September 6–19, 2025

  • Decedent dies after receiving $231,416.24 in long-term care and support services from TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program.  After Decedent’s death, TennCare files a claim for reimbursement against the Decedent’s estate, seeks to collect against the Decedent’s home.  [Editorial note: If this shocks you, then you missed the reporting last year on this particular nationwide scandal.]  Can TennCare do that, given that the property was in a revocable trust that had a spendthrift provision?  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Yes.
  • In Landlord-Tenant action, the General Sessions Court issues a December 20, 2023 judgment for possession.  The same order says that “Damages [are] reserved for January 30, 2024.”  Pro Se Tenant then files some other stuff in the interim, though the record does not indicate exactly what happened afterward.  On April 19, 2024, Tenant appeals de novo to Circuit Court.  The Circuit Court then dismisses Tenant’s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that because the December 20, 2023 order was final, the Tenant’s appeal was not timely filed within ten days.  Tenant (still pro se) then appeals again.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Though it sure seems like the Circuit Court’s finality ruling was wrong, Tenant does not address the reason his case was dismissed below, which appellants are required to do.  We also can’t tell exactly what happened below and don’t make arguments on litigants’ behalf.  So Tenant’s appeal is dismissed for noncompliance with briefing rules.
  • In non-governmental termination of parental rights case, Father’s rights are terminated after trial.  But Father denied being properly served throughout the proceeding (despite being aware of it) and maintains his improper service defense through appeal.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: And that defense is meritorious.  Unclaimed certified mail sent via the Secretary of State is not valid service.  Thus, judgment could not enter against Father, and the trial court’s ruling is vacated.   [Editorial note: At some point, a Tennessee appellate court will have to address squarely the fact that Rule 4.04(11) states that “[s]ervice by mail is complete upon mailing[,]” even though it is not a basis “for the entry of a judgment by default” under Rule 4.04(10) unless accompanied by proof of refusal.  That approach—which is what the Rules literally say and will cut down on service-evasion shenanigans—also comports with Rule 4.05’s Advisory Commission Comments, which emphasize that: “Courts are virtually unanimous in holding that service of process is not defeated by the defendant’s refusal to accept a certified or registered letter.”]   Separately, Father does not get attorney’s fees; those are only available in custody cases “in which a permanent parenting plan is adopted or where a modification is sought that might change the primary residential parent or parenting time.”
  • Inmate at the Turney Center Industrial Complex is convicted under prison disciplinary rules of introducing drugs into the prison.  He remarkably navigates the administrative appeal process (he loses) and appeals to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  On appeal, he asserts that the prison violated a host of prison policies, so his disciplinary conviction should be overturned.  Tennessee Court of Appeals:  Only Horwitz Law, PLLC wins such cases, which our jurisprudence makes effectively impossible absent extremely narrow legal errors (like this one or this one), and this is not a Horwitz Law, PLLC case.  Most of the policy violations asserted didn’t happen, and even if there were a policy violation here, it didn’t affect the outcome.
  • Through her conservators, Plaintiff asserts breach of contract claims against a Senior Living Facility.  Senior Living Facility prevails on summary judgment, and Plaintiff appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: For extremely fact-specific reasons in this extremely contract-specific case, the Senior Living Facility wins.
  • In Landlord-Tenant case, Tenant seeks to force Landlord to repair an air conditioning unit.  The General Sessions Court grants Tenant $24,793.63 in damages, but after a de novo appeal to Circuit Court and a bench trial there, the Circuit Court dismisses the Tenant’s case for lack of damages.  Tenant appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[Tenant] fails to address the primary deficiency in his case, which is the absence of any proof as to damages.”  Also, Tenant was obligated to provide to the Landlord written notice of the defect before Tenant filed suit, and the Tenant didn’t do that.  So we affirm.  No frivolous appeal fees for Landlord, though.
  • Suki, a Great Pyrenees, protects Defendant’s lambs and chickens.  Suki’s protective instincts ultimately extend to biting Plaintiff, who was at Defendant’s residence to purchase a lamb.  Afterward, Plaintiff sues, but she loses on summary judgment after the trial court rules that she “could not establish the requirement in Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413(c)(1) that [Defendant] knew or had reason to know that Suki had a dangerous propensity to bite.”  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Reversed.  The trial court was correct that we are dealing with a bite on Plaintiff’s own residential property here, so Tennessee’s Dog Bite Statute (which expands liability) does not apply, and the common law rule requires “that a claimant establish that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities.”  But Plaintiff introduced material evidence that “would be sufficient to establish that [Defendant] knew or had reason to know that [Suki] had a propensity to bite.”  So we reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remand.