APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination existed as to the mother: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) persistent conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The juvenile court also found that the termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm.

A homeowner, displeased with the work performed by a handyman, brought suit, seeking
damages and relief under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The handyman
counterclaimed for the value of the oral contract for services, asserting the homeowner
breached the contract by improperly terminating it. The circuit court denied relief to both
parties, and the parties appeal. We conclude that the circuit court did not err in determining
that there was no enforceable contract, precluding relief for the handyman. Likewise, the
homeowner is not entitled to relief because the evidence does not preponderate against the
circuit court’s finding that there was no misrepresentation and that the handyman rendered
services to earn certain prepaid amounts. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

This appeal arises from a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Martin Walker (“Petitioner”), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Petitioner seeks review of the decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“Board”) to deny him parole. He raises numerous challenges to the propriety of the Board’s action and procedures. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her two children. Following a trial, the juvenile court found that six grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the mother’s parental rights were terminated. The mother appeals. Of the six grounds the juvenile court found had been proven, we affirm four of them but reverse two. We also affirm the determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.

Neighbors sued to invalidate zoning ordinances that would allow two real estate development projects to be built at significantly taller heights than prior zoning regulations allowed. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in part because it found that the passage of two zoning ordinances gave the developers vested property rights under the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act of 2014 (VPRA). We conclude the trial court erred in its application of the VPRA, but we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

This is an appeal from a case arising in the Shelby County General Sessions Environmental Court. For the reasons stated herein, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review this appeal. Moreover, we are unable to transfer this appeal because it was not timely filed for the appropriate court that has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and it is, therefore, dismissed.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on four grounds. The Tennessee
Department of Children’s Services does not defend two of the four grounds, so we reverse
as to those grounds. We affirm the ground that Mother is unable to parent the children due
to her present mental condition. Because the trial court’s order does not contain sufficient
findings of fact, we vacate the trial court’s findings that the mother failed to manifest a
willingness and ability to parent and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

Father appeals the trial court’s finding of abandonment by wanton disregard as a ground for termination of his parental rights, as well as its finding that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

The Plaintiff brought a premises liability claim after falling off his own ladder while at the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing he had no duty to warn and could avoid liability under principles of comparative fault. The Plaintiff countered that the Defendant was actually his employer and that the Defendant’s decision not to provide workers’ compensation insurance prevented the Defendant from being able to raise a comparative fault defense. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant did have a duty to warn. The trial court granted the Defendant summary judgment finding no duty to warn and that even if a duty existed that Plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law based upon comparative fault principles. The Plaintiff appealed to this Court. We affirm.

The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this divorce action, the court limited Wife’s proof at trial as a sanction for her failure to respond to pre-trial discovery. After the trial, the court granted the parties an absolute divorce, equitably divided the marital estate, adopted a permanent parenting plan for their minor children, and declined to award Wife spousal support. Wife argues that the court erred in limiting her proof at trial, dividing the marital estate, and denying her request for spousal support. Discerning no abuse of discretion in these decisions, we affirm.

A father filed a petition to modify the existing parenting plan. The trial court found a material change in circumstances had occurred and it was in the child’s best interest to award custody to the father. Because the evidence does not preponderate against either finding, we affirm.

This case concerns the procedure used by the Tennessee State Board of Equalization when it determined the 2018 appraisal ratio for Shelby County. In 2017, Shelby County real property was reappraised. Accordingly, the Board of Equalization set the County’s 2017 appraisal ratio at 1.000. In 2018, the Board of Equalization used the 2017 reappraisal to set the Shelby County 2018 appraisal ratio at 1.000. Appellants—owners of commercial tangible personal property in Shelby County—challenged the Board’s methodology as violative of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-1605 and 67-5-1606 and unsupported by substantial and material evidence. Following review under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, the trial court determined that: (1) the Board did not violate Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-1605 and 67-5-1606 when it set the County’s appraisal ratio at 1.000 in 2018; (2) the Board’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence; and (3) the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This lawsuit arises from a real property/boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial court found that a prior circuit court condemnation judgment vesting title to the Knoxville Community Development Corporation “bars the claim of [the plaintiff] as an impermissible collateral attack upon the condemnation judgment.” Thus, the trial court ruled that the condemnation judgment barred the plaintiff’s adverse possession claim against the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal came on to be heard upon the record from the Circuit Court for Meigs
County, arguments of counsel, and briefs filed on behalf of the respective parties. Upon
consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reversible error in the
trial court’s judgment.

