APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (3) persistence of conditions which led to removal; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court partially granted the husband’s petition to modify or terminate spousal support, reducing the husband’s monthly alimony in futuro obligation to the wife from $1,750.00 to $1,500.00 upon finding that the husband’s retirement constituted a substantial and material change in circumstance warranting the reduction. The husband has appealed, arguing that the court erred by declining to terminate or further reduce his support obligation. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellant appeals the denial of its motion to quash a notice of lien lis pendens. Because the trial court improvidently certified its order as final under Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This is an action for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4- 21-101 to -1004 (“THRA”). The plaintiff, an associate professor at a state university, applied for promotion to the rank of full professor. While his application was under review, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge against the university with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). A short time later, the university denied the plaintiff’s promotion based on his alleged lack of high-quality scholarship. The trial court dismissed the action at the summary judgment stage, reasoning that the plaintiff had not produced evidence to rebut the university’s stated reason for denying his promotion. This appeal followed. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred because there was evidence that the university’s administration knowingly violated university policy by reevaluating the merits of the plaintiff’s peer-reviewed scholarship. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) classification of the marital residence as marital property; (2) decision not to admit Tennessee Rule of Evidence 1006 summaries tendered by Husband; (3) finding of criminal contempt against Husband; (4) award of transitional alimony to Wife; and (5) award of a portion of Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs as alimony in solido. Wife asks for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted.

The Petitioners seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to recuse. However, because the Petitioners’ filings fail to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

This appeal stems from a dispute over a purportedly defective sprinkler system which malfunctioned, causing significant damage to Campus Chalet, Inc. (“Campus Chalet”). East Tennessee Sprinkler Company, Inc. (“ETS”) installed the system in 1992 and remained contractually responsible for subsequent inspections, testing, and maintenance of the system. On October 5, 2023, Campus Chalet’s insurance carrier filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Washington County (the “trial court”), against ETS, alleging that the sprinkler system malfunctioned and caused significant damage to Campus Chalet. ETS filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was time-barred by a statute of repose. The trial court granted ETS’s motion, and this appeal followed. Because we agree with the appellant that the negligence and breach of contract claims are based on ongoing failures to inspect, test, and maintain the system, we reverse.

Paul David Rowe was not informed of a radiology report, which revealed two masses in his kidneys indicative of renal cancer, for five years. Mr. Rowe passed away after suit was filed, but his wife, Sharon K. Rowe, both individually and as the administrator ad litem of his estate, (“Plaintiffs”) maintained a health care liability action against the allegedly negligent parties, Wellmont Health System d/b/a Wellmont Bristol Regional Medical Center (“Wellmont”), Carl W. Harris, Jr., D.O. (“Dr. Harris”), and Northeast Tennessee Emergency Physicians (“NETEP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of repose barred Plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs raised the defense of fraudulent concealment. The Trial Court granted the motions for summary judgment finding that Defendants had no actual knowledge until 2015 that Mr. Rowe had or might have had cancer in 2010, and therefore, had nothing to fraudulently conceal. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

This appeal stems from a long-standing custody dispute between the mother and father of two minor children. The trial court entered a court-ordered parenting plan in February of 2022, but the parties experienced substantial difficulty co-parenting with one another. Numerous pleadings were filed by both parties, including a petition for modification filed by the mother in May of 2022 and motions for civil and criminal contempt filed by the father against the mother. The trial court held a hearing on all of the parties’ pending motions on April 14, 2023, and May 12, 2023. The trial court ultimately determined that no material change in circumstances occurred and left its previously ordered parenting plan and subsequent orders in place. The trial court also found the mother in civil and criminal contempt on eight counts. Further, the trial court declined any further jurisdiction over the case, as the mother and the children had resided in Florida for several years by the time the final order was entered. The father appeals, raising four issues. We affirm the trial court’s decision as to custody and contempt. While the father raises evidentiary issues, we conclude that any error by the trial court was harmless. We vacate and remand the trial court’s judgment as to continuing jurisdiction over the case.

In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. The trial court found that grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. She appealed, raising several issues. We find that one ground for termination, abandonment for failure to support, was properly pled and proven by clear and convincing evidence; however, we reverse the ruling that the ground of abandonment by failure to visit had been proven. We also vacate the other grounds purportedly found by the trial court because they were not properly pled. We affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

This appeal arises from an automobile accident. Appellants, one of the drivers and her husband, filed a complaint for negligence against appellees, the other driver and his employer. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that immediately preceding the collision, the appellee-driver experienced a heart attack that left him physically incapacitated and unable to control his vehicle. In granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case, the trial court found that the sudden physical incapacitation doctrine provided appellees with a defense to appellants’ negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Pro se appellant appeals from an order to partition real property. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, including the lack of any specific issues for appellate review, we dismiss the appeal. We also conclude the appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (3) persistence of conditions; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility; and (5) abandonment by an incarcerated parent. We affirm.

