APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed this Court lacks jurisdiction
to consider this appeal.

This is a post-divorce criminal contempt case. The trial court found Appellant guilty of
one count of criminal contempt based on Appellant’s alleged violation of the trial court’s
order. Because Appellant’s actions do not, in fact, violate the plain language of the trial
court’s order, we reverse.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her two children on the grounds of abandonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113-(g)(1); substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans under section 36-1-113(g)(2); persistence of conditions under section 36-1-113(g)(3); and the failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody under section 36-1- 113(g)(14). The trial court also determined that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff initiated this action related to the alleged misconduct of sheriff’s deputies in
general sessions court. After voluntarily dismissing the general sessions court action, the
plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court found that the plaintiff could not
appeal a nonsuit from general sessions court and dismissed the action as barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.

A landlord entered into a commercial lease agreement with a limited liability company. When the company dissolved, one of its former members continued to occupy the leased property but never requested that the lease be assigned to her. Several years later, the landlord sent notice to the property that he was terminating the lease. When the former member of the company refused to vacate the premises, the landlord filed a detainer warrant to recover possession of the property. The former member filed a countercomplaint seeking specific performance of an option to purchase included in the lease agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the landlord on the specific performance claim after determining that the former member did not have the right to exercise the option to purchase because she was not the tenant under the lease. After a trial on the issue of whether the landlord terminated the lease agreement, the trial court concluded that the landlord properly terminated the lease agreement and was entitled to possession of the property. The former member appealed, challenging the trial court’s summary judgment determination and the court’s determination that the landlord was entitled to possession of the property. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.

In this action for breach of an employment contract filed by a plaintiff/employee against
the defendant company/employer and two individual defendants, the trial court entered an
order granting a motion to dismiss filed by the individual defendants. Upon a subsequent
motion filed by the defendant company, the trial court entered an order granting summary
judgment in favor of the company and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with
prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed, raising an issue regarding the dismissal of the
individual defendants from the case. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is a breach of contract action brought by a nontenured teacher against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) for nonrenewal of her teaching contract for the 2018–2019 school year. The teacher alleges that the nonrenewal of her yearly teaching contract was ineffective because the decision to nonrenew was improperly delegated by the Director of Schools to the principal. The school district contends that the decision to nonrenew is delegable and that the teacher lacks a private cause of action because the school district provided her with timely notice of her nonrenewal. The trial court summarily ruled in favor of the teacher, awarding her damages for breach of contract. The school district appeals, reiterating its same arguments. For the nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher to be effective, the proper authority must make the decision to nonrenew, and the school district must provide timely notice to the teacher. Because the decision to nonrenew requires the Director of Schools to exercise his or her independent judgment and discretion, the Director of Schools may not delegate this authority. In this case, the Director of Schools did not exercise his independent judgment and discretion in the decision to not renew the teacher’s contract; thus, the purported nonrenewal was ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a custody order. In its order, the trial court named Mother the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and awarded Father less than equal parenting time. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court failed to maximize his parenting time in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). Because we find no indication from the record that the trial court’s disposition was made in consideration of the legislative intent of section 36-6-106(a)’s requirement that courts are to fashion custody arrangements to maximize a parent’s time with their child, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration of Father’s parenting time.

A railroad worker developed cancer after working for thirty years in a railroad yard. The
worker sued the railroad, alleging violations of federal law. She proffered two experts to
prove elements of her claim. The railroad moved to exclude the expert testimony as
unreliable. The railroad also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the worker could
not prove her claim without the testimony of both experts. The trial court excluded the
expert testimony and granted summary judgment. We affirm.

A pro se petitioner seeks accelerated interlocutory review of the denial of her motion to
disqualify the trial judge. After a de novo review, we affirm the denial of the motion for
disqualification.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s order finding that Husband’s alimony to Wife
constituted alimony in solido and that Husband was in breach of the parties’ marital
dissolution agreement for failure to pay alimony to Wife in accordance with their
agreement. Having reviewed the record before us, we affirm.

In this defamation lawsuit, the defendants filed a petition to dismiss pursuant to the
Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”). Following the filing of various documents
and declarations by the parties, the trial court denied the petition based upon its analysis
of the burden-shifting framework outlined in the TPPA’s dismissal procedure. The
defendants have appealed. Determining that the trial court’s analysis concerning the
TPPA’s dismissal procedure was incomplete, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and
remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the
defendants’ petition to dismiss was not frivolous, and we accordingly decline to award
attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiffs on appeal.

