Steven J. Stafford

This case concerned whether a non-attorney member of an LLC could file a notice of appeal from a general sessions court judgment on the company's behalf after losing a breach-of-contract and related claims case. The Court of Appeals held that the filing was invalid, reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the appeal, and remanded for dismissal of the appeal. The court reasoned that Tennessee law treats LLCs as separate legal entities that may appear in court proceedings only through licensed attorneys, so a non-attorney member's filing constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and fails to confer jurisdiction, even in general sessions appeals where Rule 11 does not apply and statutes bar dismissal for mere informalities.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from Daniel Burstiner’s pro se legal malpractice suit against attorneys Brian Boyd and Bennett Wills, alleging deficient representation in an underlying construction contract arbitration that resulted in an award against him. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding the claim accrued upon entry of the arbitration award in February 2023 and that the allegations failed to state a viable malpractice claim. Burstiner then sought relief from the dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, asserting lack of notice of the dismissal hearing, which the trial court denied after crediting opposing declarations on service; his subsequent Rule 59.04 motion to reconsider that denial was also denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-judgment motions because Burstiner failed to demonstrate a meritorious claim overcoming the timeliness bar or other grounds for extraordinary relief, and any procedural irregularities in the Rule 60 hearing did not constitute reversible error.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a post-judgment dispute in a child custody proceeding between Kevin Matthew Woodruff and Jessica Ann Woodruff in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. After the trial court entered a final order on January 22, 2026, and while a separate Rule 3 appeal was pending, Appellant Jessica Woodruff filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, alleging an appearance of bias based on the judge’s cumulative rulings, handling of the record, and post-judgment decisions; the trial court denied the motion on May 4, 2026. Appellant then pursued an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the petition did not include a copy of the motion to recuse filed in the trial court, as strictly required by Rule 10B § 2.03, leaving the court unable to evaluate the specific allegations or confirm compliance with other mandatory elements such as a supporting affidavit or declaration. The court noted that a pro se litigant’s status does not excuse failure to meet these procedural requirements.

family lawprocedure

In the case of In re Heavenlee J., the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of father Timothy J. to his daughter, who was removed from the parents’ care shortly after birth in February 2023 due to nutritional neglect and failure to thrive and who has severe ongoing medical conditions requiring specialized care. The juvenile court terminated the father’s rights on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, after he failed to appear at the final hearing despite notice and appointment of counsel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the termination, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that clear and convincing evidence supported each ground as well as the finding that termination served the child’s best interest, based on the father’s minimal visitation, lack of support or engagement with the child’s needs, criminal history affecting his availability, and inability to provide appropriate care given the child’s medical fragility and his own circumstances.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Jo Kelly Stephenson's appeal from the Davidson County Chancery Court's denial of her motion to recuse Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal in an underlying civil dispute against 2300 & 2306 SSR Property Trust and other defendants. Stephenson, who had been represented by counsel, sought recusal on grounds including alleged bias from her lack of personal notice of filings, the court's handling of her ex parte email about terminating her attorney, failure to address claimed attorney misconduct, procedural irregularities with the e-filing system, and perceived disparate treatment of her pro se status. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the motion failed to show any extrajudicial source of bias or pervasive impartiality that would require disqualification under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The court reasoned that the judge had no personal connection to the parties or facts, that complaints largely concerned the plaintiff's former counsel, the clerk's office, or routine procedural matters rather than the judge's conduct, and that adverse rulings or disagreements with court processes alone do not establish grounds for recusal.

procedureproperty

In this case, employee Valesia Kennard was injured in a workplace assault by a former coworker and filed both a workers’ compensation claim and a subsequent tort lawsuit against her employer, Mid-South Transportation Management. After the employer denied liability on the grounds that the assault stemmed from a personal dispute, the parties reached a “doubtful and disputed” settlement of the workers’ compensation claim for $11,250, which a workers’ compensation judge approved under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-240(e). Kennard then moved for partial summary judgment in her tort action, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law did not bar her suit because the settlement left the issue of compensability unresolved and her injuries were not compensable. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory settlement constituted a workers’ compensation remedy that triggered the exclusive remedy bar. The court reasoned that the statute expressly permits such settlements without requiring resolution of compensability, the agreement settled “all issues” and waived the right to a compensation hearing, and Kennard had therefore received a remedy under the law.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In this conservatorship dispute, Alison Winston appealed a probate court order that disallowed various expenses from her accountings as conservator for her mother, required her to reimburse the estate more than $30,000 for payments made without prior approval or not shown to benefit the ward, removed her as conservator, and entered judgment against her on the $25,000 surety bond. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings in full. Under Tennessee statutes, compensation to a fiduciary requires prior court approval while other expenses may be approved after the fact only if incurred in good faith for the ward’s benefit; the appellate court held that the trial court properly applied these rules to the disputed Zelle transfers and third-party payments, and that the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence required it to presume the trial court’s factual findings were correct. Prior approvals by earlier judges did not bind the successor judge or excuse compliance with the statutory requirements.

family lawpropertyprocedure

Keith King, an employee of temporary staffing agency Pro-Man, was assigned to work at Dayco Incorporated under a 2017 staffing agreement that stated assigned workers would not be considered Dayco employees and that Pro-Man would handle payroll, benefits, taxes, and workers’ compensation insurance. King was injured on Dayco’s premises in June 2023 while operating a forklift and sued Dayco for negligence in Shelby County Circuit Court. The trial court granted summary judgment to Dayco, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that King’s failure to properly dispute Dayco’s statement of material facts under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03 caused those facts to be deemed admitted, establishing that he was a borrowed co-employee of Dayco under the multi-factor test in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(10). As a result, his negligence claim was barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Robert-Henry Butts IV’s pro se claims against defendant Jacob Berti, a police officer, for false imprisonment (along with assault, battery, and due-process violations) arising from an arrest, detention, and jailing on November 1, 2022. The trial court dismissed the complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding it was filed more than one year after the arrest. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the false-imprisonment claim, holding that such a claim does not accrue until the imprisonment ends; because Butts filed suit on November 12, 2024, while still incarcerated and before his December 3, 2024 guilty plea and release, the one-year limitations period had not expired. The court noted that the ultimate lawfulness of the detention (given the later guilty plea) goes to the merits, not to when the limitations period begins to run.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, in which pro se appellant Dr. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to recuse Senior Judge W. Mark Ward from ongoing proceedings in Shelby County Circuit Court. Dr. Raghavan had moved for recusal after filing a federal civil rights lawsuit naming the judge as a defendant, but the trial court denied the motion, finding that a party cannot manufacture disqualification grounds through such unilateral actions and that no objective basis existed to question the judge’s impartiality. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, citing multiple procedural deficiencies in the petition, including the absence of required file-stamped copies of the recusal motion and supporting documents, an inadequate record, and failure to fully comply with Rule 10B’s mandates for content and affidavits. The court emphasized that these mandatory requirements apply equally to pro se litigants and that the incomplete record prevented expedited review. The matter was remanded to the trial court.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a breach of lease lawsuit filed by Stanley H. Trezevant and American Sign Company, LLC, against Collierville Auto Center, Inc., seeking unpaid rent on commercial property in Collierville, Tennessee, under a 2015 lease agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed both plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Trezevant’s claim, finding it moot because a divorce decree had awarded the property and related rights to his former wife, making her the real party in interest. However, the court vacated the dismissal of American Sign Company’s claim, holding that the trial court provided insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain why that plaintiff lacked standing, and remanded for further consideration consistent with procedural requirements.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Monica D. Sorensen sought a divorce from Jayson R. Sorensen on grounds including irreconcilable differences, requesting primary custody of their two children, child support, and division of assets including military retirement benefits; the husband counterclaimed and raised issues over parenting time and other terms. The trial court denied the husband’s motion to alter or amend its final divorce decree addressing custody, support, and benefits, then later entered a separate Military Retired Pay Division Order implementing the retirement division. The husband filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after the denial of his motion but within thirty days of the retirement order. The Court of Appeals held that the appeal was untimely because entry of the Military Retired Pay Division Order did not extend or restart the thirty-day appeal period from the earlier denial order. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a petition by a child's mother and stepfather to terminate the biological father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support. The trial court found neither ground proven but concluded that termination would be in the child's best interest if grounds existed. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed that the father's failure to visit was not willful, reversed the trial court's ruling on the support ground (finding it established), and affirmed that termination served the child's best interest based on factors including the father's lack of consistent involvement, his criminal history resulting in long-term absence, the child's stable home with petitioners, and the father's minimal past support. The court therefore affirmed the judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.

