APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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 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 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.

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 stems from a disputed strip of land along the edge of Norris Lake in Campbell County, Tennessee. The defendants in this case are lot owners of residential lakefront property in a planned development. The plaintiffs are the neighborhood home owner’s association and the company operating the marina in the development. The plaintiffs claim, based upon a note in the original plat map of the development, that a “one-foot buffer” zone along the defendants’ lots was reserved to the original developer. According to the plaintiffs, the marina company thus controls the shoreline in the area at issue and is at liberty, with permission from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to expand the existing marina. The defendants, on the other hand, dispute the existence of the buffer and claim that their lot boundaries extend right up to the shoreline. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action, and, following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the plat note at issue did not reserve any interest in the disputed strip to the original developer. Plaintiffs appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court.

Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. After reviewing the
record, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence provided at trial to
support the ground of abandonment by failure to visit, but not the ground of substantial
noncompliance with a permanency plan. We also conclude that the trial court failed to
make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the ground of
failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody or financial responsibility
of the child. Thus, we (1) affirm the trial court’s finding that the ground of abandonment
by failure to visit was established, (2) reverse the trial court’s finding that the ground of
substantial noncompliance was established, and (3) vacate the trial court’s finding that the
ground of failure to manifest was established. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that
terminating Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child.

Appellant city residents sued the City of Memphis for breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel related to inadequate garbage
collection services provided by the City. Residents also sought a constructive trust and a
declaratory judgment. The trial court dismissed the breach of contract action upon its
conclusion that the provision of garbage collection services was a government function that
did not create an enforceable contract between the city and its residents. The trial court
dismissed the residents’ other contractual claims on the basis that they were barred by
sovereign immunity. Finally, the trial court dismissed the claims for constructive trust and
declaratory judgment upon its conclusion that they did not state a claim for relief under the
circumstances. We affirm.

This appeal invoves a claim for adverse possession. Gilbert Lopez and his wife Wendy Lopez claimed ownership of a 1.25 acre parcel of land (“Lot 39”) adjacent to their property under the theory of common law adverse possession. Deidra Sharp, owner of a tract also adjacent to Lot 39, presented evidence of her unencumbered title to Lot 39. Ms. Sharp established that she and her predecessors in title had paid taxes on Lot 39 and argued that the Lopezes did not prove their possession was uninterrupted, continuous, exclusive, or adverse for the requisite twenty year period. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the Lopezes did not “indicate ownership of [Lot 39] nor did [they] do anything that would rise to the level of more than a trespass.” The trial court resolved the conflicting testimony by making explicit credibility determinations in favor of Ms. Sharp and her witnesses. The trial court also held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110(a), which generally bars a claim to real estate when the claimant has failed to pay taxes on the claimed property, applies to bar the adverse possession claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to one of her children. The trial court found that Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) established four grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights and that termination of her rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

This appeal arises from a divorce case. The husband filed a petition for divorce, and the
wife filed a counter-petition. The trial court entered a final decree of divorce dividing the
marital estate and granting the divorce in the wife’s favor on the grounds of adultery and
inappropriate marital conduct. The husband appeals. We affirm as modified.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the purchaser of real property, alleging that the purchase was a fraudulent conveyance. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined on the undisputed facts that the purchase was in good faith and without notice of Plaintiffs’ claims and for reasonably equivalent value. We conclude that the undisputed facts show that the purchaser was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We also discern no abuse of discretion in a separate decision by the court to set aside the dismissal of the purchaser’s counterclaim against Plaintiffs. So we affirm.

This is an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff, a female secretary at a high
school, sued the county school board for discrimination alleging that she was terminated
because of her sex in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Following a bench
trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages. The school board
appeals, asserting that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.
We have determined that the plaintiff failed to identify a “similarly situated” employee and
therefore failed to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination. We reverse the
judgment of the trial court.

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

A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioner proved five statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree that clear and convincing evidence supports three grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest. So we affirm.

