APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a denial of relief pursuant to a common law writ of certiorari arising out of a dependency and neglect case brought by Father against Mother in the juvenile court. The Guardian ad Litem appointed in the dependency and neglect case filed a motion to compel Mother to release copies of her mental health records, arguing that she is entitled to them under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 40 and Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-411. In turn, Mother objected, arguing that her records are privileged, that she had not waived her privilege, and that the Guardian ad Litem was not otherwise entitled to the records. The juvenile court issued an order compelling Mother to release copies of her mental health records to the Guardian ad Litem. Mother thereafter filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the circuit court, seeking review of the juvenile court’s interlocutory order. The circuit court found the juvenile court’s actions proper under the writ of certiorari standard and granted Mother no relief. For the reasons contained herein, we reverse the decision of the circuit court and find that Mother is entitled to the relief sought under the common law writ of certiorari.

This case involves an alleged breach of a lease following the destruction of the building on the leased premises by the November 2016 Gatlinburg wildfires. The original lessor had entered into a lease in 2009 with the lessee, a company that had utilized the building primarily as a storage facility for its restaurants during the lease term. The lessor died in 2017. Acting in her own capacity and as personal representative of her mother’s estate, the lessor’s daughter filed a complaint in July 2019, alleging that the lessee had breached the lease by failing to utilize fire insurance proceeds to restore the building. The plaintiff requested that she be awarded a judgment for either the fair market value of the leased premises or the amount of the fire insurance proceeds. Upon cross-motions for summary judgment and following a hearing, the trial court found that the lease required the lessee to utilize fire insurance proceeds to make repairs only in the event that those repairs could be made within ten working days, which was undisputedly impossible following the fire. The trial court also found that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-7-102(b), the lessee’s covenant to leave the leased premises in good repair did not obligate the lessee to restore the building absent fault, negligence, or an express agreement to the contrary. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This case involves a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. The petition was filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. The trial court granted the petition, finding multiple grounds for termination were established and that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The mother appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision in part, vacate in part, and remand.

A Grundy County jury convicted the Defendant, Bobby Joe Patrick, of two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of sixty-seven years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce evidence of prior bad acts that should have been excluded pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Defendant also contends that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on “generic evidence.” After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal arises from the modification of a parenting plan in a post-divorce action, upon a petition filed by the minor child’s mother. We have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that there was a material change of circumstances under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-6-101(a)(2)(B) and 36-6-101(a)(2)(C) and that modification of the parenting schedule and of primary residential parent was in the best interest of the child. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order.  

The Defendant, Demon L. Adkins, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of possessing contraband in a penal institution, and he received an effective fifteen-year sentence as a career offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his convictions are invalid because the indictment erroneously stated the incorrect mens rea and because the verdict forms and jury instructions conflated the crime of possessing contraband in a penal institution and introducing contraband into a penal institution. He also asserts that the savings statute operates to entitle him to a lesser punishment. We conclude that he is not entitled to reversal of his convictions but that the savings statute applies to provide a lesser penalty. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed, the sentences are reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing. 

The Defendant, William Alan Ladd, appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means, for which he received an effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of a prior statement by the victim. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arose from an order of the Hamilton County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determining that the decedent’s purported will did not meet the statutory requirements for proper execution of a last will and testament and that the decedent’s estate would therefore be probated as an intestate administration. The decedent’s surviving spouse had first attempted to probate the will via common form probate,1 alleging that the purported will met the statutory requirements for a holographic will. However, upon the decedent’s son’s motion to contest the proffered will in common form, the trial court determined that the purported will did not meet the statutory requirements of a holographic will pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-105. The trial court further instructed that the decedent’s estate would proceed as an intestate estate.

A property owner shot and injured a trespassing dog. The dog’s owner, a family member, and an unrelated party posted negative comments about the property owner during his campaign for public office. After losing the election, the property owner and his wife sued the three individuals for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The defendants filed a countercomplaint seeking damages for trespass to chattels, conversion, negligence, and trespass. The trial court dismissed all claims. The court also issued a restraining order enjoining the parties from making public comments about each other. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the property owner was a public figure when the allegedly defamatory statements were published. But because we conclude that the complaint sufficiently alleged actual malice, we reverse the dismissal of the defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims. We further conclude that the countercomplaint stated a cause of action for trespass to chattels, conversion, negligence, and trespass. So we reverse the dismissal of those counterclaims. We also vacate the restraining order.

This case involves a divorce action and several motions for contempt. Prior to the final hearing, the wife filed multiple motions for civil and criminal contempt against the husband. At the final hearing, the trial court resolved the divorce-related issues and found the husband in civil contempt on eight counts. The husband only appealed the trial court’s contempt ruling. We affirm the trial court’s decision, award the wife attorney’s fees on appeal, and remand.

A father filed a petition to modify his monthly child support payments. Due to several delays, the trial court did not resolve the father’s petition for approximately four years. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court drastically reduced the father’s monthly support obligation and ordered the modification effective as of the last day of the modification hearing. The father appeals the trial court’s decision not to make the modification retroactive to the date the petition to modify was filed. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Appellant, a Tennessee corporation in the timeshare exit business, brought suit against Appellee, a former employee, for breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, and civil conspiracy. Appellant alleged that during Appellee’s employment, she conspired with a competing company to steal business from Appellant. Appellee filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the complaint in full with prejudice because the alleged employment contract, attached as an exhibit to the plaintiff’s complaint, did not name the plaintiff as a party to the contract. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claim but reverse the dismissal of the breach of the duty of loyalty claim and the civil conspiracy claim.

