APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant seeks to appeal a decision regarding a Criminal Injuries Compensation Act claim
on the small claims docket of the Tennessee Claims Commission. Because appeals of
decisions from the small claims docket are prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-403(a)(2),
the chancellor granted the Claims Commission’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract case that concerned whether the contract at
issue lacked consideration due to an illusory promise. Specifically, the terms of the
contract provided that the plaintiff would produce as many programs “as is feasible.” The
parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The claims commission granted
the State of Tennessee’s motion for summary judgment finding that the contract between
the parties was devoid of consideration due to an illusory promise and was therefore
unenforceable. Additionally, the claims commission denied the plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment as to liability and denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
as to damages finding that the issue was moot. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This is an appeal from the granting of a directed verdict on limited issues in a jury trial. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s proof, the defendant moved for and was granted a directed verdict as to the issues of piercing the corporate veil, fraudulent conveyance, and punitive damages. The trial then continued as to a breach of contract claim asserted by the plaintiff, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the trial court’s ruling on the motion for directed verdict was in error. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we reverse the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict as to the issues of piercing the corporate veil and fraudulent conveyance, but we affirm as to the issue of punitive damages.

I concur in the majority’s opinion regarding piercing the corporate veil and fraudulent conveyance. I disagree with the majority’s opinion regarding punitive damages. The plaintiff’s argument on this issue is certainly not robust, but I think the intention was simply to rely primarily on the argument regarding fraudulent conveyance to also support the claim for punitive damages. In other words, I read the plaintiff’s brief as arguing that the evidence of an intentional transfer of money to the individual defendants supports both the claim of fraudulent conveyance and punitive damages. Regarding questions of waiver, we should not “exalt form over substance.” Powell v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 312 S.W.3d 496, 511 (Tenn. 2010). Moreover, “the doctrine of waiver generally exists to prevent litigants from raising issues to which their opponents have no opportunity to respond.” Jackson v. Burrell, No. W2018-00057-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 237347, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019) (Stafford, J., dissenting). Here, the defendants have been on notice for the entirety of this case that plaintiff seeks punitive damages. For these reasons, I would not consider the issue waived.

In this divorce case, the wife appeals the trial court’s division of the parties’ marital estate,
while also challenging the amount of the trial court’s award to her of alimony in futuro.
Although the husband contends that the trial court’s division of the marital estate was
equitable, he also raises a challenge to the alimony award, albeit one that submits that the
decision to award any alimony to the wife was in error. For the reasons discussed herein,
we affirm the trial court’s division of the marital estate, modify the alimony award, and
award the wife appellate attorney’s fees for defending against the husband’s raised issue.

The developer of a subdivision filed suit seeking to enforce restrictive covenants against
the owners of property within the first phase of a multi-phase subdivision. In response, the
homeowners filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the developer had
breached his fiduciary duty to timely turn over control of the homeowners’ association to
the homeowners for the first phase of the subdivision. The developer also filed a motion
for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the homeowners upon its determination that the developer
could no longer enforce the restrictive covenants against the homeowners in the first phase
of the subdivision because he was required to turn over control of the homeowners’
association for the first phase of the subdivision to the property owners. We affirm the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.

This is an appeal involving the termination of parental rights. The trial court entered an
order terminating the parental rights of both the parents on the ground of abandonment by
failure to support pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-
1-102(1)(A)(i). However, the court found that the petitioners failed to establish the
following grounds for termination: (1) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to
parent; (2) abandonment by incarcerated parent for wanton disregard pursuant to section
36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); (3) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (4)
persistent conditions. Additionally, the court found that termination was in the best
interests of the child. Both parents appeal, and the petitioners also challenge the trial
court’s findings that two of the grounds were not established. We conclude as follows: (1)
we reverse the court’s finding that the ground of abandonment by failure to support was
established as to both of the parents; (2) we reverse the court’s finding that the ground of
persistent conditions was not established as to the mother but affirm as modified as to the
father; (3) we vacate the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness as to both
of the parents but remand only as to the father; and (4) we reverse the court’s finding that
termination of both of the parents’ parental rights was in the best interests of the child and
remand to the trial court for findings on the new best interest factors. Accordingly, we
vacate in part, reverse in part, affirm in part as modified, and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The two minor children of the appellant, Ashlyn C. (“Mother”), came into the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) in December of 2020. The children remained there until DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights in October of 2021. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that DCS proved, by clear and convincing evidence, six grounds for termination: 1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent; 2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; 3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; 4) severe abuse; 5) persistence of conditions; and 6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of and financial responsibility for the children. The trial court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to five of the six statutory grounds, and we affirm the trial court’s ruling as to best interests. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s overall ruling that Mother’s parental rights must be terminated.

