But a party is entitled to only the fees spent defending (or pursuing) that particular claim. See Furnco, LLC v. Laneventure, Inc., No. 07-2333, 2010 WL 11598119, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2010); Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015). And, crucially, a prevailing party "has the burden to make out a prima facie case for [its] request for reasonable attorney's fees."

Finally, some of our courts have observed that "[a]n award of appellate attorney fees in Tennessee is within the court's sound discretion," Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, No. W2012-00509-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 614708, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2013), but have then gone on to award attorney's fees on appeal solely on the basis of the parties' MDA fee provisions without further discussion, id. at *10 (affirming trial court's award of fees and finding that Wife was entitled to recover reasonable appellate attorney's fees "[b]ased upon the plain language of the MDA" (citing Archer, 907 S.W.2d at 419 ) (emphasis supplied)). See also Hanna v. Hanna, No. W2014-02051-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 1951932, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015) (stating its discretion then awarding fees on appeal based on the parties' MDA requiring that the "court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the party seeking to enforce [the MDA]") (alterations in original); Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015) (affirming the trial court's award of fees pursuant to the parties' MDA, stating its discretion and determining that wife was entitled to attorney's fees on appeal pursuant to the parties' MDA); Dodd v. Dodd, No. M2011-02147-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3193339, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2012) (holding that Mother was entitled to recover her trial court attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' MDA, but using its discretion and concluding that Mother was justified in recovering attorney's fees) (emphasis supplied).We now take this opportunity to clarify the appropriate analysis for appellate courts to utilize in determining whether to award appellate attorney's fees.

"Situations which may constitute such ‘extraordinary circumstances’ include the death of the trial judge or evidence of bias." Williams v. Williams , No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 12, 2015) (citing Artrip , 688 S.W.2d at 453 ). Rather than approving Husband's statement of the evidence, the trial court prepared its own statement of the evidence, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(e), on August 13, 2018.

We will not rule on an issue when that issue is moot. An issue becomes moot when it "no longer serves as a means to provide some sort of relief." Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015). CONCLUSION

" "Situations which may constitute such 'extraordinary circumstances' include the death of the trial judge or evidence of bias." Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 12, 2015) (citing Atrip, 688 S.W.2d at 453).

Tenn. R. App. P. 24(e). Situations that constitute "extraordinary circumstances" include the death of a judge or evidence of bias. Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015) (citing Artrip v. Crilley, 688 S.W.2d 451, 453 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)), perm. app. denied (June 12, 2015). Neither of these circumstances is at issue here, and Father does not make any argument to the contrary.

Accordingly, Father waived any objection he may have on that ground. Williams v. Williams, No. M2013-01910-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 412985, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2015) (failure to object to contents of a statement of the evidence in the trial court results in waiver of objection on appeal) (citing see Barnhill v. Barnhill, 826 S.W.2d 443, 458 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (in which the court concluded the appellant was attempting to raise an issue for the first time on appeal because he had failed to make a motion or objection at the trial court level): see also Lawrence v. Stanford, 655 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tenn. 1983) (stating it has long been the general rule that questions not raised in the trial court will not be entertained for the first time on appeal)).