In the case of In re Justin D., a Tennessee juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Megan R. and Justin D. to their two young children after finding the children dependent and neglected and placing them with their maternal aunt and uncle in 2016. The parents appealed the termination, which was based on grounds including abandonment by failure to visit and support, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, along with a best-interests finding. The Court of Appeals reversed the persistence-of-conditions and willingness-to-assume-custody grounds as to the mother but affirmed abandonment by failure to visit for both parents and all other grounds as to the father. It upheld the termination for both parents, concluding that clear and convincing evidence showed the children had been in stable care with the petitioners since 2016 with no parental contact since late 2017, while the parents had ongoing substance abuse, mental health, and compliance issues that prevented reunification.
In this case, a former wife sued her ex-husband for breaching their Marital Dissolution Agreement by failing to properly store her personal property items in the garage for retrieval, resulting in damage or loss to most of the items. The trial court awarded the wife $7,820 in damages based on the fair market values listed next to the items in the MDA but denied both parties’ requests for attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the damages award, holding that the MDA values provided a reasonable basis for calculating the loss and that the husband had not met his burden to show the wife failed to mitigate damages. The court reversed the denial of attorney’s fees, concluding that the MDA’s enforcement provision required the trial court to award reasonable fees to the prevailing party without discretion to deny them, and remanded for a determination of the fee amount.
In this divorce case, Leslie Allison Muse appealed the Knox County Chancery Court's final decree granting her a divorce from Robert L. Jolley, Jr., after their 1996 marriage and three children, specifically challenging the division of marital assets and debts as well as the determination of Jolley's monthly income for child support purposes. The trial court had classified and divided the estate, found Jolley's income to be $10,000 per month, and ordered him to pay $911 monthly in child support. On appeal, Muse argued that a mathematical error in the court's balance sheet produced an unintended 73-27 property split instead of 50-50, that Jolley's self-employment income history warranted a higher figure for support calculations, and that she should recover appeal costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in full, holding that the property division was equitable under Tennessee law despite the noted arithmetic discrepancy, that evidence supported the $10,000 income finding as within the average of Jolley's earnings over several years with no improper "cap" applied, and that costs on appeal were not warranted.
This case concerns efforts to revive a 1987 money judgment that William Reese obtained against Dominick Amari in a contract dispute over airplane repairs. Amari answered the original complaint but did not appear at trial; the court entered judgment against him after hearing Reese’s proof of damages. When Reese later sought to extend the judgment in 2018, Amari moved to set it aside as void under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 55.02 and 60.02, arguing that it was an improper default judgment entered without the notice required by Rule 55.01. The trial court denied the motion and renewed the judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 1987 judgment was not a default judgment because Amari had filed an answer and the court had decided the case on the pleadings and evidence presented at trial. The appellate court therefore concluded the judgment was valid and not subject to being set aside.
This case involved the Metropolitan Government of Nashville seeking to enforce a citation against Prime Nashville, LLC for operating and advertising a short-term rental property without a required permit, seeking daily fines, a three-year waiting period for any future permit, and a permanent injunction. After Prime provided incomplete discovery responses, the trial court granted Metro’s motion to compel and later entered a default judgment as a sanction when Prime still failed to fully comply. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37.02 by striking Prime’s answer and awarding default relief. The court reasoned that Prime had delayed responses without explanation, left interrogatories and document requests unanswered, made boilerplate objections, and offered no valid excuse at the default hearing despite multiple opportunities to cure the deficiencies.
This case concerns an appeal from a trial court's decision to terminate a father's parental rights to his child, Braelyn K.S., under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14), which allows termination when a parent has failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the father's rights. In this separate opinion, Judge Dinkins concurs with the outcome affirming termination but dissents from the majority's reading of the statutory requirement. He maintains that the petitioner must prove both a failure to manifest ability and a failure to manifest willingness, consistent with prior precedent such as In re Ayden S.