APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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

This is a claim against an estate. The claimant and the decedent had a romantic relationship. After the decedent’s death, the claimant filed a claim against the decedent’s estate, based on alleged promises of financial support by the decedent in the course of their relationship. The estate moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the claimant could not establish the existence of an enforceable contract or a valid gift. We affirm.

This is an action for conversion involving two ex-spouses. The wife was the lone signatory on two trust accounts for their daughters. Without authorization from the wife, the defendant bank transferred all of the funds in both trust accounts to the husband’s account. The wife then filed this lawsuit for conversion, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the bank, the bank employee who transferred the funds, and the husband. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. As part of the plaintiff wife’s response, she admitted that she originally put the money into the trust accounts in order to defraud creditors during their divorce. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, based in part on the doctrine of unclean hands. The plaintiff wife appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of unclean hands.

Mother appeals custody order of the Juvenile Court of Williamson County relative to her oldest child who had been previously determined by that Court to be a dependent and neglected child. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter of jurisdiction and the case remanded to the Williamson County Juvenile Court.

This appeal arises from a multi-faceted business dispute. LDI Design, LLC, an engineering firm, was engaged by Dukes & Co., a real estate developer, to design plans for Spencer Hall, a planned subdivision in Franklin, Tennessee. LDI provided its engineering services, however, Dukes failed to fulfill its financial obligation to LDI. The parties negotiated a new agreement in April 1999 compromising a claim for damages by Dukes in consideration of a reduced fee for LDI's services. After Dukes failed to honor the new agreement, LDI filed this action. Dukes filed an answer denying liability and filed a counter complaint for damages due to deficiencies in the plans prepared by LDI. Spencer Hall, LLC, owner of the Spencer Hall subdivision, while not a party to the contract, joined in the counter complaint claiming to be a co-developer of the project and the third-party beneficiary of the contract between LDI and Dukes. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim finding the renegotiated agreement between LDI and Dukes constituted an accord and satisfaction that barred Duke's claims, and the evidence insufficient to prove any claim for damages against LDI. Although we find the new agreement did not bar Dukes' claim, we affirm the trial court's finding that the evidence failed to prove any claim for damages against LDI. We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of all claims against LDI.

This case involves business interruption insurance. The furniture store owned by the plaintiff typically sells furniture under “rent to own” payment plans, whereby customers purchase the furniture through payments over time. The furniture store was damaged by a tornado. As a result, the store was closed for eight months for repairs. The plaintiff store owner had a business interruption insurance policy with the defendant insurance company that covered the loss of business income during the time in which the store was closed for restoration. The store owner sued the insurance company for the loss of business income it would have received during the eight-month period of restoration. Cross-motions for partial summary judgment were filed regarding how to measure the loss of income. The store owner claimed he was entitled to the entire value of sales contracts that would have been signed during the period of closure, even though most of the payments under those contracts would be due after the eight-month restoration period. The insurance company, on the other hand, claimed that the store owner was entitled only to the value of payments that actually would have been received by the store during the eight-month restoration period. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the store owner, finding that the store owner was entitled to the entire value of the contracts that would have been signed during the restoration period. The insurance company was granted permission to file this interlocutory appeal.
We affirm.

Plaintiff homeowner filed a cause of action against Defendant builder alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of good workmanship, misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleged damages in the amount of $15,000 and “other damages,” and also sought punitive damages. The trial court found no violation of the Consumer Protection Act and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $11,103 for the cost of repairs.  Plaintiff appeals and Defendant cross-appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I write separately to voice my dissent to the holding reached by the majority in this case.  The majority concludes that Father expressly waived the issue of whether the trial court correctly determined him to be voluntarily unemployed. Although Father did state in his brief that he is not challenging the trial court’s determination that he is voluntarily unemployed on appeal, I believe the issue should nonetheless be addressed. In doing so, I would hold that the trial court erred in finding that Father was voluntarily unemployed and in imputing potential income to Father on which to base an award of child support.