A mother appeals a trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the
grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, (2) persistence of
conditions, (3) severe child abuse, and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to
personally assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. She further challenges
the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental
rights was in the best interest of the child. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s
termination of the mother’s parental rights.

This appeal concerns the termination of a father’s parental rights to his children. The trial court found that the petitioner, the children’s grandmother, established several grounds for terminating the father’s parental rights and that termination of his rights was in the best interests of the children. The father appeals, challenging each ground for termination as well as the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

This is a dispute between two insureds, David Seely and Subhadra Guanawardana (“Plaintiffs”), who co-own the insured vehicle, and their automobile insurance carrier, GEICO Advantage Insurance Company. The dispute arises from a vehicular accident in a McDonald’s restaurant parking lot. Following its investigation into the cause of the accident, GEICO determined that Mr. Seely was at fault when his vehicle collided with another. As a consequence, GEICO paid the claim asserted by the other motorist, placed an “at fault designation” on Plaintiffs’ Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange (“CLUE”) reports,1 and raised Plaintiffs’ premium. Thereafter, Plaintiffs commenced this action against GEICO asserting claims for (1) bad faith, (2) unconscionable contract, (3) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, (4) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and (5) defamation. The trial court dismissed all claims, some pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim, and the remaining claims were dismissed on summary judgment. This appeal followed. We affirm.

In this contract action, the defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of the
plaintiff for failure to comply with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure.
Upon review, we conclude that the trial court has failed to include in its final order
appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52.01. Thus, we
vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand this case to the trial court for the entry of a
more detailed order.

This appeal arises from a petition for declaratory judgment to construe a will. At issue is whether the testator intended to bequeath cash, coins, vehicle titles, certificates of deposit, and other financial documents in a lock box located at the testator’s residence pursuant to paragraph FIFTH, which reads: “I devise and bequeath my house and lot . . . where I live . . . to DWIGHT ANTHONY EATHERLY, and I devise and bequeath to him all personal property and household goods and furniture located thereon.” The trial court held that the rule of ejusdem generis limited the testator’s intended meaning of “all personal property” to items of like kind to “household goods and furniture.” The trial court also relied on the principle that “[i]n the absence of a contrary testatorial intent, as a general rule, a bequest of the contents of a house will not include choses in action or money found therein at the testator’s death.” Based on these and other findings, the trial court summarily ruled that the testator did not intend for the contents of the lock box to be part of the bequest in paragraph FIFTH; instead, they were to pass pursuant to the residuary clause in paragraph NINTH. This appeal followed. We affirm.

In this health care liability action, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions to
compel the plaintiff to produce expert witness materials despite the plaintiff’s claim of
the work product doctrine. The trial court subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion for
interlocutory appeal. Upon the plaintiff’s application, this Court granted leave for an
extraordinary appeal. Determining that the plaintiff has waived any privilege or
protection for specific materials requested by the defendants, including expert witnesses’
notes, draft reports, and communications with counsel, we affirm the trial court’s grant of
the defendants’ motions to compel, inclusive of the trial court’s proviso allowing the
plaintiff to present specific materials for review if she believes they contain mental
impressions of her counsel. However, also determining the trial court’s order to be
overly broad, we modify the language of the order to more closely track the language of
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(4)(A)(i) and the defendants’ specific requests.

