Regions Bank v. Doctor R. Crants
This is a collection lawsuit to recover the balance Appellant allegedly owes on a promissory note held by Appellee. On Appellant’s motion, the trial court stayed the proceedings and remitted the matter to binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of the promissory note. Appellant brings the instant appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a). Because the order appealed is not final, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Furthermore, neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act provides a mechanism for appeal of Appellant’s issues to this Court. Appeal dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Khristian Abney v. Kaitlynne Nichole Pace
This appeal arises from a post-divorce proceeding. The father filed a petition to modify child support, and the mother filed a civil contempt action against the father for failure to pay child support as ordered by the court. Following trial, the trial court found that a significant variance existed from the previously ordered child support obligation and granted the father’s petition to modify child support. The trial court retroactively modified the father’s child support obligation from the date the petition was filed, resulting in three modifications while the petition had been pending. In the respective child support worksheets for the modifications, the trial court declined to include a credit to the mother for the health insurance premiums she had paid for the child, determining such expense of additional insurance coverage not to be “a reasonable necessity or requirement.” In consideration of the mother’s civil contempt complaint, the trial court found that the father had been in contempt of court due to his failure to pay child support as ordered by the court but that he had cured his contempt due to an involuntary payment from his income tax refund proceeds and the retroactive modification of his obligation and resultant overpayment of child support while the petition to modify was pending. The trial court further denied an award of attorney’s fees to either party. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kaelyn R.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. The trial court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother had abandoned her child by wanton disregard and by committing severe child abuse against her. The court also concluded that the evidence was clear and convincing that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We agree and affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Nigel M. Reid, II v. Colette Jean Wallace
Following a hearing, the Circuit Court for Hamblen County (“trial court”) entered an order of protection against Nigel Reid II (“Respondent” or “Cross-Petitioner”) and in favor of Collette Jean Wallace (“Petitioner” or “Cross-Respondent”). Respondent appealed to this Court. Because Respondent’s brief fails to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, we dismiss the appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Marn Suzanne Larsen-Ball v. William Gordon Ball
In this post-divorce action concerning enforcement of the trial court’s order distributing the parties’ marital property, the trial court ultimately awarded a judgment to the wife in the amount of $206,868.67. The court also ordered that the wife would be entitled to a certain portion of the proceeds from the sale of the parties’ former marital residence. The court dismissed the wife’s contempt claims and declined to award interest or attorney’s fees. The husband has appealed. Having discerned two relatively minor errors in the judgment, we modify the amount awarded to the wife to increase it by $18,525.24, enlarging the trial court’s award to the wife to the total of $225,393.91 rather than $206,868.67. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re PrinceKenyan F.
This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The trial court found that seven grounds had been established: abandonment for failure to support; abandonment for failure to visit; abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; persistence of conditions; mental incompetence; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. It also found that termination was in the child’s best interest for many reasons, including the mother’s failure to provide a safe home, maintain regular visitation, pay child support, and resolve her legal, mental health, and substance abuse issues. The mother contends the trial court incorrectly calculated the period relevant to the ground of abandonment, erred by admitting her mental health records into evidence in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-122, and that the evidence failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard. Following a thorough review of the record, we have determined that four of the seven grounds for termination as found by the trial court were established by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was clearly and convincingly in the child’s best interest. Therefore, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Julie C. W. v. Frank Mitchell W. Jr.
The Tennessee Supreme Court entered an order vacating our previous judgment in this matter solely with respect to the division of the marital estate and remanding for our further review consistent with its order. We find upon further review that the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate as it did. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court on this one issue and remand for a new and equitable division of the marital estate. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Irene Howard v. State of Tennessee
Following a car accident involving an employee of the State of Tennessee, Irene Howard (“Claimant”) sought damages against the State based on alleged injuries arising from the accident. The claim was denied by the Division of Claims and Risk Management (the “DCRM”), and Claimant thereafter appealed to the Claims Commission (the “Commission”). Because Claimant failed to appeal the DCRM’s decision within ninety days, however, the Commission concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the appeal. We affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re L.F., Et Al.
This case involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The petition was filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services against the biological mother of three minor children. The petition listed seven grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights. After a final hearing on the petition, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights, finding five grounds for termination: (1) abandonment by failing to visit; (2) persistence of conditions; (3) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (4) failure to manifest an ability or willingness to parent; and (5) severe child abuse. We affirm the trial court in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jackson H.
The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his child on the grounds of (1) persistence of conditions, (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility, (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and (4) abandonment by wanton disregard. The trial court also found that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Although we reverse three of the termination grounds, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports a finding of abandonment by wanton disregard. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Delia Ruth Smith Durham v. Karen Stone, Et Al.
This appeal involves a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff. After two hearings, the trial court entered an order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Carlos Rodgers et al v. Nationstar Mortgage et al.
