APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The parties obtained a divorce in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”). On appeal, the wife disputes the Trial Court’s calculation of her portion of the husband’s military retirement pay. Upon our review, we determine that the Trial Court miscalculated the wife’s portion given that it calculated her portion based on the parties’ date of informal separation, rather than the date of the husband’s retirement from the military. In doing so, the Trial Court misclassified marital property as separate property. We, accordingly, vacate the Trial Court’s classification of the husband’s military retirement pay as partially separate property acquired during the marriage and the Trial Court’s division of the entire marital estate, insofar as the Trial Court’s improper classification of this marital asset affects the equitable division of the marital estate as a whole. We remand this cause to the Trial Court for it to properly classify the husband’s military retirement pay as marital property acquired during the months of the marriage, recalculate its division of this marital asset, and re-access its division of the entire marital estate in light of its reclassification and recalculation of its division of this marital asset.

After discovering that the roof of her new car leaked, the owner returned to the dealership several times for repairs, but the leaks persisted. Later, when she began feeling sick, the owner suspected that mold growing in the car was the cause. The ownersued the dealership claiming, among other things, that negligent repairs led to the mold growth and caused her health issues. The dealership moved for summary judgment, asserting that the owner could not prove causation. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. We affirm.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant law firm in this legal malpractice action on the basis that the plaintiff failed to present expert proof in support of his claim that the defendant law firm breached the standard of care. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court found that the wife was economically disadvantaged, that it was not feasible for her to be rehabilitated, and that she had no meaningful earning capacity. Therefore, the court awarded the wife alimony in futuro. The court also conducted an equitable division of the couple’s marital property. The husband appealed. We have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the wife could not be rehabilitated. However, the court failed to consider all of the wife’s sources of income and to make sufficient findings. Therefore, we vacate the court’s alimony award and remand for further proceedings. We decline to award the wife her appellate attorney’s fees.

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding. Husband asserts that the trial court erred in assigning the entire amount dissipated to Husband. Husband further assigns error to the trial court’s classification of an insurance settlement stemming from the theft of Husband’s pre-marital vehicle. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified by this Opinion.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s findings of six counts of criminal contempt against Mother following a contentious, years-long custody battle. Due to the lack of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal.

Mohamed Miray, Defendant, was indicted for and convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant was identified and charged in part based upon a match to DNA found at the scene of the murder. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress in which he argued that his DNA was not properly in the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”) because he was acquitted of a charge for which he was required to give a DNA sample when arrested and that his DNA should have been removed from the database as a result of the acquittal. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant was convicted by a jury and filed a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion for new trial, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A father petitioned a Tennessee court to modify its previous parenting plan. The father lived in Tennessee, but the mother and the child lived in Arkansas. Claiming Tennessee was an inconvenient forum, the mother moved to transfer the case to Arkansas. The court denied the transfer request. Later, the court entered a default judgment against the mother as a sanction for her failure to appear for her deposition. After hearing proof, it adopted the father’s proposed parenting plan. On appeal, the mother contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parenting plan. She also challenges the court’s denial of her transfer request, its refusal to set aside the default judgment, and the adoption of a modified plan. We conclude that the court erred in modifying the parenting plan without conducting a best interest analysis. So we vacate the adoption of a modified plan and remand for further proceedings on this issue. In all other respects, we affirm.

Appellant, an attorney residing in Kansas but licensed in both Kansas and Tennessee, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee’s professional privilege tax. A three-judge panel granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant commissioner of revenue, ruling that the tax did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the garnishment of an inherited Individual Retirement Account. Advanced Hearing Aid Group, LLC (“AHAG”), Gary Kelly, Kenneth Kelly, and Matthew Kelly (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) filed an application for writ of garnishment in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”) against Thomas A. Stewart (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs sought to collect a judgment against Defendant stemming from a lawsuit over AHAG. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to garnish an IRA that Defendant inherited from his mother (“the Inherited IRA”). Defendant is both a fiduciary and beneficiary of the Inherited IRA. Defendant filed a motion to quash, citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-105(b) and its exemption of certain retirement plans from garnishment. The Trial Court held that, while the Inherited IRA was exempt from garnishment initially, it lost its exempt status because Defendant made prohibited transactions from the Inherited IRA to a disqualified party, a revocable trust of which Defendant is a 50% or more beneficiary (“the Revocable Trust”). Defendant appeals, arguing that he essentially transferred the funds to himself, which all sides agree is permitted. We hold, inter alia, that Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-105(b) never applied to the Inherited IRA in the first place. We hold further that, even if the Inherited IRA had once been exempt, it stopped being exempt after Defendant’s prohibited transactions. We affirm as modified. Pursuant to AHAG’s operating agreement, AHAG is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal, the amount of which the Trial Court is to determine on remand.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her daughter. The juvenile court found that the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, severe child abuse, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The juvenile court also determined that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm.

