APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a bench trial. Due to the deficiencies in the appellants’ brief on appeal, we find that they waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal.

The employee worked for the predecessor to the defendant employer for many years and developed carpal tunnel syndrome. The previous employer underwent bankruptcy, and the defendant became the employee’s new employer. After the employee developed more severe symptoms, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer initially paid employee temporary total disability benefits but denied employee’s later claim for additional benefits, taking the position that the employee’s symptoms were caused by pre-existing medical conditions. At trial, both sides presented expert medical testimony. The trial court held in favor of the employee and awarded benefits. The employer now appeals, and the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm.

This appeal involves an arbitration agreement executed in connection with a nursing home admission. The trial court found no evidence that the individual who signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of the resident had authority to do so, and that, in any event, the form itself was not properly completed. Accordingly, the trial court denied the nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration. The nursing home appeals and argues that the trial court erred in deciding these issues because they should have been resolved by an arbitrator. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff property owners sought a finding that the defendant’s right to operate a rock quarry had not vested prior to the adoption of BL2015-13, which prohibits such activity on the property in question. All parties then moved for summary judgment as relevant to their respective positions. The trial court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor, finding that the quarry qualified as a pre-existing nonconforming use. We affirm.  

This case involves the interpretation and enforcement of an alimony termination provision in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. Wife filed a Notice of Termination of Alimony Payments in the Chancery Court of Madison County, alleging that Husband’s non-compliance with the parties’ permanent parenting plan relieved her of any further obligation to pay alimony pursuant to the alimony provision of their marital dissolution agreement. Husband then filed a motion to enforce the marital dissolution agreement and for a temporary injunction. Wife subsequently moved for summary judgment to enforce the alimony provision of the marital dissolution agreement. Husband did not dispute that he failed to comply with the “Passport Provision” of the parties’ permanent parenting plan but argued that his violation of the agreement did not relieve Wife’s obligation to continue to pay alimony in solido. The trial court concluded that the marital dissolution agreement unambiguously provided that Wife would be immediately relieved of her total obligation to pay alimony if Husband failed to comply with his obligations under the parties’ permanent parenting plan and granted Wife’s motion for summary judgment. Husband appeals the trial court’s granting of summary judgment, while Wife seeks an award of her attorney’s fees on appeal. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s granting of summary judgment and award the Wife her attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal which the trial court shall calculate upon remand.

This case involves a post-divorce modification of a parenting plan. The trial court found that there had been a material change in circumstances since the entry of the parties’ existing parenting plan. Mother appeals the trial court’s modification of the parenting plan insofar as the trial court did not adopt, in toto, her proposed plan. Father appeals the trial court’s finding that a material change in circumstances occurred since entry of the parties’ existing parenting plan but argues, in the alternative, that the trial court should be affirmed. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Commercial Bank & Trust Company, Legal Guardian of the Estate of Albert P. Mjekiqi, a Disabled Minor; Omer Mjekiqi and Gabriela Mjekiqi, Individually and as Legal Guardians of the Person of Albert P. Mjekiqi; and Volunteer State Health Plan, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued Children’s Anesthesiologists, P.C.; Heather D. Phillips, D.O.; Kari L. Clinton; Neurosurgical Associates, P.C.; Lewis W. Harris, M.D.; and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital Association, Inc. d/b/a East Tennessee Children’s Hospital alleging health care liability in connection with surgery performed on Albert P. Mjekiqi (“Albert”) in May of 2011. After a trial, the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) entered judgment on the jury’s verdict finding no liability on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court raising issues with regard to admission of evidence and jury instructions. We discern no error, and we affirm

In this termination of parental rights case, a mother appeals the termination of her rights to her son on the grounds of abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, persistence of conditions, and mental incompetence and upon the finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Upon our review, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

