APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

After a tragic motor vehicle accident caused her husband’s death and her minor child’s serious injuries, the plaintiff filed this products liability action against several manufacturers and sellers. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., a booster seat manufacturer. Based on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Carolyn Coffman, et al. v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., 615 S.W.3d 888 (Tenn. 2021), and the relevant provisions of the Tennessee Products Liability Act, we affirm the trial court.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Because the mother did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

This is an action to rescind a quitclaim deed conveyed pursuant to a durable general power of attorney. On August 1, 2006, Richard Petersen (“Plaintiff”) appointed his sister, Margaret Georgiades (“Defendant”) as his attorney-in-fact. The power of attorney was recorded on July 8, 2009. In April 2010, Defendant conveyed, via quitclaim deed, one-half of Plaintiff’s undivided interest in his residence to herself for no consideration. Plaintiff contends that he did not discover the transfer until the fall of 2020, at which time he revoked Defendant’s power of attorney. Then, on February 4, 2021, he filed suit against Defendant to rescind the conveyance on the basis that the deed was void ab initio as the power of attorney did not authorize Defendant to make gifts or transfers “without consideration to anyone.” He also contended that the conveyance should be set aside because Defendant’s conduct “constitutes a clear breach of the fiduciary duty” she owed to Plaintiff as his attorney-in-fact. For her part, Defendant contends that the action is barred by the ten-year statute of limitations. She also contends that Plaintiff instructed her to make the conveyance and that he subsequently told others that he had consented to the conveyance. Following discovery, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the deed was void ab initio. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the power of attorney did not grant Defendant “the authority to transfer [Plaintiff’s] property by gift to her or to any third party” and, on this basis, declared the deed “void ab initio and to have no effect whatsoever.” This appeal followed. As provided by Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-6- 110(a), because the power of attorney expressly authorized Defendant “[t]o exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right or obligation whatsoever that I now have,” Defendant had “the power and authority to make gifts, in any amount, of any of the principal’s property, to any individuals, . . . in accordance with the principal’s personal history of making or joining in the making of lifetime gifts.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-6-110(a). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Because the trial court did not rule on other issues, including, inter alia, whether Plaintiff’s claim is time barred, whether Plaintiff approved of the conveyance, whether the gift was in accordance with Plaintiff’s history of making lifetime gifts, and/or whether the conveyance constitutes a breach of Defendant’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an appeal by a pro se appellant. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief on appeal, we conclude that he waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal.

The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to two minor children on the grounds of abandonment and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of or financial responsibility for the children. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to abandonment but affirm the trial court’s ruling as to the father’s failure to manifest an ability and willingness. Because we also conclude that terminating the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests, we affirm the trial court’s ultimate ruling.

This appeal involves claims of breach of contract and employment discrimination filed by a graduate student/teaching assistant at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The plaintiff claimed that he was fired for discriminatory reasons and that the University of Tennessee had breached its employment contract with him. The trial court dismissed the breach of contract claim based on sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the employment discrimination claims by reason of the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

After a tragic motor vehicle accident caused her husband’s death and her minor child’s serious injuries, the plaintiff filed this products liability action against several manufacturers and sellers. We granted the instant interlocutory appeal in which the defendant requests review — based on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Carolyn Coffman, et al. v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., 615 S.W.3d 888 (Tenn. 2021) — of the
trial court’s denial of its motion for relief from unfavorable summary judgment orders. We reverse the trial court.

In the first appeal in this case, we reversed the decision of the trial court to award custody of the minor children to Grandparents and remanded for Grandparents to prove substantial harm. While the appeal was pending, Mother and Grandparents filed a joint petition for custody to be returned to Mother. The trial court held a trial on both issues following the remand from this Court. Ultimately, the trial court granted Mother’s petition and entered a parenting plan naming Mother primary residential parent and awarding Father weekend visitation; Grandparents were not awarded any visitation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the Tennessee Prompt Pay Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-34-101, et seq. (“the PPA”). King Construction Group, Inc. (“King”) sued Highlands Residential Services (“HRS”) in the Chancery Court for Putnam County (“the Trial Court”) for violating the PPA. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court ruled in King’s favor, granting an award to King for HRS’s failure to place retained funds in a separate, interest-bearing escrow account as required by the PPA. The Trial Court further awarded King statutory interest and attorney’s fees. HRS appeals, arguing that an amendment to the PPA, which became effective in July 2020 after the parties had entered into their agreement, means that HRS, a public housing agency, did not have to place retainage in an escrow account. We hold that, as HRS first failed to place retained funds in an escrow account before the amendment became effective, the pre-July 2020 version of the PPA applies to this action. We affirm the Trial Court’s award of a penalty to King for HRS’s failure to place retainage in an escrow account. However, we reverse the Trial Court’s award of attorney’s fees to King because the Trial Court made no supporting findings nor is there any evidence of bad faith by HRS. In addition, we vacate the Trial Court in its award of statutory interest to King and remand for the Trial Court to calculate a new award of statutory interest to King at the interest rate specified in the pre-July 2020 version of the PPA. We thus affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and vacate, in part, and this cause is remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

In this appeal, Appellant does not offer any argument as to the trial court’s final order, and among other technical issues, fails to properly cite to her appendix or to the record. Because Appellant has failed to comply with the requirements set out in Rules 27 and 28 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, we dismiss the appeal.

