Volume 556 — South Western Reporter, Third Series

This is a direct appeal of a disciplinary proceeding against a Brentwood attorney arising out of the mismanagement of client funds held in trust. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility determined that the attorney had violated Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds) and 8.4 (misconduct) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. The hearing panel recommended that the attorney be suspended for sixty days, to be followed by two years of probation under the supervision of a practice monitor, and that he complete fifteen hours of continuing legal education on law office management and trust accounting procedures. The chancery court modified the hearing panel's decision by increasing the periods of suspension and probation and by imposing additional conditions of probation. We hold that the hearing panel's decision was supported by material and substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The chancery court, therefore, erred in modifying the hearing panel's decision. We reverse the judgment of the chancery court and affirm the hearing panel's decision.

After a lengthy hearing, the trial court granted an order of protection to the appellee based upon its finding that the appellant was stalking and harassing her. The trial court denied the appellant's counter-petition for an order of protection. The appellant raises ten issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises from a dispute between an insured and its insurance carrier concerning the coverage limits under an "Employee Dishonesty" endorsement to a commercial general liability policy for an employee's dishonesty that spanned two policy years. After the insured discovered that one of its employees embezzled approximately $100,000 in 2014 and 2015, it filed a claim for $30,000, the aggregate of the policy limits of $15,000 for each policy year. The insurer took the position that the limitation of coverage for such an occurrence was $15,000, paid that amount, and denied the balance of the claim. The trial court held that the policy language was ambiguous and by construing the policies in favor of the insured, determined there were two policies, each of which provided $15,000 of coverage and ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to recover $30,000. The insurer appealed. Finding no ambiguity, we have determined that the 2015 policy was not a separate policy but a renewal of the 2014 policy, that the policy limit for employee dishonesty is $15,000 per occurrence, and that there was one continuous occurrence, as that term is defined in the policy, which spanned two years. We have also determined that the policy prohibits "stacking" of coverage from one policy year to the next. For these reasons, we respectfully reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the policy limits for the claim asserted by the insured is $15,000.

In this case, a judgment creditor pursued enforcement of a foreign judgment. Although the judgment creditor obtained a charging order against the judgment debtor's interest in a partnership and later moved to foreclose this interest, the judgment debtor subsequently moved to dismiss the case and vacate all prior orders by alleging that he had never been properly served. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and entered an order allowing foreclosure against the partnership interest. Despite filings by the judgment debtor highlighting the absence of personal service, the trial court ultimately left its enforcement orders undisturbed. Because we agree that the judgment debtor never received proper service incident to the judgment creditor's attempt to enroll the foreign judgment, we vacate the trial court's orders relating to execution.

This appeal involves parties with interests in neighboring properties who competed for the issuance of a billboard permit. Rather than waiting for the resolution of the administrative process that would determine which of the two applicants was entitled to a billboard permit, one party illegally constructed his billboard without a permit in the midst of the proceedings. Because of his action, the opposing party was unable to construct a billboard when the litigation ultimately ended in its favor. The party who prevailed in the administrative process and its landlord both obtained default judgments against the party who constructed the billboard based on claims of intentional interference with business relations and inducement to breach a contract. The trial court appointed a special master to calculate damages and adopted the master's report in its entirety, awarding the landlord approximately $1.1 million and awarding the party who planned to construct the billboard $3.9 million, which included treble damages. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

This is an action against an attorney who previously served as a Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 40A court appointed guardian ad litem for the benefit of the plaintiff and his two younger siblings in their parents' divorce. Plaintiff alleges that he had an attorney-client relationship with the guardian ad litem, and the guardian ad litem violated the attorney-client relationship by disclosing confidential information to the divorce court after he was 18 years old. The guardian ad litem denies any liability or actionable conduct, insisting that all of her actions were pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 40A and the Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem in the divorce action. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) upon a finding that the complaint failed to state a claim because the guardian ad litem's duties in the divorce action did not terminate when the oldest child turned 18 due to the fact that the custody proceeding concerning his two younger siblings was still ongoing, and the order of appointment authorized the guardian ad litem to disclose to the court confidential information that may affect the best interests of the children. Finding no error, we affirm.

This case involves the appeal of an action for possession of property initially filed in general sessions court. On appeal to the circuit court, the trial court dismissed the appellant's counterclaims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court thereafter determined that the appeal from general sessions court was not timely. We reverse the circuit court's dismissal of the general sessions appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but affirm the dismissal of the appellant's counterclaims.

Plaintiff parents of infant who died in child birth appeal a jury verdict in favor of the medical provider defendants. During voir dire, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' request for additional peremptory challenges under Tennessee Code Annotated section 22-3-104(b) on the basis that Plaintiffs were bringing their claim on behalf of the decedent infant. Based upon the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2017), we conclude that the trial court erred in treating Plaintiffs as a single "party plaintiff" and that Plaintiffs were entitled to eight peremptory challenges under the statute at issue. We also hold that under Tuggle v. Allright Parking Sys., Inc., 922 S.W.2d 107 (Tenn. 1996), the trial court's error resulted in prejudice to the judicial process that necessitates a new trial. All other issues are pretermitted. Reversed and remanded.

In this parental termination case, maternal Grandparents sought termination of both Mother's and Father's rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to support and (2) abandonment by willful failure to visit. The trial court found no grounds for termination as to Mother and only one ground—failure to support—as to Father. The trial court however found that it was not in the child's best interest to terminate Father's rights. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

This case involves an order of protection sought by the petitioner against the respondent, who is the petitioner's brother-in-law, on behalf of the petitioner and her two minor daughters. The petitioner previously had obtained an order of protection that had expired in May 2016. On March 24, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition seeking a one-year, no-contact order of protection, alleging that, inter alia, since entry of the prior order, the respondent had repeatedly attempted to influence her by following through on threats to obtain custody of the petitioner's two minor daughters. The trial court initially granted an ex parte order of protection as to the petitioner but denied the petition as to the children, questioning whether standing existed because the petitioner did not at that time have physical or legal custody of her daughters. Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court found that the petitioner had standing to petition for an order of protection on behalf of her children pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-602(b). Also finding that the respondent posed a danger to the petitioner and her children, the trial court extended the ex parte order into a one-year, no-contact order of protection against the respondent on behalf of the petitioner and modified the order of protection to include the petitioner's children. The court also awarded to the petitioner reasonable attorney's fees. The respondent appeals. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Decedent's daughter filed a notice of will contest, challenging a will that disinherited her and her sisters. According to the contestant, decedent attempted to revoke the will by directing an unnamed person to destroy it in her presence. But the unnamed person allegedly tricked decedent and destroyed another document instead. A beneficiary under the will and the administrator of the estate filed a joint motion to dismiss the contest for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The beneficiary and the administrator argued that the statutes applicable to revocation of wills required that the will actually be destroyed for an effective revocation. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the will contest. Upon review, we conclude that the enactment of Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-202 did not abrogate the common-law rule that fraud will not defeat revocation of a will. So the contestant did state a claim for relief.