Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found three grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to support, substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. The trial court also found that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Finding the evidence clear and convincing, we affirm.

This appeal involves claims asserted by a beneficiary of various trusts against numerous defendants, including the beneficiary's sister and her husband, who serve as the trustee and co-trustee of some of the trusts. Among other things, the beneficiary alleged that the defendant-trustees breached their fiduciary duties by failing to pay the beneficiary all distributions to which he was entitled.

This appeal concerns the applicability of an arbitration agreement. The plaintiffs purchased decking product manufactured by the defendant. The product was covered by a limited warranty, which included an arbitration agreement. The limited warranty was never provided to the plaintiffs. Instead, a notice was attached to the product, advising them to retrieve a copy of the limited warranty through the defendant?s website. Following installation of the product, the plaintiffs experienced problems with the product. The defendant advised the plaintiffs that the issue was merely cosmetic.

Former Tennessee State University Professor filed a claim for damages, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and negligent deprivation of statutory rights. On the State's motion to dismiss the claim, the Claims Commission held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim and that the professor failed to state a claim for negligent deprivation of statutory rights; accordingly, the Commission granted the State's motion. Professor appeals.

This is an appeal from the trial court‘s order modifying child support and setting arrearage. The trial court‘s calculation of child support arrearage includes a set off for credits given the Appellee Father for necessaries provided. The trial court also found that Father was responsible for one-half of the children‘s private school tuition for the three year period prior to Appellant Mother filing her petition for reimbursement of those expenses.

This is an appeal from the grant of two motions for directed verdict. Appellants contracted with Appellee chimneysweep company to redesign and reconstruct portions of their fireplace and chimney to address a problem with smoke escaping into the den, upper floors, and attic. More than a year after the construction was completed, Appellants? home was damaged by a fire, which started when wood flooring joists in close proximity to the firebox ignited. Appellants brought claims for negligence and breach of contract against Appellee. The case was tried before a jury.

The Defendant, Tammy Joy Ogden, pleaded guilty in case number 35CC1-2014-CR-18 to delivery of morphine, a Class C felony, and to delivery of carisoprodol, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417(a)(2) (2012) (amended 2014) (delivery), 39-17-408(b)(1)(I) (2014) (classifying morphine as a Schedule II controlled substance), 39-17-412(c)(5) (2014) (classifying carisoprodol as a Schedule IV controlled substance).

The appellant, Joe Clark Mitchell, filed in the Maury County Circuit Court a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The motion was summarily denied, and the appellant timely appealed the ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff filed the instant action on September 28, 2012, alleging claims against the defendant of breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligent construction, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Despite several attempts, the plaintiff was unable to obtain personal service of process upon the defendant.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal brought by the putative father. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the putative father’s parental rights because he failed to establish paternity. The court also found that termination of the putative father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The putative father appeals the best interest finding. We affirm.