COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

In Re Estate of Shawn Edward Sheeks
M2025-01358-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ben Dean

Shawn Sheeks (“Decedent”) and Paul Slate (“Mr. Slate”) co-owned and managed several business entities. Following Decedent’s untimely death, Mr. Slate, acting on behalf of the businesses they co-owned, filed a Verified Claim against Decedent’s estate in the Chancery Court (Probate Division) for Montgomery County seeking an accounting and damages of $382,207.48. Shortly thereafter, Janet Sheeks (“Ms. Sheeks”), Decedent’s widow and the Administratrix of the Decedent’s estate, filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (hereinafter “the Business Court”) on behalf of herself and Decedent’s estate against Mr. Slate seeking an accounting and to windup and dissolve the business entities. Mr. Slate filed a counterclaim against the estate and Ms. Slate, as well as cross-claims against the business entities, seeking an accounting and payment for debts allegedly owed to him. While the Claim in the Probate Court was held in abeyance, all claims by and among the parties in the Business Court were tried. In a detailed and thorough final order, the Business Court ordered dissolution of the business entities and allocated the distribution of the assets among the parties after applying offsets and credits. No one appealed the judgment from the Business Court. Thereafter, the Administratrix of the Estate filed a motion for summary judgment in this Probate Court proceeding contending the Claim should be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The Probate Court granted the motion and summarily dismissed the Claim on the ground of res judicata finding that the Claim was not a separate and distinct cause of action from the Business Court action, that the underlying facts at issue were the same in both lawsuits, and that the Claim could have, and should have, been litigated in the Business Court action. We affirm.

In Re Estate of Beverly Louise Ingram
M2025-01567-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

In this appeal, the appellants challenge administrative and legal fees the trial court awarded the administrators of the estate and the parties’ respective legal counsel. We have determined that these issues have been waived for a variety of reasons including the appellants’ failure to comply with Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6 and Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We find that the administrator of the estate is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered and expenses incurred in defending this appeal. We also find this appeal to be frivolous. We remand for the trial court to award the administrator an appropriate fee and to award damages in favor of the estate against the appellants, Robert Davidson, Sr. and Shuntae Davidson, for fees and expenses the estate incurred in defending this appeal.

Nicole Marie Beach v. Mark Phillip Beach
M2026-00845-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonita Jo Atwood

Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to recuse the trial judge. Because Appellant did not file a written motion to recuse and because the trial court never entered an order on same, we dismiss the appeal.

Taylor Thornton, III, et al. v. T.M.D. Farms, Incorporated
W2025-00190-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael Mansfield

This appeal involves a complaint to quiet title and for injunctive relief and damages
stemming from a boundary line dispute. The defendant, a farming corporation, executed a
deed containing a written description that included an 11.28-acre area of land which lies
along the southern border of its property. The plaintiffs became aware of the deed and
filed this action, alleging that they owned the 11.28 acres at issue. Both parties claimed to
have paid taxes on the disputed area for many years. The plaintiffs had their property
surveyed, and the surveyor determined that they owned the disputed area. The farm had
its property surveyed twice. Those surveyors agreed the farm owned the disputed area.
The chancery court found that both parties had paid taxes on the disputed area for at least
the preceding 20 years. The chancery court also determined that the surveys provided by
the defendant farm accurately reflected the boundary line at issue and found it owned the
disputed area. The court also made an alternative holding that the farm had acquired the
disputed property by adverse possession. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

In Re Violet L.
W2025-00982-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Magistrate W. Ray Glasgow

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found multiple
grounds for termination and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the
children’s best interest. We affirm.

Kristyn Elise Turner, deceased, by and through her Natural Parents, Anna Marie Turner et al. v. Charles Brent Boles, M.D.
M2024-00382-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonita Jo Atwood

Parents, on behalf of their deceased child, filed a health care liability action against an obstetrician, alleging that the infant’s death was the result of negligent medical treatment during delivery. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the parents argue that the trial court erred in: (1) limiting the testimony of their causation expert and excluding his exhibits and demonstrative aids; (2) denying a motion in limine to prohibit a line of questioning and argument by the defense; (3) excluding evidence of the suspension of the defendant’s medical license; (4) refusing a request for a special jury instruction on informed consent; and (5) declining to grant a new trial based on misconduct of defense counsel during closing argument. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.

Andrea Jaye Mosby v. Eric Lee Meachem
W2024-01938-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gina Higgins

Appellant and Appellee agreed ona permanent parenting planthat provided for equal parenting timeof their minorchildafter their divorce.Appellee later sought to relocate with the childto pursue an employment opportunityin Georgia.One hundred four days after Appellee filed a relocation petition, Appellant filedan answer opposing the relocation. Thetrialcourt permitted the relocationand struck Appellant’s opposition because it was filedafter the expiration of the thirty-day period set forth inTennesseeCode Annotated section 36-6-108.The courtamended the parties’ parenting accordingly.Onappeal, Appellantargues the trial court erred in striking his response as untimely.We affirm thejudgment of the trial court.

Travis Lynn Rasmussen v. Sasha Nicole Rasmussen
W2025-00171-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Van McMahan

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court found that the husband is
a business owner and that his business, known as Choice Pool Care, LLC, constituted a
marital asset. It then awarded the wife “a 20% share of the business.” However, the trial
court did not value the marital asset. The husband appeals, insisting that the trial court
erred in finding the existence of a marital asset and in its equitable division of the asset.
For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s classification of the husband’s
ownership interest in the LLC as marital property, but we vacate the trial court’s ruling
regarding equitable division of the asset and remand for the trial court to value the asset
prior to equitably dividing the marital estate. The trial court’s rulings regarding child
support and alimony are likewise vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the
further proceedings that are necessary as to the division of the marital estate.

Southern Auto Source Finance, LLC v. Airways Towing & Recovery, LLC
W2025-01053-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Damita J. Dandridge

This extraordinary appeal involves whether a non-attorney individual may file a notice of
appeal in the Shelby County General Sessions Court on behalf of a limited liability
corporation. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss the appeal
on this basis. We therefore reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this matter for
dismissal.

Joan Young v. Cottage Grove Condominium Association, Inc.
M2025-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russell T. Perkins

The appellant filed the instant action seeking a copy of the property management contract between her condominium association and its property management company. The trial court determined that “a contract between a condominium association and its management company would not be included in those records that a condominium association would be required to provide to a unit owner.” The court dismissed the matter with prejudice. The appellant appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

ZACHARY C. CROUCH v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
E2025-00764-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Christopher D. Heagerty Jr.

This matter concerns a plaintiff’s effort to revive a discrimination lawsuit. Having determined that the plaintiff’s principal appellate brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that his issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed.

CALEB TAYLOR SPEARS v. RUSSELL LEE SCRUGGS ET AL.
E2026-00854-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James H. Ripley

This accelerated interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for recusal, which was brought pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2. Because Appellant’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.03, the appeal is dismissed.

Marla Ann Richardson v. Dianne M. Moore
M2025-00135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Larry J. Wallace

A property owner brought suit against the owner of a neighboring property, seeking either an order awarding her land encompassing a driveway or an easement to use the driveway. The trial court referred the issues to a special master, who made detailed findings regarding the boundary between the properties and as to the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. Following a hearing on objections to the special master’s report, the trial court accepted the special master’s findings and recommendations. The neighbor appealed, raising issues regarding the court’s weighing of the evidence in finding the boundary line and granting of a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. We affirm.

Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Closed Nashville, LLC et al.
M2025-01214-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Deana C. Hood

Mortgage companies maintain that the Tennessee Housing Development Agency(“THDA”), which services mortgages through the trade name of Volunteer Mortgage Loan Servicing(“VMLS”), is liable for monetary losses following the use of an improper bank account number. THDA and VMLS contend that they are protected by sovereign immunity and filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion because it found THDA was engaged in commercial activities. THDA and VMLS appealed. We reverse.

Andrew J. Withers v. Withers Collection, Inc., et al.
W2024-01929-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rhynette N. Hurd

This appeal arises from a complaint originally filed in the Shelby County chancery court
that sought the removal of the trustee of a trust based on alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties, breach of trust, conversion of trust property, and other claims. The chancellor who
was assigned the case determined that he had a conflict of interest requiring him to recuse
himself. The other chancellors in the judicial district were also unable to hear the case, and
the original chancellor signed an order transferring the case to the circuit court. The circuit
court entered an order removing the trustee. The defendants filed this appeal. Finding that
the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we vacate the removal of the trustee and
remand for transfer of the case back to a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Charlotte R. Sappo v. 4404 Holdings, LLC
M2025-00279-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Anne C. Martin

A homeowner brought suit against the owner of the house next door, asserting a claim for breach of a joint driveway agreement and an alternative action for a declaratory judgment that the neighbor had abandoned the easement created by the driveway agreement. The neighbor filed counterclaims for a declaratory judgment, trespass, and an alternative claim for rescission for failure of consideration. After a trial, the trial court entered a final order determining the boundaries of the easement established by the driveway agreement; the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for breach of the easement and abandonment as well as the defendant’s claim for trespass. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in its rulings regarding the boundaries of the easement, its denial of her claims for breach of the easement and abandonment, and in its award of discretionary costs to the defendant. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

IN RE JADEN H.
E2024-01825-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James H. Ripley

In this termination action, the trial court terminated the father’s parental rights to his
minor child based upon two statutory grounds, finding that those grounds had been
proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also found by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the
child’s best interest. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we
affirm.

Project Reflect v. Joan Anderson et al.
M2025-00157-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda Jane McClendon

Thisis an appeal from the dismissal ofa nonprofitcorporation’s complaint pursuant to the doctrine of prior suit pendingbecausethe nonprofit had previously filed a lawsuit in another courtagainst the same defendantbased onsimilar claims. The nonprofit appealed. After review, we have determined that the circuit court correctly dismissed the complaint. We also use our discretion to deny the appellee’s request for fees under the frivolous appeal statute.

Daniel Burstiner v. Brian Boyd et al.
M2025-01241-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge M. Caleb Bayless

After the trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, Appellant sought relief from the order pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied the Rule 60.02 motion. The trial court then denied Appellant’s request pursuant to Rule 59.04 for relief from the denial of his Rule 60.02 motion. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Michael Tomlin v. Nephrology Associates, P.C. et al.
M2025-00469-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William E. Phillips II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russell T. Perkins

This is the third appeal arising from more than a decade of litigation between Plaintiff/Appellant and Defendant/Appellee regarding claims of unpaid leasing commissions and breach of contract. The sole issue on appeal is from what date should mandatory post-judgment interest begin to accrue after a remand by this court. Discerning no error in the determination of the trial court, we affirm.

Kevin Matthew Woodruff v. Jessica Ann Woodruff
M2026-00759-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kathryn Wall Olita

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because Appellant failed to provide this Court with a copy of the motion to recuse filed in the trial court,the appeal is dismissed.

SHERRY KELTCH EX REL.CHARLES KELTCH v. CANDICE MARIE WILLIAMS ET AL.
E2026-00607-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: JOHN W.MCCLARTY,P.J.,E.S.;THOMAS R.FRIERSON,II,J.;AND KRISTI M.DAVIS,J.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John Harvey Cameron

This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 23, 2026. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until April 23, 2026, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Kaileigh Marie Dunn v. Russell Allen Dunn, III
M2026-00614-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge A. Ensley Hagan, Jr.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Having reviewed the petition for recusal on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal.

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.