In this action between parties to an auction contract, the trial court determined that the defendant property company and its individual members had committed intentional fraud, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and civil conspiracy. The court found that during an auction of the defendants’ property, they had bid to increase the price, caused a “shill bidder” to cast bids, and then refused to purchase the property after the defendants’ company cast the highest bid. The court additionally found the defendants liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff auction company and awarded to the plaintiff a total judgment in the amount of $91,825.00. The defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights as to four biological children and one child for whom he was the legal parent. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We affirm.

This appeal involves judicial review of an administrative agency decision. The trial court found that the agency’s decision lacked a foundation of substantial and material evidence and remanded the matter to the agency for further investigation or proceedings. Having determined that the trial court impermissibly re-weighed the evidence presented in this matter, we reverse the court’s judgment and affirm the agency’s decision.

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish several statutory grounds of termination as applied to the father. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm.

Mother and Stepfather sought to terminate Father’s parental rights to two minor children, alleging abandonment by failure to conduct more than token visitation. The trial court determined that the regular video-call visitation exercised by Father was not token, but that to the extent that the visitation could be considered token, Mother’s interference prevented a finding that such abandonment was willful. Father’s rights were not terminated. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is a dispute over the use of real property in a subdivision. Certain property owners filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin other property owners in the subdivision from using or allowing the use of their properties as short-term rentals. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint based on interpretation of the restrictive covenants applicable to their properties. The trial court dismissed all causes of action. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.

This appeal involves allegations of the mishandling of a dead human body by the funeral home and cemetery responsible for its final disposition. The decedent’s mother brought tort and breach of contract claims based on her assertion that the decedent’s body had been cremated rather than buried. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims. The mother appeals. We affirm.

The trial court denied a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to two minor children on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit, as well as failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for the children. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the petitioners proved no statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Because the petitioners proved no grounds for termination, we need not address the children’s best interests. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 9, 2025. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until August 11, 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.

Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of mental incompetence and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. Father also appeals the trial court’s determination that
termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Father raises additional issues regarding the appointment of counsel and the trial court’s denial of his request for continuance. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his child, the Loudon
County Circuit Court (“trial court”) determined that clear and convincing evidence
supported termination as to three statutory grounds: abandonment by failure to support,
failure to establish paternity, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume
legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court
further determined that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best
interest. The father has appealed. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s
determination that the ground of abandonment by failure to visit had not been established
by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we find that ground also supports
termination of the father’s parental rights. In all other respects, we affirm.

The parties sought a divorce from one another and specifically contested who should be
their child’s primary residential parent. After a three-day trial, the General Sessions
Court for Roane County (“the Trial Court”) entered a final decree of divorce and
designated the mother as the child’s primary residential parent. The father appealed.
Finding that the Trial Court’s judgment lacked sufficient findings of fact and
consideration of the best interest factors codified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, we
vacate the Trial Court’s custody determination and remand this cause for the Trial Court
to provide written findings of facts and conclusions of law, demonstrating its
consideration of the best interest factors.

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. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed due to substantive failures to comply with Rule 10B. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

This is a legal malpractice action that arises from alleged acts or omissions committed by attorney Steven L. Lefkovitz of Lefkovitz & Lefkovitz, PLLC, (“Defendant”) while representing Julie Buhler in a real estate dispute with Richard and Ellen Davis (“Sellers”) under an installment sales contract. The trial court summarily dismissed the legal malpractice action on the ground that two essential elements of a legal malpractice claim were not proven, specifically that “Plaintiff has failed to prove that Mr. Lefkovitz’s conduct was the cause-in-fact of her damages,” and “Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Lefkovitz’s conduct was the proximate cause of her damages.” This appeal followed. We affirm.