A Roane County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Vincent A. Hester, of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and felony reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years for the attempted murder and two years for the reckless endangerment to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court failed to perform its duty as the thirteenth juror pursuant to Rule 33(f) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute between divorced parents over one of their son's college expenses. Their older son became eligible for a substantial tuition discount after his father was employed by the university where he was enrolled. However, the father and son concealed the father's employment and the son's discount from the mother and actually sent her statements that did not reflect the discount. The mother paid one-half of the expenses reflected in these statements until she discovered the tuition discount. She then filed suit against her former husband and her son in the Circuit Court for Wilson County alleging breach of contract and fraud. She also sought a declaration regarding her continuing obligation to pay her son's college expenses. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the father had breached the marital dissolution agreement and ordered the father to pay the mother $2,737.01. The court also found that the mother had breached the marital dissolution agreement by declining to pay her son's college expenses after discovering the tuition discount and ordered her to resume paying her share of these expenses. The mother appealed. We have concluded (1) that the father committed a material breach of the marital dissolution agreement, (2) that the father and the son engaged in fraudulent conduct by concealing the tuition discount from the mother and then pocketing her overpayments, (3) that the mother did not breach the marital dissolution agreement when she stopped paying her son's college expenses, and (4) that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of the mother's overpayment. Accordingly, we have determined that the mother is entitled to recover $3,590 from the husband and that the actions of the father and son warrant terminating her obligation to pay the son's college expenses.

This is the second time that this case has been on appeal. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendants assert that summary judgment was appropriate based on the claims and defenses raised at trial, including res judicata, law of the case, and statute of limitations. We affirm.

The petitioner, James Leath, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions.

In this case, the biological father of a child contends that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights. Father argues that the evidence presented is not sufficient to establish statutory grounds for termination and that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. Upon our finding that father was incarcerated when the petition to terminate was filed and failed to visit the child for four consecutive months immediately preceding his incarceration and our further finding that the Department made reasonable efforts at reunification, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a child support case. Custody of the minor children was removed from the biological father, and he was convicted of and incarcerated for aggravated sexual battery of his child and the manufacture of methamphetamine. The custodians of the children petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights, adopt the children, and obtain back child support from the father. The father owned 1500 acres of farmland. The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights, assessed back child support against him, found him voluntarily underemployed and, based on the incomeproducing farmland, imputed an earning potential of $45,000. The custodians appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by not imputing a higher earning capacity to the biological father. We affirm.

The wife died in 1998, and her holographic will was admitted to probate and the estate closed. In 2002, the husband died, and his formally executed will was admitted to probate. Thereafter, his executrix determined that a question existed concerning the ownership interest in the marital residence held by the husband at his death. As a result, the executrix filed a declaratory judgment action in the probate court to construe the wife’s holographic will. At trial, the wife’s daughter by a previous marriage attempted to prove that the wife’s holographic will was a forgery. The trial court determined that the daughter’s proof was not credible, and the court ruled that the wife’s holographic will vested fee simple title of the marital residence in the husband following her death. The wife’s daughter filed a motion for a new trial. While the motion was pending, the daughter filed an action in the chancery court against the husband’s children from a previous marriage asserting, in essence, the same allegations she raised in the probate court action. The probate court subsequently denied the daughter’s motion for a new trial. In turn, the chancery court transferred the complaint to the probate court, and the probate court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The daughter filed an appeal to this Court raising numerous issues related to the declaratory judgment action and the compliant filed in chancery court. As for the declaratory judgment action, we are without jurisdiction to entertain issues related to that case since the daughter failed to file a timely appeal.
As for the complaint the daughter filed in chancery court, we find that it is, in essence, an action to contest the validity of the holographic will of her mother. As such, it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, the probate court was correct in dismissing the complaint.  Moreover, we remand this case to the trial court for the entry of an award of damages to the Appellees for the Appellant’s filing of a frivolous appeal.

This is the second time that this case has been on appeal. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendants assert that summary judgment was appropriate based on the claims and defenses raised at trial, including res judicata, law of the case, and statute of limitations. We affirm.

