Dexter Lee Williams v. Tennessee Department Of Correction, Et Al.
Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for common law writ of certiorari. Appellant raises several issues regarding violations of the Tennessee Department of Correction’s uniform disciplinary procedures. The inmate was found guilty of refusal/attempt to alter a drug test. After exhausting his administrative appeals, he filed an application for a writ of certiorari in the trial court. The trial court granted the writ of certiorari, and on review of the record, dismissed Appellant’s petition. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Dustin W. Brown v. Sarah Farley
In this child custody action, the trial court awarded custody of the minor child to the child’s father despite the fact that the child had resided with and/or been in the legal custody of the respondent maternal grandmother for a significant period of time. The maternal grandmother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Dale J. Montpelier v. Herbert S. Moncier et al.
Defendant/Appellant filed a motion for attorney fees in the Knox County Circuit Court after Plaintiffs/Appellees’ claims against the defendant were dismissed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). The trial court denied Defendant’s request, concluding that one of the plaintiffs’ claims was an issue of first impression and as such, the plaintiffs were exempt from having attorney’s fees assessed against them. Defendant appeals. Because we conclude that the trial court’s application of the attorney fees statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119, was in error, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Branch Banking And Trust Company v. Wayne R. Hill Et Al.
In this action for a deficiency judgment following the foreclosure sale of six tracts of real property, some of which were improved by resort cabins, the trial court granted the plaintiff bank’s motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant real estate developers and their limited liability company, for which the developers were guarantors, finding that the developers were liable for deficiency balances owed on promissory notes and guaranty agreements, as well as accrued interest, bank charges, late fees, and attorney’s fees. Following a bench trial concerning the amounts owed, the trial court awarded money judgments to the bank in the amounts, respectively, of $1,180,223.77 against the developers as individuals and $144,848.30 against the developers’ limited liability company. Finding, inter alia, that the developers had failed to properly plead the defense of inadequate foreclosure sales prices, the trial court sustained the bank’s objections to the developers’ requests to cross-examine the bank’s witnesses and introduce additional evidence regarding the adequacy of the foreclosure sales prices and foreclosure process. The trial court subsequently denied the developers’ motion to vacate the order granting the money judgments. The developers have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Jon Eckley v. Margit Eckley
In this appeal arising from a divorce, the trial court adopted a permanent parenting plan for the parties’ two minor children that named the father the primary residential parent for one child and the mother the primary residential parent for the other. The court also awarded Mother alimony in futuro after finding her to be relatively economically disadvantaged and that rehabilitation was not feasible. On appeal, the father challenges both the permanent parenting plan and the alimony award. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Miller v. Collin Miller, et al.
This case involves the interpretation of a buy-sell provision in a partnership agreement. The trial court concluded that the buy-sell provision was properly triggered by the Appellee and ordered that $125,000.00 be paid to the Appellee, representing the value of Appellee’s interest in the partnership. The trial court also awarded the Appellee attorney’s fees and held that other claims which had been pursued by the parties were moot. Having reviewed the terms of the buy-sell provision, we conclude that the provision was never properly triggered and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court to the extent that it purported to enforce the parties’ agreement. Because various other claims were dismissed as moot in light of the trial court’s specific enforcement of the buy-sell provision that dismissal is hereby vacated, and those additional claims are remanded for further consideration and proceedings in the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Heun Kim, et al. v. State of Tennessee
Plaintiffs/Appellants brought a negligence suit against the State of Tennessee after their six-year old son fell from the fifth floor balcony of the state owned and operated Paris Landing State Park Inn. The Plaintiffs alleged that the State was negligent in two respects: 1) in allowing their son to gain access to an unoccupied guest room and the attached balcony, and 2) in maintaining balcony railings that were shorter in height than was required by applicable building codes. Following a bench trial, the Tennessee Claims Commissioner concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the State’s negligence was the proximate cause of their son’s injuries. Because we have determined that the Commissioner’s conclusions of law are deficient and only address one of the Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, we vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Julian J. Et Al.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The juvenile court found four statutory grounds for termination of mother’s parental rights and two statutory grounds for termination of father’s parental rights. The court also found that termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support one ground for termination against Mother and two grounds for termination against Father. We further conclude that termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interest. So we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Keshawn J., et al.