Appellant/employee brought this retaliatory discharge case against Appellee, his former
employer. Appellant alleged that he was fired in retaliation for claiming workers’
compensation benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the
employer, finding that Appellant failed to meet his burden to show a causal connection
between the filing of his workers’ compensation claim and the termination of his
employment. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

This is a breach of contract case. It is undisputed that Appellee performed under the
parties’ contract, and Appellant did not. Appellant raised affirmative defenses, including
waiver, anticipatory breach, and laches. The trial court denied the defenses of waiver and
anticipatory breach, enforced the contract, and entered judgment against Appellant for the
amount due thereunder. The trial court denied Appellee attorney’s fees and costs under the
contract based on the application of laches. We reverse the trial court’s finding of laches.
However, because Appellee did not raise an issue concerning the denial of his attorney’s
fees and costs, we leave undisturbed that portion of the trial court’s order. The trial court’s
order is otherwise affirmed.

Buyer of property at delinquent tax sale filed suit against the property’s former owner to quiet title. The former owner filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging, lack of notice concerning the underlying delinquent tax lawsuit and violation of her due process rights. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, concluding the counterclaim was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations for invalidating tax sales, and ruled for the buyer in the quiet title action. We hold that the former owner failed to institute a legal challenge to the tax sale within the limitations period despite having adequate notice of the sale. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

This is a contract dispute between a doctor and healthcare entities. The trial court awarded
summary judgment to the healthcare defendants, and the doctor appeals. We find no basis
to overturn the ruling of the trial court.

This case involves the denial of a claim for pandemic unemployment assistance and the subsequent administrative proceedings before the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The applicant failed to appear for his appeals hearing despite being notified of the hearing and the procedures required to participate in the hearing. The applicant’s request to reopen his case was denied because he failed to show good cause for his failure to attend. The applicant petitioned for judicial review in the chancery court. After finding substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits, the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. We affirm the chancery court’s decision

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Katherine Sanko (“Mother”) and Clinton Sanko (“Father”) dispute custody of two of their
four children. The children have lived primarily with Mother in Pennsylvania. However,
following a petition filed by Father to change custody, the trial court concluded that a
material change in circumstances occurred and that Father should be the primary residential
parent. Because the trial court determined that the material change in circumstances was
Mother’s relocation from Tennessee to Pennsylvania and this Court sanctioned the
relocation in a prior appeal, the ruling must be vacated and the case remanded.

Husband appeals the trial court’s classification, valuation, and division of real property in
this divorce action. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this custody case, Father appeals the trial court’s order allowing Mother to relocate, from
Tennessee to Virginia, with the parties’ daughter. Father also appeals the trial court’s order
charging him with costs of the child’s airline travel expenses and the guardian ad litem’s
attorney’s fees. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Mother and the guardian ad
litem’s respective requests for appellate attorneys’ fees are granted.

This appeal arises from a complaint filed with the Claims Commission in which Christopher Turner (“Plaintiff”) seeks monetary damages for being incarcerated by the State of Tennessee (“the State”) beyond his sentence expiration date due to the failure of the Tennessee Department of Correction to award the pretrial jail credits and “street time” ordered by the criminal court as provided by his plea agreement. The amended complaint alleged “negligent care, custody, and control of persons,” “negligent care of personal property,” “negligent operation of machinery or equipment (computer systems),” and “breach of written contract.” The State filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Commissioner granted the motion and dismissed the case on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because “the allegations in the Complaint fall outside the categories set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8-307.” Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Commission’s determination that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. However, both parties contend, and we agree, that instead of dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, the Commission was required to transfer the case to the Board of Claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(a)(5) (“Claims not within the jurisdiction of the claims commission shall be sent to the board of claims.”). Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to transfer the case to the Board of Claims.

This appeal concerns a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. 495 Kings Stable, LLC
(“Plaintiff”), through its owner, filed a forcible entry and detainer warrant against Kimberly
Pate (“Defendant”) in the General Sessions Court for Shelby County. Plaintiff prevailed,
and Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Trial Court”). After
a trial, the Trial Court ruled in Plaintiff’s favor, awarding it damages and attorney’s fees.
Defendant appeals arguing, among other things, that she was constructively evicted
because of conditions such as a raccoon in the house. Plaintiff raises separate issues. We
affirm the Trial Court’s determinations that Defendant was not constructively evicted and
that she breached the lease by failing to pay rent as required. Defendant did not afford
Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged problems. However, we find that the
Trial Court erred in declining to award Plaintiff damages for the remaining months of the
lease. We vacate the Trial Court’s award of damages and remand for the Trial Court to
award Plaintiff additional damages for the remaining months of the lease. In addition,
although Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the lease, the Trial Court
erred by failing to apply the factors used for determining the reasonableness of attorney’s
fees found at Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5. We vacate the Trial Court’s award of attorney’s
fees to Plaintiff and remand for the Trial Court to award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s
fees—including reasonable post-trial and appellate attorney’s fees—applying the Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5 factors.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying
appellants’ motion for recusal. After considering the trial court’s ruling under the
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B de novo standard of review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court denying recusal.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child on the grounds of (1) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (3) persistence of conditions; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. He also challenges the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports the aforementioned grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interest.