COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

In Re Estate of Dean Michael Leahy
M2025-00437-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Parkes

Appellant appeals the trial court’s closure of the decedent’s estate. Due to the deficiencies in appellant’s appellate brief, we dismiss the appeal. Appellees’ request for frivolous appeal damages is denied.

Rachel Loretta Terry v. Craig Steven Terry
M2025-01661-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Talley Ridley

Father overpaid child support, and the trial court ordered the overpayment to be credited against future monthly payments. After the judgment became final, Father filed a motion for relief from judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60, seeking a judgment against Mother rather than credit against future child support payments. Father also sought to depose three State employees in an effort to determine why certain payments had been released to Mother instead of being held by the State. The trial court denied the Rule 60 motion, granted a motion to quash the depositions, and denied a motion to alter or amend. We affirm.

IN RE DAVID T. ET AL.
E2025-00967-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dennis Roach II

The trial court terminated the appellants’ parental rights to their three minor children. As
to the mother and the father, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of the
grounds of persistent conditions and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume
custody of the children. The trial court also found that the mother abandoned the children
by failing to establish a suitable home. Finally, the trial court found that termination of the
mother’s and father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The mother
and father both appeal. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no reversible error and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DARREN V. BERG v. STEVEN R. HELLER ET AL.
E2025-02077-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: JOHN W. MCCLARTY,P.J., E.S.; THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.; AND KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Vanessa A. Jackson

This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 20, 2025. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until December 26, 2025, 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.

JOSEPH BRIAN SIDDENS v. MAKENZIE (JOY)COOPER SIDDENS
E2023-01339-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Christopher D. Heagerty, Jr.

This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding. After the trial court entered a mediated
final judgment of divorce on stipulated grounds, the husband, who is pro se, filed a Rule
60 motion seeking to set it aside on the basis of fraud by the wife. The trial court denied
the motion. Due to significant deficiencies in the husband’s brief on appeal, we conclude
that he waived consideration of any issue and hereby dismiss the appeal.

MARY WOODWARD v. DAVID STRICKLAND ET AL.
E2024-00708-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Telford E. Forgety, Jr.

A trust beneficiary filed a petition seeking the removal of the trustee and successor trustee of the trust due to purported breaches of trust committed by the trustees. The beneficiary also asked that the trustees be ordered to repay any trust funds that they wrongfully withdrew. The trial court granted the requested relief, and the trustees appeal. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Gilley Construction, Inc.
M2025-00026-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Thomas Carter

This case concerns the interpretation of an assigned risk workers’ compensation insurance policy. The trial court construed the contract to give the insurer the authority to determine the meaning of the NCCI classification code provision at issue and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We have determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the pertinent code provision and, therefore, we reverse and remand.

Kaitlynn Richelle Dempsey v. Erica Ann Fisk
M2025-02066-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephanie J. Williams

The subject of an order of protection appeals the denial of a motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a final order extending the order of protection. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In Re Othella S.
M2025-01263-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: N. Kee Bryant-McCormick

Mother/Appellant appeals the termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) severe child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4); and (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Kristina Eileen Codino v. Christopher John Codino
W2025-00630-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael Mansfield

The parties to this appeal were divorced in Virginia, and the divorce decree provided that
they would alternate parenting time with their young child every three weeks. The mother
moved to Tennessee, and the father later moved to Minnesota. After residing in Tennessee
for ten months, the mother filed a petition in Tennessee seeking to have the Tennessee
court enforce the Virginia divorce decree with respect to her allegations of contempt and
modify the Virginia decree to name her primary residential parent. The father subsequently
sought to register the Virginia decree in Minnesota. After a hearing, the Tennessee court
found that Virginia had lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction because all parties had left
that state and that Tennessee now had jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree because it
qualified as the child’s home state. However, the Tennessee court declined to exercise its
jurisdiction upon finding that Minnesota would be a more convenient forum for the
litigation, primarily based on the fact that the Virginia divorce decree contained an
agreement of the parties stating that the child would be enrolled in school in Minnesota
upon reaching school age if the father was still residing there. The trial court dismissed
the petition and awarded the father a portion of his attorney fees. The mother appeals,
arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in its analysis of the statutory factors
under the inconvenient forum statute, erred by dismissing her request for enforcement of
the Virginia decree, and erred by granting the father his attorney fees. We agree and reverse
the trial court’s order of dismissal and its award of attorney fees. This matter is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BRADLEY THOMAS MITCHELL v. J& B AUTO GROUP ET AL.
E2026-00981-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Steven Curtis Rose

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal filed by the pro se petitioner relative to the underlying action involving sale of an automobile. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated a factual basis warranting recusal of the trial court judge, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion to recuse. 

IN RE ELLIOT S.
E2025-00852-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amy Kathleen Skelton

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. Because the
Department of Children’s Services declined to defend one ground, we reverse that ground.
In all other respects, we affirm.

Kenneth Merritt v. Betty Thomas Moore
W2025-01131-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Judge Damita J. Dandridge

The plaintiff filed this action against a trial court judge who had presided over a prior lawsuit involving the plaintiff. The Shelby County Circuit Court (“trial court”) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, determining that they were barred by judicial immunity. The plaintiff timely appealed. Because the plaintiff has failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we dismiss this appeal.

