APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Petitioner, Elton Bowers, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief.  The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Defendants appeal the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50 motion for directed verdict. This is Plaintiff's second action against Defendants to recover damages resulting from a personal injury accident. The first action was timely filed and voluntarily dismissed. This action, which is a separate, subsequent action, was commenced within one year of the voluntary dismissal; however, Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts in the complaint to establish the timeliness of the commencement of the new action. Defendants affirmatively pled the statute of limitations defense in their answer; however, Plaintiff did not amend the complaint nor introduce evidence at trial to address the statute of limitations issue. Defendants put the affirmative defense at issue during closing arguments. The trial court took the motion under advisement, the trial proceeded and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, the trial court elected to take judicial notice of facts appearing in the record in the first action, the date the first action was commenced and the date of the voluntary dismissal, determined the second action was timely filed and denied Defendants' motion. We affirm.

This appeal lies from a trial court’s entry of a purported consent order of dismissal. The trial court entered judgment based upon the defendant’s submitted consent decree. The plaintiffs contend, however, that they did not consent to the terms of the order as written and withdrew any consent prior to entry of the judgment. Because the statement of the evidence in this case is irreconcilable, we vacate the judgment of the trial court entering the consent decree.

The petitioner, Michael L. Smith, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a casualty insurance case. A bank had a mortgage on residential property. The homeowner stopped making payments on the mortgage, abandoned the property, and allowed the homeowner’s insurance coverage on the property to lapse. The bank, in order to protect its interest in the property, purchased insurance coverage on behalf of the homeowner. The bank later sold the mortgage to a third party and cancelled the insurance coverage. The new mortgagee purchased insurance coverage for the property. Shortly thereafter, the property burned, resulting in a total loss. The new mortgagee’s insurance company filed the instant lawsuit, asking for a declaratory judgment that the prior insurance policy was still effect at the time of the fire. The trial court held that the prior policy was not in effect at the time of the fire. The new insurance company appealed, arguing that, in the course of the purchase, the prior insurance coverage had transferred to the new mortgagee as assignee of the prior mortgage holder, and that the bank’s cancellation of the prior insurance policy was ineffective. We affirm, finding that the prior insurance coverage was not transferred to the new mortgage holder and that the prior insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the fire.
 

Appellee brought suit against Appellant, a car dealership, after experiencing problems with purchased vehicle. Among other things, Appellee alleged fraud in the inducement. Appellant sought to enforce arbitration agreement in the contract for sale. The trial court ruled that, under Tennessee law, claims of fraud in the inducement are not arbitrable. Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.

This appeal involves the financial aspects of the dissolution of a twelve-year marriage. Even though the husband filed a petition for divorce in the Circuit Court for Williamson County, the parties eventually stipulated that the wife was entitled to divorce on the ground of the husband's adultery. Following a bench trial, the court awarded the wife eighty percent of the net marital estate, $1,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for three years, $25,000 in alimony in solido, and one-half of her attorney's fees. The husband appealed. We have determined that the evidence does not support the manner in which the trial court divided the marital estate, the amount of the rehabilitative alimony award, the alimony in solido award, or the award for attorney's fees. We modify the judgment accordingly.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce as it concerns custody of the parties' children.  The trial court awarded primary residential custody to Father and provided for visitation with Mother. Mother appeals asserting that, pursuant to the factors set out in T.C.A. §36-6-106, she should have been named primary residential parent. We affirm.

Husband and Wife were married in Mexico while wife's divorce from her previous husband remained pending. The couple eventually moved to Tennessee. Following a marriage of approximately eighteen years, wife filed for divorce alleging adultery, inappropriate marital conduct, and irreconcilable differences. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim for annulment alleging that the marriage between the parties was invalid due to wife's prior subsisting marriage. Following a bench trial, the court below declared a marriage by estoppel and granted wife a divorce on the ground of adultery. The trial court then distributed the parties' accumulated property and ordered husband to establish a lifetime trust with income to be distributed to wife and the remainder to the parties' children. The parties were granted joint custody of their four children with wife designated as primary residential parent. From this order, wife appeals. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified.

The petitioner, Cornelius Richmond, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for seven counts of aggravated robbery. He claims that Tennessee’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act as applied to his case violates the due process clause and that the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal involves a charge of civil contempt. The plaintiff wife and defendant husband were divorced by final decree entered in May 2001. In the final decree, the husband was ordered to pay the wife alimony in futuro as well as marital debts. He did not do so. In December 2003, the wife filed a petition in the trial court, seeking to hold the husband in contempt as well as an award of the alimony arrearage. The wife gave the husband notice of the contempt proceedings by mailing a copy of the petition and notice of hearing to the husband’s counsel of record. At the hearing, the husband’s counsel moved to dismiss the petition for contempt, arguing that the husband had not received proper notice of the hearing. This motion was denied, and the husband was held in contempt of court and ordered jailed until the contempt was purged. The husband now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the husband received sufficient notice of the petition for contempt.

The defendant, Anthony Allen, was convicted by a Shelby County jury and received an effective sentence of 124 years for numerous aggravated rape and aggravated robbery charges consolidated into a single trial. In this appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in consolidating the indictments; (2) the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a post-arrest statement; (4) the evidence is insufficient to support three of his convictions; and (5) the State failed to elect the offense for which conviction was sought in two case numbers. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse one of the defendant’s aggravated rape convictions and remand it for a new trial, affirm the remaining judgments of conviction, and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing to determine whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate.

