APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Husband and Wife divorced. In dividing the marital estate, the trial court determined that an account inherited by Wife had been transmuted into marital property and that Wife had dissipated a substantial portion of the transmuted account. Considered as a whole, the trial court allocated the marital estate in a manner that Wife asserted was inequitable. She repeatedly requested findings by the trial court explicating its division of marital estate. The trial court declined to provide such findings. On appeal, Wife challenges the trial court’s classification of the aforementioned account and its conclusion that she dissipated the account. Wife also challenges the trial court’s overall division of marital property both as being inequitable and for the insufficiency of the trial court’s findings. We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to transmutation. We vacate the trial court’s ruling as to dissipation and the trial court’s division of property, and we remand for further proceedings.

In this post-divorce dispute, a father petitioned to modify the permanent parenting plan and child support. The mother counterpetitioned for civil contempt alleging the father had willfully violated the parenting plan. After a bench trial, the court denied the father’s petition and held him in civil contempt. Because the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding of a material change in circumstance sufficient to modify the residential parenting schedule, we vacate the denial of the father’s petition to modify the parenting plan and remand for the court to determine whether modification is in the child’s best interest. We reverse the court’s decision to hold the father in civil contempt for failure to maintain insurance coverage because the decision lacked sufficient factual support. Given our disposition of these issues, we also vacate the court’s award of attorney’s fees to the mother as the prevailing party. Otherwise, we affirm.

The plaintiff, Patricia Slate, appeals the dismissal of her complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against either of the defendants. Because the appellant’s brief is profoundly noncompliant with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal.

The April 2025 order from which the appellant has appealed was not effectively entered, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Therefore, there is no final appealable judgment, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal presents the question of whether, under the Health Care Liability Act, a party in a wrongful death action can rely on a prior beneficiary’s pre-suit notice after succeeding to that beneficiary’s interest in the wrongful death litigation.  The trial court concluded that such reliance is permissible.  We affirm.

A physician disciplined by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners challenges the reasonableness and necessity of the costs assessed against him. We find substantial and material evidence to support the cost assessment and affirm the chancery court’s decision affirming the Board’s final order.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements outlined in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her special needs child. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that several grounds for termination were proven and that termination is in the best interest of the child. We reverse one ground for termination but otherwise affirm and remand for further proceedings.

A self-represented party seeks accelerated interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying her motion seeking disqualification of the trial court judge. Discerning no error, we affirm.

I concur with most of the majority’s analysis of the grounds for termination of the parents’ parental rights. However, I disagree with the finding of severe abuse by the father and I disagree that the best interests of the child require termination.

In this action to terminate parental rights, the mother, father, and child all tested positive for methamphetamine. Accordingly, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took the child into protective custody, and the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected. Despite completing many of DCS’s requirements, the mother and father continued to fail drug tests. DCS filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the trial court determined that three grounds supported termination as to both parents: (1) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal, (2) severe child abuse, and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court also concluded that termination of both parents’ rights was in the child’s best interest. Both parents have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce with minor children.  Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s designation of Appellee/Father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ youngest children.  Discerning no error, we affirm.  Both parties request awards of appellate attorney’s fees, which are denied. 

Mother and Stepfather petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights. The trial court found two grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest. This Court reversed the finding of grounds, but the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the ground of abandonment by failure to support and remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of additional findings as to the best interest analysis. On remand, the trial court again found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm

This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 26, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until October 12, 2025, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellants are seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal concerns a dismissal for lack of service of process. The trial court determined that appellant failed to properly effectuate service and comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to two of her children. The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights on the findings that the petitioner, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, had proven the ground of severe abuse and that it was in the best interests of the children that the mother’s parental rights be terminated. The mother appeals, contending that the finding that termination was in the best interests of the children was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

In this parental termination case, the trial court found that one ground for termination of the mother’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but failed to make findings of fact to support this conclusion. We vacate and remand for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by statute.

The defendant appeals from an order granting the plaintiff possession of real property. Because the order appealed does not dispose of the plaintiff’s claim for damages, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

This is the third recusal appeal filed by the pro se petitioner relative to the underlying consolidated cases. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated a basis for recusal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in denying the motion to recuse.

In this action involving construction of a last will and testament, the trial court granted a beneficiary’s motion to compel distribution of two parcels of real property upon finding that the decedent had devised the parcels to the movant in his will. The trial court entered an agreed order staying execution of the judgment pending appeal. The executor of the decedent’s estate has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. However, we modify the judgment to (1) stay transfer of title to the subject real properties until pending motions and the issue of the estate’s solvency have been resolved and (2) extend the conditions provided in the agreed order staying execution until such resolution has been accomplished. We deny the executor’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her two children. The juvenile court found that four grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm in part and vacate in part. We remand for entry of an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the children and the factors concerning the best interests of the children.

This is an action to recover damages for purported breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied duty of indemnity, and fraud in construction of a home. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by the plaintiff, Mawule Tepe (“Plaintiff”), seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. After diligent review of the materials submitted on appeal, we vacate an order and a pre-filing injunction entered by the trial court while the recusal motion was pending. The trial court’s denial of the recusal motions is affirmed in all other respects.

A jury in a personal injury case awarded damages that were significantly lower than the plaintiff’s claimed medical expenses. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was below the range of reasonableness and indicative of an improper compromise. We affirm.

A tenant appeals an order granting a landlord possession of real property. Because the order does not dispose of the landlord’s claim for damages or the tenant’s counterclaim, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.