APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant, Joseph Vermeal, was convicted by a jury in the Warren County Circuit Court of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and he contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit his expert witness to testify. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The majority’s analysis of the Consumer Protection Act is just excellent, however, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion that All American did not violate the Act in its representations made to this plaintiff. I agree with the majority’s detailed history of the TCPA and that it is much broader in scope than common-law fraud, that it must be construed liberally to protect consumers, and that the plaintiff must prove an “unfair” or “deceptive” act by the defendant. I also agree that “the essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant’s statements, silence, or actions.” I disagree with the majority’s conclusion, however, that All American did not act deceptively in its dealings with Ms. Tucker, and I believe that the majority opinion overlooks certain key facts in this regard. The majority neither accords the Trial Court the presumption of correctness in its fact finding as required by Rule 13(d), nor does it defer to the Trial Court on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses.¹

I agree with the result reached by the majority. With respect to the motion to amend, I believe the trial court should have entered an order allowing the amendment; after which it could have entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim. I believe this is the better practice under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15. However, since the trial court addressed the merits of the complaint, as if it had been amended, any error in refusing to formally allow the amendment is harmless in nature. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36 (b).

During surgery to repair a bilateral hernia, Yung Gil Lee, M.D. ("Defendant") also performed an orchiectomy and removed Darrell Massingale's ("Plaintiff") left testicle. Plaintiff sued Defendant claiming, in part, that Defendant had committed both medical malpractice and medical battery. The Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the claim of medical battery. The claim of medical malpractice went to the jury and resulted in a mistrial. The Trial Court then reconsidered Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the claim of medical malpractice and entered an order granting a directed verdict on that claim as well and dismissing the case. Plaintiff appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in directing a verdict as to both the medical battery claim and the medical malpractice claim. We affirm the directed verdict on the medical malpractice claim, reverse the directed verdict on the medical battery claim, and remand for a new trial on Plaintiff's medical battery claim.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 50- 6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the Second Injury Fund insists that the trial court improperly allocated 90% of the disability award to the Fund and further that the trial court erred in finding the employee permanently and totally disabled. For the reasons set out below, the panel has concluded that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs assessed against the Second Injury Fund.

The Appellant, Kendrick Lamont Brooks, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Madison County Circuit Court. On appeal, Brooks argues that the trial court was without authority to revoke his probation because the violation warrant was issued after his sentence had expired. Finding this argument without merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

J. Stephen Amison and wife, Pamela G. Amison ("the plaintiffs"), purchased a house from Jack D. McCarty and wife, Bertha B. McCarty ("the defendants"). Thereafter, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages and, in the alternative, for rescission of the contract of purchase. The plaintiffs alleged that, unbeknownst to them when the contract was signed and when the sale subsequently was closed, the house was infested with termites; that the defendants had prior knowledge of the termite infestation; and that the defendants intentionally or negligently misrepresented the true condition of the house. Following a bench trial, the court decreed rescission, awarded the plaintiffs discretionary costs, and denied the plaintiffs' request for their attorney's fees. Both sides raise issue on appeal. We affirm.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court determined that the employee was entitled to retain temporary total disability benefits paid by the employer, but was not entitled to any additional benefits. On appeal, the employee submits that the trial court erred in (1) holding that her injury did not entitle her to further benefits or reimbursement of past medical expenses, (2) adopting inappropriate contingent findings of fact, and (3) making a factual finding that she resigned from her employment. The employer raises the additional argument that the trial court erred by denying its motion for reimbursement of temporary total disability benefits. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute between two brothers over the use of a roadway that lies on their adjacent tracts of property. The issue presented is whether Walker Gray Haun has an easement across the property of his brother, Louis Eugene Haun, Jr. The trial court granted Walker Gray Haun an easement either by prescription or by implication which allowed him to use the roadway that had existed for at least fifty years and provided the only vehicular access to a rental house on his property. We hold that Walker Gray Haun did not establish a prescriptive easement, but that his proof satisfied the elements of an easement by implication, and therefore we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The issues presented in this divorce case are whether the trial court erred in calculating Mr. Troglen's child support obligation; and whether the trial court erred in awarding Ms. Troglen transitional alimony. The trial court established Mr. Troglen's monthly child support obligation at $755. Additionally, the trial court ordered Mr. Troglen to pay to Ms. Troglen transitional alimony in the amount of $400 per month for a period of five years. We hold that the child support was properly calculated at $755 per month and that the trial court properly awarded Ms. Troglen alimony. However, we modify the alimony award from $400 per month transitional alimony for five years to $400 per month rehabilitative alimony for five years.