The petitioner, Kenneth Ray Haynes, 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. The judgment is affirmed.

This case involves a dispute over the subdivision of a lot within a residential neighborhood restricted by protective covenants. The plaintiff purchased a lot within a neighborhood in Memphis. Although not required under the then-existing protective covenants, he obtained majority consent of the other neighborhood lot owners to subdivide his lot into two separate lots. The Land Use Control Board denied the side-by-side configuration as well as a previously recommended flag-lot configuration.  The plaintiff appealed to the Memphis City Council, and the council overturned the Land Use Control Board’s rejection of the plaintiff’s application. Before the council’s decision was formally issued, however, the lot owners amended the neighborhood’s restrictive covenants so that the plaintiff’s proposed re-subdivision, as well as any further subdivision of lots within the neighborhood, would be prohibited. The plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment. At the hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties agreed to submit the case on stipulated evidence, and the trial court denied the plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse.

This is a church dispute. The plaintiff, acting on behalf of the unincorporated church, sued several church members for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court ordered a vote by the remaining church members on whether to pursue the lawsuit, conducted by a special master.  The thirty-five church members voted to pursue a claim against three defendants. After years of litigation, and the addition and deletion of certain defendants, the trial court ordered a second vote by church members on whether to continue the lawsuit. The five remaining church members, two of whom were defendants in the original suit, voted to dismiss the lawsuit. The trial court then dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering a second vote. We affirm, finding that the trial court’s actions were reasonable and within the scope of its authority.

This is a boundary line case. Appellant appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Chancery Court establishing the boundary line as shown by the survey of Appellee's expert. Finding that the survey adopted by the trial court is not in line with Appellee's deed and/or Appellant's deed conveying an additional triangular piece of land, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals and raises issues involving valuation and division of marital property, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The Appellant, Roy Allen Burch, appeals the Hawkins County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his petition, Burch seeks relief from his 1989 life sentence for aggravated rape. He contends that the sentence violates the recent Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because the trial court applied enhancement factors not found by the jury in increasing his sentence. On appeal, Burch argues that the Blakely holding announces a new rule of law and is, thus, entitled to retroactive application in a post-conviction proceeding. After review, we conclude that the issue has been rendered moot by the recent Tennessee Supreme Court opinion, State v. Edwin Gomez and Jonathan S. Londono, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2004), reh'g denied, (May 18, 2005), holding that the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 is not violative of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Accordingly, the summary dismissal is affirmed.

The jury returned a verdict in this car wreck lawsuit for Carl and Vicki Roberson ("Plaintiffs") in the amount of $900,000. However, the jury assessed 38% of the fault to Carl Roberson, thereby reducing the total verdict to $558,000 under comparative fault principles. On appeal, Plaintiffs claim the Trial Court erred when it denied their motion for a directed verdict made at the close of proof and in their Rule 50.02 motion. In their motion for directed verdict, Plaintiffs argued there was no material evidence to support defendant Motion Industries' claim that Mr. Roberson was guilty of comparative fault. The Trial Court denied the motion and allowed the jury to decide the comparative fault issue. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial which the Trial Court denied after specifically approving the amount of damages awarded by the jury as well as the jury's allocation of fault. Plaintiffs appeal claiming the Trial Court erred when it denied their motion for directed verdict. We affirm.

We granted review in this case to determine the appropriate manner of distributing lapsed residuary gifts in a will. Specifically, we are confronted with a holographic will containing a residuary clause which devised percentages of the testatrix’s estate to certain named beneficiaries. Three of these beneficiaries predeceased the testatrix, causing their gifts to lapse. Because these beneficiaries also died without issue, the Tennessee anti-lapse statute is not applicable.1 Thus, the question presented is whether the lapsed residuary gifts are to be divided among the remaining residuary beneficiaries or pass through intestate succession to the testatrix’s heirs at law. The probate court concluded that the lapsed gifts created a partial intestacy, and the lapsed gifts passed to the heirs at law. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Tenn. Rule App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed.
 

Plaintiff-corporation sued defendant, a stockholder, officer, and director of a corporation engaged in the design and manufacture of stereo speakers, to recover the amount due on loans made to the corporation allegedly based on negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendant. The pleadings also seek to pierce the corporate veil and hold the defendant personally liable for the corporation debts. The trial court found no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the defendant and entered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The petitioner, Mario Leggs, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a legal malpractice case. Client/Appellant sued Attorney/Appellee for legal malpractice for failure to respond to a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the defendant in the underlying case. Attorney’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and Attorney was awarded attorney fees on his Cross-Complaint. Client appeals. We reverse and remand.

Husband appeals in futuro alimony awarded Wife at the end of a thirty-one (31) year marriage. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings and the trial court acted within its discretion in applying relevant legal principles, we affirm.

I concur in all aspects of the majority opinion except (1) the majority’s treatment of the trial court’s decree pertaining to Wife’s right, for a period of time, to the exclusive possession and occupancy of the former marital residence; and (2) the majority’s handling of the issue of whether the assets of Husband’s law practice are marital assets.