Pamela Moses v. Terry Roland, et al.
A former county commissioner appeals the trial court’s decision finding him liable for defamatory statements made about a private individual during a county legislative meeting. Following a thorough review of the record, we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ralph Hall, et al. v. Jimmy D. Tabb, et al.
Appellants, purchasers of a residential property, filed an action against Appellees, sellers and owners of the residential construction company that built the subject property, for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) and intentional misrepresentation for failure to disclose water damage and substandard repairs to the property. Appellants also sued a termite inspection company for negligently failing to disclose termite damage to the property. Appellants settled with the termite company for $45,000.00 but proceeded to trial against Appellees. Although the trial court found that Appellees intentionally misrepresented the condition of the property to Appellants, it found that Appellants were not “consumers” under the TCPA, and that the Act did not apply to this real estate transaction. The trial court awarded Appellants a $43,811.00 judgment against Appellees, for intentionally failing to disclose the water damage to the property, but found that Appellants had been fully compensated for their loss from the settlement with the termite company. As such, Appellants were not entitled to further compensatory damages from Appellees. We conclude the trial court erred in finding that Appellants were not consumers under the Act and that the TCPA was not applicable to this real estate transaction. We remand for a determination of whether Appellees violated the Act, and, if so, whether Appellants are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and treble damages. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis Thomas v. Rhonda L. Gallman
A woman against whom the trial court granted an order of protection appeals the order of protection. The trial court granted the order based upon its finding that the woman, a former girlfriend of the petitioner, threatened the petitioner and his wife in a series of videos. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Kevin Upchurch v. Sullivan County Department Of Education
A vocational teacher sued his former employer, a county department of education, alleging that the department’s intentional failure to remediate mold contamination at the high school where he taught caused him to suffer long-term detrimental health effects and emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the teacher’s claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), finding that the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-101 et seq., provided the exclusive remedy for the acts alleged in the complaint and that the allegations therein failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the statutory framework. Upon our review of the pleadings, we affirm the trial court’s judgment |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Hayden F.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her children on the grounds of (1) abandonment by willful failure to visit, (2) abandonment by willful failure to support, and (3) persistence of conditions. The trial court also found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Although we reverse one of the termination grounds, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports a finding of abandonment by willful failure to support and a finding of persistence of conditions. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the termination of the mother’s rights is in the best interest of the children. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Sylvia H.
A father challenges the trial court’s decision terminating his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. He further asserts that the trial court erred in finding that termination of his rights is in the child’s best interest. After reviewing the record on appeal, we have concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s decision in all respects. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Dwight Morisch v. Ryann Maenner, et al.
A grandfather filed a petition to obtain visitation with his grandchild. The trial court granted the petitioner relief, and the child’s mother appeals. The grandfather did not allege, and the proof did not establish, that the mother had opposed or severely reduced the grandfather’s visitation before the petition was filed. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Dwight Morisch v. Ryann Maenner, et al. - Dissent
Respectfully, I must dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s order granting visitation to the grandfather in this case. At the outset, I emphasize that the scope of this appeal is very narrow. On appeal, Mother raised only the issues of whether she had opposed visitation and whether Grandfather had proven that severance of the relationship with the child would occasion substantial harm to the child. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Ricky L. Boren, et al. v. Hill Boren, PC, et al.
This appeal involves several raised issues surrounding the ownership of the Hill Boren, PC law firm. Because the record transmitted to us on appeal evidences the lack of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Arthur Woods v. Adam Arthur, M.D., et al.
This appeal concerns the dismissal of a health care liability action for failure to comply with a pre-suit notice content requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-29-121(a)(2). The trial court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant doctors and hospital with medical authorization forms that would permit pre-suit investigation of his claims. The plaintiff contends the dismissal was unwarranted because the medical authorizations substantially complied with the statute and the defendants already had the relevant records. The defendants argue that the forms were invalid because they lacked several required elements, including a description of the purpose for which the records could be disclosed and used. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Jee Yun Kim, Et Al.
