APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiffs action against First Tennessee Bank National Association (“Bank”) was held to be time-barred by the Trial Judge pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §47-3-118. Plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

The mother of a seven-year-old daughter asserts that the court awarded custody of the child to the father because the mother is homosexual. We find, however, that the court did not base its award on sexual orientation and that the evidence in the record supports the award of custody to the father. Therefore, we affirm.

A divorce judgment rendered June 5, 1992 required the appellant to pay, inter alia, the sum of $185,000 to his wife "as a fair and equitable division of the marital property." The appellant elected recalcitrance rather than compliance, and failed to pay. He was found in civil contempt in September 2000 and ordered to be confined until he purged himself of contempt. We affirm.

This case arises from a home construction contract entered into by Appellants and Appellee. Appellants filed a complaint against Appellee in the Chancery Court for Coffee County for breach of contract. Appellee filed an answer and counter-complaint. The trial court found that the contract was a cost-plus contract with no cap or ceiling on the price, and rendered judgment in favor of Appellee for $26,945.10. Appellants appeal. We affirm the trial court.

Alonzo Chatman appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's revocation of his probationary sentence. Because the lower court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and ordering the original sentence into execution, we affirm.

This lawsuit arises out of a real estate contract. The plaintiff, Chuck Robertson, a residential home builder, contracted to purchase sixteen (16) lots from the defendant, Melvin George. After the parties entered into the contract, the plaintiff discovered that the official flood plain designation had been adjusted to include nine (9) of the lots the plaintiff contracted to purchase and filed suit on the theories of intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, mutual mistake, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The defendants filed a counter-complaint for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's action holding that the mistake was a mistake of law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

This is a post-judgment domestic relations case. The principal alleged issue is whether a non-custodial parent may be judicially coerced to exercise visitation privileges. The appealed Order is not imperative and the asserted issue is not a genuine one. Because the judgment is marginally ambiguous we modify it to incorporate a measure of fairness.

The defendant pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days. The trial court ordered a split confinement with thirty days in jail, and the balance to be served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her full probation. After careful review, we affirm the defendant's sentence but remand the matter to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment.

This case arises from an automobile accident resulting in personal injuries to plaintiffs. The defendants, Mr. & Mrs. Ruiz, filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that their cousin, Mr. Corpus, was driving their vehicle without their permission or knowledge at the time of the accident. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiffs appeal. Plaintiffs assert that under Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-311, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based solely on their own self-serving affidavits and depositions. We affirm the summary judgment

The Petitioner was convicted by a Sevier County jury of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and to twenty-five years incarceration for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. The Petitioner appealed, and the convictions were affirmed by our Court. The Petitioner then filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Concluding that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Four physicians formed a PLLC. Eventually personal and professional conflicts arose. Various claims were asserted that Drs. Brown and Barton had violated the Operating Agreement of the PLLC; Dr. Brunsting sought declaratory relief, and monetary damages for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty; Dr. Rankin alleged that Drs. Brown and Barton had effectively withdrawn from the PLLC. The Chancellor found the Drs. Brown and Barton by their actions constructively withdrew from the PLLC which he declined to dissolve. The fees awarded to the plaintiff's attorneys are the principal issue on appeal, together with issues involving the continuing viability of the PLLC.

I do not believe that the prima facie evidence created by Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-311 can be overcome as a matter of law solely by the affidavits and testimony of owners of a vehicle who have a vital interest in the outcome of the case.

The mother ("Mother") and stepfather ("Stepfather") of a minor child ("Child") filed a Petition to Terminate the parental rights of the Child's biological father ("Father"). The Petition to Terminate alleged one ground for termination of Father's parental rights, abandonment. After three hearings, the Juvenile Court held that the Petition to Terminate should be dismissed because Mother and Stepfather failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Father had abandoned the Child and because termination of Father's parental rights would not be in the Child's best interests. Mother and Stepfather appeal. We affirm.

