COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Travis G. Bumbalough v. Rachel M. Hall
M2022-01003-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven D. Qualls

This appeal arises from a petition to establish parentage and a parenting plan pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36–2–311 for a child born out of wedlock. In finding that the statutory best interest factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) favored the father, the trial court designated the father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and ruled that the child would live with the father in Tennessee during the school year and spend the majority of the summers and holidays with Mother in Texas. The mother appeals. We affirm.

John Mark Bowers v. Carlton J. Ditto, Et Al.
E2022-01307-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton

In this quiet title action, the pro se defendant appeals the trial court’s decision to permit
constructive service by publication in lieu of personal service, pursuant to Tennessee Code
Annotated section 21-1-203(a)(2). Because Plaintiff met the statutory requirements of
service by publication and because constructive service by publication was effective to
establish the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant, we affirm.

Kimberly Ann King v. Jackie Lee King, Jr.
E2023-00504-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Sharp

This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 6, 2023. The Notice of Appeal was
not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until April 6, 2023, more than thirty days from the
date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the Notice
of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter v. LLPS, Inc., Et Al.
M2022-00214-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissal entered in favor of all defendants in a civil enforcement action involving violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Government Imposters and Deceptive Advertising Act. We vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Hayes Family Partnership ET AL. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
W2022-01209-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

This is an insurance policy coverage dispute between Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance
Company (“Tennessee Farmers”) and its insured, Hayes Family Partnership (“Hayes”). At
issue is property damage to a commercial building owned by Hayes and insured by
Tennessee Farmers. The damage, which was in excess of two hundred thousand dollars,
was caused by a third-party tortfeasor, George Hardey, who drove his vehicle into the
insured building. Shortly after the accident and without the knowledge or consent of
Tennessee Farmers, Hayes executed a release of all claims against Hardey and his insurer,
Allstate Property & Casualty Company (“Allstate”), in consideration for the $25,000 policy
limits paid by Allstate. After Hayes submitted its claim to Tennessee Farmers for benefits
under its policy, Tennessee Farmers denied Hayes’ claim based on Hayes’ violations of
material provisions in the insurance policy, including the provision that required Hayes to
“do everything necessary to secure [Tennessee Farmers’] rights” and “do nothing after loss
to impair them.” The trial court denied Tennessee Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment
based, in part, on the “made whole” doctrine, and it ruled that “the release executed by
Hayes in favor of the third-party tortfeasor George Hardey does not foreclose Hayes’ right
to pursue recovery from Tennessee Farmers.” The trial court also reasoned that Tennessee
Farmers may not avoid coverage “on the basis of breach of the insurance policy condition
that its insured must do everything necessary to secure its rights and nothing to impair those
rights, and Hayes[’] release of Hardey.” The trial court then granted Tennessee Farmers’
motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which we also granted. The
dispositive issue on appeal is whether Hayes forfeited its right to coverage under the
Tennessee Farmers’ policy by, inter alia, releasing all of Hayes’ claims against the thirdparty
tortfeasor and his insurance company without the knowledge or consent of Tennessee
Farmers. We have determined that Hayes materially breached the insurance policy by
releasing the third-party tortfeasor and his insurer from liability without the consent of Tennessee Farmers; therefore, Tennessee Farmers was entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with
instructions to summarily dismiss the complaint.

Adam T. Huffstutter v. Metropolitan Historical Zoning Commission of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
M2022-00850-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russel T. Perkins

The appellant is a property owner who sought review of a decision by the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the Historic Zoning Commission. The appellant property owner appeals. We affirm.

In Re A.H. Et Al.
M2022-01066-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael Wayne Collins

This is a dependency and neglect case predicated on an allegation of severe abuse. The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected and found that one of the children had been subject to severe child abuse at the hands of the children’s father. The father appealed to circuit court. After a de novo hearing, the circuit court found the allegations of severe abuse were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence and declined to find the children dependent and neglected. The Department of Children’s Services, the children’s guardian ad litem, and the children’s mother appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in concluding that the evidence of severe abuse was not clear and convincing. Based on our review of the entire record, we find there was not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of severe abuse. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

David L. Richman, Et Al. v. Joshua Debity, Et Al.
E2022-00908-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Lowell Headrick

This case began with the filing of a “Civil Warrant Restraining Order” in general sessions
court. The defendants then filed a petition to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public
Participation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101, et seq. The plaintiffs filed a response,
asking the court to deny the TPPA petition to dismiss. After an evidentiary hearing, the
trial court entered an order denying the defendants’ TPPA petition for reasons set forth in
an attached transcript. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to
enter an order setting forth the reason for the trial court’s decision.

Eric Emory Edwards v. Dallis Leeann Edwards
M2022-00614-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Mark Rogers

In this post-divorce action, the trial court modified the permanent parenting plan to provide the father with equal co-parenting time after the father and the mother had, by oral agreement, lived by an alternate plan for approximately sixteen months during the COVID19 pandemic in an effort to adapt to their child’s virtual education from home. The mother has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding a material change in circumstance affecting the child’s best interest and by determining that modification of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. Both parties have requested attorney’s fees on appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We decline to award attorney’s fees to either party.

In Re Kenneth D.
M2022-01466-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Larry B. Stanley, Jr.

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his child upon a petition filed by the child’s mother and stepfather, the trial court determined that five statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Following the father’s initial appeal, this Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(k). On remand, the trial court entered a judgment confirming its prior determinations with added specific findings and conclusions. The father has again appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Shatyra Johnson v. Romello Love
W2022-00293-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jerry Stokes

The Appellant challenges the circuit court’s grant of an order of protection, asserting that
the evidence preponderates against the finding that the Appellant stalked the Appellee.
Because the order of protection has expired by its own terms, we dismiss the appeal as
moot.

Marshall Chism v. Romello Love
W2022-00294-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jerry Stokes

The Appellant challenges the circuit court’s grant of an order of protection, asserting that
the evidence preponderates against the finding that the Appellant stalked the Appellee.
Because the order of protection has expired by its own terms, we dismiss the appeal as
moot.

Blue Water Bay at Center Hill, LLC Et Al. v. Larry J. Hasty Et Al.
M2020-01336-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Deanna B. Johnson

This appeal concerns the enforceability of a promissory note and a coguarantor’s right to seek contribution from another guarantor. The note and guaranties were assigned several times and, at one point, held by the coguarantor. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded on the undisputed facts that the promissory note had been discharged and that there was no right to contribution. We conclude that the promissory note was not discharged but agree that there was no right to contribution.

Charter Communications Operating, LLC v. Madison County, et al.
W2022-01025-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies

This appeal involves a bid awarded by a county finance department and upheld by the
county’s finance committee after a bid protest hearing. One of the service providers whose
bid was not selected filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in chancery court.
After reviewing the administrative record, the chancery court concluded that the finance
committee’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by material evidence
and remanded for the county to rebid the contract. We reverse and remand for further
proceedings.

Kim Brown v. Shelby County Schools
W2022-00123-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

This appeal involves the termination of a tenured teacher for the cause of inefficiency.
After receiving a written charge recommending his dismissal, the teacher requested a
tenure hearing before a hearing officer, who found that there was substantial evidence to
support the charge of inefficiency and that there was just cause for termination. The teacher
appealed, the board of education voted to sustain the decision of the hearing officer, and
the teacher was terminated. The teacher petitioned for judicial review of the decision in
the chancery court. The chancery court reversed and reinstated the teacher with back pay.
The school system appeals. We reverse.

In Re Leah T.
M2022-00839-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Mark Rogers

In this case involving a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her child and to allow the petitioners to adopt the child, the trial court determined that three statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that the petitioners had provided clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed the best interest determination. Upon our review, we affirm the trial court’s finding as to the statutory grounds of abandonment through failure to support, abandonment through failure to visit, and severe abuse of the child’s sibling. However, having determined that under the facts of this case, the trial court erred in applying the statutory best interest factors applicable to the initial termination petition rather than those applicable to the amended petition, we reverse the trial court’s best interest finding and remand for reconsideration applying the amended best interest factors contained in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i) (Supp. 2022).

Fred Whitley, Jr. v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education
M2022-01079-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kenny Armstrong
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal

Appellant, a tenured teacher employed by Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, was involved in an altercation with students at an alternative high school. Subsequently, Appellee Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education (the “Board”) terminated Appellant’s employment. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Appellant filed an action with the trial court arguing that the Board exceeded its authority under the Teachers’ Tenure Act. The trial court vacated the Board’s decision on the ground that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act. We affirm the trial court’s decision on different grounds, i.e., that the Board committed a clear error of law when it conducted a third hearing concerning the termination of Appellant’s employment. We also conclude that Appellant is entitled to reinstatement and back pay. There is nothing further for the Board to do; accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order of remand.