After being injured in a car accident, a man filed a negligence lawsuit against several defendants, including the driver of the vehicle and the company that employed the driver. The insurance company that provided insurance coverage to the company in Alabama filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of whether the policy provided liability coverage for the company in the underlying tort action. After the insurance company and the plaintiff in the underlying tort action filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company based on respondeat superior principles. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurance company because, under Alabama law, the policy provided liability coverage for the company at the time the accident occurred. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
At-Last, Inc. d/b/a Blackwatch Investigation and Mitigation v. Terry Glen Buckley, et al.
This case involves a company’s claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses for the alleged breach of a non-compete agreement by its former employee. After a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court determined that the former employee breached the agreement and granted the company a temporary injunction. The court did not consolidate the hearing on the merits under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04(7). Later, the claims were voluntarily dismissed, and the trial court awarded the company attorneys’ fees and expenses under the “Remedies” section of the parties’ agreement. The former employee appealed the trial court’s decision to grant the company attorneys’ fees and expenses. We reverse the trial court’s award and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Azhianne G.
The trial court found that the minor child, Azhianne G. (“the Child”), was dependent and neglected in his mother’s care. The trial court also determined that the Child had been severely abused based upon his disclosures of sexual abuse perpetrated by his mother. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of L. Frank Southerland v. Joshua Soller, Et Al.
The notice of appeal filed by the appellant, Joshua Soller, stated that Mr. Soller was appealing the trial court’s order entered on November 12, 2020. Because the order from which Mr. Soller has appealed is not a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
John Raymond Kautz v. Doris Diane Kautz Berberich
This appeal concerns a divorce. John Raymond Kautz (“Husband”) sued Doris Diane Kautz Berberich (“Wife”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Polk County (“the Trial Court”). The parties entered into a marital dissolution agreement (“the MDA”), which the Trial Court approved in its final decree of divorce. Some years later, Wife filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 seeking relief from the judgment on grounds that Husband failed to disclose certain assets. The Trial Court granted Wife’s motion. However, after a subsequent hearing, the Trial Court found that while Husband later hinted to Wife he had more assets than he disclosed, he actually had not concealed any valuable assets not already known to Wife. The Trial Court reinstated the MDA with certain amendments. Wife appeals. We decline to re-evaluate the Trial Court’s implicit credibility determinations, and the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that Wife was aware of the valuable marital assets at the time the MDA was executed. We affirm. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Gladys Alene Clifton
This appeal concerns the interpretation of a will. The will divided the testator’s residual estate into as many shares as the testator had children with the further instruction that the share of a deceased child would be divided among that child’s “issue then living.” The will stated, in pertinent part, that “‘issue’ . . . includes a person who has a parent-child relationship . . . with the person through whom this person claims benefits.” When she died, the testator had two surviving children and one deceased daughter. The deceased daughter was predeceased by one of her two sons, and the deceased son was survived by two children—the testator’s great-grandchildren. The petition to admit the will named the two surviving children and the deceased daughter’s living son as the beneficiaries of the estate but excluded the testator’s great-grandchildren, whose father had predeceased the testator. When the testator’s great-grandchildren filed a motion to be included with their uncle as “issue” of the deceased daughter, the estate opposed the motion, arguing that the great-grandchildren were not “issue” of testator’s deceased daughter because the petitioners did not have a “parent-child relationship” with the daughter, who was the petitioners’ grandmother. The trial court agreed and held that the only issue of the deceased daughter who could inherit was her living son—the great-grandchildren’s uncle. We respectfully disagree. The will’s plain language “includes” persons with a “parent-child relationship” to “the person through whom [the] person claims benefits,” but does not exclude those who do not. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan King, Et Al. v. Dean Chase
Appellants, partners in a partnership that was the sole member of an LLC, filed suit against the manager of the partnership for alleged breach of fiduciary duties related to the sale of commercial real estate on behalf of the LLC. The manager and his business (a partner in the partnership, and together with manager, Appellees) filed counterclaims against Appellants, alleging breach of contractual and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed Appellants’ lawsuit on grant of summary judgment, and we affirm that decision. Appellees’ remaining claim for misrepresentation by concealment against Appellants was tried to a jury, which returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Appellees. Prior to the jury trial, the Business Court found, as a matter of law, that Appellees were entitled to indemnification by the LLC, and we affirm that decision. Because Appellants’ tort of misrepresentation by concealment resulted in a premature distribution of the sale proceeds by the LLC, the LLC was unable to fully indemnify Appellees. As such, the Business Court entered judgment against Appellants for attorney’s fees and expenses as compensatory damages. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Outpost Solar, LLC Et Al. v. Henry, Henry & Underwood, P. C. et al.
