APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This divorce action involves a marriage of twenty-one years’ duration wherein the
husband maintained a significantly greater earning capacity than that of the wife. The
trial court ordered the husband to pay transitional alimony to the wife during the time she
sought to obtain her Ph.D. and for two years thereafter, or for seven years from the time
of the divorce, whichever time period was shorter. The amount of the husband’s child
support obligation was reduced to zero because he had agreed to pay the minor children’s
private school tuition. Furthermore, the trial court’s net division of the parties’ marital
assets and liabilities was nearly equal, and the trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the
wife. The husband has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment in its entirety. We further determine that the wife is entitled to an
award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, and we remand this matter for the trial
court’s determination concerning the proper amount to be awarded.

The issues on appeal involve the assessment of state business taxes against a pharmaceutical company that stored and sold its products from a warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee. The trial court granted summary judgment to the taxpayer, Eisai, Inc. (“Eisai”), on the ground that its pharmaceutical sales were not subject to business tax because the pharmaceuticals did not constitute “tangible personal property” as the term is defined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-4-702(a)(23), which exempts products that are “inserted or affixed to the human body” by physicians or “dispensed . . . in the treatment of patients by physicians.” The Department of Revenue (“the Department”) appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but also rule in favor of Eisai on a different ground raised in the trial court and on appeal. In order to prevail in this case, the Department must establish that Eisai made “wholesale sales” to “retailers,” as distinguished from “wholesaler-towholesaler” sales, the latter of which are exempt from business tax. The undisputed facts reveal that Eisai’s sales were “wholesaler-to-wholesaler” sales. Accordingly, Eisai’s sales were not subject to business tax. As such, Eisai need not establish that the exception in § 67-4-702(a)(23) applies. Nevertheless, if Eisai’s sales to its distributors are within the scope of the business tax, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that Eisai’s sales are exempt under Tennessee Code Annotated § 67-4-702(a)(23). For these reasons, we affirm.

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

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by Jeff A. Willis (“Petitioner”), seeking to recuse the judge in this suit to collect a judgment. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioner, and finding no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves application of the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). Plaintiff filed multiple causes of action against the City of Shelbyville, the Bedford County Listening Project, and several individuals – one of whom is a member of the Shelbyville City Council. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.06, and two of the non-governmental Defendants also filed petitions for dismissal and relief under the TPPA. The non-governmental Defendants also moved the trial court to stay its discovery order with respect to Plaintiff’s action against the City. The trial court denied the motion. The non-governmental Defendants filed applications for permission for extraordinary appeal to this Court and to the Tennessee Supreme Court; those applications were denied. Upon remand to the trial court, Plaintiff voluntarily non-suited his action pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01. The non-governmental Defendants filed motions to hear their TPPA petitions notwithstanding Plaintiff’s nonsuit. The trial court determined that Defendants’ TPPA petitions to dismiss were not justiciable following Plaintiff’s nonsuit under Rule 41.01. The Bedford County Listening Project and one individual Defendant, who is also a member of the Shelbyville City Council, appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a breach of contract action brought by two tenured university professors for
wrongful termination in violation of their respective contracts of employment and the
university’s tenure policy. The university denied breaching the contracts or its tenure
policy. It insists the elimination of the tenured faculty appointments was based on two
permissible grounds, “financial distress” and the “bona fide reduction or discontinuance of
a program or department of instruction.” The trial court found the university proved both
grounds and dismissed the complaints. It also found the university complied with other
relevant provisions of the tenure policy. This appeal followed. We affirm.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee
Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for
Sullivan County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Andrea
A. (“Mother”) to her minor children Serenity M., Alfred M. (“Alfie”), Chloe M., and Zoey
M. (“the Children,” collectively).1 The Children’s father, A.M. (“Father”), surrendered his
parental rights and is not a party to this appeal. After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered
an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children on four grounds. Mother
appeals. DCS concedes the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home.
We vacate that ground. However, we find, as did the Juvenile Court, that the other three
grounds found—substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistent
conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody—were
proven against Mother by clear and convincing evidence. We further find by clear and
convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s parental rights
is in the Children’s best interest. We affirm as modified, resulting in affirmance of the
termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

A judgment creditor petitioned to enroll and enforce a Missouri judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The judgment debtor opposed the petition claiming that the doctrine of laches prevented the judgment creditor from enforcing its judgment. Alternatively, the judgment debtor claimed that equitable estoppel prevented the judgment creditor from collecting the full amount remaining on the judgment. The trial court enrolled the judgment but agreed that equitable estoppel applied. We conclude that equitable estoppel does not apply. So we affirm the enrollment of the foreign judgment and vacate the trial court’s decision as to enforceability.