Julie Ann Fleming v. David Fleming
M2024-01522-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Erin Nations

This is an appeal from a divorce with no minor children. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in multiple ways when classifying and distributing the marital estate. Appellant has waived these arguments, however, by failing to comply with this Court’s briefing requirements. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in granting Appellee attorney’s fees when she did not request such an award in her complaint. Upon review, we determine that the trial court’s reasoning for awarding attorney’s fees over Appellant’s objection is unclear. We therefore vacate trial court’s judgment as to Appellee’s attorney’s fees and remand the matter for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the remainder of the judgment.

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. Awil Abdi
M2025-01556-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Amanda Jane McClendon

A driver appeals the circuit court’s decision that he violated an ordinance by committing careless driving. We affirm.

Pamela Salas v. John David Rosdeutscher, M.D. et al.
M2025-00244-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynne T. Ingram

The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss her health care liability action against two defendants but retained jurisdiction to determine whether or not to award sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorneys. More than one year after the trial court entered the order of voluntary dismissal, but less than one year after the court entered an order on the sanctions issue, the plaintiff refiled her health care liability claims. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to refile her action within one year from the date the order of voluntary dismissal was entered. The trial court denied the motion based, in part, on its determination that the one-year statute of limitations did not commence until the date the sanctions order was entered because the first action did not conclude until then. Because we have determined that the one-year statute of limitations commenced on the date the court entered the order of voluntary dismissal, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for entry of an order granting the motion to dismiss.

AHA Mechanical Contractors, LLC v. Shelby County Board of Education
W2025-01107-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Melanie Taylor Jefferson

This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in granting Appellee/Shelby County Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Appellant/Contractor. Because disputes of material fact and ambiguities arising therefrom exist, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed.

Hannah Louise Russell v. Tyler Patrick Russell
W2024-01135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carol J. Chumney

This appeal arises from a divorce case following a marriage of short duration. Husband
appeals the trial court’s award of transitional alimony and attorney’s fees as alimony in
solido to Wife. We affirm the award of transitional alimony, vacate the award of attorney’s
fees, and remand.

ROSARIO MORA v. ALBERTO MORA
E2026-01000-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Suzanne Cook

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme
Court Rule 10B. The appellant failed to attach a copy of the order denying his recusal
motions to his petition for recusal appeal, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

DANIEL JOSEPH WILLIAMS v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY
E2025-00793-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Deborah C. Stevens

The petitioner filed a petition seeking judicial review of certain interlocutory decisions
made by an administrative law judge during forfeiture proceedings conducted by the
Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security. The petitioner also raised
constitutional issues that had not been raised during the agency proceedings. The trial court
determined that it did not possess subject matter jurisdiction to review the interlocutory
agency decisions or other constitutional issues raised for the first time in the petition for
judicial review. The petitioner has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

IN RE GRACELYNN H.
E2025-00466-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Amy Kathleen Skelton

In this case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her minor child, the
trial court determined that two statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear
and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing
evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s
best interest. The mother has appealed.1 Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Katrina Allen v. Blackbaud, INC.
W2025-01484-COA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

Appellant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Appellee asks this Court to award frivolous appeal damages under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant Appellee its request for frivolous appeal damages.

RODNEY HARBACK v. EDDIE'S BODY SHOP, LLC, ET AL
E2025-00447-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom McFarland

This appeal arises from a breach of contract lawsuit following the sale of a body shop
business. Prior to the sale, the owner entered into a paint-purchasing agreement requiring
him to purchase $900,000 worth of paint over time in exchange for discounts and up-front
“pre-bate” payments. Under the paint-purchasing agreement, the paint supplier could
terminate the agreement if the business was sold without the supplier’s prior written
consent. The owner later sold his business to buyers pursuant to an asset purchase
agreement whereby the buyers agreed to take on the business’s paint-purchasing
obligations. The buyers initially kept buying paint from the same supplier but eventually
stopped. The paint supplier demanded repayment of the up-front funds from the prior
owner under his personal guarantee. The prior owner then sued the buyers, asserting that
they were required to hold him harmless. The buyers filed a counterclaim asserting that
the prior owner committed the first breach by selling the business without the paint
supplier’s consent, resulting in the buyers never receiving the expected value of the deal.
The trial court ruled in the prior owner’s favor. The buyers appeal. We affirm.

GREEN ACRES MCH, LLC V. JATEAL PENDERGRASS
E2025-00043-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ryan M. Spitzer

This is an unlawful detainer action in which the plaintiff landlord was awarded possession
and a judgment for unpaid rent and attorney fees when the defendant lessee refused to
vacate. We now affirm on appeal.

KNOX COUNTY TENNESSEE ET AL. v. DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS ET AL
E2026-00812-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Christopher D. Heagerty Jr.

This is a recusal appeal filed by the pro se petitioner relative to the underlying delinquent
taxpayer action. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated a factual basis warranting
recusal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion to recuse.