We granted review in these consolidated cases to determine (1) whether William Andrew Dixon’s sentence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2603 (1975) is void and thus subject to habeas corpus relief; and (2) whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-236(c) (1997) applies to Dixon’s sentence. We hold that Dixon’s sentence is void and grant habeas corpus relief. We further hold that Dixon is entitled to any sentence reduction credits earned from 1988 until 1998. Our grant of habeas corpus relief pretermits the remaining issues raised by Dixon.1 Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the criminal court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2Both convictions stem from the abduction of Jodie Gaines in 1978. Dixon originally pled guilty to both counts in exchange for consecutive sentences of thirty-five ye ars for the kidnapping for ransom and five years for the commission of a felony by use of a firearm. Dixon’s guilty pleas were vacated during post-conviction relief proceedings, and he was then tried by a jury. 3Dixon received a sentence of five years for the commission of a felony by use of a firearm. This sentence, however, is not at issue in the present appeal. 4The Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) originally calculated Dixon’s sentence without parole. When the TDOC later computerized inmate records, Dixon’s sentence was inadvertently classified as life with possibility of parole. Section 41-21-236(c)(3) of the Tennessee Code Annotated provides that “[a]ny person who committed a felony . . . prior to December 11, 1985, may become eligible for the sentence reduction credits . . . by signing a written waiver waiving the right to serve the sentence under the law in effect at the time the crime was committed.” (1985). Because of the computer error, Dixon was perm itted to receive sentence reduction credits. -2- Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Reversed; Case Remanded.
 

The defendant, Timothy D. Grove, appeals his conviction for aggravated assault and ten-year Range II sentence in the Department of Correction. Specifically, the defendant contends evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, and his sentence was excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant of Class D felony theft over $1,000, and the trial court sentenced him to 12 years incarceration as a career offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Eric Jonathan Benefield appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's imposition of consecutive sentencing. In the proceedings below, the trial court incorrectly determined that because the defendant was on probation at the time of his offenses, consecutive sentencing was required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3). However, consecutive sentencing was merely permissible, not mandatory. We therefore reverse the trial court's consecutive sentencing determination and remand for further consideration under the applicable law.

This is a nuisance case. The plaintiff landowners sued the developer of a subdivision adjacent to their property for digging a drainage ditch that caused frequent flooding. The defendant developer filed counter-claims, including an allegation that the plaintiffs and the previous owners of his property had conspired to breach the agreement to sell the property to the developer. The developer also argued that the city had taken steps to alleviate the flooding. The trial court found that the developer had created a permanent nuisance by changing the natural flow of water across his property, and dismissed the developer's counter-claims. On appeal, we affirm the trial court's finding of a nuisance, but conclude that the circumstances created both a temporary and a permanent nuisance, and remand for recalculation of damages based on this holding.

The defendant, Ricky D. Gardner, was convicted of one count of vandalism over $500; one count of vandalism over $1,000; three counts of burglary; one count of burglary of a motor vehicle; three counts of theft over $1,000; two counts of theft under $500; and one count of theft over $500. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence to be served in a community corrections program.  Later, the trial court revoked the alternative sentence and ordered the defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering revocation. The judgments are affirmed.

The defendant, Henry B. Bason, appeals from his conviction for disorderly conduct, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

The defendant, Anthony S. Carie, appeals his bench trial convictions for burglary of a building other than a habitation and theft over $1,000. This case presents three issues for our determination: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in not examining the defendant in open court regarding his right to testify; and (3) whether the defendant received effective assistance of counsel at trial. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude there is no reversible error; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to forty years as a violent offender. He timely appealed, alleging, inter alia, that the trial court erred in not suppressing a confession obtained, following his warrantless arrest, after he had been jailed for five days without a determination of probable cause; in allowing DNA results into evidence; and in permitting a forensic nurse examiner to testify as a keeper of the sexual assault resource center records. Based upon our review, we conclude that testimony regarding the records of the Memphis Sexual Assault Resource Center was properly admitted as business records testimony and that the DNA evidence was properly admitted, as well. We conclude that the defendant's confinement violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that his confession should have been suppressed. However, this error was harmless in light of the other evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.