APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal concerns the trial court’s findings regarding child custody and rehabilitative alimony in a divorce action. Following a bench trial, the chancery court ruled that the mother would be the minor child’s primary residential parent. The father was awarded standard visitation pursuant to the Permanent Parenting Plan. The chancellor also awarded the mother rehabilitative alimony for a period of three years. The father has appealed the rulings of the chancery court to this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm.
 

This case involves a lawsuit filed by a secured party against a guarantor seeking a deficiency judgment following a foreclosure sale. The guarantor argued that the secured party was not entitled to a deficiency because he was given inadequate notice and the salewas conducted in a commercially unreasonable manner. Following a hearing, the trial court awarded the secured party a deficiency judgment. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion.
 

The appellant, Michael A. Drake, was indicted on two counts of vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. A jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication. In the second phase of the trial, the jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide based on one prior DUI conviction and a blood alcohol level of .20 or more at the time of the present offense. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the indictment by arguing that it only gave notice that the State sought to convict him of aggravated vehicular homicide based on two prior DUI offenses. We determine that the indictment is misleading and deprives the appellant of adequate notice of the charges against him in violation of the 6th amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The indictment indicated that the State sought the aggravated vehicular homicide convictions solely on the basis of the appellant's two prior DUI convictions pursuant to Tennessee Code annotated section 39-13-218(1)(a), rather than one prior DUI and a blood alcohol of .20 or more at the time of the offense, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-218(3). Thus, we are forced to dismiss the aggravated vehicular homicide conviction, modify the conviction to vehicular homicide under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-213 and remand the case for resentencing.

This case involves the trial court’s denial of an upward deviation in child support. The chancery court issued a final decree of divorce which incorporated the Permanent Parenting Plan approved by the parties. Pursuant to the plan, the mother was designated the primary residential parent and the father was given overnight visitation. The plan also ordered the father to pay the mother child support pursuant to the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. When the father failed to make child support payments and exercise his visitation rights under the plan, the mother filed a petition for contempt. She also asked the trial court for an upward deviation in child support due to the father’s failure to exercise his rights to overnight visitation. The mother also asked the chancellor to award her litigation costs associated with bringing the petition. The father filed a counter-petition, asking the court for a downward deviation in his child support obligation due to his recent loss of income. The trial court originally granted a downward deviation to the father finding that a significant variance existed, but subsequently reinstated the original child support award. The mother filed this appeal, alleging the chancellor erred in refusing to grant her an upward deviation in child support and in not awarding her litigation expenses. For the reasons contained herein, we reverse in part and affirm in part the decision of the chancery court.
 

This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Michael Trew, was found guilty by jury verdict of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and violating the implied consent law. The Defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with seven days to be served in the county jail; fined $400; and had his driver's license suspended for one year. The Defendant now appeals, claiming that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his DUI conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves an inmate’s petition for a writ of mandamus filed against the Tennessee Department of Correction following an increase in his release eligibility date. The inmate filed the petition asking the trial court to order the department to enforce the sentencing range set forth in the judgment entered as a result of his plea agreement. The department filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted. We affirm.
 

This case primarily involves a dispute over the proper characterization of property held by the parties during a thirty year relationship. The parties lived together during their relationship, but never married. Mary Story filed suit against Malcolm Lanier, alleging that a marriage by estoppel existed between the parties, or in the alternative, that an implied partnership was created, justifying the equal division of all bank accounts, personal property, and real property owned by the parties. The chancellor granted Mr. Lanier’s Motion to Dismiss Ms. Story’s marriage by estoppel claim but allowed her to proceed on an implied partnership theory. Following a bench trial, the chancellor found that an implied business partnership existed in a restaurant purchased by Mr. Lanier in 1974 but not in any real property or bank accounts. Both parties have appealed the chancellor’s rulings regarding the division of the parties’ assets. Ms. Story also appeals the chancellor’s denial of prejudgment interest, the finding that no resulting or constructive trusts existed as to the real property and bank accounts, and a ruling regarding Mr. Lanier’s pleadings. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decisions of the chancery court.

This appeal arises out of an inverse condemnation action brought by Appellant against Appellee. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, contending that Appellant’s claim was time barred by the applicable statute of limitation. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion, and Appellant now seeks review by this Court. For the following reasons, we reverse.
 

Plaintiff/Appellant appeals from the trial court’s grant of Defendants/Appellees’ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 Motion to Dismiss for failure to secure service of process. Finding that Defendant/Appellees’ evidence clearly and convincingly rebuts the process server’s testimony, we affirm.
 

This case involves the validity of a final divorce decree entered by the trial court which incorporated an agreement reached by the parties regarding alimony and property division. The wife subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, or in the alternative to alter and amend the judgment, alleging that the final divorce decree was invalid. The wife alleged that, at the time she entered into the agreement with her husband, she was not mentally competent. The trial court denied the wife’s motion. On appeal, the wife alleges that the trial court erred in denying her post-trial motion, as well as in its division of marital property and award of alimony in the final decree. For the reasons contained herein, we affirm.
 

This case comes before us on a motion to reopen a petition for post-conviction relief. The
petitioner alleges that he is mentally retarded as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13- 203(a) (2003), and therefore ineligible for the death penalty under State v. Van Tran, 66 S.W.3d 790  that the petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of mental retardation sufficient to support reopening his post-conviction proceeding, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial. We reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that under the specific facts of this case, in which a petitioner is able, for the first time in his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief, to claim ineligibility for the death penalty due to mental retardation under Van Tran or Atkins, the motion should be considered under the “colorable claim” evidentiary standard rather than the “clear and convincing” standard. We also hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(a) (2003) clearly and unambiguously requires the defendant to have an I.Q. of seventy or below to be considered mentally retarded. We conclude that the petitioner’s motion to reopen his postconviction hearing set out a colorable claim, thus entitling him to an evidentiary hearing, without a jury, on the issue of mental retardation.

