The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his five minor children after finding clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, abandoned the children by wanton disregard; the children were victims of severe abuse; the father was confined under a criminal sentence of six years; and termination of the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The father appeals. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter arises from two failed real estate transactions. A buyer contracted to purchase two townhomes from a real estate developer. However, after the sales failed to close, the developer purported to cancel the transactions. The buyer then sued the developer, seeking decrees for specific performance and damages for breach of contract. The buyer also asserted a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After a bench trial, the trial court entered an order awarding the buyer specific performance but denying his claim for damages. The trial court also found a TCPA violation and awarded the buyer his attorney’s fees and costs. On the breach of contract claim, we have determined that the developer breached the contracts and that the buyer failed to sufficiently prove his damages, and we affirm the trial court’s decision. We also conclude that the trial court erred in finding a TCPA violation and reverse this finding, as well as the award of fees and costs pursuant to the TCPA. Finally, we have determined that the developer was not the prevailing party in the trial court or on appeal and deny its request for an award of attorney’s fees.

This breach of contract case involves a partnership dispute where one partner who undertook the winding down of the long-term partnership sought (1) reimbursement of loans and advances made to cover partnership expenses together with interest thereon; (2) compensation for services rendered on behalf of the partnership and attorney fees; and (3) taking into account the foregoing, disbursement of partnership funds to the partners. The other two partners disputed the claims and made counterclaims. Because we cannot ascertain whether the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law support the judgment, we vacate the judgment and remand it for the entry of a more detailed order that reflects that it is the product of the trial court’s individualized decision-making and independent judgment.

This appeal arises from an action for breach of a contract wherein the defendants had agreed to assist the plaintiff in purchasing improved real property. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff had committed the first material breach of the parties’ contract, had acted in bad faith, and had misrepresented information to the defendants regarding her performance of the contract. However, the court determined that the defendants had continued to accept payment on the contract after the plaintiff’s breach. The trial court awarded to the plaintiff a judgment in the amount of $170,470.04, representing reimbursement of all payments she had made to the defendants, plus interest, but minus expenses incurred by the defendants over the course of the agreement. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s request for specific performance. The plaintiff has appealed. Due to significant deficiencies in the plaintiff’s appellate briefs, we conclude that she has waived consideration of all issues on appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We deny the defendants’ request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint after finding that the plaintiffs failed to timely close on their transactions with the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. Following thorough review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

The Tennessee Supreme Court censured Dyer County attorney Matthew Wayne Willis on March 30. While representing a client before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the court says Willis used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to aid him in preparation of a reply brief. The court found that more than 70% of the citations were fictitious, and Willis took no action to check the accuracy of the citations. Willis stated that he believed a paralegal in his office performed a full citation check including verifying references to the technical record, transcript and legal authorities. But the court found that he failed to verify his paralegal checked the citations before filing the brief. His actions were found to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 5.3 and 8.4.

In this matter involving the sale of a parcel of improved real property, the buyer claimed that the sellers should be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the condition of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sellers, determining that the presence of an “as-is” clause in the parties’ sales contract precluded the buyer’s recovery. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the buyer’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment as well as her claim based on the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures Act. We remand these issues to the trial court for further consideration. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment concerning the buyer’s remaining claims and deny the buyer’s request for reassignment to a different trial court judge upon remand. We also deny the sellers’ request for an award of attorney’s fees.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review under Tennessee Code Annotated § 4- 5-322 of a decision of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration Review Commission (the “Review Commission”). Asserting that the petition was untimely because it had been filed more than 60 days after entry of the agency’s final order, the Review Commission filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(1). The petitioner opposed the motion by asking for an enlargement of time pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. The trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time and granted the Review Commission’s motion to dismiss. The petitioner appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on March 31 censured Green County lawyer Catherine Elizabeth Fezell. On May 14, 2024, Fezell was scheduled to appear for a court docket to represent clients in multiple matters. When she failed to appear, she was contacted by court personnel inquiring about her whereabouts. Upon arrival at court, Fezell was observed by multiple witnesses, including court staff and colleagues, to appear to be under the influence. Due to her apparent condition, she could not appear before the court, and the scheduled hearings had to be reset. The Board of Professional Responsibility found that Fezell violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3 and 8.4(d).

In the second interlocutory appeal in this case, the employee questions the trial court’s order denying his request that a nurse case manager be assigned to his case and that he be awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and penalties for the employer’s delay in scheduling medical treatment recommended by the authorized physician. The medical treatment in question had been completed approximately two months prior to the trial court’s order and approximately a year after being recommended. The trial court, apparently unaware that the treatment in question had been provided, determined in a decision on the record that the employee will likely prevail at trial in proving his entitlement to the medical treatment but would not likely prevail in establishing his entitlement to the remaining relief he sought. As a result, the court ordered the employer to provide treatment that had already been provided, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.