Arnold B. Goldin

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

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

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

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

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 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

This case is a divorce appeal between Vickey J. Cowan and Jimmy Cowan concerning the division of marital property, specifically the parties’ cattle and cattle business, and an award of alimony to Wife. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment on both the property division and alimony and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court’s order addressed only certain named cattle awarded to Husband while leaving the disposition of the remaining cattle unresolved and failed to make required findings under the statutory factors in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c) for equitable division of marital property. The alimony award was also vacated because the trial court did not address the relevant factors under section 36-5-121(i), and the order imposed a fixed seven-year term inconsistent with the modifiable nature of alimony in futuro.

family lawproperty

In Vidafuel, Inc. v. Kerry, Inc., a Tennessee Court of Appeals case decided on November 4, 2024, Vidafuel sued Kerry for supplying nonconforming beverage products after the parties entered a manufacturing agreement, asserting claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the economic loss doctrine barred the common-law tort claims because the dispute arose from a commercial contract between sophisticated parties and involved only economic harm, while the TCPA claim was untimely under the one-year statute of limitations since Vidafuel had sufficient notice of the product defects and production issues by early 2021 or May 2022 at the latest. The decision rested on established precedent applying the economic loss doctrine to contractual relationships and the discovery rule for statutes of limitations.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a dependency and neglect proceeding in Unicoi County Juvenile Court involving two children whose mother had died and whose father resided in Alaska; the Nenana Native Association intervened, asserted that the children qualified as Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act, and sought transfer of the case to tribal court in Alaska. The Juvenile Court denied the transfer request, relying on the Existing Indian Family Doctrine, and the Tribe appealed to the Circuit Court, which conducted a de novo review and also denied transfer. The Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the Circuit Court’s order, holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159 because that statute authorizes de novo appeals only from final Juvenile Court orders, and no final order had been entered. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court with instructions to return it to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

family lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved an appeal from a trial court decision terminating a mother's parental rights to her two children, who had been in the physical custody of a relative since the mother's 2018 arrest. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that the mother had abandoned the children by willfully failing to provide support during the relevant four-month period, though it rejected the failure-to-visit ground, and concluded that termination served the children's best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record showed no financial contributions or gifts from the mother despite visitation opportunities, and that multiple best-interest factors weighed in favor of termination, including the children's stability and bond with their caregiver over five years contrasted with the mother's inconsistent involvement and history of incarceration.

family law

Jeffrey L. Roberts sued Benton County after a February 2019 single-vehicle accident in which his car fell into a sinkhole on Blackberry Road caused by a culvert washout during heavy rain, alleging the county negligently maintained the road in a defective condition under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (sections 29-20-203, 29-20-204, and 29-20-205). The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the county, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Roberts failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the county had actual or constructive notice of the specific defect at the inlet end of the culvert, as required to remove immunity under sections 29-20-203 and 29-20-204; evidence of unrelated erosion noted on the outlet end more than twelve years earlier was insufficient to establish notice of the condition that caused the accident. Issues concerning section 29-20-205 and the public duty doctrine were not reached.

torts & liability

The case concerned an adult son's lawsuit against his late father's revocable living trust and estate, alleging breach of a 1975 marital dissolution agreement (MDA) between his parents. The MDA stated that the father would create an irrevocable life insurance trust to provide the son with proceeds equal to the average after-tax amounts his older siblings had received from earlier trusts, in order to equalize their inheritances. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the relevant MDA provisions created no enforceable obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the MDA was too vague and indefinite on key terms—including the specific amount of insurance to be placed in trust and the manner of distribution—to demonstrate a meeting of the minds or support a breach claim.

family lawproperty

The case arose when the Shelby County Democratic Party and related groups petitioned a chancery court to permanently enjoin Greg Grant and the Greater Memphis Democratic Club from distributing campaign materials that allegedly violated Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-116, a criminal statute prohibiting deceptive use of party endorsements on ballots or literature. The trial court granted the injunction and later found Grant in criminal contempt for violating it, sentencing him to ten days in jail. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the contempt judgment. It held that the underlying injunction was unlawful because the statute creates no private right of action, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce it through civil proceedings. Without a lawful order, the contempt finding could not stand.

electionscriminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a probate court petition filed by Rory Mills Sullivan seeking to remove Kenneth Lee as trustee of a revocable trust, set aside a trust property sale, and establish a conservatorship after the original trustee’s death. The probate court first denied Sullivan’s motion to remove the trustee and related motions for failing to comply with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, then later dismissed the entire case sua sponte on the ground that no proper cause of action was before the court under those rules. The Court of Appeals vacated both orders and remanded the case, holding that the probate court’s rulings provided no explanation of the specific procedural deficiencies or legal basis for dismissal, preventing meaningful appellate review.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves Jeffrey L. Roberts’s personal injury claims against Benton County, Tennessee, after he was injured when his vehicle fell into a sinkhole caused by a road washout on Blackberry Road during heavy rain. Roberts alleged the county was negligent in maintaining the road and failed to address a known defect, seeking recovery under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, specifically sections 29-20-203, 29-20-204, and 29-20-205. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county and dismissed all claims, finding no proof of actual or constructive notice of the defect, that the county’s response fell under discretionary function immunity, and that Roberts’s own conduct barred recovery on comparative fault grounds. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the section 29-20-205 claim but reversed summary judgment on the claims under sections 29-20-203 and 29-20-204, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the county had notice of the erosion (based on a prior employee observation) and whether Roberts’s fault in driving during the storm was equal to or greater than the county’s. The case was remanded for further proceedings on those remaining claims.

torts & liability

This case is the second appeal in a divorce between Jennifer Erdman (Wife) and Mark Erdman (Husband) after a long marriage with six children. The trial court granted Husband a divorce on grounds of Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct and adultery, divided the marital estate, and denied Wife’s requests for alimony and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the denial of alimony and fees and remanded those issues for reconsideration. The court reasoned that alimony and fee decisions must follow an orderly disentanglement of the parties’ financial affairs, and prior problems with the division of a 401(k) and IRA required revisiting the related support rulings; it also noted the substantial time that had passed since the original trial.

family lawproperty

This case concerned a petition by a child's great-uncle and great-aunt to terminate the parental rights of the mother of two boys (born in 2013 and 2019) after the children were removed from her custody in 2019 due to her drug use. The trial court found three statutory grounds for termination—abandonment, persistent unsafe conditions, and severe child abuse—established by clear and convincing evidence, and concluded that termination served the children's best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record showed the mother's drug use had caused the children serious health problems, that she had not visited them since removal, and that they had improved markedly in the relatives' care. The court further reasoned that the mother's claimed sobriety since early 2022 and her living situation did not sufficiently demonstrate her ability to provide a stable environment, while the children had formed strong bonds with the relatives.

family law

Michael DiNovo Jr. was seriously injured in a 2013 explosion at a biodiesel plant owned by Southern Energy Company, Inc. He first resolved his claim through a workers’ compensation settlement agreement with Southern Energy that was approved by the state and treated as a final judgment; years later he filed a tort lawsuit in Davidson County Circuit Court seeking additional compensatory and punitive damages, alleging fraud and misrepresentation connected to the settlement and his employment status. The trial court granted summary judgment to Southern Energy. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that DiNovo had waived his fraud arguments by failing to cite any evidence in the record to support them in the argument section of his brief, which left the trial court’s estoppel-based ruling unchallenged.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved health care liability claims brought by Angel Marie White against UT Medical Group, Inc., the State of Tennessee, and others, alleging that medical treatment her daughter received in 2011 and 2012 caused her death in 2018. The trial court dismissed the claims related to the 2011-2012 treatment, ruling they were barred by Tennessee’s three-year statute of repose and that the plaintiff had not adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment to overcome that bar. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed White’s brief and found multiple deficiencies, including failure to address the elements of fraudulent concealment, lack of proper citations to the record or relevant authority, and no engagement with the claims against the State. Because of these significant violations of appellate briefing rules, the court held that White had waived all issues and dismissed the appeal.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a breach of contract claim by the Estate of Susan Ballard and Michael Ballard against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company over a homeowner’s insurance policy covering their residence. The policy was canceled for nonpayment effective June 22, 2018, but the Ballards alleged that a State Farm employee promised on July 18 to backdate coverage if payment was made by July 20; a fire destroyed the home on July 19, and State Farm denied the claim, asserting the policy was not in force. The trial court initially denied summary judgment due to disputed facts about prior dealings but later granted it after State Farm submitted employee affidavits interpreting the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether State Farm had a course of conduct of accepting late payments to avoid lapses in coverage, and that the trial court improperly resolved credibility disputes in State Farm’s favor rather than viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Ballards as the non-moving parties.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure