Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Codie Lynn Anderson v. Leah Rae Marshall
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024-12-19
This case involved a dispute between parents Codie Anderson (Father) and Leah Marshall (Mother) over custody of their child born in 2015, after Father petitioned in 2021 to modify the original parenting plan that had designated Mother as primary residential parent with 245 days of parenting time. The Juvenile Court for Dyer County found a material change in circumstances based on evidence that Mother had repeatedly denied Father visitation and interfered with his parenting time, modified the plan to name Father as primary residential parent with the majority of parenting time, and allowed Father to relocate with the child. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Mother had not preserved her challenge to the exclusion of certain psychiatric records because she failed to make an offer of proof at trial. The court further concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody, as the evidence supported the change, and that Father’s relocation was properly permitted because Mother had not timely objected to his notice of intent to move and the court had assessed the child’s best interests.
family law
April Hawthorne v. Morgan & Morgan Nashville, PLLC
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024-12-19
This case involves a lawsuit by April Hawthorne, a member of a prior class action concerning the mishandling of remains at Galilee Memorial Gardens cemetery, against attorneys Kathryn Barnett, John Morgan, and their law firms and affiliates. Hawthorne alleges legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming the defendants ignored or mishandled over $14 million in settlement offers from funeral home defendants without communicating them to class representatives. The trial court granted class certification for the claims, and on appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as common questions of fact and law—particularly regarding the defendants’ handling of settlement offers—predominated over individual issues for all class members, who had shared equally in any prior recoveries, and that a class action was superior to individual litigation to avoid inconsistent judgments and undue burden on the courts.
proceduretorts & liability
Brittany Sharayah Lehmann v. Jerry Scott Wilson
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024-12-06
This case involved a dispute between unmarried parents Brittany Sharayah Lehmann and Jerry Scott Wilson over custody, parenting time, child support, and related issues for their child born in 2020. After the mother petitioned the Rutherford County Juvenile Court to establish parentage and a parenting plan, the magistrate designated her as primary residential parent, granted the father limited weekend visitation subject to supervision by another adult, suspended several of his parental rights, ordered substantial child support and arrearages, and awarded her attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the restrictions on the father’s parenting time and rights, as well as the fee award, because the trial court failed to apply the required legal standards for limiting parental rights and did not assess the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed the judgment on all other issues and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
family law
Mitchell D. Horst v. Gary Gaar
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024-12-04
The case involved Mitchell Horst and his investment firms suing his former father-in-law, Gary Gaar, for tortious interference with a business contract and relationship, commercial disparagement, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The claims arose from Gaar’s alleged statements to a former client, who then transferred assets away from Horst’s firm, with the complaint asserting the statements concerned the client’s divorce-related concerns and Horst’s potential relocation. The trial court dismissed the complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 for failure to state a claim, later also granted dismissal and attorney’s fees under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, and awarded fees tied to the Rule 12 dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Rule 12 dismissal, finding the pleadings insufficient, and upheld the related fee award under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119 despite a procedural timing issue. It vacated the TPPA dismissal and associated fees but left the Rule 12-based relief intact.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedurefree speech
In Re Princeton W.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024-11-21
This case involved a petition by Raya M., who had legal custody of Princeton W. since the child was an infant, to terminate the parental rights of the mother, Dejanae Y., on grounds including abandonment by failure to visit, so that Raya could adopt the child. The trial court terminated the mother's rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that she had engaged in only token visitation and had not interacted with the child since December 2018, and that termination was in the child's best interests; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court upheld the abandonment ground because the record showed sporadic contact that ended years earlier, with no court order preventing visits. On best interests, the court cited the child's strong bond with Raya, expert testimony that disrupting that relationship would cause severe harm, evidence of drug use and instability in the mother's home, and the child's lack of any relationship with the mother.
family law
Frank Louis v. Parmjeet Singh
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024-11-20
Frank Louis sued Parmjeet Singh, CEO of Stream Financial, and Brian Schmitt, CFO of American Heritage Credit Union, in Rutherford County Chancery Court, alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation arising from a November 2022 home-improvement loan of $13,158.99 that he obtained from American Heritage Credit Union and refused to repay. He claimed the defendants improperly disbursed or reported on the loan and sought relief including a judgment for the difference between the loan amount and the $20,000 maximum, a declaration that the loan was paid in full, and other damages. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the complaint’s allegations concerned actions by the companies Stream Financial and American Heritage Credit Union rather than the individual defendants personally, and therefore failed to plead facts establishing liability against Singh or Schmitt.
business & regulatorytorts & liability