APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This breach of contract case involves a partnership dispute where one partner who undertook the winding down of the long-term partnership sought (1) reimbursement of loans and advances made to cover partnership expenses together with interest thereon; (2) compensation for services rendered on behalf of the partnership and attorney fees; and (3) taking into account the foregoing, disbursement of partnership funds to the partners. The other two partners disputed the claims and made counterclaims. Because we cannot ascertain whether the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law support the judgment, we vacate the judgment and remand it for the entry of a more detailed order that reflects that it is the product of the trial court’s individualized decision-making and independent judgment.

In this case, two brothers accused each other of exerting undue influence on their aging mother, Latona Joyce Walsh. Timothy Walsh (“Defendant”) alleged that his brother Anthony Walsh (“Plaintiff”) had exerted undue influence over Ms. Walsh, resulting in her deeding her home to him, naming him as the executor of her estate, and placing his name on her bank accounts approximately four years before her death. Shortly before her death, Ms. Walsh made Defendant her attorney-in-fact and Plaintiff’s name was removed from her accounts. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant had exerted undue influence over Ms. Walsh, and Defendant filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff for undue influence. Ms. Walsh died two days later. The Chancery Court for Anderson County (“the Trial Court”) found that both sons had exerted undue influence over their mother but that Defendant had not dissipated any of her assets, unlike Plaintiff. The Trial Court accordingly ordered that Ms. Walsh’s home was part of her estate and was to be distributed by the terms of her 1991 will. The Trial Court further credited Plaintiff with receiving $49,000 in rental income from renting his mother’s home after her death. Plaintiff appeals the Trial Court’s finding of undue influence. Based upon our review, we affirm.

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 arises from a premises liability action commenced by Tammala Thompson (“Plaintiff”) for injuries she sustained while camping for the weekend at Cedars of Lebanon State Park (“the Park”). Plaintiff alleges that the State of Tennessee (“the State”), which owns and operates the Park, is liable for her injuries because the State negligently maintained an unsafe sidewalk. Relying upon the affirmative defense provided by the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (“the TRUS”), the State filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that she was not engaged in recreational activity when the injury occurred because she was walking on a sidewalk; thus, the TRUS is not applicable. She also asserted that sidewalks are “improvements” which are not expressly exempted from liability under the TRUS. Finding the TRUS applicable and that no exceptions applied, the Claims Commission granted the State’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.

The homeowners and a general contractor commenced this action for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty against a brick manufacturer and its distributor. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the plaintiffs’ failure to provide an opportunity to cure. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Having determined that Article 2 of Tennessee’s Uniform Commercial Code controls the sale of the bricks and that the bricks were accepted, it was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to provide an opportunity to cure before filing suit. Still, we conclude that the manufacturer was entitled to summary judgment on all claims because it had no privity of contract with the plaintiffs.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights for abandonment by failure to visit,
abandonment by failure to support, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an
ability and willingness to assume custody of her children. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s decision to grant a motion to enforce a settlement
agreement. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the parties
had reached an enforceable agreement. We affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought the termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights to their son in the Juvenile Court for Davidson County (“the Juvenile Court”). The Juvenile Court found that DCS had failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. Although the Juvenile Court found sufficient evidence for grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights, it declined to find that termination was in the child’s best interest given that the mother retained her parental rights. The guardian ad litem (“GAL”) appealed, and DCS joined in filing briefs arguing that the Juvenile Court erred. Upon careful review, we find that the Juvenile Court misapplied the law in its consideration of the ground of persistent conditions and provided insufficient findings of fact addressing relevant testimony in its consideration of both persistent conditions and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody as alleged against the mother. The Juvenile Court also provided conclusory statements for each best interest factor that it considered in relation to the father. We accordingly vacate the Juvenile Court’s judgment and remand this case for the Juvenile Court to properly apply the law in its analysis of persistent conditions against the mother and provide sufficient findings of fact in support of its conclusory statements in its analysis of persistent conditions and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody against the mother. We also remand for the Juvenile Court to provide factual findings in support of its conclusions as to the best interest factors applied to the father.

In this appeal, an employee of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department challenges the termination of her employment on the ground that she lacked a required certification to serve as a police officer after a psychological examiner deemed her not qualified to hold her position. The local civil service board initially upheld the termination, but that decision was vacated by the trial court, and the matter remanded. On remand, the local civil service board disapproved of the termination and reinstated the officer. The matter was appealed once again to the trial court, where a different judge held that the board’s decision was based on improper procedure, unsupported by substantial and material evidence, and arbitrary and capricious. We reverse the decision of the trial court and reinstate the decision of the local civil service board.

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.

Appellant brought this action after his car was painted the wrong color. During the course
of the proceedings, the trial court ordered the parties to submit to mediation subject to
certain guidelines requiring good faith participation, denied Appellant’s motion to recuse,
granted Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Appellant’s claim for
punitive damages, and ultimately granted Appellees’ motion to confess judgment as to
Appellant’s claims for breach of contract and negligence. Appellant appeals each of these
rulings. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to Appellees’ motion to confess judgment,
but affirm in all other respects.

The petitioner was employed at the Light, Gas, and Water Division of the City of Memphis (“MLGW”). During his employment, the employee participated in a pension plan. The employee was terminated in July 2016 but did not apply for his pension benefits. In 2022, the employee filed two retirement applications that were rejected. Both applications sought the payment of pension benefits retroactive to the 2016 termination date. The employee appealed to MLGW’s pension board. The pension board accepted the second application and instituted the payment of benefits as of its filing date. However, the board declined to award benefits retroactive to 2016. The employee sought judicial review in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The court held that the decision to deny the first application was arbitrary and capricious and ordered the payment of benefits to be deemed effective as of the date it was filed. However, it found that the decision to deny the claim for retroactive benefits stemming from the date of termination was not arbitrary and capricious as it was in accordance with the pension system’s plan. The employee appeals. We affirm.