This appeal concerns custody and child support determinations regarding a minor child. Because the trial court failed to identify and employ the applicable legal standard, we vacate the judgment as to the limitation of Father’s parenting time, the imposition of supervised parenting time, and the suspension of Father’s parental rights. Additionally, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees to Mother because the trial court failed to determine their reasonableness. The judgment is otherwise affirmed as to the remaining issues and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns claims for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and enforcement of a local zoning ordinance. The plaintiff, Howard Levy, alleged that his neighbor, James Franks, engaged in an intentional and malicious course of conduct that included paving over a corner of Levy’s property, building a wooden fence along Levy’s property line, and routing construction vehicles over the parties’ shared driveway. Levy also alleged that the fence violated the Zoning Ordinance of Franklin, Tennessee, and that Franks was operating a construction company on his property in violation of the same. The trial court dismissed Levy’s fence-zoning claim at the summary judgment stage because he had not produced evidence that he was “specially damaged” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2). At the close of Levy’s proof during the bench trial, the court dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02. The court also enjoined Levy from interfering with the installation of underground power lines under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04(2). This appeal followed. We conclude the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the injunction, which was unrelated to any of the underlying claims, but we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

A county regional planning commission denied the petitioner’s application to place a quarry in an agricultural zone. The zoning laws included certain requirements for quarrying. None of the zones, however, permitted quarrying, and all the zones prohibited any unpermitted uses. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county respondents, concluding that the planning commission did not act illegally, capriciously, fraudulently, or without material evidence. Because the zoning laws for the agricultural zone did not permit quarrying and explicitly prohibited unpermitted uses, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing that termination was not in his child’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against the former father-in-law of one of the Plaintiffs, complaining that, following alleged statements the former father-in-law made to a third party, the third party moved money that had been invested with the former son-in-law. The former father-in-law sought to dismiss the claims that were asserted against him, both pursuant to a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and pursuant to a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After initially dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim and denying a motion to alter or amend, the trial court held a separate hearing regarding dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act was appropriate and concluded that the former father-in-law was entitled to costs and attorney’s fees in connection with this litigation, both in relation to the Tennessee Public Participation Act petition and the Rule 12 dismissal. For the specific reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal under Rule 12, vacate its dismissal—and award of costs and attorney’s fees—under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, and affirm the award of costs and attorney’s fees that stemmed from the trial court’s Rule 12 dismissal.

In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, the appellant’s oral motion for recusal made during trial was denied. She then filed a written motion for recusal that apparently has yet to be resolved by the trial court. Because no order denying the motion has been entered, we dismiss the appeal.

This appeal concerns the termination of parental rights. Tamara R. (“Mother”) is the mother of minor child Tayla R. (“the Child”). Jesse R. (“Legal Father”) is the Child’s legal father, having married Mother on the day that the Child was born. The Child was removed into state custody based on Mother’s drug use while pregnant and environmental concerns in the home. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), and the Child’s foster parents Autumn M. (“Foster Mother”) and Drannon M. (“Foster Father”) (“Foster Parents,” collectively), filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Putnam County (“the Chancery Court”) seeking to terminate Mother’s and Legal Father’s parental rights to the Child. The Chancery Court terminated Mother’s and Legal Father’s parental rights on several grounds. Aside from a few token visits with the Child, Mother and Legal Father essentially did nothing on their case, declining to cooperate with DCS or even allow DCS inside their residence, an RV camper. Neither Mother nor Legal Father paid any child support whatsoever for the Child. We affirm.

A patient brought a health care liability action against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s employer, alleging the psychiatrist engaged in improper sexualized conduct that caused him psychological injury.  The patient secured an expert witness in support of his suit, but the expert withdrew following the expert’s deposition.  The patient obtained a new expert witness.  However, relying on the cancellation rule, the trial court determined a conflict existed between the second expert’s affidavit and deposition testimony relating to the issue of damages.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and also granted the defendants’ request for an award of discretionary costs.  The patient appeals.  We affirm.

A husband appeals the trial court’s final judgment of divorce with respect to two issues.  Because the husband failed to comply with the applicable briefing rules, we have concluded that he waived his first issue.  We find no support for the husband’s second issue.  Having determined that the husband’s appeal is frivolous, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand to the trial court for the assessment of damages.

The juvenile court terminated a mother’s parental rights to two of her children. The mother appealed and challenges the court’s determination that clear and convincing evidence established grounds for termination and that termination of her rights was in the children’s best interests. We find no error and affirm.