APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant filed an objection to the probate of Decedent’s will, and Appellee, the Executrix of Decedent’s estate, filed a motion to dismiss the objection. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion, dismissed Appellant’s objection for lack of standing, and admitted Decedent’s will to probate. Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and also asserts that she received no notice of the hearing on Appellee’s motion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

After a delinquent tax sale of land owned by a limited liability corporation, the managing member filed a motion to redeem the property pro se, signing only his own name. The trial court deemed admitted requests for admission propounded on purported redeemer individually after only the entity responded. Relying in part on the admissions, the trial court granted the tax sale purchaser’s motion to strike the attempt at redemption for lack of standing. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This negligence action arises from the collision of Plaintiff/Appellee’s Mercedes convertible with a tractor-trailer operated by Defendant/Appellant in the scope of her employment. The trial court determined that Appellant was more than 50 percent at fault for the accident and apportioned 75 percent fault to Appellant and 25 percent fault to Plaintiff/Appellee. The trial court also determined that Defendant/Appellant employer was vicariously liable for the damages awarded. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a custody dispute over two minor children, P.H. and V.H. (together, “the Children”). The Children’s mother, L.A.S. (“Mother”), lives in Nevada, while the Children live primarily in Tennessee with their father, C.W.H. (“Father”), and his wife (“Stepmother”). Father is the primary residential parent, and Mother sees the Children over the summers and during their breaks from school. On June 12, 2020, Mother filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (the “juvenile court”). Mother asked to be named primary residential parent. Following a three-day bench trial, the juvenile court dismissed Mother’s petition. The juvenile court determined that no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custod had occurred. Mother timely appealed to this Court. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

Pro se appellant appeals the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant following a bench trial. Because we conclude that Appellant has waived all arguments by failing to file a substantially compliant brief or a transcript or statement of the evidence, we affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in the petition, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

The appellant, a former Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) employee, challenges the Tennessee Board of Appeals’ decision upholding his dismissal as an employee due to actions allegedly constituting official misconduct and tampering with evidence. The appellant requests that this Court overrule or modify the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in Tenn. Dep’t of Corr. v. Pressley, 528 S.W.3d 506 (Tenn. 2017), which this Court lacks authority to do. Although we conclude that the appellant has waived his remaining two issues on appeal by failing to provide legal authority or argument, we further conclude that the Tennessee Board of Appeals’ decision was supported by substantial and material evidence. We therefore affirm the Davidson County Chancery Court’s final judgment dismissing the appellant’s petition for judicial review with prejudice.

In this Title IV-D child support case, the juvenile court modified a father’s child support obligation pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines after the child had reached the age of majority and had graduated high school. We vacate and remand.

In this divorce action the husband raises multiple issues on appeal concerning, inter alia, the factual accuracy of the trial court’s judgment; the trial court’s grant of divorce to the wife on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct; the trial court’s equitable distribution of the marital property, including the trial court’s one-time award to the wife of $50,000 as part of the distribution; the trial court’s findings concerning the husband’s income, expenses, and ability to work; and the trial court’s award to the wife of $3,000 in attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. The husband has not directly raised an issue regarding the trial court’s award to the wife of $850 monthly as alimony in futuro. We determine that with the exception of one issue related to the trial court’s miscalculation of the marriage’s duration, which we deem to have been harmless error, the husband has waived all issues by failing to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(b)-(c) and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 7. We accordingly affirm the trial court’s judgment. Deeming this to be a frivolous appeal, we grant the wife’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal and post-judgment interest on the trial court’s alimony awards.

This is an appeal of a divorce case involving the awarding of alimony and the division of marital property. The trial court entered an order summarily denying the wife’s various motions, including a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Upon our review of the record, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for a review pursuant to Rule 63 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed by Molly Leann Green (“Mother”), seeking to recuse the judge in this case involving parenting issues. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Mother and the answer filed by Michael Wayne Green (“Father”) pursuant to this Court’s order, and finding no error, we affirm.

Appellant/Mother filed a post-divorce petition for contempt against Appellee/Father for alleged violations of the parenting plan. Mother also moved to change the child’s primary residential parent from Father to her. The trial court held that there was no contempt and further held that there was not a material change in circumstances to warrant a change in the child’s primary residential parent. Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves a controversy surrounding certain real property located in Memphis. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on most claims, and after a jury trial and verdict in favor of the Defendant, the remaining claim was also dismissed. Although the homeowner of the property raises a number of issues in this appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal requires interpretation of a clause in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. The final decree, entered in January 2018, incorporated the parties’ agreement awarding the wife $130,000 from the husband’s 401(k). After several rounds of qualified domestic relation orders and other court orders, the trial court ultimately held that the wife was entitled to $130,000 plus approximately four months of statutory interest. The wife appealed, seeking earnings on the $130,000 in addition to interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 Grainger County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Pamela C. (“Mother”) to her minor children Cayson S.-C. and Chaston C. (“the Children,” collectively). After a hearing on the termination petition, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. Mother appeals. We vacate the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody because the Juvenile Court failed to make specific findings regarding the second prong of that ground. We find that all other grounds found by the Juvenile Court were proven by clear and convincing evidence. We find further, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We affirm as modified.

The trial court granted the defendant medical providers summary judgment on the basis of the plaintiff s failure to comply with the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act's pre-suit notice and good faith certificate requirements. On appeal, the plaintiff, an employee of the defendants, argues that her claim does not relate to the provision of health care services and that she was therefore not required to give pre-suit notice or file a good faith certificate. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the claim is related to the provision of health care services, we affirm.