Marla Ann Richardson v. Dianne M. Moore
A property owner brought suit against the owner of a neighboring property, seeking either an order awarding her land encompassing a driveway or an easement to use the driveway. The trial court referred the issues to a special master, who made detailed findings regarding the boundary between the properties and as to the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. Following a hearing on objections to the special master’s report, the trial court accepted the special master’s findings and recommendations. The neighbor appealed, raising issues regarding the court’s weighing of the evidence in finding the boundary line and granting of a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. We affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Closed Nashville, LLC et al.
Mortgage companies maintain that the Tennessee Housing Development Agency(“THDA”), which services mortgages through the trade name of Volunteer Mortgage Loan Servicing(“VMLS”), is liable for monetary losses following the use of an improper bank account number. THDA and VMLS contend that they are protected by sovereign immunity and filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion because it found THDA was engaged in commercial activities. THDA and VMLS appealed. We reverse. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew J. Withers v. Withers Collection, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises from a complaint originally filed in the Shelby County chancery court |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charlotte R. Sappo v. 4404 Holdings, LLC
A homeowner brought suit against the owner of the house next door, asserting a claim for breach of a joint driveway agreement and an alternative action for a declaratory judgment that the neighbor had abandoned the easement created by the driveway agreement. The neighbor filed counterclaims for a declaratory judgment, trespass, and an alternative claim for rescission for failure of consideration. After a trial, the trial court entered a final order determining the boundaries of the easement established by the driveway agreement; the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for breach of the easement and abandonment as well as the defendant’s claim for trespass. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in its rulings regarding the boundaries of the easement, its denial of her claims for breach of the easement and abandonment, and in its award of discretionary costs to the defendant. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE JADEN H.
In this termination action, the trial court terminated the father’s parental rights to his |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Project Reflect v. Joan Anderson et al.
Thisis an appeal from the dismissal ofa nonprofitcorporation’s complaint pursuant to the doctrine of prior suit pendingbecausethe nonprofit had previously filed a lawsuit in another courtagainst the same defendantbased onsimilar claims. The nonprofit appealed. After review, we have determined that the circuit court correctly dismissed the complaint. We also use our discretion to deny the appellee’s request for fees under the frivolous appeal statute. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Burstiner v. Brian Boyd et al.
After the trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, Appellant sought relief from the order pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied the Rule 60.02 motion. The trial court then denied Appellant’s request pursuant to Rule 59.04 for relief from the denial of his Rule 60.02 motion. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Tomlin v. Nephrology Associates, P.C. et al.
This is the third appeal arising from more than a decade of litigation between Plaintiff/Appellant and Defendant/Appellee regarding claims of unpaid leasing commissions and breach of contract. The sole issue on appeal is from what date should mandatory post-judgment interest begin to accrue after a remand by this court. Discerning no error in the determination of the trial court, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Matthew Woodruff v. Jessica Ann Woodruff
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because Appellant failed to provide this Court with a copy of the motion to recuse filed in the trial court,the appeal is dismissed. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
SHERRY KELTCH EX REL.CHARLES KELTCH v. CANDICE MARIE WILLIAMS ET AL.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 23, 2026. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until April 23, 2026, 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. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Kaileigh Marie Dunn v. Russell Allen Dunn, III
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. Having reviewed the petition for recusal on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
CLAUDE R. ELLIS v. MELISA JANE GODFREY ELLIS
This is a long-running divorce case on appeal to this Court for the third time. The husband |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Isaiah M.
Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 12th motion to recuse. A final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment. Issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to recuse may be raised in Mother’s appeal of the trial court’s final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Isaiah M.
Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 13th motion to recuse. Because a final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment, issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s recusal motion may be raised in her appeal of the final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
IN RE ALEXANDER B.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights, the trial court determined |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Tom James Company et al.
This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the scope of a commercial property insurance policy and whether the insured has stated sufficient facts to invoke coverage. The insurer filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the policy at issue did not provide coverage for the insured’s claimed losses. The insured filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy provided coverage and asserting a breach of contract claim. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court denied. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. After interpreting the policy, we determine that the insured failed to invoke coverage, and we reverse the trial court’s contrary finding. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, finding that the counterclaim sufficiently stated a claim for a declaratory judgment. Because the pleadings had not closed when the trial court ruled on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Liam M.
The circuit court determined that two grounds for termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but concluded that the petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The petitioners appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s decision. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Riley Davidson v. Shelbyville Hospital Company, LLC
This appeal arises out of a health care liability claim. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of the appellee-defendant. The appellant-plaintiff appeals the trial court’s acceptance of two of defendant’s expert witnesses. Upon diligent review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s causation expert witness to testify about his interpretation of a diagnostic image when his opinion about that image had not been properly disclosed as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We also conclude that this error more probably than not affected the judgment. We further conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s standard-of-care expert witness to testify despite not satisfying the locality rule contained in the Health Care Liability Act. However, we conclude that this error did not more probably than not affect the judgment. We vacate the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for a new trial. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Bravon K.
The father of the minor child appeals the termination of his parental rights. The paternal aunt and uncle, who sought custody of the minor child, appeal the denial of their motion to intervene. We affirm both decisions. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE OLIVIA S.
This action involves the trial court’s denial of a petition for termination of a biological |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Dana Denea Hickerson Page v. Richard Charles Page, Jr.
This is a Rule 10B interlocutory appeal of the denial of a second recusal motion. We find, as the trial court did, that the second motion is repetitive of the first and should be denied. We further grant attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Troy R., et al.
This appeal involves a long-running custody dispute between unmarried parents. In this |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Julie C. Bartholomew v. Douglas K. Southard, et al.
The trial court determined Defendants/Appellants were liable for damages arising from |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Bettis Aviation, LLC v. Howard Wayne Lanier
This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Appellant preserved his evidentiary issues |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
BENJAMIN MCCURRY v. AGNESS MCCURRY
The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of three charges of criminal contempt. The appellant appeals those criminal contempt findings. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals |
COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.