APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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

After an unfavorable judgment in a detainer action for real property in general sessions court, the Plaintiff sought relief in Davidson County Circuit Court. Two and a half years later, after numerous resettings, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. The Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is an appeal from an order entered on January 2, 2025. The appellant filed her notice of appeal on February 24, 2025, together with a motion requesting an extension of time within which to file the appeal. Because the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, we deny the motion for extension and dismiss the appeal.  

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered on December 10, 2024. The appellant filed his notice of appeal with the appellate court clerk on March 3, 2025, together with a Motion to Accept Late Filing. Because the thirty-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal with the appellate court clerk is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, we deny the Motion to Accept Late Filing and dismiss the appeal.

This appeal arises from the denial of line of duty disability benefits to the appellee by a pension board. The denial went before an administrative law judge who reversed the decision of the pension board and determined the appellee was entitled to benefits. The appellant filed a petition for judicial review in the chancery court, which affirmed the ruling of the administrative law judge. This appeal followed. Because the record does not contain evidence showing that the board entered a final determination, we are without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

A mother sought the recusal of the juvenile court judge overseeing a custody case involving her minor child. After the judge denied two recusal motions, the mother filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the circuit court. The circuit court determined that it lacked authority to issue the writ of mandamus and dismissed the petition. The mother appealed. We affirm.

In this healthcare liability action, the trial court excluded the plaintiff’s proffered expert witness after concluding that the witness failed to satisfy the competency requirements in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b). Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The Plaintiff sued a musician and the establishment where he performed for negligence after the Plaintiff climbed on stage and sustained a concussion as a result of a fall from the stage while being escorted therefrom. The jury found that the Defendants were not at fault. On appeal, the Plaintiff claims reversible error because of defense counsel’s statement during opening argument that Plaintiff hoped to be a “lottery lawsuit winner” and error in admitting evidence of medical leave benefits Plaintiff obtained from her work. We affirm.

In this case that began as a breach of contract action, the defendant property owner attempts to appeal from two cases that were not consolidated in the trial court but resulted in the entry of a single order in favor of the plaintiff roofing company. Because the order appealed from did not adjudicate all of the claims of all of the parties, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash Plaintiffs’ post-judgment subpoena for financial records he alleges are statutorily exempt from the subpoena process. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment and that no good cause exists to waive the finality requirement. As a result, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and we grant Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss this appeal.

This appeal involves a property dispute between the decedent’s husband and the decedent’s only daughter, who is a child born of a prior marriage. The chancery court concluded that the husband had no interest in the property under the decedent’s will, as the property had instead passed directly to the daughter, not the decedent, under the terms of the grandmother’s will. Additionally, the chancery court concluded that any claim by the husband was also barred by an earlier settlement agreement reached by the parties. Under the terms of that settlement agreement, the chancery court also awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the daughter. The husband appeals. We affirm

Grandparents brought a criminal contempt petition against Father for alleged violations of a grandparent visitation order. After a bench trial, the trial court found the father guilty on all 23 counts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to the maximum sentence of 10 days per count to be served consecutively. Of the 230 days, 140 days were suspended, with a sentence of 90 days of actual confinement. Father raises multiple challenges on appeal to every count and also challenges the sentences imposed. We affirm 11 of the counts, reverse 12 of the counts, and remand for resentencing.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s dismissal of a will contest for failure to prosecute.
We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the termination of a tenured teacher. The trial court determined that the school district terminated the teacher without legal cause and ordered that she be reinstated with backpay but denied her request for attorney’s fees. Finding that the teacher waived any issue pertaining to whether the school board followed the procedural requirements of the Teacher Tenure Act, and that she engaged in conduct which constituted two of the three charges levied, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

An out-of-network hospital sued a TennCare managed care organization (“MCO”), seeking additional payment for healthcare services rendered to the MCO’s members. The MCO moved for summary judgment on the hospital’s claims for payment for post-stabilization services provided to both existing and retroactive members. With respect to the existing members, the MCO argued that the hospital could not show that the MCO had a legal obligation to pay for the post-stabilization services at issue. So the hospital could not establish that the MCO was unjustly enriched. The trial court agreed and summarily dismissed these claims. It also certified the dismissal as final. We vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

A wife appeals from the final judgment in a protracted divorce. Based on the proof at trial, the court classified and divided the marital estate, adopted a permanent parenting plan, set monthly child support, and awarded the husband retroactive support back to the date of the divorce filing. The wife raises numerous issues on appeal, many of which we deem waived for failure to comply with our procedural rules. Because the final order lacks sufficient factual findings with respect to the calculation of retroactive child support, we vacate that award and remand for additional findings. Otherwise, we affirm.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found three statutory grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Because clear and convincing evidence supports that at least one of the termination grounds exists and that termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights.