Father, who is serving an eight-year sentence on a rape conviction, appeals the termination of his parental rights. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal involves a complaint against four defendants for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against three of the four defendants. Because the order does not resolve the plaintiff’s claims against all of the defendants, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on January 23, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until February 23, 2024, 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.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to support; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (5) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (6) severe child abuse; and (7) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s ultimate termination decision.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff slipped and fell while jumping off of a diving board during a visit to a city owned pool, injuring his knee. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued the city based on negligence to recover for his injuries sustained from the accident and his wife sought damages for a derivative claim for loss of consortium. The city filed an answer, raising the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (hereinafter “the TRUS”) as an affirmative defense. The city then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the TRUS because the city is a “landowner” as defined by the TRUS, the plaintiff was engaged in a “recreational activity” listed in the TRUS at the time of the accident, and none of the exceptions or limitations to the TRUS were applicable. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The trial court found that the language of the TRUS is not ambiguous and found that the city was immune from liability under the TRUS because the city pool, which is government-owned property, was being used for recreation at the time of the plaintiff’s injury and involved an activity included in the TRUS, “water sports.” The plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s holding that swimming in a city pool is a recreational activity protected under the TRUS. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Appellees brought suit under the Tennessee Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to recover attorney’s fees incurred in attempting to collect an underlying judgment from one of the Appellants. The trial court awarded Appellees’ attorney’s fees. Because the Act does not authorize the recovery of attorney’s fees, we reverse.

The Estate of John A. Queener (the “Estate”), by and through Personal Representative, Carolyn Q. Junck, seeks to recover funds paid out with respect to two certificates of deposit (“CDs”) owned by the decedent, John A. Queener (the “Decedent”), at the time of his death and funds paid from the Decedent’s checking account during his lifetime. The Estate sued Jim Griffith (“Mr. Griffith”), stepson of the Decedent, and relied upon legal theories of undue influence, fraud and/or fraud in the inducement, lack of competency in the contract, and conversion. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the Estate $13,355.05 plus pre- and post-judgment interest against Mr. Griffith to reimburse the Estate for a number of checks that Mr. Griffith wrote from the Decedent’s checking account during the Decedent’s lifetime. The trial court denied the Estate any recovery with respect to the CDs. On appeal, the Estate and Mr. Griffith both raise issues with the trial court’s judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves our review of the trial court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her two minor children. Having carefully reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

Two relatives filed competing petitions to adopt a minor child after his mother’s death. The child’s father was unknown. The trial court conducted a comparative fitness analysis and found that it was in the best interest of the child to be adopted by the child’s maternal grandfather. We affirm.

This is an appeal from an order denying a nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a wrongful death action commenced by a former resident’s wife. The nursing home argued that the wife was bound by an optional arbitration agreement that she signed during her husband’s admission to the facility. However, the trial court held that the wife was not bound by the arbitration agreement because she signed it in a representative capacity and was not a party to the agreement. This appeal followed. Following the recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Smyrna Residential, LLC, 685 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. 2024), we hold that the wife lacked the legal authority to bind her husband to the optional arbitration agreement because she had the powers of only a healthcare agent, and entering into the optional arbitration agreement was not a healthcare decision. Thus, neither the wife nor any of the resident’s heirs are precluded from bringing and maintaining a wrongful death action on the resident’s behalf. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, albeit on different grounds, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A woman fell in a Gallatin, Tennessee grocery store and suffered a labral hip tear. She and her husband filed suit against the grocery store, alleging claims for premises liability and loss of consortium. The case proceeded to a jury trial. After the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, the store moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, concluding that the plaintiffs put forth no proof of constructive notice. The plaintiffs appeal; discerning no error, we affirm.

Acting under authorization of subsections (1) and (7) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 70-1-305, officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), suspecting violations of wildlife laws, entered onto the Plaintiffs’ properties on multiple occasions, seeking to enforce restrictions upon hunting. The TWRA’s officers did so without a warrant or consent. The Plaintiffs brought suit, asserting that the statute authorizing these entries is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal damages. A three-judge trial court panel concluded the statute is unconstitutional on its face and granted declaratory judgment and nominal damages. The three-judge panel divided on two issues. One, the majority pretermitted the as-applied constitutional challenge, while the third judge would have found the statute unconstitutional as applied. Two, the majority declined to grant injunctive relief while the third judge would have granted injunctive relief. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency appeals. We conclude the statute is facially constitutional but unconstitutional as applied. We affirm the award of nominal damages.

Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s modification of: (1) the parenting plan for the minor child; and (2) Appellee/Father’s child support obligations. Because the trial court erred in setting the parties’ respective monthly gross incomes for child support purposes, we vacate its order concerning child support and remand for recalculation. The trial court’s order granting Father the federal Child Tax Credit is also vacated. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

The plaintiffs, who are former employees of a municipal police department, were discharged after the District Attorney General sent an email to the city manager stating that the plaintiffs’ testimony at hearings may be impeached without independent corroboration, thus allegedly “creating challenges for the State in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” The plaintiffs thereafter brought suit against the District Attorney General and specifically asserted claims for official oppression under a negligence per se theory and for tortious interference with a business relationship and prospective business relationships. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. The plaintiffs appealed, and during the pendency of the appeal, the District Attorney General died. The personal representative of her estate, who was substituted as the appellee in the wake of her death, has argued that this case abated upon her death because the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is “for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-5-102. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference abated upon the District Attorney General’s death. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiffs’ separate pursuit of recovery under a negligence per se theory did not abate, we nonetheless affirm the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ negligence per se theory due to their failure to raise an effective challenge to the dismissal of the theory in their appellate briefing.

In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child, the trial court found that four statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Having determined that the trial court erred by failing to make findings concerning the mother’s affirmative defense of lack of willfulness relative to the statutory grounds of abandonment through failure to visit and support the child, we reverse the trial court’s reliance on those grounds. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.