Vera Elaine Clark v. City of Mount Juliet
The plaintiff commenced this action by alleging that the City of Mount Juliet failed to adequately light a public park and neglected to make the park safe for walking at night, conditions which caused her to fall and sustain severe personal injuries. The City responded by filing a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, claiming it was immune from suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Following numerous filings by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion and after a hearing, the court granted the motion on the basis that the complaint did not plead facts sufficient to remove immunity from the City. Therefore, the court dismissed all claims. This appeal followed. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Kelly L. Phelps v. State of Tennessee
Plaintiff Kelly Phelps brought this action for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”) against her employer, the State of Tennessee. Plaintiff worked as a server at the restaurant at Paris Landing State Park (“the park”). She alleged that Josh Walsh, the assistant park manager who was described as “second in command” at the park, sexually assaulted her at an “after-party” on State property that immediately followed a Halloween party hosted by the park at the restaurant and inn. She further alleged that after she reported the incident, Defendant, among other retaliatory actions, allowed Walsh to continue working around her at the park as usual, and to continue harassing and threatening her. Following extensive discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Walsh was Plaintiff’s supervisor; whether he “sexually harassed women at Paris Landing State Park prior to the Halloween party” and Defendant was aware of it; and whether “a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Mr. Walsh’s action in grabbing [Plaintiff] by the neck and thrusting his body against her in a sexual manner was ‘extremely serious’ and sufficient to impose liability on the Defendant.” However, the trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant because it found that the sexual assault did not occur “in the workplace.” Regarding the retaliation claim, the trial court held that Plaintiff did not establish that Defendant took a “materially adverse action” against her after she reported the assault. We hold that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the alleged harassment and discrimination affected a term, condition, or privilege of Plaintiff’s employment, and whether Defendant unlawfully retaliated against her. We vacate the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sheila Renee Grissette v. Don Edwin Grissette
Upon a review of the record, we have determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed in accordance with Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) entered its judgment on November 15, 2019. Both parties timely filed motions to alter or amend pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. The Trial Court entered its order addressing the motions to alter or amend on February 21, 2020. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Renae Nelson v. Loring E. Justice
This appeal concerns the trial court’s entry of judgment on an appeal bond for attorney fees. We affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
State, ex rel., Tynesha April Dior Moody v. Damond Julian Roker
Mother filed a petition under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, seeking establishment of paternity and a child support order against Father, who is incarcerated. The State of Tennessee is acting on Mother’s behalf, and Father is acting pro se. Father filed multiple pretrial motions in the trial court, which the trial court did not rule on before the trial on Mother’s petition. Additionally, the trial court’s order fails to comply with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and is apparently not based on any properly admitted evidence. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rochelle Yvonne Lillard v. Robert Walter Lillard
This appeal arises from a post-divorce Petition to Modify Child Support and Declare Child to be Severely Disabled. After an evidentiary hearing, the court determined the parties’ daughter had a severe disability and ordered the father to continue paying child support beyond the age of 21. The father raises three issues on appeal: (1) Did the trial court err in determining that the parties’ daughter had a severe disability; (2) Did the trial court err in awarding child support beyond the age of 21 without making specific factual findings that the daughter was living under the care and supervision of the mother and it was in the daughter’s best interest to remain in the mother’s care; and (3) Did the trial court err in determining the amount of child support the father owed? We find the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the daughter has a severe disability, and it is in the daughter’s best interest to remain in her mother’s care. As for the amount of the child support award, the father primarily argues the daughter is underemployed; therefore, the court should have imputed additional income to her. We have determined that the trial court correctly identified and applied the relevant legal principles, the evidence supports the trial court’s determination regarding the daughter’s ability to earn income, and the award of child support is within the range of acceptable alternatives. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jessica Meeks Conine, Et Al. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.
