In Re Knox G.
Mother and Stepfather sought termination of Father’s parental rights to a child who is subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights. Father appeals, alleging (1) various violations of the ICWA; (2) due process violations; (3) improper entry of default judgment; (4) a violation of his right to counsel; (5) improper application of the standard of proof required by the ICWA; (6) insufficient evidence to establish the termination grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody, and (7) error as to the finding that termination is in the child’s best interest. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the ground of failure to visit was established by clear and convincing evidence, but we affirm the judgment of termination. We deny Mother and Stepfather’s request for attorney’s fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Oliver v. Andrew Goodman
This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in concluding that the father severely reduced the maternal grandfather’s visitation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s grant of visitation to his children’s maternal grandfather. Appellee/Grandfather appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-306(g). Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in finding that Appellant severely reduced Appellee’s visitation with the children, we vacate its order and remand with instructions to re-evaluate whether there has been a severe reduction in visitation in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-6-306(a), (f), and 36-1-102(1)(C). |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Gabrielle Alvoid v. Larson Enterprises
Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking to recuse the general sessions judge. Due to the deficiencies in Appellant’s brief and her failure to attach the motion to recuse to her petition, we dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s motion for stay is denied. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE TYDUS W. ET AL.
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. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Harding Place Multifamily Partners, LLC d/b/a Emerson at Harding v. Samuel Robinson
A residential management company sought damages related to a tenant’s recent eviction. The circuit court awarded damages, and the tenant appealed. After careful review, we conclude that the tenant’s brief contains inaccurate citations throughout that reflect the hallmarks of artificial intelligence. We disregard the inaccurate or fabricated portions of the brief. Discerning no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Monii N. et al.
In this petition for recusal appeal, pro se parents seek an accelerated interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying mother’s motion seeking disqualification of the juvenile court judge. We affirm. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
EMILIOS TAHINCI v. ALEXIS IRENE TAHINCI
A husband sought recusal based on the trial judge’s decisions in his divorce case. The husband contended that the decisions established a clear appearance of bias or a conflict of interest. After the judge denied the motion to recuse, this accelerated interlocutory appeal followed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE CAYMAN T. ET AL.
The trial court found four statutory grounds to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her three children: (1) substantial noncompliance with permanency plan; (2) persistent conditions; (3) severe child abuse; and (4) failure to manifest an ability to assume custody. The trial court also found termination to be in the best interest of the children. The mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Constance Lynn Bennett, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Jennifer Diane Vickers, deceased v. Diversicare Leasing Corporation et al.
This is the second appeal from the dismissal of a health care liability action for failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act. In the first appeal, we held that the Health Care Liability Act required the plaintiff to file a new certificate of good faith with an amended complaint that added a new health care liability claim against the existing defendants. Even so, we vacated the dismissal and remanded for reconsideration of the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a new certificate. On remand, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a good faith basis for an extension of time. Again, it denied the plaintiff’s motion and dismissed the amended complaint. Because we conclude that the court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion, we reverse. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Maddex B. et al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for recusal of the trial judge. We vacate and remand for entry of an order either providing the grounds upon which the trial judge denies the motion or granting the motion. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE BRANTLEY M.A.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on the statutory ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child and placing the child in the person’s custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Rachel Loretta Terry v. Craig Steven Terry
Father overpaid child support, and the trial court ordered the overpayment to be credited against future monthly payments. After the judgment became final, Father filed a motion for relief from judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60, seeking a judgment against Mother rather than credit against future child support payments. Father also sought to depose three State employees in an effort to determine why certain payments had been released to Mother instead of being held by the State. The trial court denied the Rule 60 motion, granted a motion to quash the depositions, and denied a motion to alter or amend. We affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Dean Michael Leahy
Appellant appeals the trial court’s closure of the decedent’s estate. Due to the deficiencies in appellant’s appellate brief, we dismiss the appeal. Appellees’ request for frivolous appeal damages is denied. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE DAVID T. ET AL.
The trial court terminated the appellants’ parental rights to their three minor children. As |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
DARREN V. BERG v. STEVEN R. HELLER ET AL.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 20, 2025. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until December 26, 2025, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
JOSEPH BRIAN SIDDENS v. MAKENZIE (JOY)COOPER SIDDENS
This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding. After the trial court entered a mediated |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Gilley Construction, Inc.
This case concerns the interpretation of an assigned risk workers’ compensation insurance policy. The trial court construed the contract to give the insurer the authority to determine the meaning of the NCCI classification code provision at issue and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We have determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the pertinent code provision and, therefore, we reverse and remand. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
MARY WOODWARD v. DAVID STRICKLAND ET AL.
A trust beneficiary filed a petition seeking the removal of the trustee and successor trustee of the trust due to purported breaches of trust committed by the trustees. The beneficiary also asked that the trustees be ordered to repay any trust funds that they wrongfully withdrew. The trial court granted the requested relief, and the trustees appeal. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Kaitlynn Richelle Dempsey v. Erica Ann Fisk
The subject of an order of protection appeals the denial of a motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a final order extending the order of protection. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Othella S.
Mother/Appellant appeals the termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) severe child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4); and (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kristina Eileen Codino v. Christopher John Codino
The parties to this appeal were divorced in Virginia, and the divorce decree provided that |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
BRADLEY THOMAS MITCHELL v. J& B AUTO GROUP ET AL.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal filed by the pro se petitioner relative to the underlying action involving sale of an automobile. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated a factual basis warranting recusal of the trial court judge, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion to recuse. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ELLIOT S.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. Because the |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Merritt v. Betty Thomas Moore
The plaintiff filed this action against a trial court judge who had presided over a prior lawsuit involving the plaintiff. The Shelby County Circuit Court (“trial court”) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, determining that they were barred by judicial immunity. The plaintiff timely appealed. Because the plaintiff has failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we dismiss this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Julie Ann Fleming v. David Fleming
This is an appeal from a divorce with no minor children. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in multiple ways when classifying and distributing the marital estate. Appellant has waived these arguments, however, by failing to comply with this Court’s briefing requirements. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in granting Appellee attorney’s fees when she did not request such an award in her complaint. Upon review, we determine that the trial court’s reasoning for awarding attorney’s fees over Appellant’s objection is unclear. We therefore vacate trial court’s judgment as to Appellee’s attorney’s fees and remand the matter for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the remainder of the judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.