In this case, prospective adoptive parents Whayne D., Lauren D., James K., and Heather K.1 (“Petitioners”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Miya M. (“Mother”) to two of her minor children. They alleged these grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to financially support the children; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The trial court found that Petitioners established four of the five alleged grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We reverse the trial court’s holding that Petitioners established the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects, including its ultimate ruling terminating Mother’s parental rights.

In this case involving a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her child and
to allow the petitioners to adopt the child, the trial court determined that one statutory
ground for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, the
trial court further determined that the petitioners had failed to establish clear and
convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s
best interest. The trial court accordingly dismissed the petition and remanded to the
juvenile court’s protective jurisdiction. The petitioners have appealed the best interest
determination, and the mother has raised an issue regarding the statutory ground. We
affirm the trial court’s finding as to the statutory ground of failure to support. However,
having determined that under the facts of this case the trial court erred in applying the
statutory best interest factors applicable to the initial termination petition rather than
those applicable to the amended petition, we reverse the trial court’s best interest finding
and remand for reconsideration applying the amended best interest factors contained in
Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i) (Supp. 2022).

This appeal arises from a suit to rescind a contract for the sale of a home due to fraud. The
trial court found clear and convincing evidence of fraud justifying rescission. It ordered
the buyer to convey the property back to the sellers, with the sellers returning the purchase
price, minus the fair rental value of the property, with a credit to the buyer for various
expenses he had incurred. However, the trial court declined to award any offset to the
buyer for improvements he had made to the property. It also declined to award punitive
damages but did award the buyer attorney fees. Taken together, the parties present twentyfive issues for review on appeal. We vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
proceedings.

Plaintiff alleges she was injured from a fall at a skilled nursing facility while using a defective shower chair with a broken lock and torn netting. The circuit court concluded the Plaintiff did not need to file a certificate of good faith under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act because the common knowledge exception is applicable and the complaint’s negligence allegations do not require expert testimony. The nursing facility appeals, arguing expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care and proximate causation; therefore, a certificate of good faith must be filed. Because the allegations set forth in the complaint do not require expert testimony to maintain the Plaintiff’s claim, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

This is a conservatorship action initiated by University of Tennessee Medical Center with
respect to one of its patients. The trial court granted the hospital’s petition for
conservatorship based in part on a physician’s affidavit and medical examination report
attached to its petition. The respondent has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by
considering the physician’s affidavit and report, by denying her motion for a continuance,
and by finding clear and convincing evidence that she was disabled and in need of a
conservator. Given that no party introduced the physician’s affidavit and report into
evidence, we conclude that the trial court erred by considering these documents as
evidence. We further conclude that the trial court’s final judgment is deficient due to its
dearth of factual findings. We therefore vacate the trial court’s judgment appointing a
conservator for the respondent and remand for a new hearing on the petition.

The plaintiffs, Martina and Eddie Smith (“Buyers”), filed suit in the Madison County
Circuit Court (“Trial Court”) regarding their purchase of a piece of real property from the
defendant, Donna Jean Walker (“Seller”). Buyers alleged intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, and failure to disclose the presence of mold within the home.
The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of Seller. Buyers previously filed an
appeal to this Court regarding the grant of summary judgment. During that appeal, this
Court held that the Trial Court had not provided a sufficient basis for granting Seller’s
motion for summary judgment and remanded for entry of a new order explaining its
reasoning. Thereafter, the Trial Court entered a revised order providing detailed reasoning
for its grant of summary judgment in favor of Seller on each of Buyers’ claims against her.
Buyers timely appealed the revised order to this Court. During this second appeal, Buyers
filed essentially the same brief as in the previous appeal despite entry of the Trial Court’s
revised order following remand. Because Buyers failed to address the revised order in their
appellate brief and failed to cite to the record submitted to this Court in this appeal, Buyers
waived their issues for appeal by failing to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and Tenn. Ct.
App. R. 6. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.

This appeal concerns a father’s continued failure to remit payment for his child support
obligation. Following the mother’s contempt petitions, the trial court determined the
father’s current child support obligation and arrearage amount and awarded the mother her
attorney fees. The father appeals arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, erred in awarding the mother attorney fees, and erred in setting the arrearage
payment amount. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on these issues.