This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal in a pending divorce action. The husband moved for recusal based on comments the presiding judge made after the husband failed a court-ordered drug test. The judge stated from the bench, “If I could put [the husband] in drug court, I would. It’s a two-year program. I would certainly love for him to be in that. Unfortunately, he doesn’t qualify because it’s not for domestic. It’s for criminal.” In the order denying the husband’s motion, the judge stated: “the Court made these suggestions only to help [the husband] get well and beat his addiction so he can be a father to his two children.” The court also found that the husband filed his motion “for an improper purpose, i.e., to delay the litigation.” We have concluded that the motion was not filed for an improper purpose; however, we find the evidence is insufficient to prompt a reasonable, disinterested person to believe that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for recusal is affirmed.

For the week of November 28, 2022 - December 2, 2022

This is a case about fitting new technology into a not-so-new statutory scheme. Exercising our power to answer questions certified to us by federal courts, we consider whether two video streaming services—Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC—provide “video service” within the meaning of a Tennessee law that requires such providers to obtain a franchise and pay franchise fees to localities. Netflix and Hulu say they do not provide “video service” and therefore do not owe franchise fees; the City of Knoxville says they do. We agree with Netflix and Hulu.

In March 2021, a grand jury charged Windham with one count of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The grand jury charged that Windham “did willfully and unlawfully . . . kidnap, abduct, and carry away a person” referred to as M.S., and held M.S. “for ransom and reward and otherwise, and did use a means, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce, namely, a cellular telephone and a motor vehicle, in committing and in furtherance of such offense . . . .”

At his change of plea hearing, the district court asked Windham about the plea agreement. Windham confirmed to the court that he: (1) signed the plea agreement; (2) initialed each page; and (3) read and reviewed each paragraph with his attorney. Subsequently, the court told Windham, “in Count 1, you are charged with kidnapping in violation, and with aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 United States Code § 1201(a)(1) and § 2.” Shortly thereafter, Windham pleaded guilty. Several months later, the court sentenced Windham to 120 months in prison.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This insurance-coverage dispute springs from two class-action lawsuits against several Michigan counties that retained surplus proceeds from the tax-foreclosure sales of private property. Genesee County was named as a defendant in the lawsuits and claimed coverage under two liability-insurance policies. The County’s insurers, Safety National Casualty Company and Safety Specialty Insurance Company (together, “Safety”), denied the claim and filed this declaratory-judgment action in federal court against both the County and the underlying class representatives. The district court agreed with Safety that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the County from the lawsuits, but dismissed Safety’s case against the class representatives for lack of federal jurisdiction. We affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her son based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, abandonment by an incarcerated parent, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, failure to remedy persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The trial court granted the petition, finding that the five statutory grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child. We affirm.

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her daughter based on severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The trial court granted the petition, finding that the two statutory grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child. We affirm.

Plaintiff Randolyn Laferney filed a tort action against several defendants, alleging causes of action for, inter alia, libel, civil conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. The allegations arose primarily out of social media comments and posts made by the defendants regarding Ms. Laferney. On December 10, 2020, the trial court dismissed the legal action as to some, but not all, of the defendants pursuant to Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“the TPPA” or “the Act”). Several months later, after the trial court awarded the dismissed defendants their attorney’s fees, Ms. Laferney appealed to this Court. Because we conclude that the notice of appeal was untimely pursuant to the TPPA, the appeal is dismissed.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict holding a real estate agent liable for common law negligence, intentional misrepresentation and fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act for his failure to disclose flooding and water intrusion issues at a home he had listed for sale. The jury awarded the plaintiff, a first-time home buyer, compensatory and punitive damages. The real estate agent appeals the jury’s verdict holding him liable for intentional misrepresentation and fraud, the admission of certain expert testimony, the admission of opposing counsel’s alleged prejudicial statements during closing argument, the amount of compensatory damages, and the award of and amount of punitive damages. Finding that the trial court failed to follow the appropriate procedures in reviewing the jury’s award of punitive damages, we vacate the award of punitive damages and remand the case for further proceedings. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves claims by four plaintiffs against an attorney, his business partner, and the attorney’s and partner’s limited liability company. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants fraudulently redeemed properties sold via tax sales, utilizing forged or fraudulent documents. Following a bifurcated jury trial, the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed except for the claim of one plaintiff against the attorney defendant, which resulted in a verdict for damages in the amount of $53,450. The trial court subsequently denied a motion for new trial filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have appealed. Upon thorough review, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial should be reversed. However, we affirm the trial court’s pre-trial determination that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate concerning the plaintiffs’ claims of unjust enrichment and “theft” of the right of redemption. We further affirm (1) the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants concerning the plaintiffs’ claim based on Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-22-113 and (2) the court’s denial of the defendant company’s motion to dissolve the lien lis pendens on its property. The remaining issue raised by the defendants is pretermitted as moot. We remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial.