Department of Homeland Security: Immigration

The Department of Homeland Security is currently considering a policy change that would limit deportation of undocumented immigrants who may have repeat immigration violations but little or no criminal record.

Steve Dickerson et al. v. Regions Bank et al.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this action on February 17, 2009, to quiet title to property they own in Williamson County, Tennessee. At issue was a Deed of Trust that secured a 1997 promissory note, with an original maturity date in 1998, executed by a South Carolina limited liability company of which the plaintiff husband was a member. Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, that the statute of limitations for the 1997 note and deed of trust had lapsed; therefore, the deed of trust encumbering their property should be released. Defendant Beta, LLC, filed a counterclaim for judicial foreclosure asserting it was the assignee of an October 8, 1998 renewal note with a maturity date of October 1999, the maturity date of which was subsequently extended to October 2000 pursuant to a Change in Terms Agreement executed in October 1999. 

It is based on the Change in Terms Agreement that Beta insists the statute of limitations had not lapsed and it is entitled to enforce the deed of trust. Although Beta was unable to produce an original or photocopy of an October 1998 renewal promissory note or evidence that complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-8-101 to prove it was a lost negotiable instrument, the trial court held that a copy of the 1999 Change of Terms Agreement was sufficient to established the existence of the October 1998 renewal note and the extension of the maturity date to 2000; thus the statute of limitations had not run and Beta was vested with the right to enforce the deed of trust. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint to quiet title and ruled in favor of Beta on the issue of foreclosure. On appeal Plaintiffs contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s rulings. Particularly, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in finding that the Change in Terms Agreement dated October 8, 1999, was sufficient to establish Beta’s claims under an October 1998 promissory note of which there is no copy. We have determined the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Beta’s burden of proof as the foreclosing party. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination of the specific relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed this action on February 17, 2009, to quiet title to property they own in Williamson County, Tennessee. At issue was a Deed of Trust that secured a 1997 promissory note, with an original maturity date in 1998, executed by a South Carolina limited liability company of which the plaintiff husband was a member. Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, that the statute of limitations for the 1997 note and deed of trust had lapsed; therefore, the deed of trust encumbering their property should be released. Defendant Beta, LLC, filed a counterclaim for judicial foreclosure asserting it was the assignee of an October 8, 1998 renewal note with a maturity date of October 1999, the maturity date of which was subsequently extended to October 2000 pursuant to a Change in Terms Agreement executed in October 1999. It is based on the Change in Terms Agreement that Beta insists the statute of limitations had not lapsed and it is entitled to enforce the deed of trust. Although Beta was unable to produce an original or photocopy of an October 1998 renewal promissory note or evidence that complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-8-101 to prove it was a lost negotiable instrument, the trial court held that a copy of the 1999 Change of Terms Agreement was sufficient to established the existence of the October 1998 renewal note and the extension of the maturity date to 2000; thus the statute of limitations had not run and Beta was vested with the right to enforce the deed of trust. Therefore, the court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint to quiet title and ruled in favor of Beta on the issue of foreclosure. 

On appeal Plaintiffs contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s rulings. Particularly, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in finding that the Change in Terms Agreement dated October 8, 1999, was sufficient to establish Beta’s claims under an October 1998 promissory note of which there is no copy. We have determined the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy Beta’s burden of proof as the foreclosing party. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination of the specific relief to

which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
Read more here.

Pseudoephedrine Purchases and Methamphetamine

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed Governor Bill Haslam’s plan to battle the growing issue of methamphetamine use and addiction in Tennessee by limiting the purchase of pseudoephedrine to two twenty table boxes per month with a cap of six boxes annually. The fight here continues as many in the House and Senate push for pseudoephedrine to be available only by prescription. Pseudoephedrine is primary ingredient for the manufacture of methamphetamine and an active ingredient in many cold and allergy medications.

Tennessee General Assembly Considers Bill

The Tennessee General Assembly is considering Senate Bill 2495 (House Bill 2445) which would authorize the production, sale, possession and research of industrial hemp.  This bill defines "industrial hemp" as the plants and plant parts of the genera cannabis that do not contain a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration more than three tenths of one percent on a dry mass basis, grown from certified seed. This bill requires the department of agriculture to regulate the farming of industrial hemp through a system of licensure and rules. Any person who grows industrial hemp without a license will be subject to prosecution in the same manner as a person who is growing marijuana. This bill specifically excludes industrial hemp from the definitions of illegal cannabis and schedule VI controlled substances. This bill also includes industrial hemp as a farm product under the Right to Farm Act, which means industrial hemp operations will be presumed to not be a nuisance under such Act.

Ray Hansen, content specialist, AgMRC, Iowa State University provided an “industrial hemp profile” which provides a thorough history of industrial hemp, including its production in the United States and an explanation of the differences between industrial hemp and marijuana.  The Profile was updated August 2012 by Malinda Geisler, AgMRC, Iowa State University. 

To view it, click here.

Keep an eye on Senate Bill 2495 (House Bill 2445). 

Employee Online Privacy Act of 2014

"In a meeting this morning, the group was discussing the use of Social Media,
including LinkedIn and Facebook, when researching potential customers"

To read the rest of this post learn more about the Employee Online Privacy Act of 2014, click here.

