COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

CLAUDE R. ELLIS v. MELISA JANE GODFREY ELLIS
E2024-01735-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant

This is a long-running divorce case on appeal to this Court for the third time. The husband
raises several issues concerning the trial court’s classification of the parties’ interests and
award of attorney’s fees to the wife. We affirm.

In Re Isaiah M.
E2025-01998-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Suzanne Cook

Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 12^th motion to recuse. A final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment.  Issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to recuse may be raised in Mother’s appeal of the trial court’s final judgment.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

In Re Isaiah M.
E2026-00024-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Suzanne Cook

Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 13^th motion to recuse. Because a final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment, issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s recusal motion may be raised in her appeal of the final judgment.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

IN RE ALEXANDER B.
E2025-01580-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Elizabeth C. Asbury

In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights, the trial court determined
that clear and convincing evidence supported termination as to two statutory grounds:
abandonment by failure to visit and persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s
removal. The trial court did not find clear and convincing evidence to support the alleged
ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical
custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court further determined that
termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed,
contesting the termination of her parental rights and additionally arguing that the adoptive
father lacked standing to file the petition due to his criminal history and the fact that he is
not legally related to the child. Upon review, we determine that the adoptive father had
standing to file the termination petition because he had maintained physical custody of the
child for nearly a year before filing the termination petition. As to termination of the
mother’s parental rights, we reverse the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had
failed to establish the statutory ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to
assume legal and physical custody of the child. Accordingly, we find that statutory ground
also supports termination of the mother’s parental rights. In all other respects, we affirm.

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Tom James Company et al.
M2025-00404-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Deanna B. Johnson

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the scope of a commercial property insurance policy and whether the insured has stated sufficient facts to invoke coverage. The insurer filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the policy at issue did not provide coverage for the insured’s claimed losses. The insured filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy provided coverage and asserting a breach of contract claim. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court denied. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. After interpreting the policy, we determine that the insured failed to invoke coverage, and we reverse the trial court’s contrary finding. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, finding that the counterclaim sufficiently stated a claim for a declaratory judgment. Because the pleadings had not closed when the trial court ruled on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

In Re Liam M.
M2024-01437-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kathryn Wall Olita

The circuit court determined that two grounds for termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but concluded that the petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The petitioners appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s decision.

Riley Davidson v. Shelbyville Hospital Company, LLC
M2025-00905-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge M. Wyatt Burk

This appeal arises out of a health care liability claim. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of the appellee-defendant. The appellant-plaintiff appeals the trial court’s acceptance of two of defendant’s expert witnesses. Upon diligent review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s causation expert witness to testify about his interpretation of a diagnostic image when his opinion about that image had not been properly disclosed as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We also conclude that this error more probably than not affected the judgment. We further conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s standard-of-care expert witness to testify despite not satisfying the locality rule contained in the Health Care Liability Act. However, we conclude that this error did not more probably than not affect the judgment. We vacate the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.

In Re Bravon K.
M2024-01029-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles B. Tatum

The father of the minor child appeals the termination of his parental rights. The paternal aunt and uncle, who sought custody of the minor child, appeal the denial of their motion to intervene. We affirm both decisions.

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.

Dana Denea Hickerson Page v. Richard Charles Page, Jr.
M2026-00639-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor David Henry Veile

This is a Rule 10B interlocutory appeal of the denial of a second recusal motion. We find, as the trial court did, that the second motion is repetitive of the first and should be denied. We further grant attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal.

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 Conservatorship of Leon Aubrey Manners
M2025-00990-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Kimberly S. Lund

This appeal concerns the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of a conservatorship proceeding against the petitioner under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-114. The petitioner sought a conservatorship for the respondent—the petitioner’s 84-year-old father—to protect his father and to prevent him from wasting his assets. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was a disabled person in need of a conservatorship and that it was in the respondent’s best interest that the petitioner be appointed his conservator. But the court charged the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner rather than the property of the respondent. The court reasoned, inter alia, that the petitioner benefited from the conservatorship and that the respondent’s need for a conservatorship was “borderline” and “not clear cut.” The petitioner appeals. Having reviewed the trial court’s discretionary decisions pursuant to the three-part analysis set forth in Lee Medical Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010), we have determined that the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner was based on an erroneous assessment of the relevant facts and a misapplication of the relevant legal principles. Accordingly, we vacate the decision and remand with instructions to assess all the guardian ad litem fees against the property of the respondent, the amount of which has already been approved, and to assess against the property of the respondent the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs the petitioner incurred in the trial court and on appeal, the amount of which is to be determined on remand. The trial court shall also determine the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the attorney ad litem in this appeal and assess those charges against the property of the respondent.

State of Tennessee ex rel. Kenneth Dale Davenport v. Frank Strada, ex officio as Commissioner et al.
M2025-00570-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal

An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction petitioned for a writ of mandamus. On its own motion, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.

Terra Lynn Thompson v. Justin Claude Thompson
M2025-01226-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph A. Woodruff

Husband and Wife divorced. In ruling upon contested matters, the trial court awarded Wife transitional alimony and alimony in futuro as well as attorney’s fees. Husband appealed. He argues the trial court’s award of alimony was error because the court miscalculated his income, because it errantly excluded certain evidence, and because it awarded the wrong type of alimony. He also argues that Wife’s attorney’s fees affidavit was insufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees. 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

Kenneth Martin v. Natasha Barrett et al.
M2024-01947-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Benjamin K. Dean

The plaintiff in this action sought to collaterally attack a child support judgment and raised allegations of constitutional and other violations of law by several named defendants, including Child Support Services, the plaintiff’s former spouse, and the State of Tennessee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, determining, inter alia, that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.