Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this divorce action, the trial court divided the parties' real and personal property, awarded custody of the children to the wife, and declined to award spousal support to the husband. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the trial court's custody determination and, except for the trial court's refusal to divide the wife's post-separation income, upheld the classification and division of the marital estate; but (2) reversed the trial court's judgment regarding spousal support and ordered the wife to to pay the husband transitional alimony in the amount of $2000 per month for thirty-six months. The Supreme Court (1) reversed that portion of the court of appeals' judgment awarding the husband transitional alimony, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the husband transitional alimony; and (2) affirmed in all other respects the intermediate appellate court's decision.View "Mayfield v. Mayfield " on Justia Law

Shortly after the death of her daughter, Grandmother filed a petition seeking visitation with her granddaughter. The trial court denied Grandmother's request because she failed to prove the statutory grounds necessary to permit a court to order grandparental visitation over a parent's objection. After the decision became final, the General Assembly amended the burden of persuasion in the grandparental visitation statute. Without alleging new facts and relying solely on the change in the statutory burden of persuasion, Grandmother filed a second petition seeking visitation with her granddaughter. The trial court granted the child's father's motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the intervening change in the burden of persuasion in the grandparental visitation statute did not provide an exception to the operation of the res judicata doctrine, and therefore, absent some material change in the facts, the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of Grandmother's petition for grandparental visitation.View "Jackson v. Smith" on Justia Law

Following their divorce, the former husband of a child's mother filed suit against the mother for negligent misrepresentation, alleging that she had intentionally misled him into believing that he was the child's biological father. The trial court ruled in favor of the former husband and awarded him $134,877 in compensatory damages, emotional distress, and attorney's fees. The court of appeals determined the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the child's mother had intentionally misrepresented the identity of the child's biological father but (1) reversed the damage award based on the post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance expenses on the ground that these damages amounted to a prohibited retroactive modification of a child support order, (2) reversed the damage award for emotional distress, and (3) reversed the award for attorney's fees. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the existing common-law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial court's damage award based on the former husband's post-divorce payments for his child's expenses was not an improper retroactive modification of the former husband's child support obligation.View "Hodge v. Craig" on Justia Law

Since their divorce in 2001, Father and Mother litigated their rights and responsibilities relative to their three children, including a prior appeal in which Father succeeded in overturning a voluntary termination of his parental rights. On remand, the trial court declined to terminate Father's parental rights, finding that Mother and Stepfather had not proven either proffered ground for abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence clearly and convincingly established abandonment by both willful failure to visit and willful failure to support. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Mother and Stepfather established by clear and convincing evidence abandonment by willful failure to visit but failed to establish willful failure to support. Remanded for consideration of whether termination was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Adoption of Angela E." on Justia Law

Mother and Father entered into a martial dissolution agreement and parenting plan for their two minor children. Mother subsequently pleaded guilty to the attempted second degree murder of Father and was sentenced to twelve years incarceration. Mother and Father entered into an amended parenting plan that provided for the resumption of the original parenting plan after Mother's release from prison. Father remarried while Mother was incarcerated, and Father and Stepmother filed a petition for termination of Mother's parental rights and a petition for adoption by Stepmother. The trial court denied the petition after amending its original order, concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was not in the best interests of the children. The court of appeals reinstated the trial court's original order terminating Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the amended order of the trial court, holding that Father and Stepmother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Taylor B.W." on Justia Law

This appeal involved the status of six children who had been in the custody of their biological mother. After one of the children was severely injured, the juvenile court determined that all six children were dependent and neglected and were the victims of severe child abuse. The circuit court and court of appeals affirmed. The mother filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal, taking issue with the sufficiency of the evidence. In its response, the Department of Children's Services conceded that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that the five uninjured children were victims of severe child abuse. The Supreme Court granted an appeal and held (1) the injured child was a victim of severe child abuse; (2) the evidence did not support the lower courts' conclusion that the remaining five uninjured children were also victims of severe child abuse; and (3) the evidence demonstrated clearly and convincingly that all six children were dependent and neglected. View "In re DeAndre C." on Justia Law

A trial court granted Wife's petition for divorce from Husband. The trial court divided the parties' real and personal property, declined to award spousal support of any type to either party, and denied a request made by both parties that they be awarded attorney's fees and expenses. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the trial court's division of the marital estate; (2) reversed the trial court's judgment regarding spousal support and ordered Husband to pay Wife alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month until her death or remarriage; and (3) awarded Wife her attorney's fees and expenses. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that the award of alimony and the award of attorney's fees and expenses was inappropriate in this case, and Wife failed to demonstrate that transitional alimony was appropriate. View "Gonsewski v. Gonsewski" on Justia Law

A father and his sixteen-year-old son were sued after the son was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned, insured, and provided to him by his father. The basis for the suit against the father was the family purpose doctrine, which imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a vehicle for the negligent operation of the vehicle by a family member. The trial court granted summary judgment to the father, finding that the family purpose doctrine did not apply. The court of appeals reversed and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the family purpose doctrine applied as a matter of law. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, holding that while two of the essential elements of the family purpose doctrine were met in this case, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to the last element. Remanded for trial. View "Starr v. Hill" on Justia Law