COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

IN RE OLIVIA S.
E2025-01048-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Keith Edward Cole II

This action involves the trial court’s denial of a petition for termination of a biological
father’s parental rights to his minor child. We now affirm.

In Re Troy R., et al.
W2024-01738-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Special Judge W. Ray Glasgow

This appeal involves a long-running custody dispute between unmarried parents. In this
latest chapter of the litigation, the father filed a petition to modify, seeking to be named
primary residential parent and/or increase his parenting time. The mother filed a counterpetition,
seeking only a change in decision-making authority. The trial court denied the
father’s petition but did make several changes to the parenting schedule. The trial court
also granted the mother’s request to be named sole decision-maker for educational and
extracurricular decisions and allowed her to obtain passports for the children. Finally, the
trial court ordered the father to pay the mother’s attorney fees. The father appeals. We
vacate in part, affirm as modified, and remand for further proceedings.

Julie C. Bartholomew v. Douglas K. Southard, et al.
W2024-01494-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

The trial court determined Defendants/Appellants were liable for damages arising from
negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. We reverse.

Andrew Bettis Aviation, LLC v. Howard Wayne Lanier
W2025-01094-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James R. Newsom

This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Appellant preserved his evidentiary issues
concerning the trial court’s admission of video evidence in a jury trial, and (2) whether,
following a bench trial, the trial court made sufficient findings under Rule 52.01 when
rejecting Appellant’s COBRA claim. Because Appellant failed to include the evidentiary
issues in a motion for new trial as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e),
and because Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 13(b) and 36(b) are not applicable,
we conclude that Appellant waived the evidentiary issues. Further, because the trial court’s
order does not make sufficient findings, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the
COBRA issue, and we remand for compliance with Rule 52.01.

BENJAMIN MCCURRY v. AGNESS MCCURRY
E2024-00042-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge D. Kelly Thomas

The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of three charges of criminal contempt. The appellant appeals those criminal contempt findings. Discerning no error, we affirm.

IN RE MICHAEL S.
E2025-01028-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Douglas T. Jenkins

In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court
determined that clear and convincing evidence supported two grounds for termination:
abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to financially support the
child. The trial court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. The
mother has appealed. After thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s determination
relative to the ground of abandonment by failure to support. However, the evidence did
not support a finding of abandonment by failure to visit, and we reverse the trial court’s
determination as to that ground. We vacate, for insufficient findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the child’s best
interest and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a thorough
analysis of the best interest factors found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i).

BRITTANY WILSON (HAMILTON) v. JEFFERY D. WILSON
E2026-00081-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: JOHN W. MCCLARTY, P.J., E.S.; KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.; AND WILLIAM E. PHILLIPS, II, J.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Gregory S. McMillan

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final
appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In Re The Carl Edwin Osborne, Jr. Living Trust, dated May 19, 2020
W2024-01768-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kathleen N. Gomes

The decedent left a will in which he directed the majority of his property into a trust. The
trust named his wife as the trustee. The trust made several specific distributions to wife
effective upon the decedent’s death, including the grant of life estate interests in certain
assets. Several other beneficiaries were designated to receive distributions from the life
estate assets upon wife’s death. The trust directed its remaining assets into a separate
marital trust which provided that all income generated by its property would be distributed
to wife. It also provided that the trustee would be required to distribute as much of the
principal of the marital trust to wife as she requested in writing and granted her a power of
appointment. Several of the remaining trust beneficiaries filed a petition to construe the
trust in the Shelby County probate court. They sought an order declaring that the remainder
interests of assets in which wife had been granted life estates did not pass into the marital
trust. The probate court held that the remainder interests did not pass into the marital trust
and wife could not alter or destroy them. Wife appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in
part.

In Re Michael S.
E2025-01028-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Douglas T. Jenkins

In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported two grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to financially support the child. The trial court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. After thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s determination relative to the ground of abandonment by failure to support. However, the evidence did not support a finding of abandonment by failure to visit, and we reverse the trial court’s determination as to that ground. We vacate, for insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interest and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a thorough analysis of the best interest factors found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i).

In Re Carl Edwin Osborne, Jr. Living Trust -Concur in Part/Dissent in Part
W2024-01768-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kathleen N. Gomes

The majority opinion offers a thoughtful examination of the issues before this court.
I agree fully with the majority that the failure to make an offer of proof results in the waiver
of Wife’s challenge to exclusion of the testimony of Anthony Bradley, the drafter of the
trust. Nevertheless, because I do not understand the trust to operate in the same manner as
my colleagues, I respectfully dissent.

Brittany Wilson (Hamilton) v. Jeffery D. Wilson
E2026-00081-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gregory S. McMillan

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

IN RE SYLIS K., ET AL.
E2025-01109-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. Michael Sharp

This appeal involves a grandmother and grandfather’s petition to terminate the parental
rights of a father to two of his children. The petition alleged the following grounds for
termination: (1) abandonment by failure to visit, (2) abandonment by failure to support,
and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court
held that each ground was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court also
determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children.
The father appeals. We ultimately affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights but
must vacate the trial court’s determination regarding the failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume

Robert Anthony Caleb Wise v. Lindsay Marie Snapp Wise
W2026-00203-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James R. Newsom

A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court
following the denial of Petitioner’s motion for the disqualification of the trial court judge.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

IN RE ISAIAH M
E2026-00272-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Suzanne Cook

Petitioner seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge.
The trial court deemed the motion repetitive. We agree.

Timothy Williams v. Lee Ann Sikes
W2025-00471-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael Mansfield

Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee for work performed pursuant to an oral contract between the parties. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In Re Heavenlee J.
M2025-00543-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gregory Wayne Traylor

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. We affirm.

Adam Thomas v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
M2025-00288-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph P. Binkley, Jr.

A paramedic sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. He asserted that in violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act he was discharged by the Nashville Fire Department because he refused to participate in or remain silent about the department forcing mentally competent inmates to undergo medical treatment without their consent. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the trial court granted the motion. The paramedic appealed. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal.

MATTHEW HAWN v. SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.
E2025-00027-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Katherine Leigh Priester

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Hawn was not shown to have
engaged in unprofessional conduct. I also concur with the majority’s conclusion that Mr.
Hawn was shown to have committed an act of insubordination and that the trial court’s
judgment should be modified to reflect that this statutory ground for a tenured teacher’s
dismissal was proven pursuant to the Teacher Tenure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-
511(a)(2). I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the Board’s
dismissal of Mr. Hawn “over one isolated act of insubordination was excessive.” In
support of this conclusion, the majority refers to the trial court’s findings regarding Mr.
Hawn’s service record and other factors in determining that the consequence of dismissal
was excessive.

MATTHEW HAWN v. SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.
E2025-00027-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Katherine Leigh Priester

This appeal concerns a local board of education’s decision to dismiss a tenured teacher.
The teacher sought judicial review of his dismissal in the trial court. The trial court found
no grounds for dismissal and reversed the board’s decision. The board appeals. We
conclude that the teacher was insubordinate in showing his class a video containing
profanity without parental consent. However, this lone act of insubordination did not
warrant the drastic step of dismissal given the teacher’s long record of good service. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

Jasmine, LLC v. Jasmine Asian Cuisine, Inc.
M2025-01201-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Vanessa A. Jackson

A restaurant based in Williamson County sued a restaurant based in Rutherford County in Williamson County Chancery Court over the use of the name Jasmine. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of venue, and the plaintiff amended the complaint, including allegations that the defendant provided services in Williamson County, advertised in Williamson County, and caused customer confusion and economic harm in Williamson County. The chancery court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding the fact that the plaintiff alleged economic harm in Williamson County was not sufficient to establish venue. We reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Angela Clark v. Dr. Roseann Maikis et al.
M2025-01540-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda McClendon

A plaintiff sued a physician and the physician’s practice, alleging the physician performed a biopsy during a medical office visit without the plaintiff’s consent. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement in the Health Care Liability Act. Because the court also determined that the action was time-barred, it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We conclude that the plaintiff’s claim relates to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services. So we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act. But because we conclude that the complaint does not clearly show that it was filed more than one year after the plaintiff discovered the injury, we modify the dismissal to a dismissal without prejudice.

Dr. Regina Jordan-Sodiq v. State of Tennessee et al.
M2025-02083-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Matthew Joel Wallace

This appeal stems from a trial court judge’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to recuse. Petitioner filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to recuse.

IN RE SCARLET J.
E2025-01566-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Steven Lane Wolfenbarger

This appeal requires us to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supports: (1)
at least one statutory ground for termination of Appellant’s parental rights; and (2) that
termination is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Sarah Chapman v. Chris Wade
M2025-00129-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Sharon Guffee

The trial court entered a parenting plan setting parenting time and child support between Mother and Father. Mother appealed. Mother raises a due process challenge to the trial extending into the late evening of the last day. She also challenges the trial court’s analysis of the best interest factors, its allocation of parenting time, its designation of Father as the primary residential parent, its awarding to Father sole decision-making authority, and its denial of Mother’s motion to alter or amend. Father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and award attorney’s fees.

Tray Simmons v. Dr. Shahidul Islam et al.
M2025-01261-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph P. Binkley, Jr.

The Appellant brought suit against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s clinic, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. After appellate briefing and oral argument but prior to the filing of the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial
court, the psychiatrist died. The Appellant became aware of the death after the Tennessee Supreme Court denied his application for permission to appeal. He, subsequently, filed numerous motions for relief in the trial court. The trial court denied relief under Rule 60
and denied the other motions. We affirm.