COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Rene Sherrod v. Keanna R. et al.
M2026-00031-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. David Briley

A grandmother filed petitions for dependency and neglect and for grandparent visitation in juvenile court. The juvenile court dismissed her petitions for failure to meet her burden of proof. She challenged these decisions before the circuit court, where a de novo proceeding was held. The circuit court similarly did not believe the grandmother’s allegations and likewise dismissed her petitions. She appealed to this court. We affirm.

KALYN DOXLEY, ET AL. v. CLARENCE L. “BUZZ,” NABERS, JR., DDS, ET AL.
E2025-01016-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge William T. Ailor

This is a healthcare liability action, governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section
29-26-101, et seq., stemming from care rendered by a dentist. The defendant dentist
seeks review of a class certification order entered by the trial court pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-125. Section 27-1-125 grants an appeal as
of right from an order granting or denying class certification under Rule 23 of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-125(a). Because,
based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court applied the
correct legal standards and also cannot conclude that the class proponent met her
burden of establishing that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of
Civil Procedure have been met, we must vacate the trial court’s certification
decision.

Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. Nancy J. Strong
M2025-00239-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J.B. Cox

This is one of many appeals in the protracted litigation between the parties. Following a third jury trial, the jury found that Ms. Nancy J. Strong proved by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts necessary to pierce the veil of the corporate entity Larry E. Parrish, P.C. and to hold Larry E. Parrish personally liable for the actions of the P.C. The jury awarded Ms. Strong her attorney fees and costs of the cause. The trial court ordered that Mr. Parrish is personally liable for all the damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest whether statutory, contractual, or previously ordered by any court and thereby assessed and awarded against the P.C. Ms. Strong appeals certain of the trial court’s later rulings, including denial of her motion for Rule 11 sanctions and the scope of an injunction against further filings. We affirm the trial court.

Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. November 14, 2017 Judgment
M2025-00276-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J.B. Cox

This appeal involves an attempt to set aside an allegedly void judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(3). The trial court determined that the Rule 60.02(3) independent action was frivolous and dismissed it pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

City of Shelbyville v, Bedford County
M2025-00851-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Maroney
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Don R. Ash

This appeal requires us to determine whether a contract—silent as to duration—was terminable at will or after a reasonable time, and whether the trial court properly set a termination date. In 1974, Appellant Bedford County and Appellee City of Shelbyville entered into a contract, under which Appellee agreed to pay Appellant a portion of its sales tax revenue. The purpose of the contract was to effectuate the building and maintenance of County schools as described in a separate “Building Program B,” which was completed in 1999. The parties’ contract contained no termination date, and the parties dispute whether certain requirements set out therein constitute conditions precedent to termination. After the City notified the County of its intent to terminate the contract, the City filed this declaratory judgment action. The trial court held that the requirements set out in the contract did not address termination. In the absence of a termination date or event, the trial court held that the contract was terminable within a reasonable time or at will upon reasonable notice. The trial court set the termination date as July 1, 2027. The County appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

IN RE BELLA F.
E2025-00792-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Keith Powers, Jr., Judge

In this case involving termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights to their minor
child, the trial court determined that two statutory grounds had been proven against the
father and three statutory grounds had been proven against the mother. The trial court
further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the
father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Both parents have
appealed. Upon the petitioner’s concession, we reverse the trial court’s findings against
both parents as to the statutory ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to
assume custody of or financial responsibility for the child and the trial court’s finding
against the mother as to the statutory ground of persistence of the conditions that led to the
child’s removal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the
termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights to the child.

In Re Caleb B.
W2025-01239-COa-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Christy R. Little

A father filed a petition for a permanent parenting plan regarding a minor child. The child’s mother was in the process of moving with the child to Florida when the petition was filed. At the final hearing, the court ordered the mother to return the minor child to Tennessee and, after the mother chose to remain in Tennessee, entered a parenting plan designating the mother as the primary residential parent. The mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of the parental relocation statute. We have determined that the parental relocation statute did not apply and affirm the trial court’s decision

Fred Andrews et al. v. Joel Brown et al.
M2025-01207-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Adrienne Gilliam Fry

The trial court dismissed this private condemnation action, brought pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102, on summary judgment based upon its conclusion that the plaintiffs already had lawful access to their property. We have determined that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had express easements giving them access to their property. Further, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiffs could have lawful access under another theory. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

Clifford Leon Houston v. Kristi M. Davis Et Al.
E2025-01812-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a complaint alleging a civil conspiracy for violations of civil rights based upon the fact that the defendant judges denied the plaintiff’s motion to recuse by order entered May 1, 2024. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, summons were never issued for service of process on the defendants, and the statute of limitations for a claim of civil conspiracy had run. We, however, do not get to the merits of the case but instead find that the plaintiff/appellant’s 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 several material respects. Based on the appellant’s failure to substantially comply with Rule 27(a)(6)–(7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the appellant has waived his right to an appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Katrina Allen v. Jackson Energy Authority, et al.
W2025-01029-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

This appeal involves a lawsuit filed against the chief financial officer of a public utility. The plaintiff alleges that the utility breached a contract for the provision of utility services. The plaintiff claims that she converted a billing statement she received from the utility into a negotiable instrument, which the utility should have accepted as payment. The plaintiff wrote “[p]ay to the order of Bearer,” the amount owed, and her own name on the statement and claimed the payment would be taken from interest accrued on her account. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and awarded the defendant attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand.

In Re UTMA Account of Lillian Gardner Dunavant v. Buchanan D. Dunavant
W2023-01787-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe Townsend

A party to a negotiated settlement agreement appeals the trial court’s approval of the agreement. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

LINDA RICKER v. CLARK BLUMENSTEIN
E2025-00915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Douglas T. Jenkins, Chancellor

This appeal concerns whether a homeowner diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, now deceased, lacked capacity or was unduly influenced to execute a quitclaim deed transferring his house to himself and his nephew as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The homeowner’s sister—who served as his attorney-in-fact and was the sole beneficiary of his will—filed suit challenging the transaction. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the deed was validly executed. However, the trial court struck the survivorship language from the deed, concluding that the homeowner did not understand that specific element. On appeal, the homeowner’s sister seeks, among other relief, the total invalidation of the deed. The nephew argues that the trial court should have enforced the deed as written. We agree with the nephew and modify the trial court’s judgment insofar as it removed the survivorship language. In all other respects, we affirm.

Nadine Brashears Garrett v. Marlon Antoine Garrett
W2025-00771-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carol J. Chumney

A husband appeals a final divorce decree asserting that the trial court improperly treated his veterans’ disability benefits as marital property. We have determined that the trial court did not consider the husband’s benefits as marital property and did not award the wife any of the benefits. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Ugne Adams Aronson v. Michael Waller Et Al.
E2025-00606-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James H. Ripley

This appeal involves a petition to establish a boundary line. The parties own adjacent lots
in a subdivision and dispute the proper location of the shared northern corner. The
petitioner had her lot surveyed prior to the dispute. The surveyor located an artificial
monument at the disputed corner that was referenced in a survey completed in 1981 and
set the relevant boundary line in accordance with this monument. Later, the surveyor
returned to the property and found that the monument had been removed. The surveyor
placed a new monument in the same location. The respondents also had their lot surveyed.
The surveyor did not locate a monument where he determined the disputed corner to be
located and instead set a monument based on courses and distances listed in the 1981
survey. The chancery court determined that the survey performed by the petitioner’s
surveyor accurately reflected the boundary line at issue and found she owned the disputed
area. The respondents appeal. We affirm.

Angelica Maria Banales Rodriguez, et al. v. Slava Bosin
W2024-01798-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins

This appeal concerns ownership interests in real property located at 3015 Dothan Street in Memphis, Tennessee. In 2013, the original owner, Reinhold Taylor, conveyed the property by recorded quitclaim deed to a revocable trust, of which he was the beneficiary. In 2017, Taylor ostensibly entered into a lease purchase agreement with the Appellees for the property despite no longer having any personal ownership in it. Subsequently, Taylor took out a loan from Appellant and the trust executed a deed of trust on the property as collateral for Taylor’s loan. When Taylor defaulted the loan, the trust transferred its ownership interest in the property to Appellant. Litigation ensued between Appellant and Appellees regarding the parties’ respective interests in the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, holding that their lease purchase agreement with Taylor was valid and enforceable against Appellant. Upon review, we conclude that Taylor had no ownership or possessory interest in the property to convey to Appellees at the time he signed the lease purchase agreement, and that Appellant’s ownership interest properly passed from the trust to him. As such, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

James Kenneth Benson Et Al. v. Wildcat Construction, LLC
E2025-00172-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James H. Ripley

After the closing on the sale of a custom house, disputes continued between a builder and
the purchasers. The disputes centered on the quality and amount of work performed by the
builder and outstanding payments due from the purchasers. The trial court referred the
matter to a special master, who heard detailed testimony from an expert witness for the
purchasers. The special master prepared a thorough report. The builder objected to parts
of the special master’s report, arguing that the special master should have excluded certain
testimony by the expert witness, but the trial court overruled those objections. We affirm.

Eric S. Robinson v. Staci L. McClellan Et Al.
E2025-00512-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Erwin Phillips II

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the judgment under
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. We affirm the trial court.

Joseph Cohen v. Bethany Cohen
M2026-00939-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J.B. Cox

In this Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B appeal, the husband filed a motion to recuse on April 29, 2026, based on statements made in hearings on April 30, 2025, and April 15, 2026. The complaints about statements from the April 30, 2025 hearing are untimely.  The complaints about the statements made on April 15, 2026, are timely, but do not require recusal. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion.

Kenneth Merritt v. American Home Shield
W2025-01142-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Judge Yolanda Kight Brown

The pro se plaintiff sued his home warranty company alleging various causes of action
after the cancellation of his home warranty contract. The trial court granted the defendant
partial summary judgment, finding that numerous claims asserted by the plaintiff were
barred by the statute of limitations. The only remaining claim, for breach of contract,
proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s proof, the trial court granted the
defendant’s motion for a directed verdict due to the absence of any proof regarding
damages. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

In Re Conservatorship of Columbus Lewis, Jr.
M2024-01924-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andra J. Hedrick

Paula Lewis, the former conservator for Columbus Lewis, Jr., appeals the finding by the probate court that she breached her fiduciary duty as conservator by making expenditures and other financial transactions without prior court approval and the assessment of a judgment against her in the amount of $23,800. We affirm.

Robert Fuller et al. v. Michael E. Barnes
M2025-00642-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Louis W. Oliver, III

This appeal arises from an easement dispute between neighbors concerning a dog pen easement/encroachment onto the adjacent property. Following the approval of a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from removing the plaintiffs’ dog pen, the Sumner County Chancery Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court found that the easement was valid and enforceable against the defendant even though it had not been approved or recorded by city planners. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.

4000 TN, LLC v. JOHN MCCLELLAN ET AL.
E2025-01192-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Kyle E. Hedrick, Judge

This appeal concerns a commercial lease dispute in which the lessees stopped paying rent
and abandoned the property. The lessees asserted that the landlord repudiated the lease by
preparing development plans that, if carried out, would interfere with the lessees’
restaurant, including the parking spaces that the landlord was contractually obligated to
make available for lessees’ guests and invitees. The landlord sued the lessees for breach
of contract, and the lessees filed counterclaims. The landlord later moved for summary
judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord. On appeal,
the lessees argue that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the landlord failed
to provide the required minimum parking and whether the landlord’s development plans
amounted to anticipatory repudiation of the lease. We conclude, inter alia, that there are
no genuine issues of material fact requiring trial and that the landlord is entitled to summary
judgment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We also grant Plaintiff’s request
for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal and remand to the trial court for a determination of
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

BEVERLY HENSON v. MELANIE WISHON
E2025-01653-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Beth Boniface, Judge

In this detainer action, the trial court granted the plaintiff a judgment for possession of
real property after a bench trial. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiff lacked standing. The defendant also contends
the judgment and writ of possession are void. We affirm.

TERRANCE REESE v. RACHEL HILL (FORMERLY LAMBERT)
E2025-01783-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Deborah C. Stevens, Judge

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s legal malpractice claims against Appellee as time-barred. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

IN RE TYDUS W. ET AL.
E2025-01878-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael E. Jenne

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that three statutory
grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her four children: 1) abandonment
for failure to support; 2) persistence of conditions; and 3) failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the children.
The trial court also concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.