This appeal arises from a class action lawsuit against the City of Franklin. The plaintiffs are the owners of 188 properties, in five subdivisions, whose properties are subject to liens in connection with improvement assessments for sanitary sewer services. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the City had filed notices of liens against the properties in amounts greater than authorized pursuant to the relevant statutes governing improvement assessments. The trial court declared the notices of liens null and void and directed the City to file amended notices of liens. The next phase of the proceeding focused on damages. The owners of eight properties filed claims for monetary damages allegedly caused by the City’s error when the property owners had attempted to refinance or sell their properties. The trial court concluded that a hearing on damages was not necessary and denied all claims, finding that none of the claimants suffered an injury as a result of the City’s actions. The trial court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for an award of the attorney fees they had incurred. The plaintiffs appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in denying their claims for damages and attorney fees. The City of Franklin argues that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the substantive issue regarding the validity of the notices of liens. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Thomas Byrd, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of two counts of possession of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine) with the intent to sell/deliver within 1000 feet of a child care agency, a Class B felony; possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class D felony; possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance (marijuana), possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance (Alprazolam), and possession of a Schedule II controlled substance (oxycodone), all Class A misdemeanors; and criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to an effective term of twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of his person and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the felony convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Thomas N. (“Father”) appeals the order of the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“trial court”) terminating his parental rights to his minor child, Porcalyn N. (the “Child”). Discerning no error, we affirm.

O’Neal Johnson, Petitioner, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, William Gossett, was charged in twelve separate indictments with 26 offenses, including multiple counts of aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, employment of a firearm, and theft of property. Defendant pleaded guilty to all 26 counts, with the trial court to determine his sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant received a total effective sentence of 371 years’ incarceration. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly treated Defendant’s 1999 juvenile adjudications for rape of a child, where there were two victims, as multiple offenses for the purposes of determining Defendant’s offender classification at sentencing. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur in affirming the sentences in this case, but I write separately to emphasize the danger of expansive, even over-broad locution and reliance upon such locution in place of legal analysis tailored to the facts and issues in each particular case. The majority has concluded that the offense of child rape inherently embraces the elements of serious bodily injury, bodily injury, or the threat to cause serious bodily injury or bodily injury such that the 24-hour rule contained in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-106, -107 does not apply. For the majority, this conclusion is buttressed, at least in part, by language expressed in State v. Kissinger, 922 A.W.2d 482 (Tenn. 1996), and State v. Edward Earl Huddleston, No. 02C01-9706-CC-00228, 1998 WL 67684 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 20, 1998).

Parents filed a healthcare liability and wrongful death complaint after the mother delivered a stillborn infant. We granted this interlocutory appeal to review whether the claims commission erred in denying summary judgment to the defendants. Finding no error in the Commission’s ruling, we affirm.

Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Petitioner, Antwain Tapaige Sales, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his convictions for second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed. Because the notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal.

Defendant, Marques D. Wheeler, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon and one count of reckless homicide. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to reckless homicide and received an agreed-upon sentence of ten years for his conviction with the manner of service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court dismissed Defendant’s unlawful possession of a weapon charges. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for split confinement and ordered Defendant to serve his sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand the matter for entry of a judgment form for count two. 

This appeal stems from the circuit court’s finding that a child was dependent and neglected. In particular, Mother appeals the trial court’s finding that the child was a victim of severe abuse and educational neglect. We reverse the trial court as to both determinations.  

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s determination that Angelleigh R. (“the Child”) had been the victim of severe child abuse while living with her mother, Amanda B. (“Mother”), and Mother’s paramour, J.M. As noted in the majority opinion, both Mother and J.M. were parties to the proceedings in juvenile court as well as the de novo appeal to the Marshall County Circuit Court (“trial court”). However, the trial court’s dependency and neglect determination as to Mother was based solely on educational neglect while the trial court’s determination of severe child abuse was based solely on its finding of sexual abuse perpetrated against the Child by J.M. Mother was not accused of severe child abuse or failing to protect the Child from such abuse. Although Mother has perfected an appeal to this Court, J.M. did not appeal the determination that he had severely abused the Child, and thus the existence of Mother’s standing to appeal that particular determination, which was not rendered with respect to her, is somewhat uncertain. See Clark v. Perry, No. 02A01-9704-CH-00080, 1998 WL 34190562, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 1998) (“As a general rule, . . . a party lacks standing to appeal an order entered against a co-party who has elected not to appeal that order.”). Nevertheless, assuming, arguendo, that Mother possesses the proper standing to appeal the trial court’s determination that J.M. severely abused the Child, I believe that the trial court’s determination should be affirmed.  

John B. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child, Braylee B. (“the Child”). In September 2019, Brook W. (“Mother”) and Charles W. (“Stepfather”) filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in the Scott County Chancery Court (“Trial Court”). Father filed a motion to compel discovery and continue the trial, which was denied by the Trial Court. Following a trial, the Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights on two grounds of abandonment due to Father’s failure to support the Child and his wanton disregard for the Child’s welfare. The Trial Court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.