An employer filed a complaint to resolve a dispute with an employee regarding workers’ compensation benefits. The employee alleged he suffered gradual hearing loss arising out of and in the course of his employment. The trial court held that the employee’s claim, filed three years after his doctor advised him that his hearing loss was work related, was barred by the statute of limitations. Further, the trial court found the statute of limitations was not tolled because the employee failed to prove that any work-related noise caused a progression of the employee’s hearing loss. The employee appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

An employee filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that he injured his back in the course and scope of his employment. His employer denied the claim. The trial court ruled the employee was permanently and totally disabled and apportioned liability fifty-two percent to the employer and forty-eight percent to the Second Injury Fund. The employer appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding the employee established a work-related injury and in apportioning the liability for the award. After careful review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Joshua Iceman, was convicted by a jury of aggravated child abuse and first degree felony murder, for which he received concurrent terms of eighteen years and life imprisonment, respectively. The Defendant appeals, arguing (1) that his statement at the hospital resulted from custodial interrogation given without proper Miranda warnings and, therefore, that statement should have been suppressed; (2) that the State experts’ testimony on “shaken-baby syndrome and/or non-accidental trauma” was not sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the jury was faced with conflicting expert testimony; and (4) that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentencing term for his aggravated child abuse conviction above the minimum in the Class A felony range. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee concerning appellees' authority to rename three city parks by way of resolution.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Maury County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, David Sharp, of evading arrest, a Class E felony, and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective eighteen-month sentence to be served as ninety days in jail and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce a photograph into evidence to rebut a defense witness’s testimony and that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the photograph and that the error was not harmless. Therefore, the Appellant’s convictions are reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves a determination by a school system that children were attending the wrong schools based upon their domicile within the county. We grant the school system’s motion to consider post-judgment facts indicating that the children no longer attend any school in the school system and accordingly dismiss this appeal as moot. 

A Cumberland County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joshua Paul Lewis, of two counts of rape of a child and one count of attempted rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to serve an effective sentence of twenty-five years. This court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence. State v. Joshua Paul Lewis, No. E2014-00918- CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 795856 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Feb. 25, 2015), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 filed. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This case involves a sex offender’s complaint for declaratory relief under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising various constitutional and other challenges to the conditions imposed on him in accordance with his sentence to community supervision for life. The trial court found that most of the offender’s constitutional claims were time-barred. The trial court reviewed the substantive merit of the remaining claims and found them meritless. As a result, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, the Tennessee Department of Correction and the Tennessee Attorney General. The offender raises numerous issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This is a divorce case. Jamie Don Slocum appeals the trial court’s division of the marital estate and the trial court’s award of rehabilitative support to his spouse, Amy Jo Slocum. Husband argues that the trial court erred in finding that he dissipated marital assets (1) before the parties’ separation and (2) during the pendency of the divorce. Husband also asserts that wife has an earning capacity higher than the $1,449 per month found by the trial court. Wife posits that the trial court’s findings of fact are correct and supported by the preponderance of the evidence. She argues, however, that her spousal support award of $1,264 per month until May 31, 2025, should be classified as transitional support rather than rehabilitative. We hold that the trial court’s judgment with respect to spousal support should be modified to reflect that her support award is in the nature of transitional spousal support. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Jeffrey W. Tittle, of attempted aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, for grabbing the victim, placing a knife to her throat, and dragging her approximately twenty feet down a dark driveway into a scrap yard. The Defendant was sentenced to ten years for each offense, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s decision to introduce a video from the responding officer’s patrol car, the trial court’s decision to permit the jury to view the video more than once, and the trial court’s refusal to merge the offenses based on the principles of double jeopardy and due process. We conclude that there was no error in admitting the video, that there was no error in allowing the jury to view it during deliberations, that double jeopardy principles do not bar dual convictions for attempted aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault, and that there is no basis to disturb the determination of the jury that any removal or confinement was beyond that necessary to commit the aggravated assault. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. We remand only for the correction of clerical errors in the judgment form.

