APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Philip Roseman, now deceased, petitioned the trial court to set aside a quitclaim deed, which he admittedly executed, transferring title of his house to his son as trustee of the Philip Roseman 2012 Irrevocable Gift Trust. Philip Roseman averred that he did not have the requisite intent to make a complete gift when he executed the quitclaim deed. The trial court determined that the deed was valid and granted summary judgment to the trustee. We affirm. 

The defendant, Marcus Latrail Easley, appeals from the Weakley County Circuit Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a civil action filed in 2016 to establish a constructive trust and/or resulting trust to a share of the $25,500,000 proceeds from a 2005 Tennessee Lottery ticket. The essence of the claim is that the defendants, who are the respective former spouses and mother and father in-law of the plaintiffs, wrongfully deprived the plaintiffs of their rightful shares to the lottery proceeds. The defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim on grounds including the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs responded contending, inter alia, that their respective claims did not accrue until 2007 for one of them and 2010 for the other, and that their claims were timely because the “catch all” 10 year statute of limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-110(a)(3) applied to constructive and resulting trusts. The trial court disagreed and dismissed all claims as time barred. We affirm. 

This case involves a post-divorce modification of a parenting plan. Father petitioned the court seeking equal parenting time and major decision-making authority with respect to decisions involving the child’s education, non-emergency healthcare, and extracurricular activities. Mother filed a counter-petition seeking additional parenting time and exclusive major decision-making authority. Mother also asked the trial court to clarify the meaning of several terms in the parties’ parenting plan. The parties’ disagreement concerning the meaning of several terms had prompted ongoing conflict. The trial court found that there had been a material change in circumstances and that modification of the parties’ parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. The trial court modified the parties’ parenting plan, awarding Mother additional parenting time. However, the trial court ordered that major-decision making authority in the areas of non-emergency healthcare, extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing remain joint. The trial court also awarded Mother a portion of her attorney’s fees. Father timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and award Mother her attorney’s fees on appeal.

In this termination of parental rights case, the trial court terminated Mother’s rights on the grounds of (1) abandonment by willful failure to visit; (2) abandonment by wanton disregard; (3) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (4) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; and (5) persistent conditions. In its brief, DCS conceded that it cannot defend the grounds of failure to establish a suitable home and persistent conditions. As such, we reverse as to the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and persistent conditions. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

A Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Keith Austin, for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The Defendant was sentenced to twenty-six years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of attempted second degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Timothy Pate, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -16-503, -17-312. The trial court merged the two first degree murder convictions and imposed a total effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that he was denied his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because a written juror question demonstrated that one of the jurors had “a decided prejudice and bias” against the Defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Jerome Edwin Lockridge, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, and misdemeanor vandalism and received an effective four-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his attempted aggravated burglary conviction because the State failed to prove that he entered the habitation with the intent to commit theft. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action, the trial court terminated the appellant mother’s parental rights to her three children upon the court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the statutory grounds of (1) abandonment by willful failure to visit, (2) abandonment by willful failure to financially support, and (3) severe child abuse. The court also determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the children. The mother has timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm

The Appellant, Ramey Michelle Long, was convicted by a jury of the Class A misdemeanors driving under the influence (DUI); DUI, second offense; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Appellant was also convicted of the Class C misdemeanors speeding and violating the open container law. The trial court merged the DUI convictions and imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each Class A misdemeanor and thirty days for each Class C misdemeanor. The court ordered the sentence for the DUI conviction to be served consecutively to the remaining sentences, which were to be served concurrently. The trial court further approved of the fines imposed by the jury, which were the maximum allowable for each offense, for a total of $8,600. On appeal, the Appellant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction of DUI, second offense; (2) the trial court erred by denying her motions to suppress; (3) the trial court erred by preventing her from introducing her pharmaceutical records, medical records, hardware taken from her back during surgery, and a hand-drawn chart concerning the therapeutic levels of her medication; (4) the trial court erred by admitting still photographs taken from a video; (5) the trial court failed to dismiss the speeding charge because it was not included in the indictment; (6) the trial court erred in sentencing; and (7) the trial court erred in revoking her bond pending appeal. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by imposing a thirty-day sentence for violating the open container law; accordingly, the case must be remanded for correction of the judgment of conviction to reflect that the punishment is a $50 fine. Further, on remand the judgment of conviction for speeding must be vacated and dismissed. We affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects.

The Defendant, Katherine Taylor, was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and sentenced to 18 years as a Range I offender. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s history of drug use and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment.

This appeal arises from the termination of a father’s parental rights. John C. and Kellee C. (“Petitioners”), uncle and aunt respectively of Apex R. (“the Child”), filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate Dustin R. (“Father”)’s parental rights to the Child. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on the grounds of willful failure to visit and support. The Trial Court found also that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest, all by clear and convincing evidence. Father appeals, arguing among other things that the Trial Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“the UCCJEA”) because the Juvenile Court for Jefferson County, Alabama (“the Alabama Court”) made the initial custody determination, the Child’s mother remained in Alabama, and the Alabama Court never relinquished its exclusive and continuing jurisdiction. We hold that the Trial Court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination petition. We hold further that grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Homeowners in housing development brought suit against their homeowners association, its directors and the bank that assumed management of the development after the developers defaulted on their loans used to finance the development; the homeowners sought damages and other relief arising from the defendants’ alleged failure to fulfill their obligations to properly maintain the subdivision. Plaintiffs asserted claims for tortious interference with their contract rights, breach of fiduciary duties, invalid liens, and slander of title. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the various claims, and plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the grant of summary judgment to the bank on plaintiffs’ claim of tortious interference, and to the homeowners association on its counterclaim for recovery of delinquent assessments; we vacate the award of counsel fees to the association and the order quashing the notice of deposition of a director of the association and the association’s counsel; in all other respects we affirm the judgment.