Modification of a Parenting Plan in a Post-divorce Action

If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree

pertaining to custody, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence a material change in circumstance. A material change of

circumstance does not require a showing of a substantial risk of harm to the

child. A material change of circumstance may include, but is not limited to,

failures to adhere to the parenting plan or an order of custody and visitation or

circumstances that make the parenting plan no longer in the best interest of the child. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

October 15, 2013 Session

ELIZABETH TIMMONS AUSTIN V. BENJAMIN HOLT GRAY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 06D63 Phillip R. Robinson, Judge

No. M2013-00708-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 18, 2013

This appeal arises from the modification of a parenting plan in a post-divorce action. In the initial Permanent Parenting Plan, Mother was designated the primary residential parent of their son. Four years later, Father filed a Petition to Modify the Parenting Plan, alleging that multiple material changes in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be the primary residential parent. While the petition was pending, Mother was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility; immediately thereafter, on Father’s pendente lite motion, the trial court designated Father as primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority pending further adjudication. Father then amended his Petition to enumerate additional material changes. Some eight months later, the trial court conducted a trial. The court found that Mother’s mental health, Mother’s attitude and untoward actions directed at Father, the child’s manipulation and power struggles with his parents; the child’s enrollment in an out-of-state boarding school, and multiple other factors demonstrated that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in their son’s best interest for Father to serve as the primary residential parent with sole decision making authority. Mother appeals claiming the trial court erred in determining that a material change in circumstances existed and that a modification was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

To read the case in detail, click here.

Conflict from States Apart

Below is a recent case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals that deals with several issues.  First, the case deals with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) where two states, in this case California and Tennessee, both have a potential claim for jurisdiction of the case.  Second, it deals with the death of a parent and the rights of the grandparents, who actually had custody of the child at the time of the mother’s death.



To read the full details of the case, click here.

Modified Grandparent Visitation

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the grandparents are essentially on the same footing as a “parent v. parent” modification.  The moving party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a material change in circumstances and that change makes a modification or termination of grandparent visitation in the child’s best interests.

To read details on a case of modified grandparent visitation, click here.

Mother's Request for Relocation Denied

In this case, a parent sought to relocate to Wisconsin with her new husband and her two children. The paternal father of the children opposed the relocation. The trial court concluded that the relocation did not have a reasonable purpose and could be harmful to the children.

Read the full case here.

Case on Grandparent Visitation

This recent case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals, McGarity and McGarity v. Jerrolds and Jerrolds deals with the issue of whether paternal grandparents whose son voluntarily surrendered his parental rights and allowed a step-father to adopt will be granted visitation under the Tennessee Grandparent Visitation Statute. Judge Stafford delivered with Judges Highers and Farmer joining. The case gives an incredibly thorough analysis of the law regarding grandparent visitation and the standards that must be met. In addition, the Court looks at the issues of attorney-submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the issue of raising evidentiary objections at the appellate level but not at the trial level.

To read the full case, click here.

Child Custody and Property Division

In the case of Terri Ann Kelly v. Willard Reed Kelly, Terri Ann Kelly ("Wife") was awarded 1000% of the marital assets by the Trial Court. She had sued Willard Reed Kelly ("Husband") for divorce after 18 years of marriage and was awarded custody of the parties' son, Will. She was also awarded attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals, though, modified the Trial Court's division of the marital estate and alimony to Wife, giving her 300%.

The full case can be found here.

First Woman to Serve as Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Announces Retirement

Janice M. Holder made history as the first woman to serve as Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice. August 31st, 2014 will be her last day in the state's highest court. She will not be seeking re-election.

“It has been my privilege to serve the people of Tennessee as a trial judge and Supreme Court justice – and an honor to have been selected by my fellow justices as the first female chief justice in our state’s history,” Justice Holder said.

Justice Holder served on the first Tennessee Supreme Court with a majority of women. She was first elected circuit court judge of the 30th Judicial District in Memphis in 1990. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee in December 1996, elected in August 1998, and then re-elected in 2006 to her current eight-year term.

Some of her honors include: 2010 Legacy Laureate, University of Pittsburgh; 2009 W.J. Michael Cody Pro Bono Attorney of the Year Award, Memphis Area Legal Services; 2009 Jurist of the Year Award, Southeastern Region of the American Board of Trial Advocates; 2008 Grayfred Gray Public Service Mediation Award, Coalition for Mediation Awareness in Tennessee; 1999 honoree for exceptional support of the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program by the American Bar Association Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs; 1990 Memphis Bar Association Sam A. Myar Award for Outstanding Service to the Legal Profession and to the Community; 1992 Chancellor Charles A. Rond Award, Outstanding Jurist, Memphis Bar Association.

Conflict in the Court

The following case is from the Gibson Juvenile Court. The Mother and Father in the case were originally represented by the same attorney when they both had the same interest. The interest of the Father changed. The Mother's attorney then sited obvious conflict of interest regarding his representation of the Mother because he had previously consulted with both parties when they agreed on the issues. The Court should have granted a continuance to allow the Mother to seek new representation or represent herself. The complete case can be read here Gibson Juvenile Court Case.