Court Rulings

This is a divorce case. Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court's decision regarding: (1) the parenting plan for the minor children (2) the enforcement of the parties' prenuptial agreement in its denial of Husband's request for alimony and a portion of Wife's retirement accounts and (3) the designation and division of property. Under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, we vacate the trial court's order enforcing the waiver of spousal support provision of the parties' prenuptial agreement. The trial court's order is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded for determination of whether alimony is warranted in this case and, if so, the amount thereof.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the defendant, German Calles, of one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, four counts of aggravated assault while acting in concert with others, two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, one count of especially aggravated burglary, two counts of employment of a weapon during the commission of a dangerous felony, two counts of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred when setting the length of his sentences and ordering partial consecutive sentences. Following our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a parental termination case. The juvenile court declined to terminate father's parental rights, but it found that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate mother's on the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The juvenile court further found that termination was in the best interests of the children. We reverse as to the former two grounds, but affirm as to the latter two and further find that termination of mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the children.

Common pleas court erred by affirming Unemployment Compensation Review Commission decision that applied the wrong statutory standard in determining whether one employer was the successor in interest to another employer. The Commission determined the acquiring employer acquired substantially all of the business of the transferring employer however, because there was no application for voluntary successorship the appropriate statutory standard was whether the acquiring employer acquired all of the trade or business of the transferring employer. Therefore, the Commission's decision was not in accordance with law.

workers' compensation, R.C. 4123.01(C), coming-and-going rule, arising out of, in the course of, zone of employment, control, Civ.R. 56

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to amend her complaint, to include facts regarding her PTSD diagnosis and claims of racial and disability discrimination, eight months after she filed her administrative appeal from the termination of her teaching contract. The trial court did not consider Appellant's prior discipline at another school when determining that she was subject to termination, and Appellant was not denied due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant's failure to enter third quarter final grades was good and just cause for termination. Judgment affirmed.

This appeal arises from an Order for Conditional Judgment to enforce a routine garnishment of an obligor's wages. The dispositive issue is whether an employer of an obligor has an affirmative duty to determine whether the aggregate amount of wages to be garnished from an obligor's multiple employers exceeds the aggregate disposable earnings limits provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106. An employer of the obligor, Blue Shield EMS ("Blue Shield"), was served with a garnishment while a pre-existing wage assignment of the obligor's wages from another employer was still in effect. Although none of the obligor's wages from Blue Shield had been previously garnished, Blue Shield filed an answer to the garnishment stating, "We cannot process any deductions from [the obligor's] paycheck at this time due to his total income already being garnished greater than 25%." Upon motion of the obligor's former wife for a conditional judgment, the trial court found that "Blue Shield did not have a valid legal reason for failing to withhold twenty-five percent (25%) of the employee's net wages" and ordered Blue Shield to pay into the court the wages that should have been garnished and to honor the garnishment going forward until the judgment was satisfied. Having determined that an employer has no duty to consider the aggregate effect of garnishments served on other employers when answering a garnishment, we affirm.

Plaintiff/Appellant appeals the dismissal of her negligence action against Shelby County, Tennessee, brought pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court found that Appellant's complaint contained a fatal deficiency in that it failed to allege Appellant's injuries were sustained as a result of a government employee's negligent act or omission while acting within the scope of his or her employment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Industrial Commission workers compensation privacy

This is a retaliatory discharge claim brought by an employee against his employer, alleging he was fired in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits. The trial court ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the employee had made a prima facie showing that his termination was in retaliation for his claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court also found that the employee established the employer's stated non-discriminatory reason was pretext. Because the record does not reflect that the trial court exercised its own independent judgment, we vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Prof.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.7, 1.10, 1.13, 3.4, and 3.7 disqualification of opposing counsel conflict of interest loyalty to organization counsel as witness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee's motion to disqualify opposing counsel from representing affiliated business organizations and their trustees, employees, directors, and officers. A substantial risk of a conflict of interest exists where counsel is a named party to the proceedings served as business counsel for the codefendant businesses represented codefendant officers, directors, trustees, and employees against appellee in a prior litigation as well as the current action may testify as witnesses or who will be unable to properly defend their clients due to adverse interests.

Appellant was previously terminated from his employment with the Shelby County Fire Department. After the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board upheld Appellant's termination, judicial review followed in the Shelby County Chancery Court, which affirmed the Merit Board's decision. In his appeal to this Court, Appellant contends that the decision upholding his termination should be reversed due to a violation of his due process rights. We agree and reverse.