The pro se Petitioner, E. Louis Thomas, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

This suit was brought by the children of a woman who died while incarcerated at Hickman County Jail. Defendant is a contractor of the jail that provides medical services at the jail; a nurse in Defendant’s employment treated the decedent for symptoms of drug and alcohol withdrawal. She passed away shortly after. The children brought this suit under the Health Care Liability Act claiming negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. In due course, Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that there was not a genuine issue of material fact as to causation and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that element of Plaintiffs’ claim; the trial court granted Defendant’s motion and subsequently denied a motion to revise, filed by the Plaintiffs. This appeal followed.

Defendant in wrongful death action appeals the judgment entered against him in favor of the mother and personal representative of the decedent’s estate. Over the course of the litigation, the defendant failed to comply with multiple orders to compel discovery, and as a result, the court entered a judgment by default in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37.02. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

The Defendant, Nicholas J. Alberts, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The pro se Petitioner, Kenneth O. Williams, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

This suit was brought by the children of a woman who died while incarcerated at Hickman County Jail. Defendant is a contractor of the jail that provides medical services at the jail; a nurse in Defendant’s employment treated the decedent for symptoms of drug and alcohol withdrawal. She passed away shortly after. The children brought this suit under the Health Care Liability Act claiming negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. In due course, Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that there was not a genuine issue of material fact as to causation and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that element of Plaintiffs’ claim; the trial court granted Defendant’s motion and subsequently denied a motion to revise, filed by the Plaintiffs. This appeal followed.

The pro se Petitioner, Justin Daniel Loines, appeals the dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief as time-barred. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court summarily dismissing the petition on the basis that it was filed almost six years after the judgment became final and that the Petitioner failed to show any grounds to warrant that the statute of limitations be tolled.

A Wilson County jury convicted Rashad Dewayne Seay, Jr. (“the Petitioner”) of two counts of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance. Following the voluntary dismissal of his direct appeal, the Petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition, which the postconviction court dismissed as time-barred. Upon review, we conclude that the petition was timely filed, and therefore, reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this case, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for constructing a gate that interfered with their use of an existing gravel road located on the defendants’ farm. According to the plaintiffs, access to their property required use of the gravel road. The gravel road in question crosses two separate tracts owned by the defendants and runs southwest to northeast from a state highway through the defendants’ farm and then east to west through another tract. Although the plaintiffs claimed that the easement was fifty-feet in width along its entire length, the court found that the section of the road running through the defendants’ farm was a public road with a width of only twelve feet. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for discretionary costs. The plaintiffs appeal the court’s finding concerning the width of the public road and the denial of discretionary costs. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This case involves a contract dispute concerning four simultaneously executed agreements that, if completed, would have essentially constituted a trade of two parcels of improved real property. The plaintiff buyers entered into the four agreements with the defendant sellers on October 1, 2013, giving the buyers a lease on the sellers’ property, located on Walnut Breeze Lane in Knoxville, Tennessee (the “Walnut Breeze Property”), with an option to purchase that property in the unspecified future. The buyers agreed to trade equity in their own property, located on First Street in Corryton, Tennessee (“First Street Property”), as partial payment for the Walnut Breeze Property if they chose to exercise the option. On January 6, 2014, the parties met for a “closing,” and the buyers conveyed title to the First Street Property to the sellers. However, the “REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT” related to the Walnut Breeze Property stipulated that the transfer of title to the Walnut Breeze Property was subject to the existing mortgagee’s approval, which neither party had obtained. The buyers continued to reside at the Walnut Breeze Property, making monthly payments to the sellers until a year later when the buyers vacated the Walnut Breeze Property and stopped making payments. The sellers sent the buyers a notice to vacate three months later. In November 2016, the buyers filed a complaint in the Union County Chancery Court (“trial court”), claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The buyers requested $75,000 in compensatory damages, $150,000 in punitive damages, return of the First Street Property, and reasonable attorney’s fees. The sellers filed an answer and subsequent amended answer, denying all substantive allegations and raising affirmative defenses. The sellers concomitantly filed a counterclaim, asserting, inter alia, that the buyers had breached the lease agreement and requesting an award of unpaid rent and reasonable attorney’s fees. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the buyers breached the terms of the lease agreement by withholding payments on the Walnut Breeze Property for three months. The trial court also found that the buyers had exercised their option to purchase the Walnut Breeze Property by signing over title to the First Street Property but that the sellers knew at that time that the buyers could not satisfy the financing condition of the sale. The trial court awarded to the buyers the equity value of the First Street Property as stipulated in the sales agreement concerning that property, minus the value of three months’ unpaid rent, which the trial court awarded to the sellers. The trial court denied the parties’ respective requests for attorney’s fees. The sellers have appealed. Having determined that each party is entitled to some award of attorney’s fees under the overarching contract, we reverse the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees and remand for a determination of the respective attorney’s fee awards. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. The juvenile court found six statutory grounds for termination and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We conclude that the evidence was less than clear and convincing as to one of the statutory grounds and that two other statutory grounds did not apply in this instance. But the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support three grounds for termination and that termination is in the children’s best interest. So we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

The defendant, Denton Jones, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, arguing that the State should not have been permitted to aggregate into a single count of theft the value of property taken on five separate occasions from two different locations; that the trial court erred by permitting testimony concerning evidence that suggested the defendant had committed other offenses; that the trial court erred by denying his motions for mistrial, including one based upon an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland; that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial entitle him to a new trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.