The parental rights of Chasity H.1 (“Mother”) were terminated by the Knox County Juvenile Court (“the trial court”) on January 22, 2024. Mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

This is the second appeal in this action involving a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her child and to allow the petitioners to adopt the child. In the first appeal, the petitioners challenged the trial court’s determination that despite establishment of a statutory ground for termination, the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. This Court affirmed the trial court’s finding as to the statutory ground. However, concluding that the trial court had erred by applying an outdated set of statutory best interest factors, this Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of the updated factors. On remand and following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court confirmed its previous determination that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights would be in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the petition. The petitioners have appealed, and the mother has raised an additional issue regarding the statutory ground for termination. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal involves a claim for breach of contract filed by the personal representative of a deceased husband’s estate against his former wife, asserting that the former wife breached the parties’ marital dissolution agreement by accepting the proceeds of the former husband’s retirement account upon his death. The parties’ marital dissolution agreement had provided that the retirement account would be “the sole and absolute property of the Husband” and that any “marital interest” the wife had was divested from her and vested in the husband. However, the wife remained the designated beneficiary of the account when the husband died six years later. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by the estate and by the wife. The trial court granted summary judgment to the estate, concluding that the wife breached the marital dissolution agreement and that the estate was entitled to the entire sum in the account. The wife appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the chancery court and remand for further proceedings.

In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to recuse. Because appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

In this custody case, the trial court adopted a parenting plan that ordered equal parenting time. The father appeals, seeking a reversal of the award of equal parenting time, an increase in the mother’s monthly income for child support purposes, payment of one-half the childcare costs, custody on alternating July the fourth holidays, and attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

This is a healthcare liability/wrongful death case. Appellees, healthcare providers, alleged that appellant abused the discovery process in failing to make her expert available for deposition within the time set by the trial court’s scheduling order. Appellant moved for amendment of the scheduling order and for continuance of the trial date. The trial court denied appellant’s motions and granted appellees’ motion to exclude appellant’s expert. The exclusion of appellant’s expert resulted in the trial court granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment, thus dismissing appellant’s lawsuit. Under the circumstances, the trial court’s exclusion of appellant’s expert (and the resulting dismissal of her lawsuit) was too harsh a punishment. Vacated and remanded.

Appellant, as personal guarantor for a third party, signed a credit agreement with appellee. After obtaining a default judgment against the third party in a separate lawsuit, appellee filed suit in the general sessions court to collect the judgment from appellant as the third party’s guarantor. Appellee obtained a default judgment against appellant, and appellant appealed to the circuit court. Appellant did not respond to appellee’s request for admissions. Appellee moved for summary judgment, arguing that appellant’s failure to respond to the request for admissions deemed them admitted and the admissions provided the basis for the undisputed material facts in support of the motion. Appellant failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, and award appellee damages for frivolous appeal, including appellate attorney’s fees

This appeal arises from a legal malpractice action filed by Terry J. Lee (“Plaintiff”) on July 11, 2024, against several attorneys who represented him at various times and in different aspects of his defense of a multi-count indictment and the appeal of his 2020 conviction on all counts, including kidnapping. Plaintiff asserted a cause of action for legal malpractice against the defendants, claiming that they “failed to investigate plaintiff’s [criminal] case to know that the court [Williamson County Criminal Court] did not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute him on the kidnapping charge.” Plaintiff was convicted in 2020 and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction on all grounds effective January 26, 2023, when mandate issued. See State v. Lee, No. M2021-01084-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 16843485 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2022). After noting that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims, codified in Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104(c)(1), requires that the action be filed “within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued,” and that the claims accrued more than one year prior to the commencement of this action, the trial court dismissed the complaint as time barred. Plaintiff contends that this was error. Finding no error, we affirm.