disregard pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1- 113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); for substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2); for persistent conditions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3); and for failure to manifest an ability to parent pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). We further find and hold that clear and convincing evidence was proven that it was in the Children’s best interests for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. We, therefore, affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights to the Children. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Adedamola Olagoki Oni v. Cassondra Tucker Oni
An adoptive father appeals the dismissal of his petition to have his Georgia-issued order of adoption enforced and his children placed in his custody, rather than in the care of their biological mother with whom they currently reside. The Hamilton County Court, pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, communicated with the Superior Court for Fulton County, Georgia, where a custody petition filed by the biological mother was pending. The Georgia court, given its history with the parties, found that it was a more convenient forum, and the Hamilton County court dismissed Father’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon our review, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Romeo T. Et Al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother/Appellant appeals the termination of her parental rights to two minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to visit; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); (2) substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2); and (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal from Mother’s home, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3). The trial court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. On appeal, Appellee, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, concedes that the persistence of conditions ground is not applicable to Appellant because the record does not contain a final adjudicatory order of dependency and neglect. We agree; accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental right on that ground. The order is otherwise affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Briana H., Et Al.
Mother appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Hayden L.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother/Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by willful failure to visit, willful failure to support, and wanton disregard, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); (2) severe child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4); and (3) incarceration under a sentence of ten years or more imposed when the child was less than eight years old, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6). Mother also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest. On appeal, Appellee does not defend the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support. Because there is insufficient evidence concerning Mother/Appellant’s employment and earning potential, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Mother/Appellant’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support. The order is otherwise affirmed. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Tina Y. Vaughn v. R.S. Lewis & Sons Funeral Home
In the general sessions court, the plaintiff filed a civil warrant against the defendant funeral home for “compensation.” The warrant alleged that the funeral home violated the plaintiff’s right to dispose of her mother’s remains and claimed “libel & defamation of character.” The general sessions court dismissed the suit. After the plaintiff appealed, the circuit court dismissed the claim concerning the disposition of human remains for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the claim of libel and defamation for failure to state the claim with particularity. We vacate the court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Richard E. Mack, et al. v. Comcast Corporation, et al.
An altercation between the residents of a home and alleged Comcast employees occurred when the alleged employees attempted to recover an unreturned modem from the residents after their service had been cancelled. The residents brought suit alleging several claims against multiple Comcast entities. Several of the entities were previously dismissed from the case. The trial court granted summary judgment to the remaining Comcast entity-defendants, having concluded that they had established that the alleged tortfeasors were independent contractors of a separate third party entity, and, as a result, the Comcast entities could not be liable. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for such further proceedings as may be necessary and are consistent with this Opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ella P.
This action involves a termination petition filed by the mother and stepfather against the father of a minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that the statutory grounds alleged, abandonment for failure to visit and to support, were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The petitioners appeal the denial of the petition and the assessment of costs accrued below. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Frederick Jerome Brown, Jr. v. Roxana Isabel Brown
In this divorce case, the trial court designated father, Frederick Jerome Brown, Jr., as the primary residential parent of the parties’ only child. Mother, Roxana Isabel Brown, appeals. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it (1) designated father as the primary residential parent and (2) when it established a parenting plan that was not in the best interest of the child. We reverse the trial court’s designation of father as the primary residential parent and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Shawn R. Bough v. Tennessee Department Of Correction Et Al.
Shawn Bough filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking review of his prison disciplinary conviction. The petition named as respondents the Tennessee Department of Correction and various individuals involved in petitioner’s conviction. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to timely comply with the court’s order to submit a partial payment of the filing fee as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-807 (2014). Petitioner subsequently filed a “motion to reconsider,” which the trial court denied. This appeal follows. We affirm. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Gabriel C.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, who tested positive for illegal drugs at birth. In due course, the child was placed in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services and adjudicated dependent and neglected; Mother was later sentenced to a ten-year prison term. The Department thereafter filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights and, following a trial, Mother’s rights were terminated on the grounds that Mother had been found guilty of severe child abuse of the child’s half-sister in another proceeding and abandonment by incarcerated parent and upon the finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Mother appeals; upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brian G., Et Al.