This appeal arises from the summary dismissal of an inmate’s petition for declaratory judgment pertaining to the calculation of his release eligibility date. The inmate was convicted of two felonies and ordered to serve a life sentence for the first felony and a 15- year sentence for the second, with the sentences to be served consecutively. When calculating his release eligibility date, the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) applied the inmate’s pretrial jail credits to the life sentence but not to the 15-year sentence. The inmate claimed that TDOC erred by failing to apply the credit to both sentences because the criminal court included the credit on both sentencing orders. While the inmate’s petition was pending, the criminal court issued a corrected sentencing order for the 15-year sentence, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, removing the pretrial jail credits. Thereafter, TDOC filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, determining that TDOC complied with the criminal court’s judgment and the applicable law. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Eric D. Wallace v. Tony Parker, Et Al.
This appeal arises from the summary dismissal of an inmate’s petition for declaratory judgment pertaining to the calculation of his release eligibility date. The inmate was convicted of two felonies and ordered to serve a life sentence for the first felony and a 15-year sentence for the second, with the sentences to be served consecutively. When calculating his release eligibility date, the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) applied the inmate’s pretrial jail credits to the life sentence but not to the 15-year sentence. The inmate claimed that TDOC erred by failing to apply the credit to both sentences because the criminal court included the credit on both sentencing orders. While the inmate’s petition was pending, the criminal court issued a corrected sentencing order for the 15-year sentence, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, removing the pretrial jail credits. Thereafter, TDOC filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, determining that TDOC complied with the criminal court’s judgment and the applicable law. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Phi Air Medical, LLC v. Corizon, Inc.
PHI Air Medical brought suit based on unjust enrichment and action on sworn account against Corizon for air ambulance services it provided without a contract after Corizon paid only a portion of the billed amount, citing its practice of paying according to statutory caps and Medicare rates. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the preemption clause of the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713, which provides that a state “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation,” preempts PHI’s claims. We affirm the trial court’s finding that PHI’s claims are preempted and that summary judgment was proper. We reverse the trial court’s grant of PHI’s voluntary nonsuit of a claim that PHI did not plead. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In re River L. et al.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on four statutory grounds. She also challenges the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Pamela Salas v. John David Rosdeutscher, M.D, et al.
A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court following the denial of a motion that sought the disqualification of the trial court judge. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Vazeen v. Martin Sir
This appeal involves a fraud claim filed against an attorney by his former client. The attorney conceded that the client had been double-billed for some charges and repaid the client for those matters prior to trial. However, the client, now pro se, continued to pursue his claim for fraudulent billing, insisting that fraud extended to the entire invoice. He also claimed that the attorney had charged a higher hourly rate than agreed. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the client failed to demonstrate that the attorney intentionally misrepresented the amounts owed by the client and failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud. As such, the trial court dismissed the claim and granted the attorney’s request for discretionary costs. The client appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Department of Finance And Administration, Division Of TennCare v. The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority D/B/A Erlanger Health System
This appeal concerns an administrative judge’s decision to exclude several exhibits in a contested case between a hospital and the TennCare Division of the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration. At issue in the contested case is the validity of two TennCare rules that regulate payment for emergency services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries when the hospital has no contract with the beneficiaries’ managed care provider. The exhibits contain out-of-court statements made by industry representatives and federal agency employees about the meaning and application of federal and state law. TennCare asserts that the exhibits are necessary to show the reasonableness of its decision-making process. The healthcare services provider argues that the exhibits contain irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay. Having determined that the exhibits are not admissible under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, we affirm the administrative judge’s ruling. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Morrow Wright, et al. v. Matthew G. Buyer, et al.
After their case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiffs moved for relief from the judgment claiming that the trial judge should have recused herself. The court denied the motion for relief, and this appeal followed. We previously considered the plaintiffs’ claims of the judge’s “appearance of a predispositional bias” in an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. In that appeal, we determined that the plaintiffs had waived their right to challenge the judge’s impartiality. So based on the law of the case, we affirm the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jazmine D. Et Al.
The appellant, Juanita D., filed a motion to accept late-filed notice of appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Aaron J. Cryer, et al. v. City of Dyersburg, et al.
City employees brought action against the city upon its amendment of the pension plan. The trial court ruled in favor of the city. The employees appeal. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Dominic B.