The University of Memphis initiated termination proceedings against a tenured faculty
member. An administrative hearing was held before a panel comprised of four other
tenured faculty members. The panel issued a report in which the majority of its members
found that the university had not proven adequate cause for the faculty member’s
termination. The report and a record of the hearing were provided to the university’s
president, who disagreed and signed a letter terminating the faculty member. The faculty
member sought review of the termination in the Shelby County Chancery Court. The
chancery court held that the university president did not have authority to issue a decision
contradictory to that of the faculty panel. The chancery court also held that the facts
contained in the record did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of adequate cause
for termination and ordered the faculty member be reinstated with backpay. The university
appeals. We reverse and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees in a conservatorship action. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm as modified.

Following lengthy proceedings arising out of a delinquent tax sale of real property and attempted redemptions by two parties, the chancery court concluded that the taxpayer properly redeemed her property.  The court then awarded the tax sale purchaser interest on the amount he had tendered for the sale, to be paid in part by the redeeming taxpayer and in part by another party that had unsuccessfully attempted redemption.  The purchaser appeals, arguing that the court should have awarded him greater interest.  The party that unsuccessfully attempted redemption argues that the trial court improperly disbursed to the purchaser funds beyond those to which he was entitled. We affirm.

In this zoning matter, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondent county and property development company and dismissed the petitioners’ declaratory judgment action. The petitioners had challenged a sector plan amendment and rezoning as illegal. Contrary to the petitioners’ argument, the trial court specifically found that the county zoning body maintained the authority under Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-101 to impose conditions on the rezoning of the subject property. The petitioners have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 3, 2025. The notice of appeal
was not provided to the appropriate individual at the correctional facility to mail to the
Appellate Court Clerk until December 26, 2025, 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 is an appeal from a will contest wherein the decedent executed the will at the hospital where he was a patient. Two hospital employees signed the will as attesting witnesses, and their signatures were then notarized by another staff member. After the decedent died, his son contested the validity of the will, and the matter was set for a hearing. The proponent of the will attempted to serve subpoenas on the two attesting witnesses at the hospital where they signed the will, one by process server and the other by certified mail. Neither attempt at service was successful, and consequently, neither of the attesting witnesses appeared at the will contest hearing. The notary did appear and testified as to the identity and presence of the attesting witnesses at the will’s execution. The proponent of the will sought to have both witnesses declared unavailable. The trial court declared unavailable the witness who was served using a process server but declined to do the same regarding the witness who was served by certified mail. Consequently, the court determined that the will was invalid. The proponent of the will appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion when it made a distinction between serving a subpoena using a process server and serving a subpoena by certified mail. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Defendants appeal from a final judgment in a dispute over a construction contract. Because the defendants did not file their 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 appeal arises from post-divorce petitions and counterpetitions for enforcement and modification of the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (the “MDA”), and permanent parenting plan (the “PPP”). The dispositive issue on appeal is whether either party is the prevailing party for the purpose of recovering his or her attorney’s fees. Because the final decree of divorce incorporated a mandatory dispute resolution provision, we must first determine whether either party qualifies as the prevailing party concerning claims “to procure enforcement” of the MDA or PPP. We then consider whether either party qualifies as the prevailing party pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), (the “Statute”), which has a broader application but is discretionary. During the pendency of the action, the defendant/father delivered two checks to the plaintiff/mother, one in satisfaction of the mother’s claim for past due child support and a second check in satisfaction of her claim for past due alimony. Thereafter, the remaining claims went to mediation, after which the parties approved an agreed order resolving all remaining claims except attorney’s fees, reserving the fee issue for the trial court. Each party, claiming to be the prevailing party, sought to recover their respective attorney’s fees. The trial court ruled that “[s]ince both parties were awarded their beneficial, judicial relief that materially altered the other party’s behavior, the court cannot consider either party the sole ‘prevailing party.’” Thus, neither was awarded any attorney’s fees. This appeal followed. Because the father paid the child support and alimony arrearages after the mother filed her petition and motion to enforce the MDA and PPP, we find that the mother is the prevailing party on the enforcement claims, for which she is contractually entitled to recover her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the MDA. As for the respective claims and defenses related to modification of the MDA and PPP, for which the Statute applies, we affirm the trial court’s decision to not award attorney’s fees based on the finding that neither party can be considered the prevailing party. Thus, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand with instructions for the trial court to award the mother a judgment for the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs she incurred to enforce the father’s obligations to pay child support and alimony pursuant to the MDA 03/13/2026 - 2 - and PPP. Because neither party can be considered the sole prevailing party on appeal, we deny both parties’ requests to recover their attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

The trial court granted Appellees’ joint motion to dismiss Appellant’s healthcare liability action based on its finding that Appellant failed to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). Appellant appeals. We affirm.

This is an action to enforce an oral agreement for the transfer of stock in a corporation formed to purchase a parcel of commercial real estate. The plaintiff alleged that he helped obtain financing for the purchase in exchange for 50% of the company. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff had only an option to buy a 50% interest within one year of closing. The trial court credited the plaintiff’s testimony and awarded him a judgment for his share of the company’s profits. This appeal followed. We affirm.

Mother/Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4), and on its finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a dispute between a neighborhood homeowners’ association (“HOA”) and a homeowner in the HOA’s neighborhood. On remand after a prior appeal, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner appealed the declaratory judgment and then filed multiple motions in the trial court seeking inherent authority sanctions and costs against certain attorneys who had been involved in the case. The trial court denied the motions, and the homeowner appealed those determinations. We affirm the trial court’s decisions in all respects.