In this dependent and neglect proceeding, the maternal grandparents of four children appeal an order entered in the Shelby County Juvenile Court dismissing a petition in which they sought visitation with the children pursuant to the grandparent visitation statute at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. For the reasons set forth hereinafter we affirm the juvenile court’s dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Maddox G.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support and abandonment by willful failure to visit. With respect to the former ground, we reverse, finding insufficient evidence to support a finding that Father had the ability to pay child support. However, we affirm the latter ground, finding ample evidence that father had failed to exercise his visitation rights for over two years prior to the filing of the termination petition. We further find that termination of father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffery Smith, et al. v. Methodist Hospitals of Memphis, et al.
This appeal stems from a healthcare liability action filed nearly two decades ago. The defendant hospital filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that neither of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses was competent to testify and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not establish their claim. After the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment along with a new affidavit of one of the previous experts, which purported to establish the expert’s competency to testify. The trial court, however, denied the motion to alter or amend, and the plaintiffs specifically appealed the trial court’s order denying their motion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Audra Snapp Olinger v. Travis Jackson Olinger
In this divorce case, the trial court decreed that husband, Travis Jackson Olinger, would be liable for the attorney’s fees and expenses of, his spouse, Audra Snapp Olinger. The court treated the assessing of fees to husband as alimony in solido to wife. A portion of those fees were to be satisfied by transfering to wife husband’s interest in the parties’ equity in the martial residence. The remainder is to be paid over time with a monthly payment of $370 until husband’s obligation is paid in full. The sole issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it assessed the subject fees to husband. He appeals. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Audra Snapp Olinger v. Travis Jackson Olinger - Concurring and Dissenting
D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., concurring and dissenting. I concur with the majority in its affirmance of that portion of the Trial Court’s award to Wife which can be classified distinctly as discretionary costs pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04.1 Wife was granted a divorce based upon Husband’s stipulated adultery and inappropriate marital conduct. To that extent, Wife prevailed, and I agree with the majority that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in granting her an award of discretionary costs in the amount of $2,270. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Sammie L. Brookins, et al. v. Saint Francis Hospital Foundation, et al.
After husband’s health care liability complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, husband and wife re-filed in reliance on the savings statute. The intended defendant, who had neither been served nor named in connection with the first complaint, was eventually named in an amended complaint after the second complaint had been filed. The trial court later dismissed the action against the intended defendant, holding, among other things, that the case was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marilyn Lynn James v. City of Dyersburg
This appeal arises from injuries the plaintiff sustained from a fall while descending the exterior sidewalk steps of property owned and managed by the City of Dyersburg. The plaintiff contends she fell because, inter alia, the city was negligent in the design and maintenance of the stairway and in failing to correct the defect in the steps. Following a bench trial, the court found the proof failed to establish that there was a dangerous or defective condition that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall, and if there was a defective condition, the City of Dyersburg had no prior notice. The trial court also found that if there was a defective condition, the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault which bars any recovery. For these and other reasons, the trial court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. Having determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, and discerning no error with its conclusions of law, we affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Bruce A. Smiley v. State of Tennessee, Et Al.
This appeal arises from a Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by an incarcerated sex offender in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner challenged what he claimed to be the illegal, arbitrary, and capricious application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-235, the Sex Offender Treatment Program (the “SOTP”), contending he is eligible for a parole hearing but will be denied parole because the State of Tennessee has failed to enroll him in the program. This contention is based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-235(b), which expressly states, as to sex offenders, “Successful participation and completion of the treatment program shall be a consideration for parole from a correctional institution.” Respondents moved for summary judgment on several grounds including the undisputed fact that the challenged provision is unenforceable due to a consent decree issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Dean v. McWherter, No. 1-90-0027 (M.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 18, 1994), and the Tennessee Board of Parole does not consider participation in the SOTP, or lack thereof, as a factor in deciding whether to grant parole. Respondents also filed a motion to dismiss the individual respondents as well as the State for failure to state a claim based Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the individual respondents and summarily dismissed all remaining claims. In pertinent part, the court found it was undisputed that by the terms of the consent decree and the affidavit of the Executive Director of the Board of Parole that the Board cannot and does not consider an inmate’s participation in the SOTP in reaching its parole decision. This appeal followed. We affirm in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re L.T.
In this child custody case, father petitioned the court to modify a prior custody order designating mother as the primary residential parent of their child, L.T. Father alleged that there had been a material change in circumstance in that mother refused to adhere to the court’s visitation order on numerous occasions. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–6–101(a)(2)(B) (2018). After a hearing, the court agreed. It held that it was in the best interest of the child to award joint custody to mother and father, with father designated as the primary residential parent. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Glen Renken v. Jennifer Marie Renken
In this post-divorce dispute, the father filed a criminal contempt petition against his exwife for alleged violations of a permanent parenting plan. In response, the mother filed a counter-petition for criminal contempt, modification of custody, and permission to relocate. The trial court denied the mother’s petition to relocate and the father’s petition for criminal contempt. The court determined that there was not a material change sufficient to modify custody but there was material change that met the lower threshold required for modification of the residential parenting schedule. The court adopted the position of the guardian ad litem that equal parenting time would serve the children’s best interest and modified the parenting plan accordingly. The court also found the father in criminal contempt. We conclude that the court erred in adopting the modified residential parenting schedule without conducting a best interest analysis. So we vacate and remand for further proceedings on this issue. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jaxon W.
In this appeal of the juvenile court’s determination of a petition to establish visitation, the father appeals the setting of supervised therapeutic visitation for him. The father argues that the court disregarded evidence that was favorable to him, that the court erred in relying upon testimony of the child’s counselor, and that the court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Mother. Upon our review, we vacate the decision setting the father’s visitation and remand the case for the court to enter a judgment that discusses the factors set forth at Tennessee Code Annotated 36-6-106(a)(1)-(15) and makes appropriate findings relative thereto; we conclude that Father has waived any issue pertaining to the testimony of the child’s counselor, as he failed to object to the testimony at trial; in all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Unitta Sue Newman v. State of Tennessee
A patient in a state psychiatric facility was killed by another patient. The surviving spouse of the deceased patient brought suit against the State and was awarded damages for the wrongful death of her husband. Because the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act applies to the surviving spouse’s claim, and because she failed to comply with the Act’s requirements of pre-suit notice and good faith certification, we must reverse the decision of the Claims Commission. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Michael Morton v. Knox County Sheriff's Department, et al.
The plaintiff brought this action under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-33-215 after a Knox County deputy seized a vehicle in which the plaintiff had a perfected security interest. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security and Knox County both filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them on sovereign immunity grounds. After the motions to dismiss were denied, permission to appeal under Rule 9 was granted. In this interlocutory appeal, we have been asked to determine whether the trial court properly ruled on the sovereign immunity issue. After review, we affirm the trial court’s denials of the motions to dismiss and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ernest Hobbs v. Russell L. Leonard Et Al.
After a defendant in an earlier action settled the claims against him, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the earlier action notified a regulatory agency of the defendant’s alleged conduct at issue in the earlier action. The defendant/current plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against the lawyer, asserting that the lawyer breached the terms of the settlement agreement by filing a complaint against him with the regulatory agency. The lawyer defended the action by claiming that the settlement agreement violated public policy and was unenforceable. The trial court held that the settlement agreement was not contrary to public policy and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The lawyer appealed, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Ernest Hobbs v. Russell L. Leonard Et Al. - Concurring
In our resolution of this appeal, we hold that the General Release, which the parties executed when Case No. 2014-CV-170 settled, was not against public policy. I concur with that conclusion, under the facts presented. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Paetyn M., et al.
Father petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the mother of his child. Father later married and, along with his spouse, joined in an amended petition for termination of parental rights and for adoption. The amended petition alleged mother abandoned the child by failure to visit and failure to support. On the date scheduled for trial, Mother failed to appear, and her attorney was denied a continuance. Following the trial, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother had abandoned her child by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support and a third statutory ground not asserted in the amended petition. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, mother challenges the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Mother also asserts that the court erred in denying her request for a continuance and that the proof was less than clear and convincing as to the grounds for termination and the child’s best interest. We conclude that the record only supports one statutory ground for termination of parental rights, abandonment by willful failure to visit. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Travis Hewitt Et Al. v. Karin McClain
The pro se appellants, Travis Hewitt and Dustin Hewitt, seek to appeal from a final order entered on October 17, 2018. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until December 3, 2018, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The appellants accompanied their Notice of Appeal with a motion asking this Court to accept the latefiled notice as having been timely filed. The appellee, Karin McClain, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal arguing, in part, that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. Because it appears from all the pleadings filed in this case that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and no discretion to waive the filing of a timely Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