In Re Stephanie D. Et Al.
M2023-00780-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge David Howard

A father appeals an order transferring jurisdiction over his minor children to West Virginia. Because the father did not file his notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Madison Holdings, LLC ET AL. v. The Cato Corporation
W2022-00685-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

In litigation commenced by landlord to recover unpaid rent, the tenant asserted a
counterclaim alleging violations of the parties’ lease agreement and seeking a declaration
of the parties’ rights and obligations. Featuring prominently in the parties’ dispute is a
lease provision providing for, among other things, rent abatement if a non-party to this
litigation, the designated “Major Anchor Tenant,” ceases operations in the shopping center
where the tenant’s store is located. Under another lease provision, which is also at issue,
the right to rent abatement is triggered, subject to certain exceptions, if landlord enters into
another lease agreement “with or by any national or regional tenant having . . . more than
one store for whom the majority of its revenue is from the sale of apparel and/or clothing
accessories.” In this case, the tenant has asserted rights to relief with respect to both of
these provisions. Following a bench trial, the trial court rejected various defenses raised
by landlord in the litigation and determined that the tenant was entitled to relief under the
parties’ lease. As part of its order, the trial court awarded the tenant a monetary judgment
against landlord related to rent overpayments the tenant had made during a period when
rent abatement was in effect. Although we conclude that the trial court erred in awarding
a monetary judgment related to the rent overpayments given that the remedy provided
under the relevant lease provision specifically provides only for an offset against current
or future rent, we otherwise affirm the trial court’s order in this case.

Eric Todd Sparks v. Rachel Collins Sparks
E2022-00586-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Jenne

Eric Todd Sparks (“Husband”) and Rachel Collins Sparks (“Wife”) were divorced by order of the Chancery Court for Bradley County (the “trial court”) on December 2, 2021. In addition to $693 in monthly child support, the trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $750 per month in alimony in futuro. The trial court also ordered that once the parties’ minor child, who was nine years old at the time of trial, reached the age of majority, Husband’s alimony in futuro obligation would automatically increase to $1,250 per month. Husband timely appealed to this Court. We affirm the trial court’s decision to award Wife alimony in futuro, but, considering Husband’s ability to pay and Wife’s need, we vacate the trial court’s ruling as to the monthly amount and remand for further proceedings. We also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the automatic increase in Husband’s alimony obligation upon the Child reaching the age of majority and vacate that portion of the trial court’s order. Consequently, the trial court’s ruling is vacated in part and affirmed in part. We decline to award Wife her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

In Re Destyni S. Et Al.
M2022-00910-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her two children, the Lawrence County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determined that seven statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. v. Linda Linkous Et Al.
M2022-01035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Elizabeth C. Asbury

The trial court held that an insurance company properly denied an insured’s claim for property loss arising out of a fire. The trial court found that the denial was supported by two grounds: (1) that the property was not “occupied” as defined by the policy at the time of the fire and, therefore, the policy did not cover the loss, and (2) that the policy was voided by the insured’s misrepresentations relating to the loss. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

John Clark Ritenour v. Sara D. Bennett
E2023-00540-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gregory S. McMillan

This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 9, 2023. The Notice of Appeal was
not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until April 12, 2023, more than thirty days from
the date of entry of the order from which she is seeking to appeal. Because the Notice of
Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Et Al.
M2022-00167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

A qui tam relator brought a Tennessee False Claims Act suit on behalf of himself and the State of Tennessee against a manufacturer of guardrail end terminals. The manufacturer moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion on a wide variety of bases. The qui tam relator appeals. We conclude that a number of the rationales relied upon by the trial court were in error; nevertheless, the trial court properly dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Tennessee False Claims Act.

Philip Hyer v. Juanita Miller
E2022-00640-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jean A. Stanley

After flooding washed away a bridge and part of a driveway which a homeowner used to
access his house, he made repairs. The repaired route was also used on rare occasions by
an easement holder who had a right to access a family cemetery. The homeowner brought
suit against the easement holder, seeking equitable reimbursement for the costs of repairs.
The trial court ruled against the homeowner, concluding the equities of this case did not
warrant requiring the easement holder to contribute to the costs of repair. The homeowner
appealed. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion; accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s ruling.