This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence in support of one statutory ground of termination, the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We vacate the judgment of the trial court, holding that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the sole statutory ground of termination found by the trial court.

A decedent bequeathed his ownership interest in a corporation to his sister. During the decedent’s lifetime, the corporate assets were sold, and the corporation terminated. The decedent’s widow petitioned the probate court to construe the will. Among other things, she argued that the decedent’s gift to his sister had been adeemed by extinction. The probate court granted the widow summary judgment on this issue. Based on the undisputed facts, we conclude that the gift was adeemed by extinction. So we affirm.

A minority shareholder in a close corporation brought a shareholder oppression claim. The trial court heard the claim in two phases. After the first phase, the trial court found that there was shareholder oppression by the majority shareholder and determined that redemption of the minority shareholder’s shares was the appropriate remedy. After the second, the court found the fair value of the minority shareholder’s shares. The court later awarded attorney’s fees to the minority shareholder, but it failed to award fees associated with the second phase of trial. The court also denied the minority shareholder’s request for prejudgment interest and dismissed an unjust enrichment claim. On appeal, the minority shareholder takes issue with the court’s fair-value determination. He also claims that he was entitled to prejudgment interest, as well as attorney’s fees for both phases of trial. And he argues that the court erred in dismissing his unjust enrichment claim. We affirm.

For the week of February 21, 2022 - February 25, 2022

Petitioner, Nehad Sobhi Abdelnabi, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he was denied a trial by an impartial jury and in dismissing his second amended petition claiming that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to convey a plea offer. After hearing oral arguments and following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellants seek review of an order granting partial summary judgment. Because the order is not a final order giving rise to a Tenn. R. App. P. 3 appeal, we do not have jurisdiction; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The claimant worked for a company that offers horseback riding tours to customers. He injured his left arm while leading a group of riders on a guided tour. The employer alleged the claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee, and was therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court determined the claimant had come forward with sufficient evidence that he was an employee at the time of the accident. As a result, the court ordered the employer to initiate medical benefits and also determined that, because the employer did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the accident, the claimant was eligible to seek benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

The Petitioner, Jamarces J. Watson, pleaded guilty to two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and eight counts of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of forty years of incarceration. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the required jury instruction pursuant to State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) and because he failed to investigate the case; (2) the trial court improperly ruled that he forfeited his right to counsel; (3) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors entitled him to relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Terrance Reece, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony; unlawful possession of a firearm by a felony drug offender, a Class D felony; unlawful possession of a firearm having been convicted of a felony involving the use of force or violence, a Class C felony; unlawful possession of a firearm having been convicted of a felony involving the use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon, a Class C felony; vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor; and three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. After merging the firearms counts, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty-two years in the Department of Correction, with the first twelve years to be served at 60% as a career offender and the last ten years at 45% as a persistent offender. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred by its sua sponte mid-trial hearing to address an allegation that the Defendant threatened a witness during a break in the trial, by revoking the Defendant’s bond as a result of the alleged threat, and by allowing evidence of the alleged threat to be introduced at trial; 2) whether the trial court admitted prejudicial and irrelevant evidence in the form of testimony about a bullet found in the Defendant’s pocket at the time of his arrest that was discarded by the police, unredacted 911 calls by one of the alleged victims, and copies of the Defendant’s prior Michigan judgments; and 3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the felony convictions. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case concerns the trial court’s enforcement of an antenuptial agreement. Appellant and Decedent executed an antenuptial agreement five days prior to marriage. Decedent died two years later. Appellant petitioned the trial court for her elective share, exempt personal property, year’s support, and homestead allowance. Appellees, beneficiaries under Decedent’s will, opposed Appellant’s petition arguing that she waived her spousal rights in the antenuptial agreement. Appellant argued that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable because she did not enter into it with the required knowledge and/or she executed it under duress. In enforcing the antenuptial agreement, the trial court found that both Appellant and Decedent entered into it with the requisite knowledge of the other’s holdings. On review, we conclude that Appellant lacked knowledge of the full nature, extent, and value of Decedent’s holdings prior to executing the antenuptial agreement. Accordingly, we hold that the agreement is unenforceable. The trial court’s order is reversed.