July 12–July 18, 2025

  • After Challengers’ will contest succeeds, Litigant files malpractice claim against the law firm that prepared her fiancé’s will.  During the preceding will contest litigation, Challengers moved to set aside the will on March 15, 2021; the trial court ruled in favor of Challengers on November 18, 2021; and Litigant filed her malpractice suit on September 14, 2023 (after an appeal was unsuccessful).  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Based on a relatively recent Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that is designed to make it functionally impossible to sue Tennessee lawyers that requires plaintiffs to sue lawyers within one year of some “inconvenience” triggered by the alleged legal malpractice (even if no court has yet agreed any error occurred), Litigant’s claim is time-barred, because “[b]eing forced to defend the will in response to the [Challengers’] allegations” qualified as an injury that triggered the statute of limitations.  And fraudulent concealment does not apply to toll the limitations period here.
  • Landlord sues Tenant, obtains default judgment for possession of Landlord’s property.  Tenant appeals without posting one year’s rent as a bond for possession pending appeal, which Tennessee law requires.  [Editorial note: Your summarist is reliably informed that Tennessee’s one-year-rent tenant bond appeal requirement is the highest in the United States.]  Landlord then asserts that Tenant must either post the bond or vacate the premises pending appeal, and the trial court agrees.  Afterward, when Tenant does neither, trial court grants Landlord a writ of possession.  Upon regaining possession of the property, Landlord immediately nonsuits its lawsuit, and Tenant appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-18-130(b)(2)(A) ‘requires the tenant—regardless of indigent status—to post a bond for possession if the tenant wishes to retain possession of the subject property pending appeal.’”  Because that didn’t happen here, the trial court “properly issued and executed” a writ of possession.  “We further conclude that the trial court properly dismissed Ridgeview’s detainer action with prejudice, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01[.]”  So the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.  [Second editorial note: This decision is wrong due to the unusual procedural chronology involved.  Under Tennessee law, Landlord’s nonsuit “render[ed] the proceeding a nullity” and functioned “to annul orders, rulings, or judgments previously made in the case.”  See Lott v. Mallett, No. W2020-01233-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 894755, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2022).  As a result, the Tennessee Court of Appeals should not have affirmed anything; instead, the proceeding should have been dismissed as moot.]
  • Buyers look to purchase home from Sellers.  While visiting the property as prospective purchasers, Buyers notice a huge number of defects.  Buyers end up purchasing the home anyway (subject to inspection).  Buyers then conduct an inspection (which turns up a huge number of defects), and as part of the resulting purchase, Sellers execute a Disclosure Statement identifying various defects (though apparently fewer than all of them).  After purchase, Buyers sue Sellers based on defects that were not disclosed in the Disclosure Statement, and trial court grants summary judgment to Sellers.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[S]ummary judgment was appropriate because Plaintiffs’ evidence established that they did not actually rely on the Disclosure Statement.  To the contrary, the evidence established that Plaintiffs relied on their own independent investigation.”
  • TSU Professor sues State of Tennessee, asserting claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract on the grounds that (basically) he was overworked and should have received “overload” payments.  The Claims Commission grants the State’s motion for a directed verdict, and TSU Professor appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Proof that the State breached a “written” contract is necessary to recover against the State.  Here, TSU Professor didn’t prove that there was any written contract on the issue in question, and even assuming that the offered policy guidelines qualified, TSU Professor failed to show “any specific page, paragraph, or line that was breached.”  So the Claims Commission’s order dismissing TSU Professor’s claims under Rule 41.02(2) is affirmed.
  • Pro se litigant seeks to appeal as of right a non-final interlocutory order in parental termination case.  Tennessee Court of Appeals (Memorandum Opinion): Can’t do that, so the appeal is dismissed.
  • Pro Se Plaintiff sues Defendant for malicious prosecution and some other stuff.  After trial court dismisses Pro Se Plaintiff’s claims, he appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Pro Se Plaintiff’s brief “fails to include: (1) a table of contents; (2) a table of authorities; (3) a statement of the case; (4) a statement of facts; (5) the applicable standard of review; and (6) citations to the record,” among other deficiencies.  So we dismiss his appeal for noncompliance with briefing rules.
  • Bonus content: Criminal defendants can appeal probation revocation orders even after they have fully served their sentence, says the Tennessee Supreme Court, given that collateral consequences persist and keep the controversy live.  And don’t call that an “exception” to mootness.

Firm Updates

Congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC clients Rachel Welty and State Rep. Aftyn Behn!  Courtesy of the district court’s summary judgment order on Friday, their constitutional challenge to the “recruit[ing]” provision of Tennessee’s so-called “abortion trafficking” statute is now permanently enjoined as a viewpoint-discriminatory and overbroad speech restriction.  Read all about it: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2025/07/20/federal-judge-permanently-blocks-part-of-tennessee-abortion-travel-ban/85283565007/

And congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Chaundra Gilkey!  After Ms. Gilkey’s son was fatally stabbed in a Tennessee prison a few years ago, Ms. Gilkey sued the State of Tennessee for negligence.  Despite the State having failed to conduct mandatory searches for contraband weapons thirteen straight days and twenty-six straight shifts and failed to comply with other policies designed to promote inmate safety beyond that, the State refused to pay.  Following trial in April, the Claims Commission has now issued a rare verdict against the State finding it negligent and awarding Ms. Gilkey damages for her son’s wrongful death.