Father appeals from an order of the juvenile court awarding permanent guardianship following an adjudication of dependency and neglect. Father filed his notice of appeal to this Court twenty-eight days following the trial court’s order. Because Father’s appeal was to circuit court and his notice of appeal was not filed within ten days of the trial court’s order, we dismiss this appeal. |
Stewart, Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Amy Elizabeth Luker v. Terry Eugene Luker
Amy Elizabeth Luker (“Petitioner”), asserting she was raped, obtained an ex parte order of protection against her husband Terry Eugene Luker (“Respondent”) in the Chancery Court for Williamson County (“the Trial Court”). Respondent asked for time to conduct discovery before the hearing on whether to extend the order of protection. The Trial Court permitted Respondent to subpoena certain records but otherwise ruled he had no right to conduct discovery under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. After a hearing, the Trial Court ruled in favor of Petitioner and extended the order of protection. Respondent appeals, arguing principally that the Trial Court erred in blocking discovery and in excluding Respondent’s proposed witnesses. We affirm the Trial Court in its decision regarding the witnesses. However, we hold that the Trial Court erred in determining categorically that Respondent had no right to conduct discovery. We vacate and remand for a new hearing. On remand, the parties shall state specifically what discovery if any they want and the Trial Court is to exercise its discretion in deciding what limited discovery to allow and the time frame. The ex parte order of protection shall remain in effect in the interim. We affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Safronia Rufsholm v. Jerry Rufsholm
This is a divorce action in which the wife appeals the trial court’s classification of property and the type and amount of alimony awarded. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
April Doris Schmidt v. Aaron Errol Ankrom
In this appeal, the marital dissolution agreement at issue stated the parties’ intent to enter into a separate farm lease agreement for up to 7 years, upon completion of which the exwife could sell the property subject to the ex-husband’s right of first refusal. However, the parties never entered into the contemplated farm lease. The ex-wife, desiring to sell the property prior to the passing of 7 years, brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties under the marital dissolution agreement. The trial court held that the ex-wife would be in breach of the agreement if she sold the property prior to 7 years and awarded attorney’s fees to the ex-husband. The ex-wife appeals. We reverse. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Michael Denver Shell
In this probate action, the intestate decedent owned real property at the time of his death that was titled solely in his name. The decedent’s spouse subsequently died within 120 hours of the decedent’s death. The trial court ruled that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 31-3-120 (2015), the spouse’s heirs possessed no claim to or interest in the real property at issue. The spouse’s heirs have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. We decline to award attorney’s fees to the decedent’s estate as damages, determining that this appeal is not frivolous. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. Hamilton County Water And Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee
In this interlocutory appeal, the issue is whether a statutory amendment barring class action lawsuits against the defendant, Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-221-608(e)(4) (Supp. 2017), applies retroactively thereby requiring the denial of the plaintiff’s previously-filed request for class certification under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23. We hold that the statutory language at issue, providing that, “[t]his part shall not authorize or permit any class action lawsuits against any authority,” is unambiguous, and therefore reference to its legislative history is unnecessary and improper. Because this provision is procedural and remedial in nature, not affecting substantive rights of the plaintiff, we affirm the trial court’s judgment that it applies retroactively to bar plaintiff’s class certification request. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Haiser Et Al. v. Michael McClung Et Al.
This case involves two consolidated actions brought by opposing boards of directors of a residential development community club, with each board claiming legitimacy. The plaintiffs to the original action were owners of real property in the development who held a special meeting in September 2011 in order to elect a new board of directors for the community club. The previous board of directors and defendants to the original action contested the validity of the election, claiming that none of the counted votes were cast by members in good standing. The defendants subsequently met in November 2011 and again in March 2012 to ratify their positions on the community club board of directors. In December 2011, the “new” board of directors, purportedly elected in September 2011, filed a declaratory judgment action against the original board of directors in the Cumberland County Chancery Court, requesting that the court declare which board of directors was legally in control. The complaint also requested that the court declare whether the purported developer properly possessed developer’s rights and that the court award damages to the new board for breach of fiduciary duties by the original board. In April 2012, the original board filed a separate declaratory judgment action against the new board in the Cumberland County Chancery Court, making similar allegations and requesting a declaratory judgment, an injunction preventing the new board from acting on behalf of the community club, and damages for conversion. The trial court consolidated the two actions in July 2012 and conducted a bench trial on the matter over the course of seven non-consecutive days in 2015 and 2016. At the conclusion of trial, the court determined that the new board was prevented from challenging the developer’s status due to a statute of limitations. The trial court further determined that neither board was legitimately in control and appointed a special master to conduct an accounting of dues and a supervised election. The trial court also directed each side to pay its own attorney’s fees, ordering the boards to repay to the community club any funds used to pay attorney’s fees. The original board was re-elected during the supervised election, and the special master determined that both sides had paid attorney’s fees from their respective annual assessments collected. The trial court conducted a hearing on the parties’ objections to 08/29/2018 2 the special master’s report before adopting the master’s findings in total. The trial court thereby affirmed the original directors as current directors; ordered those directors to repay $54,157.41 to the community club funds; and ordered the plaintiffs to repay $143,513.55 to the community club funds. The plaintiffs have appealed. Determining that the trial court improperly relied upon a statute of limitations that is inapplicable to the plaintiffs’ action, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We further reverse the trial court’s alternative rulings for lack of evidentiary basis. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Rufus S. Johnson, III v. Elaina Irene Johnson
In this divorce case, the trial court denied wife’s request for a continuance of the trial and then, during the trial, excluded an exhibit proffered by wife. Wife contends that the trial court erred in both respects. Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either decision, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Vallaree Goodwin v. Kebede G. Hanebis
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict. The case arises from a motor vehicle accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee, and the trial court entered a final judgment for $68,995.02. Because the trial court erred in excluding relevant medical records, we reverse the judgment and remand for a new jury trial. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Johnny Stephen Francis v. Janet Kimberley Hughes Et Al.
The trial court determined that the defendant, Janet Kimberly Hughes, breached her fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, Johnny Stephen Francis, by utilizing a power of attorney to withdraw funds from Mr. Francis’s bank account for Ms. Hughes’s sole benefit. The trial court ordered Ms. Hughes to repay those funds. Ms. Hughes timely appealed. Because Ms. Hughes has failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we dismiss this appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Nicole Joseph v. William Edge SalonSpa, LLC
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered on April 24, 2018. Because the appellant did not file either her motion to alter or amend or her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the judgment as required by Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Charles T.
This appeal arises from the juvenile court’s ruling terminating the father’s parental rights to his son on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, failure to support, and wanton disregard; substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume responsibility. The court further determined that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The father appeals. We affirm as modified. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals |
