APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Santory Alexander Johnson, was convicted by a jury of one count of second degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial or issue an adequate curative instruction following prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments; (2) the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify about statements made by the victim; (3) the trial court erred in allowing a redacted convenience store video to be entered into evidence; (4) the trial court erred in re-playing a 9-1-1 recording already admitted into evidence; (5) the trial court erred in allowing inflammatory autopsy photographs to be entered as evidence; (6) the cumulative effect of these evidentiary errors was not harmless; and (7) the trial court erred in failing to properly consider mitigating factors at the Defendant’s sentencing hearing.1 Following our review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court after the trial court denied a motion for recusal. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.

This is a case concerning a commercial-property insurance policy dispute. The insured party filed suit upon the insurance company denying theft coverage on a claim. The insurance company claimed that the vacancy clause excluded the theft coverage of the property at issue. The trial court found that the vacancy clause did not apply and that the policy required the insurance company to cover the theft. The insurance company appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

I concur, reluctantly, with the entirety of the opinion of the Court. I concur because this is the result mandated by statute and case law. I do so reluctantly because this case is the latest in a long line of healthcare liability actions dismissed on technical grounds since the enactment of the sections of the Health Care Liability Act governing pre-suit notice adopted by our General Assembly in 2008. This Court has seen healthcare liability case after case brought by Tennessee citizens dismissed without any determination of whether the case has any merit.

Petitioner, Michael Davis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied due process of law when the post-conviction court refused to grant Petitioner a continuance to present an expert witness and failed to address all of the issues presented in its written order. Additionally, Petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After thorough review, we determine that Petitioner was afforded due process and received effective assistance of counsel. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Stephen D. Lester, Sr., appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. On appeal, he argues that due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations because his untimely filing was due to misrepresentations by trial counsel. After review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The Petitioner, Donald K. Moore, Jr., was convicted of two murders and a robbery committed in February 1996. For these convictions, he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus forty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In August 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In it, he claimed that the trial court improperly adjusted his release eligibility percentage for his seconddegree murder conviction in 1999 by filing a corrected judgment. He further asserted that the trial court violated due process when it corrected the judgment without notice to him. Finally, relying on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), he contended that his sentence was cruel and unusual because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the offenses. Finding no grounds for relief, the habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his sentence is void because: (1) the trial court corrected his judgment to reflect the proper release eligibility; (2) the trial court did not follow proper sentencing procedure when it corrected the judgment without notice to him; (3) his sentence is unconstitutional because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the offense; and (4) the corrected judgment violated double jeopardy. After review, we affirm the habeas court’s judgment.

This case involves claims asserted by a cancer patient against his radiation oncologist, the hospital where he was treated, and the developer of the radiation therapy system used to treat the patient. The patient alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the treatment posed a risk of radiation damage to surrounding tissue and organs and misrepresented the safety of the treatment, such that he would not have agreed to undergo the treatment if he had known of the risks. The patient’s wife also asserted a claim for loss of consortium. All three defendants moved for summary judgment on numerous grounds. The trial court granted summary judgment to each of the defendants, and the patient and his wife appeal. We conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims against all three defendants are barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we vacate in part, affirm as modified, and remand for further proceedings.

This is a jury case. Appellants sued Appellee, hotel, for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Tennessee Identity Theft Deterrence Act (“TITDA”). The trial court granted a pre-trial motion for summary judgment as to Appellants’ TITDA claims. The remaining TCPA claims proceeded to trial, and the trial court delivered a modified jury instruction as a sanction against Appellee for alleged discovery abuse. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee. Appellants appeal.  Appellee appeals the trial court’s denial of its request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 68. We reverse the trial court’s denial of Appellee’s costs pursuant to Rule 68; the trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

The defendant, James Douglas Hamm, Jr., appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of vehicular homicide by intoxication, leaving the scene of an accident involving a death, reckless endangerment, driving under the influence, failure to exercise due care, and running a red light, challenging the trial court’s denial of both his motion to dismiss based upon the failure to preserve certain evidence and his motion for a mistrial premised on juror bias. In addition, the defendant claims that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of vehicular homicide and reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Marlon Duane Kiser, filed in the Hamilton County Criminal Court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking relief from his conviction of first degree murder and resulting sentence of death. In the petition, he alleged that newly discovered evidence and recanted testimony established that someone else committed the murder. The coram nobis court denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the court’s ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

This is a healthcare liability case. Before filing the complaint, the plaintiff gave written notice to the potential defendants of her healthcare liability claim against them. Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) requires that a plaintiff’s pre-suit notice include a HIPAA compliant medical authorization permitting the healthcare provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from every other provider that is being sent a notice. After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on noncompliance with the statute, as the defendants alleged that the HIPAA authorization provided by the plaintiff had already expired when they received it. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the HIPAA authorization was invalid due to the fact that the listed expiration date had already passed when the authorization was provided to the defendants with pre-suit notice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

Parents appeal the termination of their parental rights. On April 24, 2013, the then threeyear- old child was removed from the parents’ home after a visitor to the home notified the Department of Children Services that he saw the child behind what appeared to be a jail-cell, making only grunting noises. The child has been in foster care ever since. After working with the parents for nearly two years, the Department filed a petition to terminate the parents’ parental rights. Following the first trial in October of 2015, both parents’ rights were terminated; however, that decision was vacated and the case remanded “for a new hearing so that a complete transcript may be produced. . . .” Order, In re Charles R., No. M2015-02347-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016). Following a second trial in September and October of 2017, the trial court entered an order on November 21, 2017, terminating both parents’ rights. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Richard Kelley, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of four counts of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of misdemeanor assault and resulting effective sentence of thirty years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The parties to a wrongful death action reached a mediated settlement under which the settlement proceeds were divided between the surviving spouse and the deceased’s children. After the settlement agreement was judicially approved and the proceeds disbursed, the trial court ruled that the surviving spouse had waived his right to collect any settlement proceeds. The deceased’s children filed a legal malpractice action against the estate of the attorney who had represented their guardian ad litem in the wrongful death action because he failed to contest the surviving spouse’s standing. As part of the settlement of the legal malpractice action, the children assigned their claims against the surviving spouse to the estate of the attorney. The estate then filed this equitable action
against the surviving spouse and his girlfriend, seeking recovery of the settlement proceeds and a constructive trust on any property purchased with those proceeds. Both the estate and the surviving spouse filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the spouse’s motion but granted the estate summary judgment based on unjust enrichment. We reverse the grant of summary judgment.

This case involves the plaintiff’s purchase of real property and the alleged fraud by others as to the property’s real value. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against several defendants, including Regions Financial Corporation. The plaintiff labeled his six counts as sounding in fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and improper foreclosure of deed of trust. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendants, holding that the complaint is barred by the three year statute of limitations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105 (2017). In so holding, the court determined that the complaint, on its face, shows that the plaintiff, as early as 2006, knew, or should have known, that the property was worth substantially less than the plaintiff paid for it and, as a consequence, he had been injured by the acts of others. In response, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it failed to rely upon the sixyear statute of limitations as to his claim for breach of contract. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109(a)(3) (2017). Plaintiff appeals. We affirm

Appellant alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against a University and its employees. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Bradley Mitchell Eckert, committed three acts of vandalism and one burglary when he was sixteen years old, and the juvenile court granted a motion to transfer the proceedings to criminal court. The trial court found the Defendant guilty of vandalism of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $2,500; vandalism of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; vandalism of property valued at $60,000 or more but less than $250,000; and burglary. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twelve years in prison. The Defendant appeals the juvenile court’s decision to transfer the proceedings, and he appeals his sentence. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, and we affirm the judgments.

Employee, Wesley David Fly, was injured in the course of his employment, and the parties agree that Employee is permanently and totally disabled. The circuit court found that Employee was not capable of gainful employment and awarded benefits for permanent total disability. On appeal, Employer, Mr. Bult’s, Inc., argues that non-work-related factors acting independently of Employee’s work injury contributed to his disability. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

The father in this post-divorce dispute challenges the trial court’s determinations regarding his child support arrearage, medical insurance premiums, credits against the arrearage, and attorney fees. Finding no merit to father’s arguments, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The Administrator CTA of Decedent’s estate filed a petition, against Decedent’s daughter, to recoup assets of the estate. In the final year of Decedent’s life, Appellant transferred almost $400,000 of Decedent’s assets to herself using a power of attorney she obtained after her brother’s power of attorney was revoked. The trial court determined that the transfers were self-dealing transactions and that Appellant breached her fiduciary duty to Decedent. The trial court entered a judgment against Appellant in the amount of $116,747.85 plus pre-judgment interest. Additionally, the trial court declared the quit claim deed executed in favor of Appellant to be void ab initio. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a delinquent taxpayer action. The appellants were lienholders on a parcel of real property sold to a separate purchaser during a delinquent tax sale. Following the tax sale, the lienholders filed a petition for redemption. In response, the purchaser filed a motion to protest the validity of the lien or, alternatively, a claim to recover $8,579.60 in “lawful charges” that he and a friend had incurred to clear debris and personalty from the real property. The lienholders then filed a “cross claim” against the purchaser, alleging conversion and trespass to chattels. The lienholders sought an award of actual damages for removal of personalty and a “steel building” from the real property, as well as punitive damages for the purchaser’s allegedly malicious actions. The purchaser filed an answer, denying all substantive allegations. The purchaser subsequently withdrew his objection to the validity of the lien. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the lienholders’ petition for redemption upon the conditions that the lienholders pay all delinquent taxes, penalties, and fees; reimburse the purchaser and his friend in the amount of $8,579.60 for expenses incurred in the removal of debris and personalty; and reimburse the purchaser and his friend in the amount of $600.00 for storage of personalty. The lienholders have appealed. Having determined that the order appealed from fails to resolve the lienholders’ claims of conversion and trespass to chattels, we conclude that it is not a final order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the two minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1- 113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv); (2) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii); (3) substantial noncompliance with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plan, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(2) and 37-2-403(a)(2). Appellant also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support both the grounds for termination of Appellant’s parental rights and the trial court’s finding that termination is in the children’s best interest, we affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right from the denial of a motion for recusal. In their petition for recusal appeal, Petitioners admit that they did not promptly file the recusal motion after the facts forming the basis for the motion became known. As such, Petitioners waived their right to challenge the probate judge’s impartiality. The record is also insufficient to support a finding of error on the part of the probate judge because the motion for recusal was unaccompanied by an affidavit as required by the rules. Thus, we affirm the probate court’s denial of the recusal motion.

This appeal involves a dispute between an insurance company and one of its insureds. Following a fire to her home, the insured brought suit requesting that the insurance company be required to pay a claim for personal property damage. The insurance company defended on the ground that the insurance policy was void because a misrepresentation by the insured on her application for insurance increased the “risk of loss.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-103. The trial court agreed with the insurance company and granted summary judgment in its favor. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.