APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In this health care liability action, we must determine whether the plaintiff properly complied with the pre-suit notice requirement found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1). The original defendants in this matter all filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment alleging that they did not provide medical treatment to the plaintiff/appellee. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a response to the defendants' motion acknowledging that she had mistakenly identified a proper defendant in this suit. The plaintiff also filed a motion to amend her complaint attempting to remedy that mistake by substituting in the proper defendant. After both motions were heard, the trial court denied the original defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff/appellee's motion to amend her complaint. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

I concur in the majority opinion’s denial of West Tennessee Health Network and West Tennessee Healthcare, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. Like the majority, I express no opinion whatsoever on whether dismissal of these two parties might be appropriate under other theories. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s holding that pre-suit notice was provided to the District and that amendment of Ms. Runions’ complaint was proper. The majority opinion states: “we cannot ignore the unmistakable acknowledgement from Ms. Zamata’s letter that Ms. Runions did, in fact, provide written notice of a potential claim against the District.” Herein lies my disagreement with the majority opinion.

In this premises liability case, the plaintiff appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant property owner. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Roxann Lee Cruse, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for her Dyer County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of the sale of a Schedule III narcotic. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Richard W. Wilburn, was sentenced to an effective ten-year sentence for his guilty-pleaded convictions to one count of initiating the methamphetamine manufacturing process and three counts of driving on a revoked license, second offense or more.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by applying enhancement factor 10—the Defendant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high—to increase his sentence for initiating the manufacturing methamphetamine process because, he asserts, there was no proof that anyone was endangered by his actions.  He also submits that the trial court erred by denying any form of alternative sentencing based upon his need for drug treatment.  Following our review, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s sentencing decision.  Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed.

In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, Appellants appeal from separate orders denying two motions for recusal filed in this case. After thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal, we affirm the decision of the trial court to deny the recusal motions. 

Wesley Howard Luthringer (“the Defendant”) was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide by a Bedford County jury.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-four years for each count to be served consecutively as a Range I standard offender.  On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to find him guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively.  After a thorough review of the record and case law, we affirm.

The defendant, Misty Ann Miller, appeals the trial court’s denial of her Rule 35 motion to modify the sentences imposed against her pursuant to a negotiated plea deal.  On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding no new post-sentencing developments exist to justify a modification of her sentences.  After our review, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

In this drug forfeiture case, we have concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the property owner failed to filed a petition for judicial review within the sixty-day time period required under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(b).  We, therefore, vacate the trial court’s decision.

A purchaser of property entered into an installment contract and signed a promissory note specifying the day on which monthly payments were to be made. The purchaser began making payments on different days of the months and the seller accepted these payments over a course of years. Over seven years after the contract was executed, the seller sought to declare the contract null and void because the purchaser failed to tender his payment on the day specified in the note. The trial court awarded the seller relief and granted it possession of the property. The purchaser appealed, and we reverse the trial court’s judgment. We conclude the parties modified the terms of the promissory note through their course of conduct and that the purchaser did not breach the contract.

This is the second appeal in this case involving a long-running battle between foster parents and the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). In 2014, DCS removed the three-year-old child at issue from her foster home of three years. In the context of this already pending termination and adoption proceeding, the chancery court held an evidentiary hearing and determined that there was insufficient evidence to justify removal and that DCS had taken steps adverse to the child’s best interest. The chancery court ordered DCS to return the child to her foster home. On extraordinary appeal, this Court determined that a trial court cannot direct the placement of a foster child within DCS legal custody, but we recognized that the trial court could remove legal custody from DCS and place custody directly with the foster parents if warranted. One week prior to the hearing on remand, DCS participated in a surrender proceeding under a separate docket number and contemporaneously obtained an order of full guardianship over the child. DCS then moved to dismiss as moot the termination, adoption, and custody petitions pending in this case because DCS, as guardian, refused to consent to an adoption by the child’s former foster parents. The child’s current foster mother attempted to intervene. After a two-day trial, the trial court dismissed the former foster parents’ petitions as moot and granted the adoption to the current foster mother, as DCS in its role as guardian would only consent to an adoption by her. The child’s guardian ad litem appeals. The former foster parents and DCS raise additional issues. We affirm in part, vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This is a breach of contract action in which the lessor filed suit against the lessee for non-payment of rent, utilities, and repairs pursuant to the terms of a lease agreement for two units in a commercial building. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of lessor. The lessee appeals. We affirm.

Purchasers of real estate brought suit against the seller as well as the real estate agent and agency that assisted the buyers, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of duty to disclose adverse facts related to the purchased property, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The buyers argued that the defendants misrepresented the age and history of the home and did not disclose that it had a mold problem. Upon motion for summary judgment, the agent and the agency were dismissed as defendants. The trial court subsequently denied the buyers' motion to reconsider the summary judgment order. The buyers appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal limited to the issue of whether the orders of an Indian court regarding matters pending in India is entitled to full faith and credit, such that this state’s trial court lacks jurisdiction over custody of the minor child pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The mother, an Indian citizen but permanent resident of the United States, filed an action in India seeking the return of her minor son. She contends that her son, a citizen of the United States, is being detained illegally in India by her husband and his family. The Indian court ruled that the child should remain with the paternal grandparents in India at this time. The mother, thereafter, filed an action for divorce in Shelby County. After a hearing, the state trial court ordered, inter alia, that the father, also an Indian citizen but permanent resident of the United States, return the child to Tennessee within seven days. Upon the trial court’s denial of the father’s request for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9, the father sought a Rule 10 extraordinary appeal of the trial court’s ruling. We find that the appeal was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we decline to address the issue presented and dismiss the appeal.

This appeal involves a suit filed in the Tennessee Claims Commission against the State of Tennessee for the wrongful death of Tammy Hale. The claimant, Ms. Hale’s father, titled his cause of action as one for “negligent care, custody, and control of persons” pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(E). The claimant alleged that the State was responsible for the actions of an inmate whose release was not conditioned upon participation in community supervision for life as required by section 39-13-524. The State sought dismissal, alleging that the claim was really one for “negligent deprivation of statutory rights” based upon the failure to adhere to section 39-13-524, which does not confer a private right of action. Following a hearing, the Claims Commission, William O. Shults, Commissioner, agreed and dismissed the claim. The claimant appeals. We affirm.

This case concerns modification of a parenting plan. Following her divorce in Tennessee, Mother moved with her child to Maryland. Father initially opposed the move, but an agreed order entered after the move adopted an amended permanent parenting plan, which named Mother the primary residential parent. The amended permanent parenting plan granted Father parenting time over the summer, during certain holidays, and when either Father traveled to Maryland or Mother traveled to Tennessee. After experiencing difficulties exercising parenting time and growing concern over Mother’s care of the child, Father filed a petition requesting to be named primary residential parent. The trial court denied the request. Although it found a material change in circumstances based on the child’s serious mental health issues, the court determined that it was in the best interest of the child to remain with Mother. Father appeals arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) finding it was in the child’s best interest for Mother to remain the primary residential parent; (2) not finding Mother in contempt; and (3) awarding attorney’s fees to Mother. We affirm the decision of the trial court.  

Mother has appealed the trial court’s decisions regarding parenting time, criminal contempt, child support, and the child’s surname. We have determined that the trial court erred in finding Mother in criminal contempt as to one of the three incidents at issue, in setting temporary child support, in failing to order Father to pay child support by wage assignment, and in ordering the child’s surname to be changed to Father’s surname. In all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to six children and a father’s parental rights to three of those children. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of five grounds for termination of parental rights and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We conclude that DCS did not prove abandonment by an incarcerated parent by clear and convincing evidence. Because the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support four grounds for termination, namely, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse, and that termination is in the best interest of the children, we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights, to two minor children, on the grounds of: (1) severe child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(4) and 37-1-102(22)(C); and (2) abandonment by willful failure to support and willful failure to visit, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(i).  Father also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  Because Appellees did not meet their burden to show that Father willfully failed to provide support for the children, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to the ground of abandonment by willful failure to support.  The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

This is an administrative appeal in which Petitioner challenges the decision of the Tennessee Department of Human Services to suspend services he received pursuant to the state’s vocational rehabilitation program. The Division of Appeals and Hearings upheld the Department’s decision to suspend Petitioner’s services and this decision was affirmed by the Department’s commissioner. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review with the Shelby County Chancery Court. The court upheld the Department’s actions and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed; we affirm.

The Petitioner, Mahlon Johnson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief for his convictions for sexual battery and aggravated assault. On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Corey Forest, was indicted for possession of twenty-six grams of cocaine with the intent to sell in a drug-free school zone, possession of marijuana, and unlawful possession of a firearm.  The Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the warrantless search of his vehicle.  The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion, and the Defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of possession of more than .5 grams of a Schedule II substance and to unlawful possession of a firearm, and attempted to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) about whether the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle by law enforcement was lawful.  After review, because the Defendant has failed to properly comply with Rule 37, we dismiss the Defendant’s appeal.

The minor child at the center of this appeal was born on April 3, 2012, in El Paso, Texas. Mother and child moved to Nashville, Tennessee, three months later. Father subsequently moved to Delaware. While living in Delaware, Father pled guilty to two counts of rape and was sentenced to concurrent twenty-five year sentences beginning June of 2013. Mother married Stepfather in late 2013, and in October 2014, Stepfather and Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights and to allow Stepfather to adopt the child. The petition, as amended, alleged abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support, abandonment by failure to visit or support in the four months prior to Father’s incarceration, and Father’s incarceration under a sentence of ten or more years with the child being under eight years of age as grounds for termination. Following a trial at which Father, who was incarcerated, participated by telephone, the court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and incarceration under a sentence of ten years or more and upon a finding that termination was in the child’s best interest; the petition for adoption was also granted. Father appeals the termination of his rights, stating that the court erred in denying a motion to continue so he could appear in person and in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the minor child. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. 

This cause came on to be heard upon the record on appeal from the Davidson County Circuit Court, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel. Upon consideration of the entire record, this court finds and concludes that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.

This appeal concerns a dispute between a father and his adult son over the transfer of real property. In 1997, the father constructed a house on a portion of his two-acre tract of land for his son. Several years later, the son agreed to purchase the house. Subsequently, a disagreement led the parties to discover identical errors in the legal descriptions in the warranty deed executed by the father transferring the property to the son and the deed of trust securing the son’s purchase money loan. The trial court, upon its finding of mutual mistake, reformed the incorrect legal descriptions in the deeds, but the court also granted the father a right to use a shed and garden on the son’s land. We affirm the trial court’s reformation of the legal descriptions in the deeds. However, because we conclude that the evidence is less than clear and convincing that the parties intended the deeds to include the father’s right of use, we reverse the trial court’s decision to grant the interest.