This appeal arises from Mother’s petition to modify the parties’ parenting plan and request that Father be held in contempt for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order generally finding that the parties simply had two different parenting styles and denying Mother’s request to modify the parenting plan. The trial court also found that the contempt matter had been addressed, but the trial court’s order lacked any findings of fact or conclusions of law concerning the alleged contempt. After review, we reverse the trial court’s determination that Mother had not proven a material change in circumstances to permit modification of the parenting plan. To that end, the matter is remanded for the trial court to conduct an analysis of whether a change in the parties’ parenting plan is in the children’s best interest pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a). Further, we vacate the trial court’s order as it relates to the civil contempt action against Father. That matter is remanded as well for additional findings and conclusions related to Father’s civil contempt.

In this complex suit over a breach of a contract to sell real estate, the trial court dismissed one of the plaintiffs in an order certified as final under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02, but it reinstated that plaintiff two years later. The court awarded the plaintiff-buyers specific performance, one of the limited available remedies under the contract. However, because the seller had meanwhile taken actions that may have made this relief impossible, the trial court also noted it would consider civil contempt in the event the seller would not perform, and would award approximately $12.2 million in damages, which was the measure of harm for the dismissed plaintiff party. The seller appeals. We conclude that the trial court erred in reinstating the party and that the proper method to challenge an improvidently granted 54.02 final judgment is appeal or an appropriate post-judgment motion. We also conclude that, although the party was erroneously reinstated, the seller is not entitled to a new trial on the issue of liability. Additionally, the trial court did not err in its determination that the seller committed the first material breach and did not err in awarding specific performance. This court cannot review a future and speculative contempt judgment, and we vacate the portion of the judgment delineating any future contempt award. We remand for consideration of whether the buyer is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal under the contract.

This is an appeal from an order reforming a deed to correct the legal description of the property. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the final judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

The present case is Husband’s second appeal in relation to the parties’ divorce. In the first appeal, this court modified the trial court’s valuation of the marital residence but otherwise affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Husband, subsequently, sought additional modifications of the judgment in relation to the marital residence, which the trial court denied. Husband appeals. We affirm.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently reinstated six lawyers who had been suspended for failing to pay the state professional privilege tax. They include two lawyers suspended in 2025, one suspended in 2020, one suspended in 2019, one suspended in 2018 and one suspended in 2010. View these lists and all administrative suspensions dating back to 2005 on the TBA website.

January 26, 2026 - January 30, 2026.

Shelby County Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr. pleaded guilty to five federal charges of tax evasion today. His trial was set to start in March. As part of the deal, Ford will resign his position on the commission and will never again run for elected office. Ford was charged last year with seven federal bribery and tax evasion charges related to an alleged scheme during which he awarded grant money to local nonprofits, which then, in turn, made purchases from his personal computer business. According to the Daily Memphian, Ford faces up to five years in prison on each charge. Sentencing will take place on June 12.

A federal judge will allow a group of taxpayers to intervene in a lawsuit from a Christian nonprofit seeking to open a religious charter school in Knox County. U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley Jr. last week granted a motion allowing a group of citizens to oppose the lawsuit from Wilberforce Academy, Knox News reports. The judge said the group’s motion is timely and of legal interest because the members oppose using tax dollars to support religion. Wilberforce is suing the board to obtain approval for a faith-based school in Cedar Bluff. The board argues that it cannot authorize a religious charter without a state waiver. It will meet Thursday to discuss a resolution asking the Tennessee Commissioner of Education to grant such a waiver.

Gov. Bill Lee will deliver his final State of the State address this evening before the Tennessee General Assembly beginning at 6 p.m. CST. According to a news release issued today, Lee will focus on education freedom, the work of the Memphis Safe Task Force, rural health, economic development and Tennessee’s Nuclear Fund. The address will be streamed live on the governor's official Facebook account and YouTube channel. Watch a preview on the governor's Facebook account.

The Human Artistry Campaign has announced the launch of its “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” campaign, backed by nearly 800 American creators, including actors, authors and musicians. Many Nashville artists have signed on in support, The Tennessean reports. The campaign calls for authorization and licensing agreements so artists can be compensated if their work is used to train artificial intelligence (AI) models. As generative AI evolves and competition grows, technology companies are accused of using copyrighted content to power AI models and boost profits. Without proper licensing, copying creative works is illegal and can financially harm artists, the group says. Last month, the Copyright Alliance reported more than 70 copyright infringement lawsuits by copyright owners against AI companies.