A snappy weekly newsletter from the lawyers at Horwitz Law, PLLC summarizing the week’s decisions from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
January 20–26, 2024
- Dog runs into Bicyclist, causing Bicyclist to crash and sustain injuries. Bicyclist sues Dog Owner for negligence. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Seventeen pages later, it turns out that Bicyclist didn’t have any evidence that Dog Owner even owned the particular dog involved in the accident, so the trial court’s dismissal is affirmed. (DAH)
- Company retains Contractor to renovate a hotel. The parties enter into a written contract that identifies “Contractor” as “Progress Construction, Inc., Yogesh Purohit, and William Mann.” Contractor then fails to meet deadlines, triggering a lawsuit, cross-claims, and a third-party complaint between a bunch of people. Trial Court, at the motion-to-dismiss stage: Mr. Purohit signed the contract only as a corporate representative, and there was no place on the contract for him to sign individually. Thus, Purohit can’t be sued based on the contract, because there was “‘no intent to bind Mr. Purohit’ as an individual.” Tennessee Court of Appeals: The contract literally identifies Mr. Purohit as a party, and the complaint specifically alleges a contractual relationship between Company and Mr. Purohit, so Company’s claim against him should not have been dismissed. (DAH)
- Detective files grievance with the City of LaFollette concerning issues in the City’s police department. City retains Outside Counsel to investigate, after which a police department Employee is fired. Outside Counsel then shreds the records of her investigation on behalf of the City (which is a choice). A few days letter, Employee hires his own counsel, who files a public records request for (among other things) Outside Counsel’s investigative file. Some records—but not the since-shredded investigative file—are provided, and more records are provided after Employee files a Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA) lawsuit. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Due to the extremely narrow issue that Employee has raised on appeal (he wants his attorney’s fees because the investigative file was shredded), we will issue a correspondingly narrow ruling. In particular, because you actually need to “obtain[] the record” to win fees in TPRA litigation, Employee loses, since he never got the investigative file. In a footnote, we’re going to mention that destroying public records can theoretically result in some pretty serious consequences that nobody has asked for here, though (editorial note: those consequences never actually materialize). We also remand with instructions to determine whether the various records that were produced after the lawsuit was filed were withheld “willfully,” which would trigger a TPRA fee award as to those records. (DAH)
- Three-year-old Child is found playing outdoors unsupervised. Mother is later found passed out and tests positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and buprenorphine. Two handguns and a rifle are also found in the home, which is a problem for Father, not only because he is a convicted felon who cannot lawfully possess firearms, but also because one of the guns is stolen. Making matters worse: Child tests positive for methamphetamine. Father is later convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Trial Court: There is clear and convincing evidence to support terminating Parents’ rights on the ground of severe child abuse, and Father’s rights should separately be terminated under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6), which provides that parental rights may be terminated under certain circumstances when a parent receives a lengthy prison sentence. Terminating Mother and Father’s rights is in Child’s best interest, too. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Affirmed in all respects. (DAH)
- Agreement to develop a hotel goes awry, leading to a bunch of claims and counter-claims. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Nineteen unforgivingly dense pages later, most of what the trial court did is vacated. Also, we are suspending the final judgment rule under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and adjudicating a non-final appeal for some unexplained reason (which makes your summarist wonder why he ever bothers filing Rule 9 and Rule 10 applications in worthy cases that usually get declined). Statements about what “would” happen in the future also cannot be actionable as claims for intentional misrepresentation, since they are not statements of “an existing or past fact.” We hold, too, that trial courts can’t just take judicial notice of statements in newspaper articles to establish the truth of what the articles assert, those statements being hearsay and all. Nor should the Plaintiffs have been granted summary judgment (even if their asserted material facts were deemed admitted after no response was filed), since their asserted facts did not actually entitle the Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law. (DAH)
- Pro se appellant files appeal a week late. Tennessee Court of Appeals: So we lack jurisdiction, and this appeal goes to the bad place. (DAH)
- Husband and Wife are involved in acrimonious divorce proceedings. Wife wins sanctions due to “Husband’s Failure to Comply with Court Orders,” and she secures a default judgment and other relief as sanctions penalties. Tennessee Court of Appeals, unimpressed: Since “the order granting Wife’s motion for sanctions contains just a few sentences, only one of which even provides remote insight as to the basis behind the trial court’s decision[,]” and since “the bare-bones nature of this sanctions order thwarts any kind of meaningful appellate review,” and “[b]ecause we are unable to discern what legal standard, reasoning, or even violations underpin the sanctions order on appeal,” we vacate the order and “remand for findings and determinations consistent with the severity of the sanctions.” But Husband’s other issue on appeal is deemed waived for lack of “appropriate” references to the record, which is a fun and less common kind of waiver. (DAH)
Firm Highlights
A victory for Horwitz Law, PLLC client Sophia Johnston! Last summer, Ms. Johnston—a devout Muslim woman—was forced to remove her hijab and take photographs without wearing it while she was booked in the Rutherford County jail on a minor (since dismissed) misdemeanor charge. And because needlessly requiring Muslim women to take hijab-less public mugshot photos violates both the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, Rutherford County has now agreed: (1) to pay Mrs. Johnston $100,000.00; (2) to change its booking policy to permit religious accommodations; and (3) to expunge her mugshot photos. Read all about it:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article284696781.html