Following an unlawful detainer action in general sessions court, Appellant was lawfully evicted pursuant to a writ of possession. Appellant did not appeal the judgment. Appellant filed a subsequent action in general sessions court alleging wrongful eviction. The general sessions court dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed to circuit court, which affirmed dismissal based on the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.
 

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing the appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon a review of the record in this case we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is the second appeal of this case. In June 1999, an arbitration panel determined Rose Construction was entitled to damages under the parties’ contract. The trial court vacated the arbitration award. On appeal, this Court reversed and confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety. The Tennessee SupremeCourt denied Raintree Development’s application for permission to appeal, issued a mandate, and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of judgment. The trial court entered judgment for Rose Construction as ordered by this Court. Raintree Development again appeals. We affirm. We also hold this appeal frivolous and award Rose Construction damages for a frivolous appeal.
 

This is a consolidated appeal involving two Title IV-D child support cases. In each case, the mother had custody of the children, and the father was subject to a court order requiring monthly child support payments. The mother in each case received State assistance, and consequently the father was required to make the child support payments through the State’s central collection and disbursement unit. Years later, after significant child support arrearages had accrued, the father in each case filed a motion to modify the child support order and requested that the court terminate his child support obligation. Each mother joined in the father’s request, confirming that she no longer wanted the State to enforce the father’s child support obligation. In each case, the State objected, asserting that the mother had assigned to the State her right to the child support payments when she accepted public assistance benefits. The trial court dismissed each case and forgave each father’s outstanding child support arrearage. The State now appeals. We reverse, in both cases, concluding that the trial court erred in retroactively modifying its child support orders and in terminating the cases before the State had been reimbursed for public assistance benefits received by the mothers.

This case arises out of the sale of real estate located in Madison County, Tennessee. Appellants filed this action to recover a real estate commission under a theory of unjust enrichment. The trial court below granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and Appellants now seek review by this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the rule-making authority of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. The City of Cookeville, seeking to expand its treatment works facility, obtained a permit from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation which placed nitrogen limits on the City's effluent emissions into Pigeon Roost Creek in Putnam County, Tennessee. The city filed a declaratory judgment action with the Chancery Court of Davidson County asking the court to find as follows: (1) the section 303(d) list created by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, which listed Pigeon Roost Creek as organically enriched, amounted to an improperly promulgated rule in violation of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, and (2) the organic enrichment criteria contained in the section 303(d) list amounted to an improperly promulgated Water Quality Standard, which in turn constitutes an improperly promulgated rule, that the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation used to impose restrictions on the city's permit. The parties each filed motions for summary judgment with the chancery court. The chancellor granted the city's motion, finding that the section 303(d) list containing the organic enrichment criteria amounted to improperly promulgated rules as a matter of law. The state appealed the chancellor's ruling to this Court and, for the reasons contained herein, we dismiss this case as non-justiciable.

This is a suit for personal injuries brought by the mother of a mentally challenged 17 year old boy occurring when his teacher attempted to transfer him from one chair to another and tripped over a nearby rocker. Neither his teacher nor the Defendant Nurse who immediately attended to him after the accident detected the fractured leg. Young Jason Jenkins died from causes unrelated to the accident, and his suit was revived against Defendants, Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Davidson County, Mary Ann Armbrister, and Lisa Morrow. The case was voluntarily dismissed as to Defendant teacher Ms. Armbrister, and a settlement was reached between Plaintiff and Metropolitan Government of Davidson County. The trial court sustained a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Ms. Morrow from which Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing the appellant's "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment." In that document the petitioner apparently desired to set aside his guilty plea because it failed to comply with certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. Upon a review of the record in this case we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment" and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a petition to modify alimony. The parties were married for over forty-one years. In 1998, the wife filed a petition for legal separation. In October 1998, the trial court entered a final decree of legal separation, incorporating the terms of the parties’ property settlement agreement. In that agreement, the husband agreed to pay the wife alimony in futuro of $1,300 per month. In October 2001, the husband filed a petition to modify his alimony payments, based on the deterioration in his health, which hindered his ability to pay, as well as the wife’s receipt of social security benefits and income from investments that diminished her need for alimony. The trial court concluded that, since the 1998 decree, there had been no substantial or material change in circumstances that was not foreseeable when the decree was entered. Consequently, the husband’s petition to modify alimony was dismissed. The husband now appeals. We affirm.
 

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Gary Lee Johnson, was convicted of aggravated assault, assault,¹ and resisting arrest. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the Department of Correction for the aggravated assault and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the assault and resisting arrest convictions. All sentences were to be served concurrently. He appeals only the aggravated assault conviction, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. After review, we affirm the convictions but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 1 and 2.

This case involves a claim filed by the Tennessee Bureau of TennCare against the estate of an elderly decedent to recover certain benefits paid to the decedent to cover nursing home expenses during her lifetime. The executor filed an exception to the claim arguing that it was filed outside the four (4) month limitations period found in sections 30-2-306(c) and 30-2-307(a) of the Tennessee Code. The chancery court issued an order barring the bureau's claim on the grounds that is was untimely filed. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In that petition the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his conviction for especially aggravated robbery. We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.