A limited liability company sued its former attorney and his law firm for legal malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because the LLC’s cause of action accrued more than one year before suit was filed, we affirm. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Leilynn S.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights. Following a trial, the Chancery Court for Warren County (the “Trial Court”) entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights to the child based on the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to support and upon its finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Carla Brown v. Jeremy Brittenum
The defendant appeals from an order granting the plaintiff possession of real property and back rent. Because the order does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Vernon Mott v. K. Jeffrey Luethke, Esq., Et Al.
Following an automobile accident that occurred on March 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a cause of action, in the form of a civil summons, in the Washington County General Sessions Court (“general sessions court”) on March 3, 2017, seeking an award of damages from the defendant, who was the other driver involved in the car accident. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, however, the defendant had passed away in December 2016. On January 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a “re-issue[d]” summons to be served upon the administrator ad litem of the decedent’s estate. After the matter was subsequently transferred to Washington County Circuit Court (“trial court”), the trial court granted the administrator’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff had failed to timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court consequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Abigail J.J.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights by default judgment. The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish four statutory grounds of termination and that termination was in the best interest of the child. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Metrpolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Kallie Kay Dreher
This case began in the environmental court division of the general sessions court for Davidson County. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) alleged that the defendant had violated a section of the Metro Code by operating a short term rental property with the wrong type of permit. The matter was originally heard by a referee, who found that the defendant violated the Metro Code as alleged, fined the defendant fifty dollars, and declared that the property was ineligible for a short term rental permit for three years. The defendant timely requested a rehearing before the general sessions court judge. Upon rehearing, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant and dismissed the case. Metro then sought a de novo appeal before the circuit court. The circuit court concluded that the appeal must be dismissed because the general sessions court had dismissed the charge after a trial on the merits, and therefore, a trial de novo would violate principles of double jeopardy. Metro appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pryority Partnership v. AMT Properties, LLC, Et Al.
In this action involving a commercial lease, the trial court granted judgment in favor of the lessee, determining that the lessor had materially breached the lease. The court further determined that the lessor was liable for negligent misrepresentation, due to its misrepresentations concerning the condition of the roof on the leased building and its intent to repair the roof, and constructive eviction, due to its failure to timely repair the building and render it tenantable. The court awarded compensatory damages to the lessee in the amount of $193,006.35 as well as attorney’s fees in the amount of $69,002.68. The lessor has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In re Isabella S., et al.
This appeal concerns a disposition in a dependency and neglect case. Leslie S. (“Mother”) is the mother of the subject minor children Isabella S., Macie S., and Gabriel S. (“the Children,” collectively). The Children’s maternal grandparents Sheila W. and Richard W. (“Grandparents”) filed a petition for dependency and neglect in the Juvenile Court for Williamson County (“the Juvenile Court”). The Juvenile Court adjudicated the Children dependent and neglected. In the disposition phase, the Juvenile Court awarded Grandparents permanent guardianship of the Children, with Mother to exercise only supervised visitation. Mother appealed to the Circuit Court for Williamson County (“the Circuit Court”), which reached the same result. Mother now appeals to this Court, arguing that the Children should be returned to her custody or, alternatively, that her visits be unsupervised. The Circuit Court found, among other things, that Mother’s fiancé Allen M. (“Fiancé”) had engaged in sexually predatory behavior, and that Mother was in denial about the threat Fiancé posed to the Children. The evidence does not preponderate against that or the Circuit Court’s other factual findings. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
