Mankin Media Systems, Inc. v. Timothy Corder
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order affirming the award of an arbitrator. Appellant filed suit against its former employee, the Appellee, alleging breach of contract for violation of certain provisions of the employee handbook, which also contained an arbitration clause. Because the handbook does not constitute an enforceable employment contract, the trial court erred in ordering the parties to arbitrate and in affirming the arbitrator’s award. Reversed and remanded. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Clare West Et Al. v. Wayne Akard
In this landlord-tenant dispute, the circuit court concluded that the landlord violated the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“Landlord/Tenant Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-28-101 to -522, and awarded the tenants $3,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. The landlord appealed the punitive damages award. Because the landlord failed to file either a transcript or statement of the evidence, we conclusively presume that the record would have supported an award of punitive damages, and we affirm the circuit court’s judgment as modified. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Staci L. Robinson v. Eric S. Robinson
In this divorce action, the husband contends that the trial court erred by: (1) declining to award him alimony; (2) declining to adopt his valuation of the couple’s three Subway franchises; (3) finding that he dissipated $65,000 from the marital estate; (4) awarding the wife a larger share of the marital estate; (5) imputing income of $58,000 to him for child support purposes; and (6) declining to award him his attorney’s fees at trial. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on all but one of these issues, finding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s determination regarding the amount of marital assets the husband dissipated. We also deny the husband’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Melanie Miller Hollis v. Charles Myers Hollis, Jr.
This appeal concerns a divorce. Melanie Miller Hollis (“Wife”) sued Charles Myers Hollis, Jr. (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court granted Husband a divorce based upon Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct. The Trial Court also divided the marital estate and awarded Wife alimony and child support. Wife appeals, arguing that the Trial Court erred by failing to classify and value as part of the marital estate Husband’s “book of business” from his job as a financial advisor at UBS, a financial services firm. Husband raises separate issues regarding child support, alimony, and the division of the marital estate. Discerning no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety. We also remand for the Trial Court to determine and enter an award to Wife of her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, but only as they relate to issues of child support and alimony. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony T. Grose v. David Kustoff ET AL.
In this case involving allegations of attorney misconduct and negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorneys and their respective firms. The defendants had previously represented the plaintiffs in a wrongful death lawsuit until the defendants withdrew from representation. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs had failed to refute the affidavit of one defendant attorney, who opined that the pertinent standard of care had not been breached. The plaintiffs have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Terry Case v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., As Trustee For Trust MFRA 2014-2 Et Al.
The plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Having determined that the plaintiff has waived arguments related to his breach of contract claim, we review solely the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure. We conclude that the defendants did not strictly comply with the notice requirements of the deed of trust, vacate the portion of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants with respect to the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim, and set aside the foreclosure sale. We affirm the trial court’s order with respect to the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. We decline to award the defendants damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1- 122. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Maycee J. Stine v. Isaiah M. Jakes et al.
This appeal arises from Appellant/Mother’s January 2020 petition to modify the visitation provisions in an agreed parenting plan entered by the juvenile court in December 2017. Following proceedings before a juvenile court magistrate, Mother filed a timely request for a de novo hearing by the judge pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-107(d). In lieu of an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court considered the matter on the parties’ briefs and argument of counsel. The court determined it could not make factual findings without conducting a de novo trial and advised the parties that, in lieu of a hearing, a direct appeal to this Court was “a remedy for either party.” Mother did not set a hearing, and the juvenile court affirmed the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mother appeals. We vacate the juvenile court’s order and remand this matter for a de novo hearing before the juvenile court judge. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Gina G. Gianopulos Cruz et al. v. Wilhoit Properties et al.
This is an appeal from a Final Order of Dismissal and Order Approving Minor’s Settlement. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Delrick Blue et al. v. Church of God Sanctified, Inc. et al.
This case involves a church property dispute. The plaintiffs are trustees of a local church congregation who were attempting to establish their congregation as separate from the church’s national governing body and from a local congregation, with which the plaintiffs had previously been joined, that desired to remain affiliated with the national church body. Naming as defendants the national body and trustees of the congregation desiring to remain with the national body, the plaintiffs sought, inter alia, declaratory judgment that real property upon which the local church building was located belonged to their congregation and was not held in trust for the national body as the national body’s written policy dictated. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, asserting in part that pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. L. M. Haley Ministries, Inc. 531 S.W.3d 146 (Tenn. 2017), the national body’s written policy governed ownership of the property, which had therefore been held in trust for the national body. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded the court’s hearing any claims except the property dispute and that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment declaring the national body as the owner of the property and associated personalty and the congregation aligned with the national body as entitled to use and possession of the property and associated personalty. Upon the plaintiffs’ appeal to this Court and motion to the trial court for a stay, the trial court granted a stay of the judgment pending appeal and entered an order, inter alia, directing the plaintiffs to pay expenses related to the property while the stay remained in effect. The defendants filed a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 7(a) motion seeking review of the trial court’s stay order, which this Court denied. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to supplement the record with their response to the Rule 7(a) motion, which, upon limited remand, was granted by the trial court. The defendants then filed a motion requesting that this Court strike the references to the supplemented materials in the plaintiffs’ principal brief and disregard post-judgment facts in the supplemented materials. Discerning no reversible error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment order in its entirety. However, because the supplemented materials included documents not reviewed by the trial court at the summary judgment stage, we grant the defendants’ motion to disregard the supplemental materials and strike the plaintiffs’ references to them. We deny the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Lily C.
