David L. Richman, Et Al. v. Joshua Debity, Et Al.
This case began with the filing of a “Civil Warrant Restraining Order” in general sessions |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Eric Emory Edwards v. Dallis Leeann Edwards
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. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kenneth D.
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. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Shatyra Johnson v. Romello Love
The Appellant challenges the circuit court’s grant of an order of protection, asserting that |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marshall Chism v. Romello Love
The Appellant challenges the circuit court’s grant of an order of protection, asserting that |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Blue Water Bay at Center Hill, LLC Et Al. v. Larry J. Hasty Et Al.
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. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Charter Communications Operating, LLC v. Madison County, et al.
This appeal involves a bid awarded by a county finance department and upheld by the |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Brown v. Shelby County Schools
This appeal involves the termination of a tenured teacher for the cause of inefficiency. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Leah T.
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). |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Fred Whitley, Jr. v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education
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. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Stephanie D. Et Al.
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. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Madison Holdings, LLC ET AL. v. The Cato Corporation
In litigation commenced by landlord to recover unpaid rent, the tenant asserted a |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Eric Todd Sparks v. Rachel Collins Sparks
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. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Destyni S. Et Al.
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. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. v. Linda Linkous Et Al.
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. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
John Clark Ritenour v. Sara D. Bennett
This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 9, 2023. The Notice of Appeal was |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Et Al.
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. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Philip Hyer v. Juanita Miller
After flooding washed away a bridge and part of a driveway which a homeowner used to |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
John F. Curran v. Angela M. Melson
Appellant and Appellee were involved in a romantic relationship during which time |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Robert McPhail Hunt Jr.
This appeal arises out of a settlement agreement between the parties that resolved the |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Smith v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee
This appeal concerns a claim of retaliatory discharge. Heather Smith (“Smith”), then an |
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Willie Harold Hargett et al. v. Charlotte R. Hodges Brown
A decedent’s estate sued his girlfriend for the proceeds of his life insurance policy, items from his home that were missing or damaged, and money withdrawn from his credit union account. The trial court found for the estate on the basis of fraud, conversion, and undue influence. The girlfriend appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Lynne Ingram Bolton v. David Bolton
This is a criminal contempt case. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s finding that he is guilty of four counts of criminal contempt for violating the trial court’s orders regarding medical treatment for the minor child. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Infinity Homes, Inc. et al. v. Horizon Land Title, Inc. et al.
Appellants, purchasers of several unimproved lots, filed suit against Appellee title company. Appellants asserted five counts against Appellee based on Appellee’s alleged failure to disclose the existence of a lien lis pendens on the lots. The trial court dismissed all but one of the counts against Appellee and certified its orders of partial dismissal as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its orders as final and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Maryam Sobhi (Soryana) Mikhail v. George Aziz Mikhail
A wife sought a divorce after a long-term marriage. The trial court granted the wife a default judgment for divorce as a sanction for the husband’s discovery abuses. After a trial, the court also valued and divided the marital estate and awarded the wife alimony in futuro. On appeal, the husband challenges the court’s decisions on multiple grounds. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals |
