The Defendant, Kenneth C. Davis, was convicted by a jury of burglary of a building other than a habitation and received a twelve-year sentence. The Defendant died while his motion for new trial was still pending, which prompted the Defendant’s counsel to file a motion to dismiss on the Defendant’s behalf, arguing that the common law doctrine of abatement ab initio should act to abate the Defendant’s entire case from the inception of the prosecution. The trial court denied the motion, relying on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Al Mutory, 581 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2019). The Defendant’s counsel filed an appeal from that decision pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On appeal, the Defendant’s counsel contends that the trial court erred by relying on Al Mutory and declining to apply the doctrine of abatement ab initio under these circumstances. Following supplemental briefing, we conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 3 to review the issue as presented. Further, we decline to extend the extraordinary judicial remedy of a writ of certiorari. The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal involves a long-running custody dispute between unmarried parents. In this latest chapter of the litigation, the father filed a petition to modify, seeking to be named primary residential parent and/or increase his parenting time. The mother filed a counter- petition, seeking only a change in decision-making authority. The trial court denied the father’s petition but did make several changes to the parenting schedule. The trial court also granted the mother’s request to be named sole decision-maker for educational and extracurricular decisions and allowed her to obtain passports for the children. Finally, the trial court ordered the father to pay the mother’s attorney fees. The father appeals. We vacate in part, affirm as modified, and remand for further proceedings.

Husband and Wife divorced. In ruling upon contested matters, the trial court awarded Wife transitional alimony and alimony in futuro as well as attorney’s fees. Husband appealed. He argues the trial court’s award of alimony was error because the court miscalculated his income, because it errantly excluded certain evidence, and because it awarded the wrong type of alimony. He also argues that Wife’s attorney’s fees affidavit was insufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees. We affirm.

This appeal requires us to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supports: (1) at least one statutory ground for termination of Appellant’s parental rights; and (2) that termination is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of a conservatorship proceeding against the petitioner under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-114. The petitioner sought a conservatorship for the respondent—the petitioner’s 84-year-old father—to protect his father and to prevent him from wasting his assets. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was a disabled person in need of a conservatorship and that it was in the respondent’s best interest that the petitioner be appointed his conservator. But the court charged the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner rather than the property of the respondent. The court reasoned, inter alia, that the petitioner benefited from the conservatorship and that the respondent’s need for a conservatorship was “borderline” and “not clear cut. ” The petitioner appeals. Having reviewed the trial court’s discretionary decisions pursuant to the three-part analysis set forth in Lee Medical Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010), we have determined that the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner was based on an erroneous assessment of the relevant facts and a misapplication of the relevant legal principles. Accordingly, we vacate the decision and remand with instructions to assess all the guardian ad litem fees against the property of the respondent, the amount of which has already been approved, and to assess against the property of the respondent the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs the petitioner incurred in the trial court and on appeal, the amount of which is to be determined on remand. The trial court shall also determine the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the attorney ad litem in this appeal and assess those charges against the property of the respondent.

Petitioner seeks accelerated review of the denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge. The trial court deemed the motion repetitive. We agree.

This appeal concerns a local board of education’s decision to dismiss a tenured teacher. The teacher sought judicial review of his dismissal in the trial court. The trial court found no grounds for dismissal and reversed the board’s decision. The board appeals. We conclude that the teacher was insubordinate in showing his class a video containing profanity without parental consent. However, this lone act of insubordination did not warrant the drastic step of dismissal given the teacher’s long record of good service. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

An inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction petitioned for a writ of mandamus. On its own motion, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.

This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Appellant preserved his evidentiary issues concerning the trial court’s admission of video evidence in a jury trial, and (2) whether, following a bench trial, the trial court made sufficient findings under Rule 52.01 when rejecting Appellant’s COBRA claim. Because Appellant failed to include the evidentiary issues in a motion for new trial as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), and because Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 13(b) and 36(b) are not applicable, we conclude that Appellant waived the evidentiary issues. Further, because the trial court’s order does not make sufficient findings, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the COBRA issue, and we remand for compliance with Rule 52.01.

The trial court determined Defendants/Appellants were liable for damages arising from negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. We reverse.