APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.