Lee Ketchersid, a tenured teacher in the Rhea County School System, appealed her dismissal to the Rhea County Board of Education (“the School Board”). Following a hearing, the School Board determined that the evidence supported the charges against Mrs. Ketchersid of insubordination, incompetence, and inefficiency under the Teachers’ Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-501, et seq., and voted to terminate Mrs. Ketchersid as a tenured teacher. Mrs. Ketchersid appealed the School Board’s decision to the trial court, which, following a de novo review, held that her dismissal was supported by sufficient evidence. Mrs. Ketchersid appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in this determination. We affirm.

This appeal involves a sales and use tax assessment issued by the Tennessee Department of Revenue against a taxpayer engaged in the business of fabricating steel products for use in various structures. The taxpayer obtained purchase orders from three churches for raw materials to be used in the fabrication of steel products which were to be incorporated into the churches then under construction. The taxpayer secured the raw materials, fabricated the steel products, and installed them in the churches. The taxpayer did not pay sales or use tax on any of the raw materials used in the fabrication process. The department subsequently audited the taxpayer and assessed a tax liability for taxes owed on the materials. The taxpayer paid the amount assessed and filed suit in the chancery court to contest the assessment. Specifically, the taxpayer asserted that it was entitled to an exemption under section 67-6-209(b) of the Tennessee Code. After both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the chancery court granted the department's motion and denied the taxpayer's motion. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Following a hearing, the Knox County Sheriff's Department Merit System Council ("the Council") voted to uphold Sheriff Tim Hutchison's termination of the plaintiff, James Edward Dunn. Dunn filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. He also filed a separate complaint in the same court alleging that the Council had violated the Open Meetings Act. Each side filed a motion for summary judgment on this latter issue. The trial court denied both motions. The trial court then held that the Council's decision to uphold Dunn's termination was supported by material evidence; but the court remanded the case to the Council, because the court held that the Council had failed to follow one of its procedural rules. Both parties have raised issues on appeal. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute between a former employee and her employer. Becky Elliott filed suit in Blount County Circuit Court alleging that Donna Akey failed to properly train and supervise employees at her restaurant in Loudon County, Tennessee resulting in an unsafe workplace. Because the workplace was unsafe, Ms. Elliott claims she had to quit her job and was damaged. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff resided in Blount County, the Defendant resided and operated the business in Loudon County, and the cause of action arose in Loudon County. The trial court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue and awarded sanctions to the Defendant. After careful review, we hold that 1) the trial court properly granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue, 2) the trial court properly denied the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, and 3) the trial court erred in awarding sanctions to the Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court in part and reverse in part.

Property owners filed suit against neighbors for trespass. Trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $13,740, applying the "mild rule" for calculation of damages for trespass. Trial court also made rulings establishing the boundary lines between property of plaintiffs and defendants, and confirmed the plaintiffs' continuing right of ingress and egress through defendant's property to their own property. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that trial court erred in failing to award damages based on "harsh rule" rather than mild rule; in failing to find that the boundary lines were in keeping with plaintiffs' expert's survey; and in granting summary judgment to defendant water utility district. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the water utility district. In all other respects, we affirm.

A jury convicted the defendant, Steven Ray Thacker, of first degree murder. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant; and (2) the murder was knowingly committed by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing, a first degree murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft or kidnapping. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(6), (7)(1997). The jury also found that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the jury imposed a sentence of death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003) this Court entered an order specifying five issues for oral argument,1 including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of Dr. Keith Caruso, a forensic psychiatrist, at the sentencing hearing; (3) whether the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct on the defendant’s “history of abuse and neglect” as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance; (4) whether the State improperly relied upon aggravating circumstance (i)(6) to support the death penalty; and (5) whether the death sentence is comparatively proportionate and valid under the mandatory review provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)-(D) (2003). After a careful review of the record  and relevant legal authority, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

On May 14, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 2002 Madison County Circuit Court conviction of assault and aggravated assault. See State v. Darrell M. Anderson, No. W2002-01269-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, May 15, 2003). The postconviction
court appointed counsel, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it rejected the petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and of trial error and denied relief. The petitioner appealed in a timely manner, but following our review upon the record, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief.

The plaintiff purchased a house that was marketed by the defendant realtors. The house had been described as including over 5,800 square feet of living space. After the purchase, the plaintiff discovered that the actual square footage of the house was considerably less, depending on what was included. He sued for unfair or deceptive practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and for intentional misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed his complaint on summary judgment, and ordered the plaintiff to pay all the defendants' attorney fees. We affirm the dismissal, but modify the award of attorney fees.

The petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Upon our review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment void. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the lower court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

This case arises out of a long-running dispute between Steven Travis Dorrough and his former wife, Susan Diane Jones over possession of the parties' former residence which was awarded to Ms. Jones in the divorce, but was subsequently leased to Mr. Dorrough. Ms. Jones first filed suit against Mr. Dorrough and his new wife for possession of the residence and for unpaid rents, penalties, interest and attorney's fees. The Dorroughs counterclaimed asserting that Ms. Jones had agreed to sell them the property and that they had paid her in full and were entitled to specific performance. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Ms. Jones, awarded her possession of the property, judgment for unpaid rents and attorney's fees, and dismissed the counterclaim. The Dorroughs appealed and we affirmed the trial court's decision as to the dismissal of the Dorroughs' counterclaim and remanded for further findings as to the funds allegedly paid by Mr. Dorrough. The Dorroughs then filed suit against Ms. Jones and this suit was consolidated with the remanded suit. In the second suit, the Dorroughs alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and outrageous conduct. The trial court granted Ms. Jones' motion for summary judgment on the contract and tort claims. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the remanded issue as to whether Mr. Dorrough was entitled to a set-off based on alleged payments by him to Ms. Jones of $192,000. The trial court denied the set-off and awarded judgment to Ms. Jones for rents, late fees, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The Dorroughs appealed this adverse decision. After a careful review of the record, we hold that 1) the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Ms. Jones was proper as to the breach of contract claim because the Dorroughs' contract claim was a compulsory counterclaim that they were required to have presented in the original case, 2) the trial court's grant of summary judgment was proper as to the claims for outrageous conduct and fraudulent misrepresentation since the claims were time barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, 3) the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding of fact regarding the rents due, payments made by Mr. Dorrough, and the award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Mother appeals termination of her parental rights to her two minor children. She and her two infant children immigrated to the United States illegally in 1998 when the children were two and one years of age, respectively. In 1999, Mother was arrested on felony theft charges. Being unable to make bond, she remained incarcerated for over a year following which she pled guilty to a felony. She was then turned over to immigration officials and was detained for an additional two years only to be deported to Nigeria in December 2002, where she remains. The children have remained in foster care for more than five years. Mother appeals claiming the evidence to be insufficient to prove grounds for termination and that termination is not in the children's best interest. We affirm.

The Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days with eighty-five days to be served, had his driver's license suspended for two years, and was fined a total of $3,150. The Defendant now appeals his DUI conviction claiming: 1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from an expert witness; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Tawwater, pled guilty in Franklin County Circuit Court to facilitation of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, and received two years probation in the Community Corrections Program. The defendant appeals upon certified questions of law from the
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search of his car. He claims the trial court should have granted his motion because (1) the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe he had committed a criminal offense when stopping his vehicle; (2) his consent to the search of his car was not voluntary; and (3) statements made by him to officers during his detention were inadmissible because he was not advised of his rights under Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). We affirm the trial court.

A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant, Robert Wayne Pryor, of robbery, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years and six months in the Department of Correction consecutive to sentences in another case for which he was on probation. In this appeal, the single issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.