This is an appeal from a termination of parental rights case. The trial court determined that three grounds for termination had been established as to the child’s mother: abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36- 1-102(1)(A)(ii), persistence of conditions pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(3), and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14). The court further determined that the termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Although we vacate two of the termination grounds due to insufficient findings, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there is clear and convincing evidence to support its finding of abandonment and its determination that the termination of the mother’s rights is in the child’s best interests. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Shelby County Board of Education, et al. v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association
In this appeal, we conclude that the original legal controversy was extinguished as moot prior to the trial court’s entry of judgment. As such, we vacate the trial court’s order as advisory and dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Julie C. W. v. Frank Mitchell W. Jr.
This appeal arises from a divorce. Julie C. W. (“Wife”) sued Frank Mitchell W. Jr. (“Husband”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court divided the marital estate, set child support and alimony, and entered a parenting plan. Wife appeals, raising a number of issues. In one issue, Wife argues that the Trial Court placed inordinate weight on the fact that Husband is 16 years older than her in awarding him roughly 59% of the marital estate, even though his earning power is substantially greater than hers. We agree. We vacate the Trial Court’s division of the marital estate and remand for a new and equitable division that is as close to a 50/50 division as possible, based upon the specific facts of this case. However, on all other issues, we discern no reversible error by the Trial Court. We thus affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, the Trial Court’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Julie C. W. v. Frank Mitchell W. Jr. - Concurring
I agree with the analysis and result of the majority opinion. I write separately to address one troubling issue—the Trial Court’s findings regarding Wife’s spending $2,000 per month on food for herself and her two teenagers. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jeremy C. Et Al.
This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Jeremy C. and Jessica C., the minor children (“the Children”) of Grace C. (“Mother”) and Jonathan H. (“Father”). The Children were originally removed from Mother’s home in December 2014 upon an emergency petition filed by Mother’s cousin in the Hickman County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”). At the time of removal, Father had been incarcerated for approximately two years. The Children were then placed with Mother’s cousin and her husband while also receiving services from the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). In March 2015, the juvenile court adjudicated the Children dependent and neglected. Upon a petition for relinquishment subsequently filed by the cousin and her husband, the Children were taken into DCS’s protective custody via an order entered by the juvenile court in March 2016. Following a hearing and upon DCS’s allegations that the Children had been severely abused while in the care of Mother and while residing with Mother’s former paramour, the juvenile court entered an agreed order in September 2016, adjudicating the Children dependent and neglected and severely abused. In July 2017, DCS filed a petition in the Hickman County Circuit Court (“trial court”) to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition as to both parents. As pertinent to this appeal, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had (1) abandoned the Children by willfully failing to visit them, (2) failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements of the permanency plans, (3) severely abused the Children, and (4) failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of or financial responsibility for the Children. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Kia Winfrey v. Blue Car, Inc.
After purchasing an automobile from the defendant, the plaintiff brought suit in the General Sessions Court for Davidson County, alleging fraud and deception. The defendant filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The general sessions court dismissed both parties’ claims and the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. The case was dormant for nearly six months. Eventually, the plaintiff moved to set a trial date with the circuit court. In response, the defendant moved to dismiss the case under Rule 20(b) of the Davidson County Local Rules of Court. The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s subsequent motion to set aside. The plaintiff appealed. We reverse the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside and remand. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Matthew Keith Allyn v. Kathryn Anne Donahue
This case involves a petition to modify a parenting plan. Specifically, Father filed a petition to modify the parties’ residential parenting schedule, arguing that a material change of circumstances had occurred. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court found that Father had failed to prove a material change of circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C). For the reasons contained herein, we affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Carolyn Payne v. Maxine Bradley
Sisters filed counter-complaints related to the enforcement of a written contract. The trial court ruled that the contract was missing an essential term and therefore could not be enforced. The trial court, however, awarded the plaintiff a judgment in quantum meruit. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Regina D. Gensci v. Cyrus W. Wiser
A husband filed a petition to retroactively reduce or terminate his alimony obligation, claiming he had no income during the relevant time period. The husband also sought to recover payment from his former wife for half of the remaining marital debt based on his interpretation of the final divorce decree. The trial court denied both requests. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the husband’s ability to pay remained unchanged. Based on the clear language of the final divorce decree and a subsequent agreed order, we also conclude that the wife was not responsible for the remaining debt. So we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals |
