COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

In Re Brisen K.
W2026-00550-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Magistrate W. Ray Glasgow

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

Brendan Todd Negron v. Hagar and Phillips, Attorneys at Law, PLLC
M2025-01209-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

This appeal arises from a legal malpractice action which the trial court dismissed on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 56.07 motion for additional time to conduct discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion. The plaintiff also contends the court erred in summarily dismissing his complaint on multiple grounds including the plaintiff’s failure to present expert testimony to support his claim of legal malpractice. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

IN RE DESTINY D. ET AL.
E2025-01762-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Kristi M. Davis, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Melissa Thomas Willis, Chancellor

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s and father’s parental rights to six of
their minor children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence the ground of
severe child abuse as to both parents based on a prior juvenile court order concluding that
certain of the children were victims of severe child abuse when the parents knowingly
failed to protect them from sexual abuse by the parents’ eldest child. The trial court also
found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of their parental rights was in the
children’s best interests. On appeal, the parents challenge the best interests determination,
arguing primarily that the trial court placed undue weight on their continued denial of the
abuse. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Citibank v. John P. Mayo
M2025-01633-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynne T. Ingram

Appellant sought to vacate the trial court’s extension of a 2007 judgment for a debt owed to Appellee by filing consecutive Rule 60.02 motions. The trial court denied the second motion on its conclusion that the motion was barred by res judicata. Discerning no error, we affirm.

IN RE DEANGELO N. ET AL.
E2025-00235-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement Jr. C.J.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom McFarland

This appeal arises from the termination of parental rights of the parents of DeAngelo N.
and Daimen N. The trial court terminated their parental rights on the grounds of
abandonment, severe child abuse, persistence of conditions, and lack of willingness or
ability to assume custody, and the finding that termination was in the best interests of the
children. Both parents appeal, arguing that the trial court’s findings regarding the grounds
for termination were in error and that termination of their parental rights was not in the
children’s best interest. We vacate the trial court’s ruling regarding the ground of severe
abuse based on lack of due process, because that ground was not asserted in the pleadings.
We also reverse the trial court’s ruling that the ground of persistence of conditions was
proven, finding the evidence insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that ground.
We affirm the trial court’s finding that two other grounds for termination were proven, and
the termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we
affirm the decision to terminate both parents’ parental rights.

Ryan Eugene Betz v. Amberly Dawn Betz
M2026-01405-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Louis W. Oliver

In this interlocutory appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. After evaluating the trial court’s ruling under the de novo standard of review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for recusal.

Antwain Tapaige Sales v. S. Sgt. Gross ET AL.
W2026-00084-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Kasey Culbreath

Pro se Appellant, Antwain Tapaige Sales, has appealed an order of the Hardeman County Chancery Court that was entered on December 17, 2025. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

IN RE OWEN W.
E2025-01471-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge; Thomas R. Frierson, II, Judge; William E. Phillips, II, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Timothy E. Irwin, Judge

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final
appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

KAREN BYRNE v. FLAVIUS DRAGILA, M.D., ET AL.
E2025-00998-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II, Judge
Trial Court Judge: William T. Ailor, Judge

In this health care liability action, the plaintiff asserted claims against multiple physicians
and medical entities. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of one
of the defendants, Dr. Flavius Dragila, based on expiration of the one-year statute of
limitations. The trial court also certified the judgment as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule
of Civil Procedure 54.02. The plaintiff has appealed. Upon our review and viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that a genuine issue of
material fact exists regarding when the plaintiff discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable
diligence should have discovered, both (1) that she had been injured by wrongful or tortious
conduct and (2) the identity of the person or persons whose wrongful conduct caused the
injury. We therefore vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr.
Dragila and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

MARIE VERNON WOLFE v. DERREK PUGH
E2026-00043-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Cook, Judge

A judgment creditor domesticated a South Carolina judgment in Tennessee under the
Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. When the creditor moved to extend the
unsatisfied, domesticated judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69.04,
the judgment debtor objected on the basis that the foreign judgment had since expired and
was unenforceable under South Carolina law. The trial court granted the judgment
creditor’s motion and extended the domesticated judgment for an additional ten years. The
judgment debtor appealed. We affirm.