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Elizabeth R.1 (“Mother”) and David C. (“Father”) to their child Lily C. (“Child”). DCS alleged that Father was guilty of severe child abuse by, among other things, raping her. As grounds against Mother, DCS alleged (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home for the Child in the first four months following removal; (2) persistence of the conditions that led to the Child’s removal; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the Child. The trial court found that DCS established the alleged grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination of parental rights was in Child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Destiny C.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that four grounds for termination as to the mother were proven: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) persistent conditions; (3) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The juvenile court also found that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Adam J. Rothberg v. Fridrich & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. et al.
This is an interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s recusal motion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Relyant Global, LLC v. Royden Fernandez Et Al
Plaintiff, a Tennessee limited liability company headquartered in Blount County, sued defendants, a former employee and a limited liability company both residents of the U.S. territory of Guam, alleging breach of a non-compete agreement. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to enforce the non-compete agreement’s forum selection clause and its express waiver of the inconvenient forum defense. We reverse, holding that the forum selection clause dictates the proper forum. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Cunningham v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. et al.
In this appeal arising out of a negligence action, the plaintiff died while the litigation was pending, and no motion for substitution of the plaintiff was filed within the ninety-day period following the filing of the suggestion of death as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.01. After the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to enlarge the time, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.02. The trial court found no excusable neglect warranting enlargement of the ninety-day period and dismissed the action pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 25.01. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to enlarge and the dismissal of the suit. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re C.T.
This appeal involves termination of the parental rights of an incarcerated putative father. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jose A.
A relative of an undocumented minor filed a guardianship petition in juvenile court. The petition also requested that the court make special findings to enable the minor to apply for special immigrant juvenile status under federal law. The juvenile court issued a guardianship order with special findings but only after the minor turned 18. On appeal, the relative raises issues with the court’s special findings. We conclude that the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a guardian once the minor turned 18. So we do not reach the merits of this appeal. We vacate the court’s decision with directions to dismiss the guardianship petition. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of John Bruce Wilson
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a declaratory judgment regarding a will and trust. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Western Express Inc. d/b/a Western Logistics v. State to State Transport Inc. et al.
An interstate motor carrier appeals a $35,777.00 judgment. Because the judgment does not resolve all of the claims between all of the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Amy Frogge et al. v. Shawn Joseph et al.
Three members of a school board filed this lawsuit after the school board passed a resolution approving a severance agreement with the director of schools that contained a non-disparagement clause preventing the individual school board members from expressing even truthful criticism of the director of schools. The plaintiff board members named as defendants the school board and the director of schools. They sought a declaratory judgment that the non-disparagement clause violated their free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, was unconstitutionally overbroad, and was unenforceable as against the public policy of the State of Tennessee. They also sought a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the non-disparagement clause and an award of their attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on numerous alternative grounds. The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of standing, and lack of ripeness. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss and granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that the non-disparagement clause was unenforceable and unconstitutional on several grounds. It permanently enjoined enforcement of the clause and awarded the plaintiffs their attorney fees. The defendants appeal, arguing that the case should have been dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Amy Frogge et al. v. Shawn Joseph et al. - Concurring
W. Neal McBrayer, J., concurring. This is an appeal from the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, elected officials who serve on the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education (“the Board”). In response to the motion for summary judgment, the defendants, the Board and Metro’s former director of schools, Dr. Shawn Joseph, relied on arguments they made in unsuccessful motions to dismiss. Although the majority reviews and rejects the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe, the court does not review the grant of summary judgment. I agree with the court’s conclusions on both standing and ripeness. But I write separately because the scope of the court’s review was too narrow. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Adam J. Rothberg v. Fridrich & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. et al.
This is an expedited appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Based on the Appellant’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Khloe O.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights and for adoption. The chancery court found by clear and convincing evidence that a ground for termination was proven and that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appeals. We vacate and remand. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Addisyn P. et al.
In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the Marshall County Juvenile Court (“trial court”) determined that several 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 children’s best interest. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Lauren Frontz v. Tristan J. Hall
Lauren Frontz (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for an order of protection against her ex-boyfriend Tristan J. Hall (“Respondent”) on July 31, 2020. The trial court granted an ex parte order of protection and set a hearing for ten days later. Several bridging orders were subsequently entered by the trial court extending the length of time for the protective order. Petitioner alleged Respondent was guilty of criminal contempt by violating the order of protection. After a hearing, the trial court found Respondent guilty on five counts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to fifty days in jail. The trial court also awarded Petitioner her attorney’s fees in the amount of $77,525.75. Respondent appeals, arguing that the bridging orders were invalid and that the trial court erred in its award of attorney’s fees. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
James Scarlett v. AA Properties, GP
In this appeal, the parties have stipulated that the trial court erred in awarding the appellee attorney’s fees incurred in an earlier appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20- 12-119(c)(1). So we reverse. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |
