Neal W. McBrayer

Parents sued obstetrician Dr. Charles Brent Boles for health care liability after their infant daughter died four days after birth, alleging that his negligent attempts at manual rotation during delivery caused fatal skull fractures and brain injuries. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant after finding he did not deviate from the standard of care, without reaching causation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that claimed errors in limiting expert testimony and exhibits, excluding evidence of the doctor’s later license suspension, denying a special informed-consent instruction, and allowing defense closing argument did not constitute reversible error because they either did not affect the outcome or were not preserved.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, an inmate serving a life sentence for first-degree murder petitioned the chancery court for a writ of mandamus against the Tennessee Department of Correction commissioner, alleging that TDOC had failed to calculate and issue a sentence expiration date and release eligibility date under the statutes applicable at the time of his offense and seeking an order compelling those calculations or his immediate release. The chancery court dismissed the petition on its own motion for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court explained that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a petitioner shows a clearly established legal right and no other adequate means of relief; the governing statute assigns TDOC responsibility for the calculations but leaves the manner of performing them to the department’s discretion; the petition contained no facts showing arbitrary or abusive exercise of that discretion; and the inmate had an alternative remedy by challenging the calculations under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.

criminal lawprocedure

A.M., the mother in a parental rights termination and stepparent adoption case, sought accelerated appellate review of the trial court's denial of her fifteenth motion to recuse the presiding judge. The trial court had summarily denied the motion as repetitive, finding that the claimed grounds—including extra-judicial conduct in related Texas proceedings, anonymous letters, and other alleged bias—were either previously raised in her earlier motions or lacked factual support. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the motion failed to state substantially different factual or legal grounds from the prior fourteen recusal motions as required by Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The court held that the trial judge properly denied the motion without further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

Angela Clark sued Dr. Roseann Maikis and her medical practice, alleging that the doctor performed an unauthorized endometrial biopsy during an office visit on July 25, 2023, without obtaining consent or discussing risks, which Clark claimed caused her pain and other harms. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claim fell under Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act, that Clark had failed to give the required pre-suit notice, and that the action was time-barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the Act applied because the allegations concerned injuries related to the provision of health care services, making pre-suit notice mandatory and requiring dismissal for noncompliance. However, it modified the dismissal to without prejudice, finding that the complaint did not clearly establish on its face that Clark had discovered the wrongful nature of the conduct more than one year before filing, so the statute of limitations issue could not be resolved at the pleading stage.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved unwed parents James Whitfield Livingston and Lauren Elizabeth Logue disputing a permanent parenting plan and child support for their young child, L.G., who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. After an extended trial, the Juvenile Court for Davidson County adopted a parenting plan allocating time between the parents and set the father's monthly child support based on an estimated income range. Mother appealed, challenging both the plan and the support calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence on the child's needs, parental fitness, and the father's unreliable income proof, which supported an annual figure between $80,000 and $120,000. The court also declined to award attorney's fees under the applicable statutes.

family law

Cynthia Torres sued the YMCA of Middle Tennessee for negligence after a shower seat detached from the wall at its fitness center, causing her serious injury. The YMCA moved for summary judgment based on a liability waiver Torres had signed as part of her membership application, which released the YMCA from responsibility for injuries resulting from use of its facilities, equipment, or programs, even if caused by negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the waiver applied to the shower area and was enforceable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the term “facilities” plainly included the showers, the waiver was not overly broad or contrary to public policy because the YMCA’s services were voluntary rather than essential, and Torres had not properly alleged gross negligence in her complaint. The court declined to revisit established Tennessee precedent permitting such exculpatory clauses in this context.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a petition by a child's mother and stepfather to terminate the father's parental rights for adoption purposes, based on allegations of abandonment through failure to visit or support the child for over twenty months. After the father did not respond to discovery requests despite a court order compelling him to do so, the trial court granted a default judgment as a sanction, struck his response, and held an evidentiary hearing at which only the petitioners testified. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and that termination served the child's best interest under multiple statutory factors, including the father's lack of relationship with the child, ongoing substance abuse issues, absence of a stable home, and failure to pay support. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the default sanction and that the evidence supported the termination findings.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Poser Investments, Inc., which domesticated a 2012 Georgia judgment in Tennessee in 2017–2018 under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and later sought to enforce it in 2024. The debtor argued, and the trial court agreed, that Tennessee’s ten-year statute of limitations barred enforcement because the period began running when the Georgia judgment was entered. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that filing the foreign judgment under the Uniform Act created a new Tennessee judgment whose enforcement period began on the date of domestication in February 2018. The court reasoned that the Act’s plain language gives a properly filed foreign judgment the same effect as a domestic judgment for enforcement purposes, so the 2024 action was timely.

procedure

In a contentious adoption and termination of parental rights case involving her child Isaiah M., A.M. filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's denial of her fourteenth motion to recuse the judge, claiming the denial of an earlier motion created an appearance of bias after a federal removal and remand. The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The court held that, under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, recusal issues may be raised in an appeal as of right from the final judgment—which A.M. had already perfected—making separate accelerated review unnecessary and piecemeal adjudication inappropriate, especially since the trial court had lost authority to act further in the matter.

family lawprocedure

In this personal injury case, Clint Johnson sued Airtight Resources Inc. after falling through a door that Airtight allegedly installed improperly at his mother's garage; Airtight denied responsibility and alleged comparative fault by others, including Phillip Taylor. Johnson timely amended his complaint to add Taylor as a defendant under Tennessee's comparative fault statute, relying on Airtight's amended answer, but Taylor moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, arguing Airtight lacked permission to file that answer. The trial court struck the amended answer and dismissed the claims against Taylor. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a signed case management order—approved by all parties and the special master—provided the required written consent under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 for Airtight's amendment, making Johnson's second amended complaint timely within the 90-day grace period of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119.

proceduretorts & liability

A circuit court found four children dependent and neglected after a fatal shooting in their home during their parents’ divorce, in which their mother and maternal grandfather died; the court also ruled that the father had committed severe child abuse by exposing the children to the violence and through his pattern of excessive physical discipline. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the dependency and neglect adjudication but reversed the severe child abuse finding. The appellate court held that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show the father knowingly exposed the children to abuse likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, as he acted to protect the family from an armed aggressor and the children did not witness the assault. It further ruled that the alternative statutory definition of severe abuse required expert testimony linking the incident to severe mental health effects, which was absent from the record.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

In this post-divorce case, father Wesley Garrett Roper petitioned to modify the 2018 parenting plan and child support for the parties’ child, citing changes such as his remarriage, improved housing, increased exercised parenting time, and shifts in income, while mother Stephanie Paige Roper (now Bruce) counter-petitioned to hold him in civil contempt for allegedly failing to pay uninsured medical expenses and maintain required life insurance. The trial court denied the modification petition, found the father in contempt on both grounds, and awarded attorney’s fees to the mother. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the denial of the modification request because the evidence preponderated in favor of a material change in circumstances warranting further review of the child’s best interests, reversed the contempt finding on the insurance issue for lack of sufficient factual support, and vacated the fee award, while affirming the contempt ruling on medical expenses and the child support decision. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.

family law

Catherine Mullis sued SAI Chattanooga N, LLC, the owner of the Nissan dealership where she bought her SUV, alleging that its negligent failure to fix persistent roof leaks allowed mold to grow inside the vehicle and caused her health problems, including a chronic cough, joint pain, and other symptoms; she sought damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and related injuries. The dealership moved for summary judgment on the personal injury claim, asserting that Mullis could not prove causation. The trial court granted the motion after finding that expert testimony was required to establish a causal link between the mold and her health issues, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that Mullis’s interrogatory responses named experts but provided no opinions or facts on causation, and her affidavit and attached reports were insufficient because they were not admissible evidence or based on personal knowledge capable of proving the required connection. With no genuine issue of material fact on causation, the dealership was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the parties later settled the separate property-damage claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved unwed parents Justin Rouse and Emily Sullivan and their daughter. Rouse petitioned the juvenile court to modify their equal-time parenting plan, seeking primary custody due to concerns over Sullivan’s conduct. The juvenile court granted the modification, naming Rouse the primary residential parent with Sullivan receiving limited unsupervised parenting time, and the court later affirmed that ruling. Sullivan appealed but then voluntarily dismissed her appeal, leaving only Rouse’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). The Court of Appeals granted the fee request, holding that Rouse qualified as the prevailing party because dismissal of the appeal preserved the status quo established by the juvenile court’s modification order, and the statute permits recovery of reasonable fees in proceedings to alter a parenting plan. The case was remanded to determine the amount of fees.

