APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a health care liability case that centers around the application of the discovery rule. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice after determining that the discovery rule did not toll the accrual of the statute of limitations to the time asserted by the plaintiff. The trial court based this determination on two independent bases. The first basis was predicated on certain information provided by the defendants, which was taken from the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website. The trial court took judicial notice of this information and determined that it indicated that a reasonable person would have been able to discover the identity of the defendant. The second basis, an express alternative finding, stated that even if the information was not considered, sufficient information existed in exhibits attached to the plaintiff’s complaint to support its determination. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding. The trial court granted appellee a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct by the appellant, divided the parties’ assets and debts, and entered a permanent parenting plan designating appellee as primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child, granting the parties equal co-parenting time, and providing appellee with sole decision-making authority with respect to the child. Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal; however, each of those issues has been waived due to appellant’s failure to comply with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court. Additionally, appellee argues that the trial court erred in awarding the parties equal co-parenting time and requests his attorney’s fees incurred on appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, in the exercise of our discretion, we decline to find this appeal frivolous and further decline to award appellee his attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for an order of protection filed by the appellant mother against the appellee father. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the order of protection.

This appeal concerns the modification of a parenting plan. Alexander Georg Warnatzsch (“Father”) filed a petition against his ex-wife Ashly Camille Warnatzsch (“Mother”) in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to modify the parties’ parenting plan concerning their three minor children. Mother exercised most of the parenting time under the original plan. Following a hearing, the Trial Court found that Father had proven a material change in circumstances and that the residential parenting schedule should be modified. Mother remained primary residential parent, but Father was granted equal parenting time. Mother appeals, raising various issues implicating the Trial Court’s discretion. We find no reversible error. We affirm.

The plaintiff in this non-compete dispute raised several causes of action in the operative complaint but later filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit as to one of the claims within the suit. The defendants did not object at the time but nearly two years later filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit. The defendants asserted that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01 does not allow plaintiffs to dismiss one or more but fewer than all of the claims in a lawsuit. The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s remaining claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse.

Following a divorce, a husband appeals the trial court’s classification of marital assets, division of marital assets, and alimony determination. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s order. We grant the wife’s request for reasonable attorney fees on appeal.

This is an appeal by a father of the termination of his parental rights to his daughter. The Juvenile Court for Sevier County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated the father’s parental rights after finding by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which led to his daughter’s removal persisted, that he had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of his daughter, and that termination of his parental rights was in his daughter’s best interest. The father appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from the death of the husband during a divorce proceeding. While the divorce was pending, the spouses sold real property they owned as tenants by the entirety and deposited the proceeds with the clerk of the court pursuant to an agreed order. Subsequently, the husband died and the wife filed a motion to dismiss the case and to distribute the proceeds. The chancery court determined that the husband’s death abated the divorce proceedings and that the proceeds had been owned by the spouses as tenants by the entirety. Thus, the court granted the motion to dismiss and determined that the wife was entitled to distribution of the proceeds as the surviving tenant by the entirety. The spouses’ son, acting as administrator of the husband’s estate, appeals. We affirm.

The trial court approved a parenting plan jointly proposed by an unmarried Mother and Father, who at the time were living together. Their relationship, subsequently, deteriorated, and each parent later sought modification of the existing plan. With some minor alterations, the trial court largely adopted Mother’s proposed parenting plan. Father appeals. We affirm.

This is an equal protection challenge to a city ordinance that restricts customer visits to some home-based businesses but not others, which the plaintiffs contend are similarly situated in all material respects in relation to the purpose of the restrictions. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that the restrictions were constitutional because they were rationally related to the city’s interest in preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods. Thus, the court granted Metro’s motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs appeal, contending that the trial court reached the incorrect conclusion because the plaintiffs presented evidence that their home-based businesses have no greater impact on the residential nature of neighborhoods than the exempt home-based businesses. We agree with the plaintiffs. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises from a chancery court petition for interlocutory judicial review of an intermediate agency decision in a contested case proceeding before the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The petition sought judicial review of the administrative law judge’s denial of a motion to dismiss. The department moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The chancery court construed the challenge as a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction and determined that an adequate remedy would be available to the petitioners in the form of subsequent judicial review of a final administrative decision. Accordingly, the chancery court granted the motion to dismiss. Petitioners appeal. We affirm.

After the decedent’s most recent will was admitted to probate, the decedent’s grandson moved to certify standing for a will contest. The grandson claimed standing as a beneficiary of a prior will. After a couple of hearings, he came forward with signed copies of several prior wills that named him as a beneficiary. The trial court ruled the grandson lacked standing because he failed to produce an original instrument or establish a lost will. We conclude that the copies of the prior wills, standing alone, were insufficient to establish standing. So we affirm.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s final order entered on February 7, 2025. The notice of appeal was not mailed to the Appellate Court Clerk via certified mail until May 9, 2025, more than thirty days from the final order’s entry date. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this health care liability action, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice upon finding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A mother and a father challenge the juvenile court’s finding of two grounds for the termination of their parental rights and its finding that termination was in the best interests of the two children. We find that the juvenile court failed to make sufficient findings regarding one ground and vacate that ground. We affirm in all other respects.

The plaintiff sued a third party in North Carolina. During that litigation, the plaintiff learned that a Tennessee business might have information relevant to the lawsuit, so the plaintiff obtained a subpoena in North Carolina and, under the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, received a corresponding subpoena from the Circuit Court Clerk for Knox County, Tennessee. After serving the subpoena on an agent for the defendant, the plaintiff heard no response. He then brought a petition to enforce the subpoena against the company and its agent. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for Rule 11 sanctions, which the trial court granted. Because we find that the trial court did not adequately explain its decisions to dismiss the petition, grant attorney’s fees, and order Rule 11 sanctions so as to allow for meaningful appellate review, we vacate the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“the Board”). Following a hearing, the Board denied parole to inmate Darryl Whisnant (“Whisnant”). The Board said that, going forward, Whisnant should complete his programming as recommended by his Strong R Assessment, namely by continuing his positive behavior, remaining drug free, and taking a few minutes each day for positive reflection. Whisnant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court upheld the Board’s decision. Whisnant appeals. According to Whisnant, the Board violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B) by failing to state in writing how he could improve his chances of being released on parole. Whisnant argues that his recommended tasks were open-ended and impossible to complete. We find, as did the Trial Court, that the tasks given to Whisnant clearly were meant to be complied with up to his next parole hearing, at which time the Board can consider Whisnant’s compliance or non-compliance as part of its decision-making. The recommended tasks are neither open-ended nor impossible to complete. We hold that the Board complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B). We affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision terminating her parental rights. She challenges the termination ground, which is severe child abuse, as well as the best interest determination. We have concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports both of these rulings by the trial court and, therefore, we affirm.

This matter is a petition for recusal of the trial judge pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The inadequacies of the petition require this Court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The father appeals the judgment of the trial court that terminated his parental rights to his minor child based on abandonment by willful failure to visit. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute between Appellant Stacie Smith and Appellee Gary Meek.  In response to a plumbing issue in her rented home, Ms. Smith sought injunctive relief from the Knox County General Sessions Court requiring Mr. Meek to make certain repairs to the home.  The General Sessions Court granted the requested injunction, which Mr. Meek appealed to the Knox County Circuit Court.  Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Meek and dismissed Ms. Smith’s complaint.  Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Following an alleged failure to properly assess whether a driver was impaired as part of an investigation of a car crash, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security fired a probationary employee trooper. The trooper filed suit, claiming that the Department actually fired her because of her age, sex, and national origin. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Department. The trooper appealed. We affirm.

Homeowners sought to void the foreclosure sale of their home, asserting that the bank did not advertise the sale as required. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment, concluding that the bank was not properly served and that the foreclosure had been properly advertised. The homeowners appeal. We affirm based on failure of service of process.

Robert A. Martin (“Father”) and Donna Saas (“Daughter”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”), seeking the removal of Robert E. Martin (“Son”) as trustee of the Martin Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”) and making claims of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of assets against Son and his wife, Karen Martin (“Son’s Wife”) (collectively, with Son, “Defendants”). The Trial Court struck Defendants’ defenses and denials in their answer given their failure to provide an accounting of the Trust’s assets despite the Trial Court’s orders to do so.  After a hearing on damages, the Trial Court awarded Daughter half of the asset that was supposed to have been put in the Trust, half of the funds that Son had converted from Father’s accounts, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and lost wages.  Defendants appeal.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

After slipping and falling on accumulated snow and ice at a restaurant, a man filed a premises liability lawsuit against the owner of the restaurant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner based on its finding that the owner owed no duty to protect the man from accumulated snow and ice because the incident occurred during an ongoing winter storm. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.