Alex Williams v. Donna Horton (Howell)
M2025-00339-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Parkes

Mother and Father filed competing petitions for modification of the parenting plan. Finding a material change in circumstances and finding modification to be in the child’s best interests, the trial court named Father primary residential parent and awarded Father attorney’s fees. Mother appeals. We affirm.

In Re Brykell F.
M2025-00884-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Deanna Bell Johnson

Julius W. (hereinafter “Julius” or “Respondent”), the biological father of Brykell F. (“Brykell”), appeals the termination of his parental rights to Brykell. On appeal he contends the trial judge should have recused herself, he was denied due process, and the evidence was insufficient to prove any ground for termination or that termination of his parental rights is in Brykell’s best interest. We affirm.

Delester Quarles v. John Doe A, et al.
W2025-01252-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rhynette N. Hurd

This appeal requires us to determine whether the Plaintiff/Appellant commenced an action against the John Doe defendants within the applicable statute of limitations such that he may recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. The trial court granted the Defendant/Appellee’s motion to dismiss, holding that the applicable statute of limitations was one year and that Appellant’s claims expired due to his failure to serve the John Doe Defendants. Discerning no error, we affirm.

BARBARA PENNY v. CLIFFORD WALDROUP
E2026-00932-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge; Thomas R. Frierson, II, Judge; Kristi M. Davis, Judge
Trial Court Judge: John D. McAfee, Judge

Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

James P. Little v. United Services Automobile Association, Inc.
E2024-01434-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey M. Atherton, Chancellor

The plaintiff insured filed a claim against his homeowners insurance company for damages
from an earthquake that occurred in 2018. The insurance company denied the claim, and
the insured subsequently filed this action against the insurer alleging claims of breach of
contract, fraud, and bad faith. The trial court conducted a jury trial spanning several days.
During trial, at the close of the plaintiff’s proof, the defendant insurer moved for a directed
verdict on all claims. The trial court directed a verdict on the fraud claim but allowed the
other claims to proceed. Following deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in the amount of $2,000,000. The jury found that the defendant had breached its
contract with the plaintiff but declined to find that the defendant had acted in bad faith.
The defendant insurer filed a post-trial motion, which was denied by the trial court. The
plaintiff timely appealed. Following our thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment in all respects. However, we deny the insurer’s request for an award of attorney’s
fees on appeal.

John T. Rankin v. HSM Holdings LLC
M2025-01152-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joshua Turnbow

This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in finding that Appellant lacked standing to bring his lawsuit. Because Appellant suffered no legal injury, we affirm.

Virginia Williams v. Big R Enterprises, LLC ET AL.
W2026-00028-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Damita J. Dandridge

Plaintiff has been involved in multiple suits in connection with a foreclosure upon two properties she purchased in an office complex. Most of these actions were resolved adversely to her position prior to the circuit court’s issuance of its ruling in this case. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in the present case based upon res judicata principles, and it imposed sanctions. Plaintiff argues that the circuit court violated her due process rights in doing so and that it erred in the manner in which it ruled upon her pending motions. We affirm.

Jonah Paul Anders v. Mayla Anders
W2025-00847-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Gina C. Higgins

In 2014, Husband filed for an annulment based on allegations of fraud by Wife; Wife denied the allegations but still sought a divorce. The trial court did not find any fraud that would invalidate the marriage and granted Wife the divorcein a 2016 decree. Husband appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Then in 2024, Husband filed a petition to reopen the case, asserting that he now had evidence to supporthis original fraud allegations.The trial court denied the petition, finding that Husband’s attempt to relitigate the issues raised in the first appeal was barred by res judicata. Husband has again appealed. Because Husband’s petition to reopen the case, by all accounts a motion for relief from a final judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, was untimely, we affirm. Wife is awarded her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this frivolous appeal.

Caroline Long Kilpatrick v. Connor Lewis Kilpatrick
M2024-00803-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Deana C. Hood

In this post-divorce action to modify child support, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s: (1) calculation of Appellee/Father’s gross income; (2) determination that she was willfully underemployed; (3) imputation of income to her; (4) exclusion of summer work related childcare expenses from the child support worksheet; (5) denial of an upward deviation; and (6) denial of her request for attorney’s fees. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney’s fees. Because we determine that the trial court improperly excluded certain sources of income from its calculation of Father’s gross income, we vacate Father’s child support obligation. We reverse the trial court’s denial of Mother’s attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s conclusions that Mother was willfully underemployed and its imputation of income to her as well as its exclusion of summer work-related childcare expenses and its denial of an upward deviation. Mother’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. Father’s request for same is denied.

Jolene Renee Scholl v. Michael Ray Scholl
M2025-01767-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Adrienne Gilliam Fry

This appeal follows post-divorce proceedings in which one parent asked for permission to relocate with her children while the other parent asked to modify the permanent parenting plan. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the request to relocate and modified the parenting plan. The relocating parent appeals, but due to deficiencies in her briefing, her issues have been waived.

In Re Serenity S. et al.
M2025-01000-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge M. Caleb Bayless

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children based upon the statutory grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, the persistence of conditions which led to removal, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. A panel of this court reversed the trial court’s initial determination, holding that the petitioners proved no statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re Serenity S., No. M2022-01091-COA R3-PT, 2023 WL 4884040 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2023) (“Serenity I”). Upon remand from this court, the petitioners amended their termination petition to include the statutory ground of abandonment. The trial court conducted a new hearing and found that clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to remit child support and the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court also found that clear and convincing evidence established that the termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We now reverse and vacate the order of termination, holding that the petitioners have again proved no statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.

Terri Gang v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue
M2025-00854-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal

The Tennessee Department of Revenue audited a business’s sales tax returns for a three year period and then issued the business a proposed assessment for underreported and unpaid sales taxes. When the business failed to pay the tax assessment, the Department of Revenue issued letters of personal assessment to the owners of the business to hold them personally liable for the unpaid tax assessment pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1 1443(a). After an informal conference requested by the owners, the Department of Revenue affirmed the personal assessments. One of the owners then filed a complaint in chancery court to challenge the assessment. The Department of Revenue filed a countercomplaint, seeking to hold the owner personally liable for the business’s tax assessment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-1443(a). The Department of Revenue filed a motion for summary judgment on its countercomplaint, which the chancery court granted. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Shelby County, Tennessee v. David McGriff
W2025-01041-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

The Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board reversed the termination of the appellee’s
employment with the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office. The trial court affirmed the decision
to reinstate the appellee and ordered that he be paid as if he had returned to work on the
date contemplated by the Merit Board. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
decision to reinstate the appellee was supported by substantial and material evidence and
was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We therefore affirm the reinstatement. Because the
order overturning the appellee’s termination did not contain an explicit return-to-work date,
we vacate the trial court’s ruling that the appellee would be paid from a date certain, and
remand the issue for consideration by the Merit Board.

Keithley Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Mauricio Hernandez, et al.
W2026-00391-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

Appellants have appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered
on February 18, 2026. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final
appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

SARA RENEE MCINTYRE v. BLAKE ANTHONY STOREY
E2025-00688-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey M. Atherton, Chancellor

In this divorce action, the trial court declared the parties divorced on stipulated grounds.
Following a bench trial on the remaining contested matters, the trial court entered a
memorandum opinion and final decree for divorce (1) naming the wife as the primary
residential parent of the parties’ minor child; (2) setting forth a “two weeks for wife/one
week for husband” rotating residential co-parenting schedule; (3) directing the husband to
pay child support; (4) finding that the husband owed $12,500.00 in child support arrearage;
(5) distributing the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence; and (6) declining to
award attorney’s fees to either party. The court subsequently entered a final order and
permanent parenting plan wherein the court made slight adjustments to the residential coparenting
schedule according to proposed parenting plans submitted by the parties. The
final permanent parenting plan granted to the wife 243 days per year of co-parenting time
and to the husband 122 days. The court set the husband’s monthly child support obligation
at $272.00. The wife has appealed, asserting issues related to the trial court’s credibility
determinations, the permanent parenting plan and best interest of the Child, the amount of
child support and arrearage awarded, and the equitable division of marital property. Upon
careful review, we vacate the trial court’s determination of the husband’s child support
obligation and the award of child support arrearage in the amount of $12,500.00. In all
other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The wife’s request for attorney’s
fees on appeal is denied.