The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition was then circulated to the full court. No judge requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Therefore, the petition is denied.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Sept. 16, 2025, issued an order soliciting comments from the legal community and the public on seven questions related to regulation of the legal profession. The deadline for comments is March 16. The Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) has filed a request for an extension of that deadline until June 1 to allow as many members as possible to provide feedback and for its governing bodies to have time to review that feedback. The TBA has formed the Legal Access and Regulatory Reform Task Force to gather and review feedback from members. Those with comments may send their thoughts via email to townhall@tnbar.org. For more information about the court's order access TBA's resource page and watch for more information coming soon about other ways to engage with the task force.

The TBA Pro Bono Portal provides a centralized source for lawyers and law students to find pro bono opportunities across Tennessee, like the following case through West Tennessee Legal Services (WTLS). WTLS is hosting a virtual estate clinic Jan. 20-23. Many law students will be calling clients to complete simple wills, powers of attorney and advance directives. There is a need for attorneys who are available to review these documents after the clinic. Participants will receive pro bono/CLE credit. Get more information about the requirements associated with this opportunity and browse other pro bono needs.

In this action involving construction of a last will and testament, the trial court granted a beneficiary’s motion to compel distribution of two parcels of real property upon finding that the decedent had devised the parcels to the movant in his will. The trial court entered an agreed order staying execution of the judgment pending appeal. The executor of the decedent’s estate has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. However, we modify the judgment to (1) stay transfer of title to the subject real properties until pending motions and the issue of the estate’s solvency have been resolved and (2) extend the conditions provided in the agreed order staying execution until such resolution has been accomplished. We deny the executor’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal.

This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by the plaintiff, Mawule Tepe (“Plaintiff”), seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. After diligent review of the materials submitted on appeal, we vacate an order and a pre-filing injunction entered by the trial court while the recusal motion was pending. The trial court’s denial of the recusal motions is affirmed in all other respects.

The defendant appeals from an order granting the plaintiff possession of real property. Because the order appealed does not dispose of the plaintiff’s claim for damages, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

A tenant appeals an order granting a landlord possession of real property. Because the order does not dispose of the landlord’s claim for damages or the tenant’s counterclaim, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her two children. The juvenile court found that four grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm in part and vacate in part. We remand for entry of an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the children and the factors concerning the best interests of the children.

This is the third recusal appeal filed by the pro se petitioner relative to the underlying consolidated cases. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated a basis for recusal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in denying the motion to recuse.

This is an action to recover damages for purported breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied duty of indemnity, and fraud in construction of a home. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.