Richard H. Dinkins

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.

family law

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.

family lawpropertyprocedure

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.

family lawproperty

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

family law

In this post-divorce case, Michael Gibson sought to modify or terminate the transitional alimony he owed his former wife Suzette under their 2017 Marital Dissolution Agreement, citing her cohabitation with a fiancé and reduced financial need. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. The MDA explicitly stated that the alimony—set at $5,000 monthly for 27 months then $4,000 for 26 months—was non-modifiable except upon the wife's remarriage, death, or the end of the 53-month term. The court held that when parties plainly agree in an MDA to make transitional alimony non-modifiable, that contractual term controls and bars modification under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-121, consistent with prior decisions such as Vick v. Hicks.

family law

This case was a premises liability lawsuit in which George Chittenden and his wife sued BRE/LQ Properties, LLC, the owner of a La Quinta hotel in Nashville, after Chittenden slipped and fell on snow and ice in the hotel parking lot during a snowfall on January 16, 2018, sustaining injuries that required hospitalization. The plaintiffs claimed the hotel negligently failed to monitor conditions or warn of or remove the hazard and sought damages for personal injury and loss of consortium. The trial court granted the hotel’s motion for summary judgment, and the Chittendens appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts showed no breach of duty because the snow accumulation was open and obvious, it was reasonable for the hotel to wait until the weather subsided before inspecting or clearing the lot, and there was no evidence that any ice-melt application was performed unreasonably.

torts & liability

This case involved a negligence claim under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act brought by Leo Landry on behalf of his son Noah, an 11-year-old student, against the Sumner County Board of Education. Noah severed the tip of his finger when a chair that had been placed upside down on a lunchroom table for cleaning fell on his hand after a chain of events triggered by his backpack strap catching on his own chair as he stood. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding insufficient evidence of a dangerous condition or foreseeability, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the undisputed facts showed no prior similar injuries, that the specific sequence leading to the fall was not reasonably foreseeable, and that the plaintiffs therefore could not establish the duty or proximate causation elements required for negligence or premises liability.

torts & liability

This case involved a dispute between unmarried parents over custody, parenting time, and related issues for their child born in 2012, including the mother's alleged failure to allow the father's Thanksgiving visitation, a request to change the child's surname to the father's, and which parent should be designated primary residential parent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's order holding the mother in criminal contempt for not producing the child or a designee for the scheduled exchange and designating the mother as primary residential parent with 265 days of parenting time. It vacated the order changing the child's surname, however, because the lower court had not made specific findings that the change served the child's best interest. The court reached these conclusions after reviewing the record and determining that the juvenile court had properly weighed the statutory best-interest factors under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 when deciding contempt and the parenting arrangement, while the name-change ruling lacked the required analysis. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surname issue.

family lawcriminal law

In January 2018, a mother was arrested for possessing methamphetamine while driving with her young daughter, leading the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services to take the child into custody and later petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights on grounds including abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, wanton disregard for the child’s welfare, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse. The juvenile court granted the petition after finding all four grounds and that termination served the child’s best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard and severe child abuse but held that the record lacked clear and convincing evidence to support the other two grounds or the best-interest determination, noting the mother’s compliance with her permanency plan, recovery efforts, and progress after an initial relapse. Because the best-interest finding was reversed, the court reversed the termination judgment in full and dismissed the petition.

family law

This case concerns a dispute over retroactive child support after paternity was established for a child born in 2004. The father appealed a juvenile court order that imposed support obligations dating back to December 2009—more than five years—arguing that the mother had not demonstrated good cause for the extended period under Tennessee law and that his income had been miscalculated. The Court of Appeals affirmed the retroactive award to 2009, finding good cause because the mother had initiated a child support case in 2009 through state services but the father could not be located until 2017, after which the petition proceeded. However, the court vacated the specific dollar amount of the monthly and retroactive support obligations, holding that the trial court failed to make adequate findings on the parents’ incomes or properly average the father’s variable commissions as required by state guidelines, and remanded for recalculation.

family law

In this 2005 divorce case, the final decree incorporated a marital dissolution agreement requiring Husband to pay Wife $50,000 in installments as part of the property division. More than ten years later, Wife filed a 2016 petition for contempt seeking to enforce the unpaid obligation, while Husband filed a separate breach-of-contract action claiming offsets for expenses he paid while the couple lived together from 2005 to 2010; the trial court consolidated the matters, treated the case as one for contempt, and awarded Wife a net judgment after set-offs. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Wife’s enforcement action was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-110(a)(2) because it was filed more than a decade after entry of the original judgment and no timely extension motion had been made.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a post-divorce dispute over modification of a parenting plan between Michael P. Abraham and Carolynn Abraham, focusing on whether Father remained obligated after 2011 to contribute a portion of his bonuses to the children's college funds under the original 2004 plan (which was replaced by an agreed 2011 plan omitting that requirement), reimbursement for Father's unauthorized withdrawal from the account, Mother's request for vehicle and extracurricular expense reimbursements, and adjustments to child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings in full, holding that Father had no ongoing contribution duty after the 2011 modification but must repay the withdrawn funds, while denying Mother's other reimbursement and support adjustment claims (except for a money judgment to Mother for certain expenses incurred when the children resided with her) and declining attorney fees for either party. The core reasoning was that the 2011 plan superseded the prior obligation by agreement, the record supported the trial court's factual findings and discretionary decisions on expenses and support without clear error, and neither party demonstrated grounds for fee awards under the marital dissolution agreement or statute.