The Defendant, Celeste Hall, pled guilty to child abuse and neglect and facilitation of the aggravated sexual battery of her minor child. The Defendant received an effective three year sentence in prison. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal, we are asked by the appellant to determine whether the chancery court erred when it granted summary judgment to the appellees, finding that there was no consideration to support the Pastor’s Spouse Benefits agreement between the parties and that the theory of promissory estoppel is inapplicable in this case. On appeal, the appellant asserts that her presence as first lady of the church, her loss of benefits previously received from the Church, and/or the restraint of marriage provision in the agreement constituted legally adequate consideration for the Agreement. In the alternative, the appellant asserts that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable in this case.  We affirm.

After being indicted for aggravated assault and vehicular assault, the defendant, Andrew Boone, was convicted by jury of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. He was sentenced as a standard offender to four years in the county workhouse, and his driver’s license was suspended for one year for violating the implied consent statute. On appeal, he presents five issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence; (2) whether the trial court properly
instructed the jury as to the elements of reckless aggravated assault; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless driving as a lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for reckless aggravated assault; and (5) whether the trial court erred in determining the length and the manner of service of his sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. In 1999, DCS removed three of the four children living with mother from the mother’s home. They were found to be dependent and neglected, and placed in the custody of DCS. The children were in foster care until October 2002, when they were returned to the mother. By that time, the fourth child had been born. In May 2003, all four children were again removed from the mother’s custody based on reports that the mother had left the children unsupervised, and that the eighteen-month-old was found in the street and was almost hit by a car.  Authorities later discovered that minors had been drinking alcohol in the mother’s home, and that the mother had struck one of the children in the eye and told her to lie about the resulting bruise. The trial court again found the children to be dependent and neglected. The mother and DCS entered into a permanency plan with several requirements for the mother to complete in order to regain custody of the children. Eight months later, DCS filed the instant petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, alleging, inter alia, that the conditions which led to the removal of the children from the mother’s home persisted. The trial court granted the petition and terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding ample evidence on the ground of persistent conditions, as well as clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest.

Donna Renee Morgan ("Mother") filed a complaint for divorce from her husband of 11 years, Jeffrie W. Morgan ("Father"). The trial court awarded Mother a divorce and designated her as the primary residential parent of the parties' minor child. In addition, the trial court divided the parties' property and awarded Mother alimony and child support, basing its child support award on an annual salary for Father of $110,000. Father appeals, arguing that he should have been awarded primary residential parent status and contending that the trial court erred in its determination of his annual income. We affirm.

The petitioner, Stephen Lajuan Beasley, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In this appeal, he alleges that his conviction is void because the indictment was defective and because the sentence was illegal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Markettus L. Broyld, appeals the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation. Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, this appeal is dismissed.

In this conservatorship case, we are asked to evaluate the probate court's decision that an elderly female was mentally disabled and in need of the court's assistance. The elderly female executed two powers of attorney for health care; one in 1996 and the other in 2003 after the nieces of the elderly female filed their petition in this case to appoint a conservator. The attorney-in-fact under both powers of attorney filed a counter-petition asking the probate court to appoint her conservator over the elderly female. The probate court ruled that the power of attorney executed in 1996 was void due to improper execution and that the power of attorney executed in 2003 was void because it was executed while the elderly female was mentally disabled. The probate court found that the elderly female's nieces and the attorney-in-fact should not serve as conservators in this case. Instead, the probate court appointed the public guardian to serve as the elderly female's conservator. The attorney-in-fact and the elderly female filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This medical malpractice case focuses on the correct interpretation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 as we attempt to ascertain whether this suit, filed pursuant to the saving statute, was pursued so as to “toll the running of [the] statute of limitations.” The trial court held that, since no process was issued within 30 days of the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint 1 and since the process that was eventually issued and later served on the defendants was not issued within one year of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff’s suit was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. She appeals. We affirm.