This appeal concerns the dismissal of one of the defendants involved in the underlying case. Because there is no written order evidencing how the operative claims against the subject defendant were resolved, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
W. Scott Johnson v. Tomcat USA, Inc. et al.
This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court’s refusal to enforce a forum selection clause contained in a stock bonus transfer agreement in this action arising out of the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, citing the forum selection clause, which specified New York as the sole venue for litigating claims. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The defendants appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Pallotta Gaby v. Tony Harold Gaby
In this post-divorce, child custody case, Appellant/Father filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan, seeking equal parenting time. Appellee/Mother opposed the petition. The trial court held that there had been a material change of circumstance and awarded Father additional parenting time, but not equal parenting time. On appeal, Father asserts that the trial court failed to consider the statutory best interest factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). Although we leave undisturbed the portion of the trial court’s order concerning a material change of circumstance, the trial court’s failure to make best interest findings in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 precludes any meaningful appellate review of that question. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for entry of an order that includes the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Rickie Heatherly v. Off The Wagon Tours, LLC
Relying on an inapplicable statute, the plaintiff asked the court to order a limited liability company to produce records for his inspection. Claiming that the plaintiff had never been a member, the LLC denied that he was entitled to access its records. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff was a member and entitled to inspect and copy the records. So the court ordered the LLC to allow the inspection and to pay the plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred in filing suit. The evidence does not preponderate against the court’s finding that the plaintiff was a member at formation of the LLC. But because the relief was sought under an inapplicable statute, we vacate the inspection order and the award of attorney’s fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rarity Bay Partners v. Rarity Bay Community Association Inc. Et Al.
Members of a nonprofit corporation sought to compel production of election records from the election of the corporation’s board of directors. The trial court ordered production of the records pursuant to a protective order. This Court granted the Rule 10 appeal to determine whether production of the election ballots is required under the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act, whether the members have a privacy right with respect to their votes, and whether the trial court’s protective order protects that privacy right. We hold that production of the ballots is required under the statute, members have a limited privacy right with respect to their votes, and the protective order protects that right. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Lola Bernice Robinson v. Leah M. Robinson Et Al.
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of real property. The appellant filed suit alleging fraudulent conveyance of the property. The trial court granted a judgment in favor of the appellee, finding that the appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish fraud, undue influence, or lack of capacity. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s decision. Additionally, we award the appellee her attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
James Henry Matthew Owens v. Jessica Paige May
This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a permanent parenting plan involving one minor child. The trial court named the father primary residential parent of the minor child and entered a parenting plan awarding equal co-parenting time and ordering the child’s enrollment in the father’s school of choice. The mother appealed. Upon our review, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for entry of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate appellate review. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Christopher Archer, Et Al. v. Ron Noonan
This case involves an action filed by homeowners against their contractor for breach of contract regarding the installation of a swimming pool. The general sessions court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the circuit court which also entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals. We affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Alexis Stump v. Shirley Stinson
This action was initiated by the mother’s filing of a petition for the return of custody of her minor child. The trial court granted the petition. The maternal grandmother moved to set aside the judgment. The court denied the motion by order and later entered an amended order, correcting errors. The mother appeals the final order. We dismiss the appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Tyler A.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to establish a suitable home; (2) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the child; and (5) a present mental condition affecting the mother’s ability to adequately parent. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Eugene Winder, III v. Kara Elizabeth Winder
A review of the record on appeal reveals that the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Meigs | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Matthew K. et al.
This consolidated appeal involves termination of parental rights in a case focusing on Zayne R., the minor child of Brittney R. (“Mother”) and Joseph D., and Matthew K., the minor child of Mother and Joshua K. In June 2019, Mother’s parents, Larry R. (“Grandfather”) and Bertha R. (“Grandmother”) (collectively, “Grandparents”), filed two petitions in the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“trial court”), seeking termination of Mother’s parental rights, respectively, to Zayne R. and Matthew K. (collectively, “the Children”). The Children had previously been removed from Mother’s custody and placed in the custody of Grandparents pursuant to an order entered by the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”). Following a consolidated bench trial, the trial court granted Grandparents’ termination petitions based upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned the Children by failing to visit and by failing to financially support them during the statutorily determinative period. The trial court further found that it was in the Children’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s final orders terminating Mother’s parental rights. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Christina Lynn McCartney v. Lester Dale McCartney, Et Al.
This is a divorce case. Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) pre-trial procedural rulings; (2) characterization of certain assets as marital property; and (3) equitable division of the marital estate. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sequatchie | Court of Appeals | |
Albert M. Bender, Jr., Et Al. v. Attorney S. Madison Roberts, Et Al.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ conversion claim in accordance with Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, determining that it was filed outside the applicable three-year statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