family law

This case arose from a breach of contract dispute after the death of one co-owner of Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee, LLC. Plaintiffs, representing the deceased owner’s estate, sued to collect the unpaid balance on a promissory note and related guaranty that defendants had executed to buy out the ownership interest. Defendants admitted they had not made the required payments but filed a counterclaim alleging that the estate breached a separate agreement by failing to file amended tax returns and pay related IRS amounts. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, dismissed the counterclaim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the plaintiffs had fulfilled their tax-related obligations (with the IRS rejecting their payment) while defendants concededly failed to pay the note, leaving no material facts in dispute.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

Sandra Pippin, the non-biological former partner of Christina Pippin, petitioned the Wilson County General Sessions Court to be declared the legal parent of a child born to Christina in 2011 through artificial insemination during their nine-year relationship, and to obtain a parenting schedule. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of standing but granted Sandra visitation. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sandra had no statutory or common-law basis to establish parentage because she was neither the biological nor adoptive parent and Tennessee does not recognize “de facto parentage” under these facts. The court also vacated the visitation order as unsupported once the parentage claim failed.

family law

In this case, a father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his daughter Isabella, who had been removed from her mother's custody and placed in foster care after the mother's 2017 arrest; the juvenile court had found three grounds for termination—substantial noncompliance with permanency plan requirements, persistence of conditions preventing safe return of the child, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody—plus that termination served the child's best interest. The father contended that the evidence failed to support those grounds or best-interest findings, and that he was entitled to a new trial due to ineffective counsel, denial of a continuance to represent himself, and lack of competence to stand trial. The Court of Appeals held that the father received fundamentally fair procedures, that he had waived the continuance and competence issues, and that the record supported two of the three grounds as well as the best-interest determination by clear and convincing evidence. It therefore reversed the trial court only on the "failure to manifest" ground, affirmed the termination of rights on the remaining grounds, and remanded the case. The court emphasized the father's long absence from the child's life since a 2014 no-contact order, his repeated incarcerations, failure to seek modification of the order or build a relationship with the child, and the child's strong progress and bond in a stable pre-adoptive foster home.

family law

This case involved an appeal by a mother (Autumn S.) challenging the termination of her parental rights to her daughter Daisy A., born in 2015. Grandparents who had taken custody of the child filed a petition alleging grounds including abandonment by willful failure to visit and support, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, plus that termination served the child's best interest. The juvenile court terminated the mother's rights after a trial, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported three termination grounds and that termination was in Daisy's best interest. The court based this on the mother's lack of consistent contact or support, her unstable living situation involving drug use, the child's strong bond with the grandparents in a stable home, and the risk of harm if custody changed.

family law

In this case, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents to their son Eli after he was removed from the home in 2016 due to exposure to methamphetamine manufacturing, drug use, and the parents’ incarceration, leading to findings of dependency and neglect and severe child abuse by the mother. The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights on multiple statutory grounds, including abandonment, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse as to the mother, while also finding termination to be in the child’s best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed some of the grounds, such as abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions, due to insufficient evidence, but affirmed others—including abandonment by wanton disregard for the child’s welfare, substantial noncompliance with the plans, the mother’s severe child abuse, and the father’s failure to manifest an ability to assume custody—along with the best-interest determination. The court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported termination on the remaining grounds because the parents’ criminal conduct and incarceration had prevented any relationship with the child, while the child was thriving in a stable pre-adoptive foster home.

family lawcriminal law

Kaviandra James, a preferred-service case manager with the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, was terminated after using her login to access her sister’s confidential Child Protective Services file and emailing information from it to the assigned case manager, the manager’s supervisor, and her sister. The Board of Appeals modified the termination to a suspension without pay and reinstated her with back pay, concluding that her conduct did not violate the Department’s conflict-of-interest policy or the rule against unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. The chancery court affirmed the Board, and the Court of Appeals likewise affirmed, holding that substantial and material evidence supported the Board’s factual and legal determinations and that deference was due to the agency’s interpretation of its own rules.

labor & employmentprocedure