Lisa L. Collins v. Sean R. Harrison
This is a modification of child support case. Mother appeals the trial court’s: (1) discovery rulings regarding Father’s inheritance, banking, and trading accounts; (2) findings with respect to Father’s income; (3) denial of an upward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines; and (4) assignment of the Guardian ad Litem costs to Mother. We reverse the trial court’s order denying Mother’s discovery requests and the assignment of the Guardian ad Litem costs to Mother. We vacate the order establishing Father’s child support obligation and denying Mother’s request for an upward deviation. All other issues are pretermitted, and we remand the case for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Isaiah F.
Foster parents appeal the dismissal of their petition to terminate a father’s parental rights and to adopt. The petitioners sought to terminate the father’s rights on two grounds: failure to file a timely petition to establish paternity and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody and financial responsibility for the child. The trial court found insufficient evidence to support either ground for termination. Upon review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support one of the alleged grounds. So we vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Adams v. Timothy Adams, Sr.
Laura Adams (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court for Robertson County (“the Trial Court”) against Timothy Adams, Sr. (“Husband”). In its final judgment of divorce, the Trial Court determined that real estate in Lawrence County (“Lawrence County property”), purchased by Husband prior to the marriage, was marital property because it had become “inextricably commingled.” The Trial Court awarded Wife “40% of the total proceeds” from the Lawrence County property. The Trial Court further awarded Wife the marital residence and any and all equitable interests in the marital residence. Husband has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Eugene Moxley v. AMISUB SFH, Inc. d/b/a Saint Francis Hospital, et al.
This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability case. In the first appeal, which was taken under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, this Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Appellees’/healthcare providers’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion. The trial court held that, although Appellant/patient failed to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26- 121(a)(2)(E), Appellant showed extraordinary cause to excuse the noncompliance. The only question certified in the Rule 9 appeal was whether the trial court erred in finding extraordinary cause. We determined that it did and reversed the extraordinary cause finding but left undisturbed the trial court’s finding on substantial compliance. On remand, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss without hearing. Now, in this Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 appeal, we review the trial court’s initial finding that Appellant did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements. Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in so finding, we vacate the order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and remand for reconsideration of the question of substantial compliance under the correct legal standard. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Connie Reguli v. Rogers Anderson as Mayor of Williamson County, Tennessee
What began as a public records request ended with the trial court imposing sanctions upon the requester for violations of Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court concluded that the public records requester violated Rule 11 by including a false statement and deceptive exhibit in her Public Records Act Petition, by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry before filing her Petition, and by having an improper purpose in connection with her anticipated speech regarding any public records that she might obtain via the Public Records Act. The trial court imposed multiple sanctions upon the requester including a $5,000 penalty, a requirement to associate counsel in any future pro se filing within the judicial district, and a dismissal with prejudice of her Petition. We conclude the trial court properly determined the requester violated Rule 11 by including a false statement and deceptive exhibit in her Petition. Given the context of the Public Records Act, we conclude, however, that the trial court erred with regard to its conclusion that the requester made an inadequate inquiry prior to filing her Petition and had an improper purpose in connection with the requester’s anticipated use of any documents she obtained. We also conclude the monetary penalty imposed by the trial court violates the Fifty-Dollar Fine Clause of the Tennessee Constitution. Because of our other findings, we vacate the trial court’s imposition of all three sanctions, and remand for determination of an appropriate sanction in light of our decision. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Nicole Marie Neuman v. Paul P. Phillips
This appeal concerns the attempt to register and enforce a foreign decree purporting to modify the terms of a divorce decree. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the foreign decree was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although appellant raised a second issue for review on appeal concerning attorney’s fees, we conclude appellant is not entitled to any relief on the issue. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Misty D. Magee v. Andy W. Franks
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Judy C. Franks v. Andy Franks
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Emily Ruth Hughes v. Lucas Hughes
In this post-divorce custody and contempt action, the trial court held the defendant father in criminal contempt for violating the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The trial court sentenced the father to serve 186 consecutive days in jail. The trial court also limited the father’s parenting time with the parties’ minor children and awarded the mother her attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the action. The father timely appealed to this Court, arguing that he lacked adequate notice of the criminal contempt allegations and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. The father also argues that the trial court erred in limiting his parenting time under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-406. The issues related to inadequate notice are waived because the father raises those issues for the first time on appeal. Father’s argument regarding his parenting time is waived for the same reason. We also conclude that the trial court’s sentence for the father’s criminal contempt is appropriate under the circumstances and does not amount to an abuse of discretion. Finally, we award the mother her costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in defending this appeal. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
In Re William C.
A father was found to have committed severe child abuse in a dependency and neglect case. The Department of Children’s Services subsequently filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights based on the previous finding of severe child abuse. Father asserts that the trial court erred in failing to continue the termination proceedings in his absence, in finding a ground for termination of his parental rights, and in determining that termination was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Pickett | Court of Appeals | |
Parents' Choice Tennessee et al. v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools et al.