I concur in the decision to affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. I do
so because Tennessee law requires the result reached in the Court’s opinion. However, I
write separately to state my view that the 2010 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(4), which protects draft reports and communications of expert witnesses
from discovery, is a better approach than that set out in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure
26.02 as it is currently written. Tennessee does not offer the same sort of protection from
discovery of draft reports and communications of expert witnesses that is provided under
the federal rules. As a result, and certainly after this Court’s opinion, counsel for both
defendants and plaintiffs likely will decline to write down their communications with
experts and instead rely exclusively on oral communication. Even more concerning, the
experts will communicate with counsel only by oral means leaving counsel, likely not a
healthcare provider, not having the benefit of what she is told being in a more detailed
writing. Counsel for Dr. Akinlaja candidly acknowledged as much at oral arguments,
saying “that is the way that it’s done practically.”

This matter is before this court on a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 9 interlocutory appeal to determine “whether the trial court erred in determining that it cannot order a new trial on the issue of punitive damages only.” Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.07, “[a] new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues in an action . . . .” Accordingly, this court concludes that trial courts may order new trials addressing the limited matter of punitive damages without need of retrying the entirety of the parties’ dispute.

After Mother filed a notice of appeal of the termination of her parental rights, her appointed
counsel filed what was characterized as a brief, but which contained no statement of facts,
no statement of the case, and no argument. The Tennessee Department of Children’s
Services argues that Mother’s appeal should be waived under these circumstances. Based
on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn.
2016), we are not at liberty to waive consideration of either the grounds for termination or
the best interests of the child despite the deplorable state of Mother’s “brief.” Following
our review, we reverse the trial court’s finding of the ground of abandonment based on the
Tennessee Department of Children’s Services’ decision not to defend that ground. We
affirm the remaining grounds, as well as the trial court’s finding that termination was in
the child’s best interest.

Upon a review of the notice of appeal and the motion to dismiss filed by the
appellees, Ashley T. and Hunter T., this Court determined that the notice of appeal was not
timely filed in accordance with Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Trial Court’s judgment was entered on November 9, 2022.

Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to her minor child. The
trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support five grounds for termination: (1)
abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with
the permanency plan; (3) persistence of conditions; (4) severe abuse; and (5) failure to
manifest the ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also found that
termination was in the best interests of the minor child. Mother appeals the trial court’s
order terminating her rights. The Department of Children’s Services concedes on appeal
one of the grounds, and we find three others to be unsupported by clear and convincing
evidence. We find, however, the termination ground of severe abuse to be supported and
the best interests of the child to favor termination. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
termination of Mother’s parental rights.

The appellant in this case challenges the trial court’s entry of an order of protection against
her. She argues that an order of protection should not issue when the sole incident for
which the appellee sought the order of protection occurred more than a year and a half
before appellee filed the petition for an order of protection. Under the circumstances of
this case, we agree with the appellant and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

After a borrower defaulted on a note and deed of trust, the lender sent a cure notice and, later, a notice of foreclosure. But the borrower did not receive either notice. When the borrower failed to cure the default, the home was sold at foreclosure. The borrower then sued to set aside the sale, arguing that the lender breached the deed of trust and violated Tennessee law by failing to deliver proper notice. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lender, concluding that the notices only needed to be sent to, not received by, the borrower. We agree and affirm.

In this appeal from a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting her counsel leave to withdraw. She further contends that she lacked the capacity to agree to the settlement. We discern no error in granting counsel leave to withdraw. And because the appellant failed to file a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must presume that the trial court’s findings relating to the appellant’s capacity are supported by the evidence. So we affirm.

Defendant, Kevin Meadows, was convicted as charged by a Jackson County Criminal Court jury of felony murder, aggravated arson, theft of property valued between $1,000 and $2,500, and two counts of tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting Facebook Messenger communications when the State failed to properly authenticate the messages by establishing that the account belonged to Defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

This appeal involves a claim by a surviving spouse against the decedent’s estate. After a
bench trial, the trial court concluded that the surviving spouse’s petition for specific
property, year’s support allowance, and elective share filed more than nine months after
the date of the decedent’s death was time barred pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated
section 31-4-102. Further, the trial court held that the surviving spouse was not prevented
from timely filing for specific property, year’s support allowance, and elective share by
fraud of the personal representative. The surviving spouse appeals. We affirm the ruling
of the trial court.