This post-divorce appeal concerns the trial court’s finding of contempt against the father for his failure to pay child support and the court’s calculation of his support arrearage owed. We affirm.

In this health care liability action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the appellee
surgeon based on the expiration of the statute of limitations and the appellant patient’s
failure to show evidence of causation and damages. On appeal, we conclude that (1) there
is a genuine dispute of material fact as to when the appellant’s cause of action accrued; (2)
the trial court did not specifically rule on the propriety of appellant’s pre-suit notice; and
(3) there are genuine disputes of material facts as to the causation and damages elements
of the appellant’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for
further proceedings.

This appeal involves a contract for the removal of a tree. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant tree company. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

Appellants, Amelia Vaughn and Gemelia Johnson appeal the March 3, 2023 order of the
Shelby County Probate Court. Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). The appeal is
dismissed.

This appeal concerns an order of dismissal entered by the Tennessee Claims Commission. Though Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal, this Court is unable to review any of the issues due to Appellant’s noncompliance with applicable appellate briefing requirements. Because all of Appellant’s issues on appeal have been waived due to his failure to comply with the appellate briefing requirements, we affirm the judgment of the Tennessee Claims Commission.

This case involves an election contest filed by the plaintiff based on the defendant’s residency eligibility for the office of Lenoir City Municipal Court Judge. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that the defendant had complied with article VI, section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution because the clause required, inter alia, that he be a resident within the judicial district, not necessarily within the city limits, to preside over the municipal court, which has concurrent jurisdiction with a general sessions court. The
plaintiff has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the language of article VI, section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution requiring a judge elected to an inferior court to have been a resident of the “district or circuit” to which he or she is assigned means, under these circumstances, that the Lenoir City Municipal Judge must have been a resident of Loudon County for at least one year prior to the judge’s election because the Lenoir City Municipal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Loudon County General
Sessions Court. Accordingly, inasmuch as the defendant had been a resident of Loudon County for at least one year prior to the election, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s election contest. However, we modify the trial court’s judgment to state that the defendant complied with the residency requirement at issue because he had been a resident of Loudon County for at least one year rather than because he had been a resident of the Ninth Judicial District for the prescribed time period.

Because the circuit court orders from which the appellant has sought to appeal do not
constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. This appeal arises
from a civil action in which the plaintiff has brought claims of fraud and civil conspiracy
against his former counsel in a criminal case that resulted in a conviction and his counsel
in a pending post-conviction case. While this civil action was pending, the trial court
allowed the attorneys who were representing the plaintiff in the post-conviction case to
withdraw. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a recusal motion, contending that the trial
judge should be recused because he showed bias in favor of the plaintiff’s post-conviction
attorneys when he granted their motions to withdraw without a hearing, during which the
plaintiff wished to share his grievances about the attorneys. The trial court denied the
plaintiff’s recusal motion, and this Rule 10B appeal followed. We have concluded that
neither the legal grounds nor the evidence that the plaintiff relies upon in his affidavit in
support of the recusal motion are sufficient to prompt a reasonable, disinterested person to
reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court
denying the motion for recusal is affirmed.

This is an appeal from a divorce in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (the “trial court”). Donna Booker (“Wife”) and Mike Booker (“Husband”) married for the first time in 1993 and divorced in 1998. They remarried shortly thereafter in February of 1999. The day of their second wedding, Husband and Wife executed a prenuptial agreement addressing Husband’s interest in his family’s steel erection business. Wife filed the current divorce action in the trial court in February of 2020, and a trial was held May 3 and 4, 2022, and July 6, 2022. The trial court ordered the parties divorced, divided the marital estate, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro. Finding that the prenuptial agreement was valid, the trial court determined that Husband’s interest in his family business was separate property. Wife appeals. Following thorough review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.