Frank G. Clement jr

In the Estate of Beverly Louise Ingram, who died intestate in 2020, her heirs Robert Davidson Jr. and Shuntae Davidson, along with Robert Davidson Sr., litigated the partition and sale of jointly owned real property and the administration of the estate, resulting in a final probate court order that approved administrator fees totaling over $33,000, related attorney fees exceeding $50,000, and other expenses to be paid from the $181,603 net proceeds of the property sale before equal distribution of the remainder. Appellants Robert Sr. and Shuntae Davidson challenged these fee awards on appeal, claiming errors in the approval of administrator invoices, mathematical inconsistencies, unsupported charges, and unrecorded oral objections. The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that all issues were waived because the appellants' brief failed to include specific citations to the record or authorities as required by Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6 and Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. The court further determined the appeal was frivolous, entitled the administrator to reasonable compensation for defending it, and remanded for the trial court to assess additional fees and damages against the appellants.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this case, Paul Slate filed a verified claim in probate court against the estate of his late business partner Shawn Sheeks, seeking an accounting and $382,207.48 in damages for allegedly unequal distributions from their jointly owned companies. While that claim was pending, a separate lawsuit in the Davidson County Business Court litigated dissolution of the entities, an accounting, counterclaims for loans and breaches, and asset distribution among Slate, the estate, and Ms. Sheeks, resulting in a final unappealed judgment that allocated proceeds after offsets. The estate then moved for summary judgment in probate court to dismiss the claim on res judicata grounds. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the probate claim arose from the same parties, transactions, facts, and relief sought (non-proportional disbursements requiring an accounting) that were or could have been resolved in the Business Court action, with no distinct fraud allegation present.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this accelerated appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, Russell Allen Dunn, III challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to recuse Judge A. Ensley Hagan, Jr., in a post-divorce proceeding involving Kaileigh Marie Dunn. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of recusal. The court reasoned that shared membership in the Lebanon Noon Rotary Club between the judge and the appellee (who serves on its board) created no objective appearance of impropriety under the applicable standard, that the appellant's allegation of the appellee's statement claiming favoritism did not demonstrate any actual bias by the judge, and that the motion was untimely because it was filed ten months after the appellant learned of the alleged facts without good cause for the delay.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services petitioning to terminate Jermale H.’s parental rights to his son Bravon K. (born 2018), after the child entered foster care in 2020 due to parental drug exposure and other concerns; the father’s sister and her husband separately sought to intervene in the proceedings to pursue custody. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s rights on three grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence—abandonment by an incarcerated parent via wanton disregard (based on his 2018 drug and weapons offenses committed while the child was in utero, a 2020 domestic assault, and positive drug tests), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan requirements, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody—plus a best-interest finding, while also upholding the denial of the relatives’ motion to intervene. The court rejected the relatives’ procedural challenges to the intervention denial, holding that Rule 24 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure does not mandate an evidentiary hearing or detailed findings for permissive intervention. It further concluded that the father’s pre-incarceration conduct and post-release instability satisfied the statutory grounds, without requiring the trial court to specify every definitional subsection of abandonment.

family lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Timothy Manners, who petitioned for and obtained appointment as conservator for his 84-year-old father, Leon Aubrey Manners, after presenting evidence of the father's cognitive decline, Parkinson's disease, and inability to manage his affairs safely. The trial court granted the conservatorship, finding clear and convincing evidence that it was needed and in the father's best interest, but exercised its discretion under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-114 to charge the petitioner with his own attorney's fees and expenses plus half the guardian ad litem fees, reasoning that the need was "borderline," the father had opposed the petition, and the petitioner stood to benefit. The Court of Appeals vacated that cost allocation, holding that the trial court had based its ruling on an erroneous assessment of the facts and a misapplication of the governing statute. It remanded with directions to assess all approved guardian ad litem fees, the petitioner's reasonable trial and appellate fees and costs, and the attorney ad litem's appellate fees against the father's property.

family lawprocedure

In this child custody and support case, the mother appealed the juvenile court’s sanctions against her for repeatedly failing to comply with discovery requests and court orders in long-running litigation with the father over parenting time and child support for their child Laila. The father had served a subpoena for income-related documents to address support issues, and after the mother ignored it and a subsequent motion to compel, the juvenile court ordered production by a deadline and warned of sanctions under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37.02; when she still did not comply and failed to appear at the sanctions hearing, the court granted the father relief on his petition, held her in contempt for nonpayment of support, and awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother’s persistent noncompliance justified the sanctions and fee award, that she had waived challenges to the fees by not raising them below, and that the fee statement complied with procedural rules allowing unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Houston County breached a 2012 Letter of Intent by failing to repay Acute Care Holdings, LLC, for loans Acute Care made to keep a financially distressed local hospital operating while the county negotiated its purchase and a subsequent lease to Acute Care. After remand from an earlier appeal, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to Acute Care, finding the county had breached the agreement, and entered an Agreed Final Judgment awarding Acute Care $1,218,062.63 plus prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the material facts were undisputed: all contingencies in the Letter of Intent had been satisfied, the county commissioners had authorized the purchase and lease, the county ultimately bought the hospital (albeit after the deadline and after replacing Acute Care with another manager), and the county was therefore obligated to repay the loans rather than avoid that obligation. The court concluded that these facts established breach as a matter of law, supporting the damages award.

business & regulatoryhealthcarepropertyprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the executor of Mark Pirtle’s estate against John Howerton and their jointly owned company, H&P, Inc., alleging breach of a 2014 stock purchase agreement under which Howerton was to pay Pirtle $1 million plus $8,000 per month for 96 months and vehicle lease or purchase payments up to $1,500 per month for 96 months in exchange for Pirtle’s shares. The defendants claimed they had satisfied the obligations through a $40,000 lump-sum payment and a handwritten note forgiving debts if the agreements were honored for one year after Pirtle’s death, and they disputed any missed payments. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the cash-payment claim based on undisputed evidence of only 17 payments made, awarded attorney fees under an indemnity clause, and at trial granted a directed verdict on the vehicle-payment claim for lack of proof of damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment and directed verdict but vacated the fee award. It held that the indemnity clause did not specifically authorize recovery of fees in an interparty breach-of-contract action between the original parties to the agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose after Genesis Roofing Company contested two “serious” safety citations and a $9,500 penalty issued by TOSHA following a fatal 2019 workplace fall through a skylight. The Review Commission upheld the citations in a final order entered May 2, 2024; Genesis Roofing filed its petition for judicial review in chancery court on July 5, 2024—four days after the statutory deadline—and asked the court to enlarge the time under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. The trial court denied the enlargement and dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the 60-day filing period in Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-5-322(b)(1)(A)(iv) is mandatory and jurisdictional, comparable to a notice of appeal, and therefore cannot be extended by Rule 6.02.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute over modifying a 2016 Permanent Parenting Plan for a child born in 2011, after Father Randy Arnold petitioned in 2022 to change custody and Mother Kamilah Sanders responded with her own petition (later limited to child support). Following a hearing, the juvenile court magistrate found a material change in circumstances based on Mother's housing instability, multiple relocations (eight locations since 2020, including out-of-state periods), and resulting effects on the child's school attendance (59 tardies, mostly during Mother's time). The magistrate then conducted a best-interest analysis under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106, crediting Father with greater parental responsibility, more stability (residing at one location since 2020), and continuity, and awarded him primary residential parent status with 195 parenting days, sole educational decision-making, and joint decision-making on other issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's ruling in full, holding that the evidence supported the findings and that Mother failed to show they preponderated against the judgment, while remanding solely to set child support.

family law

Tammala Thompson sued the State of Tennessee in the Claims Commission, alleging that the State negligently maintained an uneven sidewalk at Cedars of Lebanon State Park, causing her to trip and fall while walking back to her campsite during a weekend camping trip. The State moved to dismiss the action under the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (TRUS), which limits liability for injuries occurring on state property used for recreation. The Claims Commission granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the TRUS barred the claim. The court reasoned that Thompson entered the park for the recreational purpose of camping, that the statute applied upon her arrival regardless of her precise activity at the moment of injury, and that it covered man-made features such as sidewalks, consistent with prior decisions involving similar park improvements. The court noted that the TRUS takes precedence over the general waiver of immunity for negligent maintenance of state property.

torts & liabilityproperty

Homeowners Billy and Tammy Hughes and their general contractor sued brick distributor Lee Masonry and manufacturer Acme Brick after receiving two loads of MonteVista bricks that did not match in appearance, asserting claims for breach of contract and express and implied warranties. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to give the defendants an opportunity to cure the defect before filing suit. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that Tennessee’s Uniform Commercial Code governed the transaction, the bricks had been accepted, and therefore no pre-suit opportunity to cure was required. It nonetheless affirmed dismissal of all claims against Acme because the plaintiffs lacked contractual privity with the manufacturer, while allowing the claims against Lee Masonry to proceed.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over ownership of Cooper & Woodall Properties, Inc. (CWP), a company formed in 2011 to purchase commercial real estate in Tennessee. Plaintiff William Woodall claimed he and defendant Robert Cooper had an oral agreement that Woodall would receive a 50% interest in CWP in exchange for personally guaranteeing a bank loan used to buy the property; Cooper maintained that Woodall only had a one-year option to purchase that interest. After a bench trial, the Chancery Court credited Woodall’s account, declared him a 50% owner, and awarded him his share of the company’s profits. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the oral agreement concerned the transfer of corporate stock and was therefore enforceable under the UCC without a writing, that the Statute of Frauds did not apply, and that judicial estoppel was inapplicable because Woodall had made no contradictory sworn statements in prior litigation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves post-divorce disputes between Margaret Bush (Wright) and Ronald Stevens Wright, Jr., over enforcement and modification of their marital dissolution agreement and permanent parenting plan, including claims for unpaid child support, alimony arrearages, changes to parenting time and decision-making, and attorney’s fees. After the mother filed petitions to enforce and modify the agreements, the father paid the past-due support amounts, and the parties resolved the remaining issues through mediation and an agreed order, leaving only the fee issue for the trial court. The trial court found neither party was the sole prevailing party and denied fees to both. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the mother qualified as the prevailing party on the enforcement claims because the father paid the arrearages after she initiated enforcement proceedings, entitling her to reasonable attorney’s fees under the MDA’s mandatory dispute resolution provision. The court affirmed the denial of fees on the modification claims under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), as both parties achieved partial success with no clear prevailing party, and remanded for an award of the mother’s enforcement-related fees while denying fees on appeal to either side.

family law

In In re John W., the mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children after the father and stepmother filed a petition for stepparent adoption. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination proven by clear and convincing evidence, including abandonment through failure to visit and support since 2018, and determined that termination was in the children's best interest based on factors such as the children's lack of a safe environment with the mother, her history of protection orders, and absence of financial support. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court's findings on both the grounds and the best-interest analysis after reviewing the testimony and evidence.

family law

This case involved a dispute between divorced parents over whether a father’s child support obligation for his severely disabled adult daughter could be extended beyond the termination date set in their Marital Dissolution Agreement, which ended on the child’s 25th birthday. The mother petitioned the court to continue support indefinitely, citing the daughter’s ongoing disabilities including microcephaly, autism, and anxiety, which prevented her from living independently. The trial court found the daughter to be severely disabled under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-101(k)(2), ruled that the MDA’s fixed termination provision was unenforceable as against public policy, extended the father’s support obligation indefinitely, and awarded the mother $21,700 in retroactive support. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that state law permits indefinite support for a severely disabled adult child who was disabled before age 18 and that the retroactive award was proper because the petition was filed before the original support end date.

family law

This case involves a divorce action filed in Shelby County Chancery Court by Ewayna Mechelle Brown against Bruce Edward Thomas after a brief marriage with no children, during which the parties had obtained competing orders of protection that were consolidated into the divorce proceeding. Brown, representing herself after her attorney withdrew, appealed the final divorce decree, arguing that the chancellor was biased, erred by denying her divorce petition while granting the husband's counterpetition via default judgment, violated due process by not ruling on her pending motions, and improperly allocated marital debts. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in full, holding that Brown had failed to file an answer to the counter-complaint despite being given extra time, that she did not properly set her motions for hearing under local court rules, and that the record contained no transcript or statement of the evidence to support claims of bias or error in the equitable division of debts. The court noted that each party was held responsible only for debts in their own name, with the wife solely liable for any deficiency on the foreclosed marital home, and that the trial court's credibility and factual findings were presumed correct absent contrary evidence in the record.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Patricia Slate’s pro se appeal from a trial court’s dismissal of her complaint against Smiley Bail Bonds and Wilson County Jail, which asserted claims including unlawful detainment, negligence, an Eighth Amendment violation, and defamation arising from her arrest and ten-day incarceration by bounty hunters after she missed a court date while injured. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The court held that Slate’s appellate brief was profoundly noncompliant with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, as it lacked a proper statement of issues, contained no developed argument or summary of argument with citations to legal authority, and made no references to the record. Although recognizing that pro se litigants are entitled to fair treatment, the court emphasized that they must still comply with procedural rules, and the deficiencies here waived any issues for review.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a Tennessee mother's appeal of the juvenile court's termination of her parental rights to two young children, Ava and Mitchell, after they were removed from her custody due to prenatal and postnatal drug exposure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, upholding the ground of severe child abuse under state law and the finding that termination served the children's best interests. The court reasoned that the abuse ground was established by a prior unappealed dependency adjudication and supporting evidence of the mother's drug use, while the best-interests determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence including her ongoing substance abuse, criminal activity, housing instability, failure to comply with permanency plan requirements, the children's strong bond with their pre-adoptive foster family, and their need for permanency after over two years in state custody.

family law

This case involved third-party breach-of-contract claims brought by real estate developer 5D Development, Inc. against several affiliated investment companies (the Electra Defendants) after TIMGMT Acquisitions sued 5D. The trial court granted an agreed extension for the Electra Defendants to file a “responsive pleading,” but they instead filed a Rule 12 motion to dismiss before the deadline; the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the claims but denied the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs under Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-12-119(c)(1) because the written motion neither requested fees nor cited the statute. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the agreed order did not waive the right to seek dismissal under Rule 12. It reversed the denial of fees, however, ruling that an oral request for fees made at the hearing on the motion to dismiss was timely and sufficient, as it was directly related to the matter under consideration and the statute itself mandates an award upon a successful Rule 12 dismissal. The court remanded for calculation of the reasonable fees and costs.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure