APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a premises liability, slip-and-fall claim against the owner of a shopping center. The husband slipped and fell while trying to get into his vehicle at a shopping center owned by the defendant company. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, which the trial court denied. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed.

In this grandparent visitation action, the grandparents filed a contempt petition, alleging that the child’s father had violated provisions of a previously entered visitation order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered an oral ruling and found the father in contempt. Before the trial court’s entry of a written order regarding contempt, however, the father filed a motion seeking the trial court judge’s recusal. The trial court entered orders adjudicating the contempt charges and the father’s bond before entering a written order adjudicating the recusal issue. The trial court then entered orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. The father has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the trial court erred by entering further orders before entering an order adjudicating the recusal motion. We therefore vacate the trial court’s August 2023 bond orders and the August 2023 order regarding the second contempt petition, which were entered while the motion to recuse was pending. We reverse the trial court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Appellant filed a complaint for judicial review of the Tennessee State Board of Equalization’s decision to deny his request for property tax relief. Because Appellant sought review of an administrative order that had not become final under the applicable version of tax relief statutes, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(a)(1) (“A person who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review”) (emphasis added). Affirmed.

The parties entered into an agreement in which the defendant provided funds and the
plaintiff used those funds to trade stocks. At one point, the defendant agreed to make a
$50,000 loan to the plaintiff so that the trading could continue. The agreement was
evidenced by a promissory note in which the plaintiff agreed to repay the loan and to share
any losses incurred. The loan was secured by a deed of trust executed on the plaintiff’s
residence. Subsequently, the parties lost approximately $210,342. The plaintiff then filed
a declaratory judgment action in which he claimed that the deed of trust was void because
the loan funds had never been disbursed. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim
alleging that the plaintiff owed him the balance of the loan plus interest. He also sought
reimbursement for a portion of the losses that the parties had incurred. The chancery court
determined that the defendant had never disbursed the loan funds. Accordingly, it held that
the deed of trust and the portion of the promissory note which required repayment of the
loan balance were void due to a lack of consideration. However, the chancery court also
held that the portion of the promissory note in which the plaintiff agreed to share losses
was effective and left the defendant entitled to damages. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court conducted a two-day hearing regarding the mother’s petition to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the father moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The trial court granted the motion, determining that modification of the parenting plan was not warranted because the mother had not met her burden to prove that there had been a material change of circumstance affecting the minor child’s well-being. The trial court accordingly dismissed the mother’s petition with prejudice and awarded the father his reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We further determine that Father is entitled to his reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.

This appeal involves a mother and stepfather’s petition to terminate the parental rights of a father to his surviving child after the death of the parties’ other child. The petition alleged two grounds for termination of parental rights – abandonment by failure to support and severe child abuse. The chancery court found that neither ground had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also reviewed the statutory best interest factors and concluded that it was not in the best interest of the child for the father’s parental rights to be terminated. The mother and stepfather appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

It is often said that “hard cases make bad law.” This case is more than hard — it is tragic. In circumstances such as these, which evoke strong emotions, this Court must resist the temptation to bypass the limits of our appellate review and re-try cases and re-evaluate facts to achieve what some deem to be a more just result. Unfortunately, in my view, the majority’s opinion does exactly this – essentially abrogating the role of the trial judge as a factfinder. Specifically, the majority opinion reverses the trial court’s determination that no grounds existed for termination, reverses the trial court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is not in Braxton’s (“the Child’s”) best interest, reverses factual findings made by the trial court, and even disregards credibility findings made by the trial court. I agree that clear and convincing evidence exists to establish abandonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). The majority and I then choose different paths. Although I would reverse the trial court’s ruling as to abandonment, I would affirm in all other respects. In my view the majority ignores the presumption of correctness in the standard of review and does not give sufficient weight to the trial court’s credibility findings to travel the path they deem just. I do not agree that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact, nor that the aggregation of the individual facts amounts to clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract claim. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment after Appellant’s counsel failed to respond or otherwise appear to oppose the motion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The wife primarily challenges the trial court’s decision to deny her alimony. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The plaintiff filed an action in the Davidson County general sessions court to recover the balance of an unpaid loan from the defendant. An agreed final order was entered in favor of the plaintiff. Approximately six months later, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment based on an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by the plaintiff. The general sessions court denied the motion. The defendant appealed the denial to the Davidson County circuit court. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The circuit court held that because the defendant had failed to file the motion to set aside within the ten-day statutory period outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-727(b), the general sessions court had correctly dismissed the motion as it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the judgment. Likewise, the circuit court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the merits as an appeal had not been timely filed. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a petition to terminate the parental rights of a father for the purposes of adoption. The petitioners, the child’s stepfather and mother, alleged that the father abandoned the child both by failing to visit and by failing to support. When father failed to participate in discovery, the petitioners moved for a default as a sanction. After granting the requested default and holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and that termination of father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the termination of parental rights.