Parents, on behalf of their children who are public school students, and an education-focused parents’ rights organization brought suit against the Williamson County Board of Education, arguing that the Board’s adoption and implementation of a particular curriculum violates Tennessee law. The Plaintiffs argue the curriculum violates a state law restricting the use of Common Core textbooks and instructional materials in public schools and violates another state law that bars the teaching of certain prohibited concepts in public schools. The School Board moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion on two justiciability grounds. The trial court concluded that the parents and the parents’ rights organization lacked standing to maintain either claim. The trial court also concluded that the Plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to their prohibited concepts claim and had not done so. The Plaintiffs appealed. With the exception of a family that left the county public school system and has not expressed in their pleadings an intent to return, we conclude that trial court erred in finding the Plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We reverse, however, the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Common Core claim and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniela Valderrama v. Robyn H. Hurvitz
Petitioner, Daniela Valderrama, filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Ms. Valderrama’s petition for recusal appeal fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10B, section 2.03. Due to Ms. Valderrama’s failure to comply with Rule 10B, the appeal is dismissed. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Louine Niemeyer v. Glenn Paul Niemeyer
This is a divorce action involving, inter alia, the classification of property, equitable valuation and division of marital property, and support for an alleged disabled adult child beyond the age of 21. After our exhaustive review, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s determinations in this matter. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respect. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Chauncey Hopkins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude his experts and to grant summary judgment to the defendant. Because plaintiff has appealed a non-final judgment and the record on appeal is incomplete, we dismiss this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kerry Wright v. John Doe, et al.
Plaintiff alleged that actions of defendant tow truck driver led to John Doe driving into plaintiff’s vehicle and causing injury. Towing company and driver moved for summary judgment based on the lack of evidence as to the cause of John Doe’s actions. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment for lack of evidence that towing company or driver was the cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robin Hood Condo Association v. William Wellman
A condominium owner appeals from a final judgment awarding past due fees and assessments to a homeowners association. Because the owner did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gabriel Calleja v. Whitney Bradfield
A mother sought to move to another state with her minor child. The child’s father opposed the move and petitioned to be named the child’s primary residential parent. The mother responded with a counter-petition seeking approval of the move and a modified parenting plan. Using the best-interest factors applicable to child custody disputes, the court granted the mother permission to relocate and modified the parties’ parenting time accordingly. On appeal, the father argues the parental relocation statute applied and, regardless of which best-interest factors were used, the evidence preponderates against the court’s best-interest finding. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
CHSPSC, LLC v. The California Credits Group, LLC
A tax group performed tax credit services on a contingency fee basis for a corporation that owned several hospitals in California. Four and half years after the corporation completed a transaction referred to as a “spinoff,” the tax group informed the corporation that the spinoff triggered a reorganization provision of the parties’ contract that entitled the tax group to a fee for unused tax credits related to one of the hospitals involved in the spinoff. The corporation filed suit requesting a declaratory judgment that no fee was owed because the spinoff did not trigger the contract’s reorganization provision. After conducting discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the tax group’s motion and granted summary judgment to the corporation after concluding that the parties’ conduct prior to the dispute showed that they intended the term “reorganization” to have a tax-based meaning that corresponded to the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of the term and that the spinoff did not constitute a reorganization under that definition. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Turner Construction Company v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company d/b/a Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty
The cabinets delivered from a Turkish company for a Tennessee construction project did not meet United States formaldehyde standards and could not be used as they were. The construction management company filed an insurance claim. The insurance company denied the claim and the construction management company sued. The trial court found for the construction management company and the insurance company appealed. We have determined that the trial court’s order was not final and, therefore, dismiss the appeal and remand the matter for further consideration. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Rori H.
In this termination of parental rights case, Brian T. and Samantha T., the maternal grandparents of Rori H., appeal the trial court’s ruling that termination of the parental rights of Rori’s father, Brennan H., is not in the child’s best interests. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding as grounds for termination that the father abandoned the child by failing to pay support in the four months preceding the petition. Having found no grounds for termination, we do not reach a best interests determination. Ultimately, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for termination. We remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-117(b)(4). Finally, we conclude that the father is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re: Matthew D.
This is an appeal of a termination of a mother’s parental rights to her son. Ashley D. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
John Schmeeckle v. Hamilton County Tennessee Et Al.
This is the petitioner’s second petition to recuse based on the same allegations. Therefore, |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Dakota V.
This appeal arises out of proceedings in which a trial court denied a motion to recuse. The parents of the minor child at issue have attempted to appeal pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. Because the parents did not timely file a petition for recusal appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Alan C. Cartwright v. Thomason Hendrix, P.C., et al.
Appellants, lawyers and their law firms, appeal the trial court’s denial of their petition to dismiss this lawsuit under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that Appellants failed to establish that this claim relates to the protected right to petition. As such, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Alice Cartwright Garner, et al. v. Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell, PLLC, et al.
In this case, the plaintiffs sued the former attorneys of her opponent in a multitude of unsuccessful actions involving family trusts. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that they were damaged by the tortious conduct of the attorneys under the tort of another doctrine. The defendant-attorneys filed a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that the act was inapplicable. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