On December 10, 1992, Derrick Richardson, the Petitioner, was convicted of first degree felony murder and sentenced to life. On appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction. See State v. Derrick Richardson, No. 03C01-9305-CR-00165, 1994 WL 247114, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 9, 1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 12, 1994) (concurring in results only). The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the affidavits of three individuals who claimed that one of the State’s “key witnesses,” LaKeysh Davis, lied about seeing the Petitioner shoot the victim because she was inside her home and could not have seen the location where the shooting occurred. The Petitioner claims that the information provided by the affiants is newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing, the coram nobis court denied coram nobis relief. We affirm. 

The pro se petitioner, David L. Alford, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s judgment summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s position is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the denial of parole to an inmate by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“the Board”). The inmate was convicted in 1990 of first degree murder and first degree burglary. The Board denied parole on the basis that the inmate’s release at the time of the hearing would depreciate the seriousness of the crime for which he was convicted. The inmate filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Davidson County Chancery Court (“trial court”), alleging violations of due process and equal protection. The trial court denied relief, determining that no grounds existed to disturb the Board’s decision. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The pro se Appellant, David A. Brimmer, appeals the Anderson County Circuit Court’s order summarily dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court.

In this interlocutory appeal, the trustee of a trust executed an investment/brokerage account agreement that included a provision requiring the arbitration of disputes. The trust beneficiary filed a lawsuit asserting claims against the investment broker, and the defendant broker sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration provision in the account agreement. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the signature of the trustee on the account agreement binds the beneficiary of the trust to the predispute arbitration provision. We hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code is intended to give trustees broad authority to fulfill their duties as trustee. We also hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code gives trustees the power to enter into predispute arbitration agreements, so long as doing so is not prohibited under the operative trust instrument. We hold that the trust instrument in this case gives the named trustee broad authority and does not prohibit the trustee from entering into a predispute arbitration agreement. As a result, we interpret the trust instrument as authorizing the trustee to execute the account agreement with the defendant broker, including the predispute arbitration provision therein. Thus, under both the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code and the operative trust instrument, the trustee had authority to enter into the arbitration agreement contained within the account agreement. The question of whether the trust beneficiary in this case is bound by the arbitration provision is governed by the principle that a third party who seeks the benefit of a contract must also bear its burdens. Applying this principle, the trust beneficiary in this case may be bound to arbitrate claims against the investment broker that seek to enforce the account agreement. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and vacate the trial court order compelling arbitration of all claims. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings, including a determination as to which if any of the claims asserted by the trust beneficiary seek to enforce the account agreement.

I concur in the majority’s decision regarding the pretrial agreement. I dissent from the majority’s analysis regarding superseding cause. The trial court did not err in declining to give an instruction on superseding cause; the majority’s analysis confuses causation in fact with superseding cause. Further, I dissent from the majority’s analysis of the remittitur issue and its remand to the trial court. The majority, in five lengthy footnotes, attempts to defend its decision. The reasoning in this separate opinion is clearly stated; I will not debate with the majority in a series of footnotes.

This appeal arises from a will contest. The contestant insists the purported Last Will and Testament of the decedent, dated June 19, 2015, is invalid because the attesting witnesses, who duly executed the attestation affidavit, failed to affix their signatures to the will as required by the Tennessee Execution of Wills Act at the time the will was executed. The proponent insists the will was validly executed based on a 2016 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-104, which applies to wills executed prior to July 1, 2016, and states “to the extent necessary for the Will to be validly executed, witness signatures affixed to an affidavit meeting the requirements of § 32-2-110 shall be considered signatures to the Will.” The trial court ruled that the 2016 amendment did not apply because the testator died before it went into effect. Consequently, the 2015 will was invalid because it was not executed in accordance with the law then in effect. We have determined that the 2016 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-104 applies retrospectively to wills executed prior to July 1, 2016, because that is the clear and unambiguous intent of the legislation. We have also determined that the retrospective application of the law does not impair any vested legal right of the contestant. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.