Appellant was found guilty of violating Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-199 for
alleged use of a handheld wireless telecommunication device while driving. The trial court
later dismissed the judgment against Appellant. Appellee City of Covington reached a
settlement with Appellant, Appellant’s driver’s license was reinstated, and the violation
was removed from his record. Accordingly, the legal controversy at the center of this case
has been extinguished, and this Court can offer no meaningful relief to the Appellant. As
such, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) failure to establish a suitable home; (2) abandonment by wanton disregard; (3) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal; (4) incarceration for a 10-year sentence; and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. The trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the grounds of: (1) failure to establish a suitable home; (2) abandonment by wanton disregard; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(k). Accordingly, we reverse the termination of Father’s parental rights on those grounds. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights on the remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

The mother of the parties’ only child filed a pro se appeal of the trial court’s order granting
the father’s Petition to Allow Relocation and for Modification of the Parties’ Permanent
Parenting Plan. The final order was entered on January 25, 2019, and the mother filed a
timely Notice of Appeal; however, the technical record was not filed with this court until
three years later, on June 7, 2022. While the mother’s pro se appellate brief was timely
filed, her brief is profoundly deficient for it fails to comply with Rule 27(a) of the
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals
of Tennessee in many material respects. Specifically, her Statement of the Case and
Statement of Facts are littered with a series of assertions unrelated to the merits of this
appeal, and she fails to provide the requisite citations to the record as required by Rule
27(a)(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Further, her brief fails to set forth
relevant arguments with respect to the issues presented as required by Rule 27(a) of the
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the few citations to legal authorities she
provides are not on point. Based on her failure to comply with Rule 27(a)(7) of the
Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals
of Tennessee, Mother has waived her right to an appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.

Appellant City of Memphis appeals the dismissal of its petition for judicial review of the
ruling of an administrative law judge. The trial court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that the City failed to provide the entire administrative record. Despite profound
deficiencies in the City’s brief, the dispositive issue is one of law and involves only the
question of whether the trial court should have proceeded with its review on the partial
administrative record. Because our review is de novo on questions of law, we exercise our
discretion under Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 2 and 13(b) to proceed with
adjudication of the appeal on the merits. We conclude that the trial court should have
proceeded with its review on the partial administrative record; as such, we reverse the trial
court’s dismissal of the appeal and remand for further hearing.

There is much in the Majority Opinion with which I agree. But on one significant
question I must respectfully dissent: whether this Court should excuse the City’s failure to
brief a threshold issue.

The appellant, the developer of a senior living facility in Knoxville, appeals the trial court’s
determination that it breached a joint check agreement that included itself, an electrical
subcontractor, and an electrical supplier as signatories. Although the appellant had initially
denied executing the joint check agreement and had expressed a lack of awareness of the
electrical supplier’s involvement with the subcontractor and senior living project, it
ultimately acknowledged during litigation that its controller had signed the joint check
agreement and that the supplier’s materials were incorporated into the project. The proof
at trial revealed that, notwithstanding its execution of the joint check agreement, the
appellant never issued a joint check that would assure that the supplier received payment.
Instead, the appellant paid only the subcontractor who failed to pay the supplier. Herein,
we affirm the trial court’s judgment awarding the supplier relief against the appellant.

A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court
following the denial of a motion that sought the trial court judge’s recusal from the case.
Herein, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion.

Plaintiff filed an action against Lauderdale County under Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-301 to -
303, more than one year after his cause of action accrued. The trial court examined the
gravamen of the complaint and determined a one-year statute of limitations applied rather
than the two or six-year limitations periods advocated for by the plaintiff. Discerning no
error in the court’s analysis of the issues, we affirm.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the maternal aunt and uncle proved two statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree and affirm.