This appeal presents issues relating to the probate court’s admission of a copy of a will for muniment of title. However, 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.

Petitioners attempted to terminate the parental rights of the child’s biological father on the
grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support. The trial court found that neither
ground had been proven but proceeded to find that had grounds for termination been
proven, it would be in the child’s best interest for the biological father’s parental rights to
be terminated. Although we affirm the trial court’s finding that the biological father proved
that his failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to the ground
of abandonment by failure to support. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that
termination is in the child’s best interest.

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.

This appeal stems from a partition lawsuit. The real property at issue was sold at auction. The issues on appeal are whether Appellants have an ownership interest in the property and the proceeds from partition sale, and whether the trial court properly allocated the proceeds between the rightful owners. We reverse the trial court regarding ownership and hold that Appellants own one-half of the property. We affirm the trial court’s allocation of the funds from the partition sale. We vacate the trial court’s judgment as to whether Appellants’ attorneys’ fees should be paid from the partition proceeds and remand this issue for reconsideration in light of our Court’s determination of ownership.

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.

A gas company obtained an easement by eminent domain across a property owner’s land. A jury determined the amount of just compensation payable to the landowner. On appeal, the gas company argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear expert testimony from the landowner’s expert regarding the value of the property and that the jury verdict is not supported by material evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This interlocutory appeal concerns the relation back doctrine under Tennessee Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.03. The plaintiffs sued a corporate entity for premises liability. The
corporate defendant successfully moved for summary judgment on grounds that it did not
own the subject property. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend in which they
sought leave to amend their complaint to name a separate corporate entity as a defendant.
The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the initial mistake was a
misnomer and that the plaintiffs were not seeking to add a new party even though the
defendant to be added was a distinct corporate entity. The defendants sought permission
to file an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted. The record contains no
evidence that the separate corporate entity named by the plaintiffs in their amended
pleading received timely notice of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. We therefore reverse the
judgment of the trial court.

A judgment creditor domesticated a Georgia judgment in Tennessee under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. When the creditor sought to enforce the domesticated judgment, the debtor raised a statute-of-limitations defense. The trial court ruled that the enforcement action was time-barred because the limitations period began to run when the foreign judgment was rendered in Georgia. Upon review, we conclude that domestication of the foreign judgment under the Uniform Act resulted in a new Tennessee judgment for purposes of the statute of limitations. So we reverse the trial court’s decision

In this matter involving the sale of a parcel of improved real property, the buyer claimed
that the sellers should be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the
condition of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sellers,
determining that the presence of an “as-is” clause in the parties’ sales contract precluded
the buyer’s recovery. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment
with respect to the buyer’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment as well as her claim based on the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures
Act. We remand these issues to the trial court for further consideration. We affirm the
trial court’s grant of summary judgment concerning the buyer’s remaining claims and deny
the buyer’s request for reassignment to a different trial court judge upon remand. We also
deny the sellers’ request for an award of attorney’s fees.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review under Tennessee Code Annotated § 4- 5-322 of a decision of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration Review Commission (the “Review Commission”). Asserting that the petition was untimely because it had been filed more than 60 days after entry of the agency’s final order, the Review Commission filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(1). The petitioner opposed the motion by asking for an enlargement of time pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. The trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time and granted the Review Commission’s motion to dismiss. The petitioner appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his five minor children after finding clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, abandoned the children by wanton disregard; the children were victims of severe abuse; the father was confined under a criminal sentence of six years; and termination of the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The father appeals. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint after finding that the plaintiffs failed to timely close on their transactions with the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. Following thorough review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.