family law

Keith Dessinger, representing himself, sought accelerated interlocutory review under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B in his case against Sally McIver, aiming to disqualify Circuit Court Judge Cedrick D. Wooten after the judge had transferred the underlying matter involving parenting time restrictions. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The filing, styled as a motion to accept a Rule 10B appeal, failed to include the required motion for disqualification or any order denying it, as mandated by Rule 10B sections 2.02 and 2.03. The court explained that such omissions prevent proper expedited review and that self-represented litigants must still comply with these procedural requirements, consistent with prior dismissals of similar incomplete filings by the same petitioner.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between property owner Leonard Gamble and his friend Eric Brian Friend over an oral agreement in which Friend was to renovate Gamble’s dilapidated house on a 26.5-acre tract in exchange for five acres of land and payment for materials and living expenses. After more than five years of incomplete work and over $157,000 spent by Gamble, he filed a successful detainer action to evict Friend from the property, which Friend appealed to circuit court while adding counterclaims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and related claims. Following a bench trial, the circuit court granted the detainer and dismissed the counterclaims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that the oral agreement was unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and lack of definite terms, and Friend failed to provide credible evidence of the value of his labor and materials to support a quantum meruit recovery, relying instead on unreliable testimony without documentation.

property

In this case, the guardian ad litem petitioned to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her young child after the child entered foster care due to the mother’s positive drug tests and limited progress on a permanency plan. The mother did not initially respond to the petition, prompting a motion for default judgment; she appeared pro se at the hearing, requested a continuance to obtain court-appointed counsel, and submitted an indigency affidavit. The trial court recognized her right to appointed counsel but denied the continuance, heard evidence, and terminated her parental rights on multiple grounds, finding it in the child’s best interest. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the termination order and remanded the case, holding that the denial of a continuance effectively deprived the mother of her statutory and constitutional right to counsel and fundamentally fair procedures in a parental rights termination proceeding.

family lawcivil rights

In this Tennessee case, a stepfather and mother petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the child's out-of-state biological father so the stepfather could adopt the child. The trial court terminated the father's rights after proceedings based on substitute service through the Tennessee Secretary of State via certified mail. The Court of Appeals vacated the termination judgment, concluding that the father had not been properly served. Under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure as amended in 2016, certified mail returned as "unclaimed" is insufficient to prove valid service or refusal of service, and the petitioners ultimately acknowledged this defect despite initially relying on it and attempting to attribute the failure to the father. Because effective service of process is required to establish jurisdiction, the judgment could not stand.

family lawprocedure

In this divorce case from Williamson County Chancery Court, the central dispute concerned the parenting plan for the parties’ two young children after the mother appealed the trial court’s decision to designate both parents as joint primary residential parents with equal residential time. The Court of Appeals modified the plan to name the mother as the sole primary residential parent, because the parties had not agreed to joint designation, but otherwise affirmed the trial court’s equal parenting schedule and other rulings. The court reasoned that state law and precedent require parental agreement for joint primary status, while the evidence supported the trial court’s best-interest findings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, including the parents’ comparable fitness, the children’s well-being, and lack of substantiated safety concerns despite the mother’s allegations. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the equal-time arrangement and rejected the mother’s other challenges to the parenting plan.

family law

A property owner sued his neighbors, alleging he had acquired portions of their land by adverse possession or held a prescriptive easement over areas used by his driveway and hedge, while also bringing claims of private nuisance, trespass, and forcible entry against one neighbor. The trial court dismissed the adverse possession and prescriptive easement claims under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-2-110(a) for failure to allege payment of taxes on the disputed property and dismissed the remaining claims except nuisance due to insufficient pleadings. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the prescriptive easement claim, holding that the statutory bar did not clearly appear on the face of the complaint and that its allegations sufficiently stated the elements of such a claim, including open use and the neighbors’ knowledge or imputed knowledge. The court affirmed the dismissal of the other claims because the appellant had waived review of those issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

propertyproceduretorts & liability