In Re A'Jayi A.
Two relatives filed competing petitions to adopt a minor child after his mother’s death. The child’s father was unknown. The trial court conducted a comparative fitness analysis and found that it was in the best interest of the child to be adopted by the child’s maternal grandfather. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Patrick Stockdale et al. v. Kim Helper
The plaintiffs, who are former employees of a municipal police department, were discharged after the District Attorney General sent an email to the city manager stating that the plaintiffs’ testimony at hearings may be impeached without independent corroboration, thus allegedly “creating challenges for the State in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” The plaintiffs thereafter brought suit against the District Attorney General and specifically asserted claims for official oppression under a negligence per se theory and for tortious interference with a business relationship and prospective business relationships. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. The plaintiffs appealed, and during the pendency of the appeal, the District Attorney General died. The personal representative of her estate, who was substituted as the appellee in the wake of her death, has argued that this case abated upon her death because the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is “for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference abated upon the District Attorney General’s death. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiffs’ separate pursuit of recovery under a negligence per se theory did not abate, we nonetheless affirm the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ negligence per se theory due to their failure to raise an effective challenge to the dismissal of the theory in their appellate briefing. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Royalty Y.
In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court found that four statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Having determined that the trial court erred by failing to make findings concerning the mother’s affirmative defense of lack of willfulness relative to the statutory grounds of abandonment through failure to visit and support the child, we reverse the trial court’s reliance on those grounds. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Allison S.
This appeal concerns a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her young daughter. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination existed as to Mother: (1) persistent conditions; (2) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We reverse the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence established the ground of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan. However, we affirm its findings that the remaining grounds were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Shelby County v. Delinquent Taxpayers 2018 (Blight Authority of Memphis)
In this appeal, the trial court granted a motion to rescind a tax sale with respect to a particular parcel. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to enter an order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the basis for its decision. To the extent that a constitutional challenge is raised, the trial court should also determine on remand whether notice must be provided to the Tennessee Attorney General pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.04. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kurt M. Chambliss Et Al. v. Terry L. Rutledge Et Al.
The parties are all of the owners of four neighboring lots in a small, exclusive residential development. Each lot is subject to restrictive covenants. Kurt M. Chambless and Jill S. Chambless originally filed suit against Terry L. Rutledge and Cynthia L. Rutledge, averring that the Rutledges were violating the restrictive covenants. While the Chamblesses’ suit was pending, all of the lot owners (other than the Chamblesses) voted to amend the restrictive covenants. The Chamblesses amended their suit to seek a declaratory judgment invalidating the amended covenants and seeking a refund of certain monies they paid to Mr. Rutledge for the benefit of the homeowners’ association.1Each of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Chamblesses’ declaratory judgment claim due to their failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, in part, and ruled that the amended covenants were valid and enforceable. The Chamblesses timely appealed to this Court. Upon careful review, we find that the trial court erred in granting the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim after determining that the amended covenants are valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of those parts of the Amended Complaint challenging the validity of the amended covenants, and we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order declaring that the amended covenants are valid and enforceable. Further, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim against the Maxwells and the Dotys arising out of Mr.Rutledge’s use of association funds but decline to award the Maxwells and the Dotys their attorneys’ fees on appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State ex rel. Laronda Johnson v. Jacob C. Morton
Mother seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motions to recuse both the trial judge and the child support magistrate. After a de novo review, we affirm the denial of the motion to recuse the trial judge. We transfer the appeal of the denial of the motion to recuse the child support magistrate to the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Timberlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Timberlake Development, LLC Et Al.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ruth Mitchell v. City of Franklin, Tennessee
This is the second appeal in this personal injury matter involving the plaintiff’s injury from an uneven sidewalk owned by the defendant city. In the first appeal, this Court remanded for the trial court to consider expert testimony that had been erroneously excluded by the trial court. On remand, the trial court heard expert testimony on the issue of the city’s maintenance and inspection of its sidewalks. Because the evidence on remand did not include any new evidence regarding the length of time that the sidewalk defect had existed, we have concluded that the issues raised by the plaintiff in this appeal are pretermitted by the law of the case doctrine. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra Easley v. City of Memphis
This is an appeal of a Governmental Tort Liability Act case and concerns a judgment received by the plaintiff, who stepped off of a curb in the middle of the block, not at the crosswalk, and was struck by a city-owned vehicle while attempting to cross between two stopped vehicles when the light changed. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we reverse the trial court’s judgment that the city defendant is liable for the negligent hiring and retention of its employee because the record fails to show that evidence was introduced at trial in support of this claim. Moreover, we reverse the trial court’s allocation of fault, concluding that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that the plaintiff is at least 50% at fault. Because the plaintiff is accordingly barred from obtaining a recovery, we dismiss the case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Werner Reichenberger v. Deniece Thomas, Commissioner, et al.
In this appeal, the petitioner sought judicial review of a decision made by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development denying his application for unemployment compensation benefits. The chancery court reversed the Department’s decision, concluding that it was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. The Department appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Dominion Real Estate, LLC v. The Wise Group, Inc. et al.
Appellee Dominion Real Estate, LLC (“Dominion”) filed a malicious prosecution action against the Wise Group, Inc. (the “Wise Group”), the Lux Development Group, LLC (the “Lux Group”) (together with the Wise Group, “Wise and Lux”), and Alan Wise (together with Wise and Lux, “the Wise Defendants” or “Appellants”). The trial court dismissed Dominion’s case, and Dominion appealed. 1 In their brief, the Wise Defendants asked this Court to award frivolous appeal damages. Dominion subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal. Although this Court granted the motion to dismiss, it reserved the issue of frivolous appeal damages, which is the sole issue addressed herein. Because Dominion’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success, it was frivolous, and the Wise Defendants are entitled to damages. Accordingly, we grant the Wise Defendants’ motion and remand the case for calculation of the Wise Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this appeal and for entry of judgment on same. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Heritage Construction Group, LLC v. Karen Vest
A homebuilder sought to modify, correct, or vacate an arbitration award. It claimed the arbitrator exceeded his powers in failing to award attorney’s fees and penalties under its contract with the homeowner. The chancery court denied the requested relief and awarded the homeowner attorney’s fees for defending against the homebuilder’s motion. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer A. Seiber v. David S. Seiber
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. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Marcie Elizabeth Rasnick v. Jason Dean Rasnick
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. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Nehad S. Abdelnabi v. Steven Wayne Sword, Judge
The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss on the ground of judicial immunity. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Green v. Cynthia Panter, et al.
This is a partition in kind action. The three owners of 68 acres entered into a joint stipulation appointing three commissioners to partition the property into three separate parcels. Thereafter, the commissioners filed a written report with a survey that allocated 32.4 acres to the plaintiff Jerry Green, 17.8 acres to the defendant Robert Hale, and 18.1 acres to the defendant Cynthia Panter. After the defendants filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report, the parties agreed to have one of the commissioners testify to state the commissioners’ factual findings and reasoning. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Commissioner Bill Haisten testified in open court, explaining, in part, that more acreage was partitioned to the plaintiff because much of the parcel allocated to him is hilly and rocky and another large portion of the plaintiff’s parcel is encumbered by a TVA power line easement. Commissioner Haisten also testified that while the three partitioned parcels are not equal in area, they are equal in fair market value. Based upon these additional facts, the trial court concluded that the partitioning of the property by the commissioners should be confirmed. The defendants appeal, contending, inter alia, that without sufficient proof of either the value of the property partitioned or of the evaluations from which the commissioners derived their partition division, the trial court erred in confirming the commissioners’ report. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Brian Coblentz et al. v. Tractor Supply Company
A sales representative for a product vendor was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The sales representative received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, a hardware product company, and then proceeded with a tort case against Tractor Supply. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Tractor Supply was the sales representative’s statutory employer within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 113(a) and, therefore, his recovery from his employer was his exclusive remedy. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Brian Coblentz et al. v. Tractor Supply Company (Dissenting)
A sales representative for a product vendor was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The sales representative received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, a hardware product company, and then proceeded with a tort case against Tractor Supply. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Tractor Supply was the sales representative’s statutory employer within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 113(a) and, therefore, his recovery from his employer was his exclusive remedy. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Eric O. Carter v. Howard Gentry, et al.
This appeal concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Eric O. Carter (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) against Howard Gentry (“Gentry”), Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk, 1 and Frank Strada (“Strada”), Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), asking that the criminal judgment entered against him be expunged because it was not properly endorsed under the applicable rules and statutes. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appeals, arguing that he only wants a ministerial act performed and is not challenging his sentence. We find that Petitioner is in fact challenging his sentence, and the Trial Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear that challenge. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert William Del Vicario v. Pamela Joy Miller
In a divorce action, the wife moved for recusal of the trial judge. The motion was denied and the wife appealed pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. Because the wife waited too long to file her motion, we affirm the denial of the motion to recuse. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Shelby County, Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers 2021
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for recusal of the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David Carroll v. Todd Foster
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, filed jointly by David Carroll (“Plaintiff”) and Todd Foster (“Defendant”) (“Petitioners,” collectively), seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioners, and finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anthony T. Grose, Sr., et al. v. Charles Stone
This is a wrongful death action that was filed pro se by two sons of the decedent, in their capacity as co-administrators of the estate of the decedent, on behalf of the decedent’s six children. The trial court found that the action was filed by persons not authorized to practice law on behalf of the estate and/or others, and therefore, it was void ab initio and a nullity. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The two pro se sons appeal. We conclude that the complaint was void to the extent that the pro se sons asserted claims on behalf of other heirs of the decedent, as they were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. However, the complaint was partially proper to the extent that the two pro se sons were also asserting their own right of action under the wrongful death statute. Consequently, the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint in its entirety. However, on remand, the additional heirs will be given an opportunity to file a motion to intervene. In the event they do not, the trial court is directed to consider Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 19.01 and 19.02 in order to determine whether the other heirs are indispensable parties and to consider issues related to such a determination. Thus, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Neveah W.
In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court found that eight statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed.1 Having determined that the petitioner did not prove the statutory ground of abandonment through failure to visit the child prior to the mother’s incarceration by clear and convincing evidence, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to that ground. Additionally, because the trial court made insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning a separate statutory ground it termed, “abandonment by an incarcerated parent/wanton disregard,” we reverse the trial court’s determination as to that ground as well. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