family law

This case concerns the termination of Vatisha Evans-Barken, a Madison County Sheriff’s Department sergeant, after a psychological evaluation by Dr. Emily Davis determined she was unqualified for a POST-certified police position due to concerns including possible PTSD, following her prior medical leave and reinstatement by the local civil service board. The board initially upheld the termination but, on remand from the trial court, disapproved it and ordered reinstatement based on testimony from another psychologist, Dr. Avery, finding her fit for duty. The trial court then reversed the board again, ruling its decision relied on improper procedure, lacked substantial evidence, and was arbitrary. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the board’s reinstatement decision was supported by substantial and material evidence from Dr. Avery’s testimony, complied with required procedures, and was neither arbitrary nor capricious, while noting the employee’s current POST certification with another department.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case arose after Jontae Fischiettie sued Econo Auto Painting and its owner for painting his car silver instead of the agreed dark green and botching a second attempt, asserting claims including breach of contract, negligence, and emotional distress while seeking millions in compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court ordered mediation, denied Fischiettie’s recusal motion, granted partial summary judgment eliminating punitive damages, and granted the defendants’ motion to confess judgment on the contract and negligence claims, effectively resolving those counts. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the confession-of-judgment ruling, allowing those claims to proceed, but affirmed the mediation order, denial of recusal, and elimination of punitive damages. The court concluded that the trial court lacked authority to enter judgment on the defendants’ confession over the plaintiff’s objection without further proceedings, while the remaining rulings were consistent with applicable procedural and substantive standards.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case arose from consolidated civil actions in which Rimon Abdou asserted assault, battery, and related claims against his ex-wife and others stemming from post-divorce disputes, along with a separate action seeking to enjoin access to his medical records. After an agreed partial dismissal with prejudice, voluntary dismissals without prejudice, and awards of discretionary costs to the defendants, Abdou filed a Rule 60 motion seeking relief from those orders, along with motions to disqualify opposing counsel and to compel subpoenas against his former attorneys; the parties also filed cross-motions for sanctions. The trial court denied Abdou’s Rule 60 motion and related requests, denied sanctions on both sides (while awarding Abdou limited fees for opposing one sanctions motion), and the Court of Appeals affirmed in full. The appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court’s discretionary rulings and concluded that Abdou’s appeal was frivolous, warranting an award of attorney’s fees to the appellees for defending it.

family lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from CFO Stephen Johnson’s lawsuit against David LeFeve and his two companies, alleging that LeFeve orally promised Johnson ten percent of the profits from both companies—including profits from the sale of real property owned by one company—in exchange for Johnson’s work. Johnson asserted claims for breach of oral contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and unjust enrichment; the defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of a written contract and the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act, then later sought summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims and on their broker-act defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on the fraud and unjust enrichment claims but reversed on the breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained; it also reversed the broker-act ruling, finding the defendants had not shown that Johnson’s alleged intra-office activities necessarily violated the statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentpropertyprocedure

In the case In Re Estate of Carla Novak, appellant David Novak sought the recusal of Chancellor Benjamin K. Dean in the Robertson County Chancery Court, alleging an appearance of bias from the judge’s handling of proceedings, ex parte matters, and contempt charges in the underlying estate dispute; he further claimed that the trial court’s failure to promptly rule on his October 2025 recusal motion provided an independent ground for disqualification. The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The court reasoned that the record contained no trial court order or opinion ruling on the recusal motion, which is required for review, and that Novak had not set the motion for a hearing as required by local rules, leaving nothing for appellate consideration. The dismissal was without prejudice to the pending motion in the trial court.

procedureproperty

This case involves a petition by Mother and Stepfather to terminate Father’s parental rights to their child, Bentley E., born in 2019, on grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support, with the additional claim that termination served the child’s best interest. After the trial court initially found grounds and best interest, the Court of Appeals reversed the grounds, but the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld abandonment by failure to support and remanded for further best-interest findings; on remand the trial court again concluded termination was in the child’s best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported that conclusion. The court reasoned that Father’s ongoing drug use, failure to provide meaningful financial support, history of threats and violence, and lack of adjustment in prioritizing the child outweighed any limitations Mother placed on visitation, focusing the analysis on the child’s current and future welfare in a stable environment with Stepfather.

family law

Rodger Broadway, an inmate at Turney Center Industrial Complex, was found guilty of a Class A disciplinary infraction for possessing an illegal drug and exhausted his administrative appeals when the TDOC Commissioner upheld the conviction on November 5, 2024. He then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Hickman County Chancery Court to challenge the decision, but the verified petition was not filed until January 24, 2025—after the statutory 60-day deadline of January 6, 2025—although an unverified copy was reportedly delivered earlier and prison staff had delayed notarization. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-102 requires timely filing of a verified petition and that Broadway had not obtained a pre-deadline extension or established grounds for an exception based on alleged obstruction by prison staff.

criminal lawprocedure