Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

This is one of three cases consolidated for oral argument. In each case, the following happened: (1) the borrower defaulted on his or her home loan and the lender foreclosed by non-judicial action, a procedure authorized by the deed of trust; (2) the purchaser at the trustee’s sale sought possession through an unlawful detainer action; (3) the borrower filed a counterclaim asserting that the non-judicial foreclosure process violates the Tennessee Constitution and is against public policy; and (4) the trial court dismissed the counterclaim and granted possession to the purchaser. The present case went off on summary judgment. The borrower appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

This is one of three cases consolidated for oral argument. In each case, the following happened: (1) the borrower defaulted on his or her home loan and the lender foreclosed by non-judicial action, a procedure authorized by the deed of trust; (2) the purchaser at the trustee’s sale sought possession through an unlawful detainer action; (3) the borrower filed a counterclaim asserting that the non-judicial foreclosure process violates the Tennessee Constitution and is against public policy; and (4) the trial court dismissed the counterclaim and granted possession to the purchaser following a bench trial. The borrower appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

This is one of three cases consolidated for oral argument. In each case, the following happened: (1) the borrower defaulted on his or her home loan and the lender foreclosed by non-judicial action, a procedure authorized by the deed of trust; (2) the purchaser at the trustee’s sale sought possession through an unlawful detainer action; (3) the borrower filed a counterclaim asserting that the non-judicial foreclosure process violates the Tennessee Constitution and is against public policy; and (4) the trial court dismissed the counterclaim and granted possession to the purchaser. The present case went off on summary judgment. The borrower appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

This case involves the status of a road as public or private, as well as Plaintiff’s right to access such. We find that the roadway was a public road prior to 1960, but that it has since been abandoned. Finding no necessity, we further conclude that Plaintiff is not entitled to a private easement over the road to access her property. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint.

A healthy, living tree located in neighbor A’s yard was knocked over during a storm and fell into neighbor B’s yard. The trial court found that neighbor A was not liable to neighbor B for the resulting damage. We affirm.

Plaintiff filed suit against Vanderbilt University Medical Center for injuries she sustained during an MRI scan. The trial court held that the complaint stated a claim for medical malpractice and dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act (“TMMA”). Plaintiff appeals, asserting the complaint sounded in common law negligence and, alternatively, that the documents she filed complied with the TMMA. We affirm the trial court.
 

In this case, Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment prohibiting Defendants from restricting the use of Marcum Creek Road. Defendants denied that Plaintiffs ever had a right of access to Marcum Creek Road and asserted that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a separate motion for a temporary injunction. The trial court consolidated the hearing on the injunction motion with a trial on the merits and issued a declaratory judgment, providing that Marcum Creek Road was a public road and that the public should have uninterrupted use of the right-of-way. Defendants appeal, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by consolidating the motion hearing with a trial on the merits. Defendants request remand of this case to the trial court for a trial on the merits. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a claim filed to recover real property and personalty that was allegedly misappropriated from Decedent prior to his death. Decedent died at the age of 89, leaving Wife and Son as his survivors. Prior to his death, Decedent transferred the majority of his monetary assets and real estate to Wife. Following his death, Son brought this action, alleging that Decedent did not have the mental capacity to execute the transfers and that the transfers were a result of undue influence exercised by Wife, who exploited her confidential relationship with Decedent and also committed fraud to complete the unlawful conversion of the entirety of the estate. The trial court dismissed Son’s claims and awarded any remaining personalty to Wife. Son appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a wrongful death action predicated on premises liability. The lawsuit arose out of a fight in the parking lot of a bowling alley owned by the defendants. After the plaintiffs’ 19-year-old son punched a member of a rival gang, another member of the rival gang drove up and shot the plaintiffs’ son in the chest, killing him. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the defendant bowling alley owners for the wrongful death of their son; they asserted that the defendants acted negligently or recklessly in failing to provide adequate security on their premises. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on two bases: (1) the defendants did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs’ son to protect  him from the criminal acts of others, and (2) the undisputed evidence demonstrated that the plaintiffs’ son was at least 50% at fault for his death. The plaintiffs now appeal. We reverse, finding that the standard for summary judgment under Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Company has not been met in this case.

This is a post-divorce case. Appellee Wife and Appellant Husband entered into a marital dissolution agreement, which was incorporated, by reference, into the final decree of divorce. The agreement provided for transitional alimony payments, which would “self-terminate” upon the occurrence of certain conditions, including cohabitation. Husband developed a belief that Wife was cohabitating and, relying on the self-termination clause, ceased payment of spousal support without court intervention. Wife subsequently filed a petition for civil contempt, seeking a monetary judgment in the amount of alimony arrears and attorney’s fees. The trial court determined that Husband was not in contempt, but awarded alimony arrears and attorney’s fees in favor of Wife. Husband appeals. Affirmed and remanded.

In this case, we address the bond requirements for an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages in General Sessions Court, and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs sought a de novo appeal to Circuit Court. Within ten days of the General Sessions Court judgment, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and paid $211.50 to the General Sessions Court clerk, pursuant to T.C.A. 8-21-401(b)(1)(C)(i). The plaintiffs did not file any further bond at that time, but later filed a $500 cost bond. The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal sua sponte, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the appeal-bond requirement in T.C.A. 27-5-103. The plaintiffs now appeal. After careful review of the statutes and caselaw, we overrule this Court’s prior decision in Jacob v. Partee, No. W2012-00205-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3249605 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug 10, 2012), and conclude that payment of a cash bond in the amount of the statutory court costs set out in Section 8-21-401(b)(1)(C)(i) satisfied the plaintiffs’ obligation to “give bond with good security . . . for the costs of the appeal” under Section 27-5-103(a), and so the Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the action and remand for further proceedings.