A member of a limited liability company (“LLC”) brought a suit on behalf of the LLC
alleging a breach of fiduciary duties and constructive fraud by another member in regard
to transfers of LLC property. The plaintiff admitted that no demand for corrective action
was made on the defendant, nor was any demand made on the other members of the LLC
to join in the litigation. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding
both that the plaintiff’s complaint was outside the statute of limitations and that the plaintiff
lacked standing to bring the derivative action. We agree with the trial court that the
plaintiff’s complaint was subject to dismissal because his complaint did not include
allegations sufficiently particular to excuse his failure to meet statutory demand
requirements. The remaining issues are therefore pretermitted.

Following a hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees resulting from a discovery dispute, the trial judge or his office contacted an attorney for the defendants to obtain certain discovery responses that had not been filed with the court. The defendants’ attorney responded by email with the requested documents, carbon-copying plaintiffs’ counsel on the email. The trial court then entered an order awarding the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in which the fees awarded were only a small portion of those requested. The plaintiffs filed a motion to recuse, citing the communication between the defendants’ attorney and the trial judge. The trial court denied the motion for recusal. We agree with the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that recusal was not required.

This appeal arises from a conservatorship proceeding in which the appellants filed a complaint to set aside a trust established by the ward, along with a motion to recuse the trial judge. The trial judge entered orders dismissing the complaint, resolving various other matters, and closing the conservatorship, without entering any order mentioning the motion for recusal. We vacate the orders entered by the trial court while the recusal motion remained pending and remand for further proceedings before a different trial judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Because the mother did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights on the ground that she was not properly served with the termination petition. Because the record raises substantial questions as to whether the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services exercised diligence in its attempt to locate and serve Mother with process, we vacate the termination of her parental rights and remand for further proceedings.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother and father appeal the trial court’s
order terminating their parental rights, arguing that there was not clear and convincing
evidence to support termination. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute over a testamentary trust, which was established by the will
of the decedent’s husband. Upon her husband’s death, the decedent became a life income
beneficiary of the trust. Upon the decedent’s death, the corporate trustee distributed the
remaining corpus in equal shares to the remainder beneficiaries, which were two nieces of
the decedent’s husband and a nephew of the decedent. The plaintiffs in this case—a niece
and the surviving spouse of the other niece—filed a complaint to set aside the probate of
the decedent’s will and for an accounting of distribution of trust assets. They alleged that
the decedent’s will should be declared null and void for various reasons. They also alleged
that the testamentary trust was improperly invaded by the decedent’s nephew. However,
the plaintiffs later sought to voluntarily dismiss their complaint insofar as it pertained to
setting aside the probate of the decedent’s will, which the probate court granted. They then
amended their complaint and no longer contested the will. Instead, they alleged, among
other things, that the corporate trustee failed to prevent the improper invasion of the
testamentary trust, thereby breaching its fiduciary duties. The corporate trustee filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). Ultimately, the probate court granted the
motion finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims against the corporate
trustee of the testamentary trust. The court explained that the plaintiffs were neither
beneficiaries under a will of the decedent nor heirs at law entitled to take in the decedent’s
estate through intestate succession. The court further explained that the testamentary trust
was never a part of the decedent’s estate and that the plaintiffs could have brought their
claims in the estate that created the testamentary trust, which was the estate of the
decedent’s husband. Additionally, because the court found that Plaintiffs lacked standing,
it found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion
to transfer the case to the estate of the decedent’s husband finding that it had no authority
to transfer the case to a closed estate in its court. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the
decision of the probate court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

This third appeal in a long-running landlord/tenant dispute presents the question of the proper amount of an attorney’s fees award. The tenant, John T. Rochford, III, and several business entities owned or controlled by Mr. Rochford (collectively “Rochford”), sued the church now known as Green Hills Community Church (“Church”), claiming among other things that Church breached a lease agreement. Following a second appeal in which this Court held that an award of attorney’s fees in favor of Church was warranted, the trial court awarded Church $343,535.07 in attorney’s fees and expenses, which reflected a rate of $295 per hour. The trial court declined Church’s request for 10% yearly interest starting from the date of the filing of the complaint, July 30, 2015, finding it unwarranted by the terms of the lease. Church appeals, arguing that it should have been awarded attorney’s fees at a rate of $450 per hour and interest. We affirm.