Appeals

Mr. Hayes and Ms. Thomas have handled many successful appeals on behalf of clients and have the necessary experience to research and brief your case as well as argue your case before both the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005)

Described in the press as a “landmark case” in Tennessee (See On the Road, High Court Hears Landmark Case, The Tennessean, April 16, 2005), Mr. Hayes represented the Father of triplets on Appeal to the Tennessee State Supreme Court in this case of first impression. In the case, the Mother, who was the gestational carrier of triplets, had conceived by means of eggs donated by an anonymous third-party woman and fertilized with the Father’s sperm, filed parentage action against Father, seeking custody of the children and child support. In response, Father argued that Mother had no standing as a “parent” under Tennessee law, because she lacked any genetic connection to children. This landmark case re-defined what it means to be a “parent” in Tennessee.

Miller v. Miller, 81 S.W. 3d 771 (Tenn.App. 2001)

In this divorce action, which was the second of two appeals by these parties, the Husband appealed the property division made by the trial court, arguing that his retirement accounts, part of which he owned before the marriage, were his separate property. Mr. Hayes represented the Wife on Appeal.

Dennison v. Dennison, 1996 WL 426809 (Tenn.App. 1996)

In this divorce case, the wife appealed the trial court’s alimony award and the fault determination made by the trial court. Mr. Hayes represented Husband on Appeal.

Klindt v. Klindt, 1997 WL 83668 (Tenn.App. 1997)

In this post-divorce child custody dispute, the sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify the custody provisions of a divorce decree entered in Missouri. Mr. Hayes represented the Father on Appeal.

In re Andolino, 1997 WL 739538 (Tenn.App. 1997)

In this adoption proceeding, the adoptive parents appealed the trial court’s decision that the Father did not abandon his son and the trial court’s decision dismissing their Petition for Adoption. Mr. Hayes represented the Father on Appeal.

Russo v. Russo, 2000 WL 1785979 (Tenn.App. 2000)

In this divorce case, the Husband appealed the trial court’s custody determination, alimony award, the division of property, his child support obligations, and the finding of fault made by the trial court. Mr. Hayes represented Wife on Appeal.

Miller v. Miller, 2000 WL 1231378 (Tenn.App. 2000)

In this divorce action, the first of two appeals by these parties, both Husband and Wife appealed the trial court’s division of marital property and alimony awards. Mr. Hayes represented the Wife on Appeal.

Bryant v. Bryant, 2000 WL 1483217 (Tenn.App. 2000)

In this adoption case, the grandparents had filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father and for adoption of two minor children based on abandonment by the father. The issue on appeal was whether the adoption was in the best interest of the minor children. Mr. Hayes represented the Father on Appeal.

Ralston v. Henley, 2001 WL 1158952 (Tenn.App. 2001)

In this interlocutory appeal taken during post-divorce visitation modification proceedings, divorced parents were fighting over who had the right to make educational decisions regarding the parties’ eight- and ten-year-old daughters. Mother desired to home school the children and Father objected. Mr. Hayes represented the Father on Appeal.

Gore v. Gore, 2001 WL 1660827 (Tenn.App. 2001)

In this divorce case, the Husband appealed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce regarding fault, division of property, alimony, and child support. Additionally, Husband appealed the trial court’s entering a permanent injunction restraining Husband from taking the parties’ two children around his girlfriend. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband on Appeal.

Sanders v. Sanders, 2003 WL 21004628 (Tenn.App. 2003)

In the this divorce action, the Wife appealed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce with regard to the allocation of fault, the division of property, and alimony. Additionally, the Wife on appeal argued that since her conservator executed her counterclaim for divorce, the court had no jurisdiction to award her a divorce. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband on Appeal.

Sackett v. Roseman, 2003 WL 22349077 (Tenn.App. 2003)

In this interlocutory appeal taken during a post divorce visitation modification proceeding, the sole issue was whether the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Joint Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Mr. Hayes represented the Mother on Appeal.

Brooks v. Brooks, 2005 WL 1584203 (Tenn.App. 2005)

In this divorce action, Husband appealed the alimony provisions of the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband on Appeal.

Fox v. Gwirtsman, 2005 WL 2140851 (Tenn.App. 2005)

In this post-divorce visitation modification case, Father appealed the trial court’s decision in a post-divorce custody modification proceeding, which changed the residential schedule for his three children. Mr. Hayes represented Father on Appeal.

Huffnagle v. Huffnagle, 2005 WL 2989603 (Tenn.App. 2005)

In this post-divorce contempt action, the Husband appealed a trial court’s order finding him in criminal contempt for failing to pay his alimony obligations to Wife. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband on Appeal.

Dunn v. Duncan, 2006 WL 1233046 (Tenn.App. 2006)

In this post-divorce alimony modification proceeding, the Wife appealed the trial court’s decision to terminate her alimony following her remarriage. The main issue on appeal involved the wording of the alimony provision in a marital dissolution agreement. Mr. Hayes represented Husband on Appeal.

Church v. Church, 2006 WL 2168271 (Tenn.App. 2006)

In this divorce action, the Husband appealed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce with regard to the characterization of certain property. The Wife had received a significant amount of property from her family by transactions designated to avoid gift taxes; however, she claimed in the trial court that the transactions were essentially gifts. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband on appeal.

Eluhu v. Eluhu, 2006 WL 2091385 (Tenn.App. 2006)

In this post-divorce relocation case, the Mother appealed the trial court’s order which denied her request to relocate with the parties’ three minor children to Utah. Mr. Hayes represented the Father on appeal.

Fiero v. Fiero, 2007 WL 1241338 (Tenn.App. 2007)

In this divorce case, the Husband appealed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce with regard to the property division, arguing that Wife had used Husband’s separate assets to pay off Wife’s separate, pre-marriage, educational debts. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband on appeal.

Williams v. Williams, 2007 WL 4117780 (Tenn.App. 2007)

In this post-divorce case, the mother appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her case on the grounds of Res Judicata. Mr. Hayes represented the father on appeal.

Lamberth v. Young, 2007 WL 4553003 (Tenn.App. 2007)

In this post-divorce contempt action, the mother appealed the trial court’s finding her in criminal contempt. Mr. Hayes represented the mother on appeal.

Schroer v. Schroer, 2011 WL ____ (Tenn.App. 2011)

In this divorce action, the Husband appealed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce with regard to the property division, arguing that he should have received a larger portion of the marital estate based upon his larger contribution, mainly from his separate property and higher earnings. Mr. Hayes represented the Husband at trial and on appeal.

Elcan v. Elcan, 2011 WL ____ (Tenn.App. 2011)

In this post-divorce case, the Mother appealed the trial court’s decision to lift the Paramour provision of the parties’ Parenting Plan and also the failure by the trial court to find Father in contempt for violating the Paramour provision. Mr. Hayes represented the Mother on
appeal.

Grant v. Grant, 2015 WL ____ (Tenn.App. 2015)

In this divorce case, the Husband appealed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce with regard to the property and alimony awarded to Wife, arguing that she received too much of both. Mr. Hayes represented the Wife before the trial court and on appeal.

CONSULTATION. Our attorneys invite you to contact them to set up an initial consultation or to answer any questions you may have in the area of Matrimonial and Family Law.

Nashville Family law attorneys Hayes Thomas serve clients in middle Tennessee, including Brentwood, Columbia, Franklin, Gallatin, Hendersonville, Lebanon, Murfreesboro, Springfield, Davidson County, Maury County, Robertson County, Rutherford County, Sumner County, Williamson County, and Wilson County.